TY - JOUR T1 - Cost-effectiveness of implementing HIV and HIV/syphilis dual testing among key populations in Viet Nam: a modeling analysis JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2022.02.28.22271651 SP - 2022.02.28.22271651 AU - David Coomes AU - Dylan Green AU - Ruanne Barnabas AU - Monisha Sharma AU - Magdalena Barr-DiChiara AU - Muhammad S. Jamil AU - Rachel Baggaley AU - Morkor Newman Owiredu AU - Virginia Macdonald AU - Van Nguyen AU - Son Vo Hai AU - Melanie M. Taylor AU - Teodora E Wi AU - Cheryl Johnson AU - Alison L. Drake Y1 - 2022/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.28.22271651.abstract N2 - Objectives Key populations, including sex workers, men who have sex with men, and people who inject drugs, have a high risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We assessed the health and economic impacts of different HIV and syphilis testing strategies among three key populations in Viet Nam using a dual HIV/syphilis rapid diagnostic test (RDT).Setting We used the Spectrum AIDS Impact Model to simulate the HIV epidemic in key populations in Viet Nam and evaluated five testing scenarios. We used a 15-year time horizon and all costs are from the provider’s perspective.Participants We include the entire population of Viet Nam in the model.Interventions We model five testing scenarios among key populations: 1) annual testing with an HIV rapid diagnostic test (RDT), 2) annual testing with a dual RDT, 3) biannual testing using dual RDT and HIV RDT, 4) biannual testing using HIV RDT, and 5) biannual testing using dual RDTs.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome is incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERS). Secondary outcomes include HIV and syphilis cases and costs for each proposed intervention.Results Annual testing using a dual HIV/syphilis RDT was cost saving and averted 3,206 HIV cases and treated 7,719 syphilis cases compared to baseline over 15 years. Biannual testing using one dual test and one HIV RDT, or two dual tests both averted an additional 875 HIV cases and were cost-effective ($1,024 and $2,518 per DALY averted, respectively). Annual or biannual HIV testing using HIV RDTs and separate syphilis tests were more costly and less effective than using one or two dual RDTs.Conclusions Annual or biannual HIV and syphilis testing using dual RDTs among key populations can be cost-effective and support countries in reaching global reduction goals for HIV and syphilis.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDYStrength: Our model presents novel cost-effectiveness estimates for the use of dual HIV/syphilis testing in key populations that can inform health plannersStrength: We include five testing scale up scenarios using both HIV RDT and dual HIV/syphilis RDTStrength: Our model is informed by demographic, behavioral, and biological data from government sources, surveys, surveillance, publicly available reports, databases, and peer-reviewed literatureLimitation: We made some assumptions regarding the timing and uptake of HIV and syphilis testing among key populations that may be inaccurate.Limitation: Our model assumes that increased syphilis testing and treatment will not impact syphilis prevalence, however, it is unknown whether increased testing will reduce or increase syphilis prevalence.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by WHO-USAID: GHA-G-00-09-00003; NIH/NIAID: K01 AI116298Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ER -