RESUMO
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Identification of HIV remains a critical health priority for which emergency departments (EDs) are a central focus. The comparative cost-effectiveness of various HIV screening strategies in EDs remains largely unknown. The goal of this study was to compare programmatic costs and cost-effectiveness of nontargeted and 2 forms of targeted opt-out HIV screening in EDs using results from a multicenter, pragmatic randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This economic evaluation was nested in the HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments (TESTED) trial, a multicenter pragmatic clinical trial of different ED-based HIV screening strategies conducted from April 2014 through January 2016. Patients aged 16 years or older, with normal mental status and not critically ill, or not known to be living with HIV were randomized to 1 of 3 HIV opt-out screening approaches, including nontargeted, enhanced targeted, or traditional targeted, across 4 urban EDs in the United States. Each screening method was fully integrated into routine emergency care. Direct programmatic costs were determined using actual trial results, and time-motion assessment was used to estimate personnel activity costs. The primary outcome was newly diagnosed HIV. Total annualized ED programmatic costs by screening approach were calculated using dollars adjusted to 2023 as were costs per patient newly diagnosed with HIV. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The trial randomized 76,561 patient visits, resulting in 14,405 completed HIV tests, and 24 (0.2%) new diagnoses. Total annualized new diagnoses were 12.9, and total annualized costs for nontargeted, enhanced targeted, and traditional targeted screening were $111,861, $88,629, and $70,599, respectively. Within screening methods, costs per new HIV diagnoses were $20,809, $23,554, and $18,762, respectively. Enhanced targeted screening incurred higher costs but with similar annualized new cases detected compared with traditional targeted screening. Nontargeted screening yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,586 when compared with traditional targeted screening. Results were most sensitive to HIV prevalence and costs of HIV tests. CONCLUSION: Nontargeted HIV screening was more costly than targeted screening largely due to an increased number of HIV tests performed. Each HIV screening strategy had similar within-strategy costs per new HIV diagnosis with traditional targeted screening yielding the lowest cost per new diagnosis. For settings with budget constraints or very low HIV prevalences, the traditional targeted approach may be preferred; however, given only a slightly higher cost per new HIV diagnosis, ED settings looking to detect the most new cases may prefer nontargeted screening.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Infecções por HIV , Programas de Rastreamento , Humanos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/economia , Infecções por HIV/diagnóstico , Infecções por HIV/economia , Programas de Rastreamento/economia , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Feminino , Adulto , Masculino , Estados Unidos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Teste de HIV/economia , Teste de HIV/métodos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Marijuana use is associated with anxiety, depressive, psychotic, neurocognitive, and substance use disorders. Many US states are legalizing marijuana for medical uses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of medical marijuana use and diversion among psychiatric inpatients in Colorado. METHODS: Some 623 participants (54.6% male) responded to an anonymous 15-item discharge survey that assessed age, gender, marijuana use, possession of a medical marijuana card, diversion of medical marijuana, perceived substance use problems, and effects of marijuana use. Univariate statistics were used to characterize participants and their responses. Chi-square tests assessed factors associated with medical marijuana registration. RESULTS: Of the total number of respondents, 282 (47.6%) reported using marijuana in the last 12 months and 60 (15.1%) reported having a marijuana card. In comparison to survey respondents who denied having a medical marijuana card, those respondents with a medical marijuana card were more likely to have initiated use before the age of 25, to be male, to have used marijuana in the last 12 months, and to have used at least 20 days in the past month. 133 (24.1%) respondents reported that someone with a medical marijuana card had shared or sold medical marijuana to them; 24 (41.4%) of respondents with a medical marijuana card reported ever having shared or sold their medical marijuana. CONCLUSION: Medical marijuana use is much more prevalent among adults hospitalized with a psychiatric emergency than in the general population; diversion is common. Further studies which correlate amount, dose, duration, and strain of use with particular psychiatric disorders are needed.