In recent years, hepatitis B has taken a backseat to hepatitis C because of the increased prevalence of hepatitis C in the United States and western Europe. However, hepatitis B has reclaimed the attention of gastroenterologists and other health care professionals because of 3 developments: the introduction of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA testing; the improved understanding of the nature of HBV-related disease; and the introduction of potent, orally administered new antiviral agents. In our editorial, we discuss the treatment of HBV, which has evolved rapidly, and then comment on the cost-effectiveness of HBV therapies.

Dissatisfaction with the financing of U.S. health care is widespread. The system is inefficient, inequitable, and increasingly perceived to be unaffordable. Because only incremental reform is deemed politically feasible, inordinate attention is devoted to treating the institutional symptoms rather than diagnosing systemic problems that require major surgery. As an alternative, we propose a voucher system for universal health care, an efficient, fair, and relatively simple approach that might elicit broad support. We recognize that change is not imminent, but such a proposal can stimulate discussion and provide a readily available model when the political climate becomes hospitable for endorsing meaningful reform.

The key features of the voucher system are the following:

• Universality
• Free Choice of Health Plan
• Freedom to Purchase Additional Services
• Funding by an Earmarked Value-Added Tax
• Reliance on a Private Delivery System
• End of Employer-Based Insurance
• Elimination of Medicaid and Other Means-Tested Programs
• Phasing Out of Medicare
• Administration by a Federal Health Board
• Establishment of an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment

Background: Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend routine HIV counseling, testing, and referral (HIVCTR) in settings with at least a 1 percent prevalence of HIV, roughly 280,000 Americans are unaware of their human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The effect of expanded screening for HIV is unknown in the era of effective antiretroviral therapy.

Methods: We developed a computer simulation model of HIV screening and treatment to compare routine, voluntary HIVCTR with current practice in three target populations: "high-risk" (3.0 percent prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection; 1.2 percent annual incidence); "CDC threshold" (1.0 percent and 0.12 percent, respectively); and "U.S. general" (0.1 percent and 0.01 percent). Input data were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts. Outcomes included quality-adjusted survival, cost, and cost-effectiveness.

Results: In the high-risk population, the addition of one-time screening for HIV antibodies with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to current practice was associated with earlier diagnosis of HIV (mean CD4 cell count at diagnosis, 210 vs. 154 per cubic millimeter). One-time screening also improved average survival time among HIV-infected patients (quality-adjusted survival, 220.7 months vs. 219.8 months). The incremental cost-effectiveness was $36,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Testing every five years cost $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and testing every three years cost $63,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the CDC threshold population, the cost-effectiveness ratio for one-time screening with ELISA was $38,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas testing every five years cost $71,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and testing every three years cost $85,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the U.S. general population, one-time screening cost $113,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions: In all but the lowest-risk populations, routine, voluntary screening for HIV once every three to five years is justified on both clinical and cost-effectiveness grounds. One-time screening in the general population may also be cost-effective.

Background:

The costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in health care settings during the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have not been determined.

Methods:

We developed a Markov model of costs, quality of life, and survival associated with an HIV-screening program as compared with current practice. In both strategies, symptomatic patients were identified through symptom-based case finding. Identified patients started treatment when their CD4 count dropped to 350 cells per cubic millimeter. Disease progression was defined on the basis of CD4 levels and viral load. The likelihood of sexual transmission was based on viral load, knowledge of HIV status, and efficacy of counseling.

Results:

Given a 1 percent prevalence of unidentified HIV infection, screening increased life expectancy by 5.48 days, or 4.70 quality-adjusted days, at an estimated cost of $194 per screened patient, for a cost-effectiveness ratio of $15,078 per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening cost less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year if the prevalence of unidentified HIV infection exceeded 0.05 percent. Excluding HIV transmission, the cost-effectiveness of screening was $41,736 per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening every five years, as compared with a one-time screening program, cost $57,138 per quality-adjusted life-year, but was more attractive in settings with a high incidence of infection. Our results were sensitive to the efficacy of behavior modification, the benefit of early identification and therapy, and the prevalence and incidence of HIV infection.

Conclusions:

The cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in health care settings, even in relatively low-prevalence populations, is similar to that of commonly accepted interventions, and such programs should be expanded.

In spite of advances made in our understanding of the biology of the hepatitis C virus (HCV), the epidemiology and natural history of HCV infection, and the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, the development and worldwide implementation of a comprehensive prevention and control strategy remains necessary. A World Health Organization informal consultation with the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board was convened and met in Geneva, Switzerland, 13-14 May 2002, to review epidemiological and public health aspects of HCV infection, and the various prevention and control strategies that are currently in place. Based on the presentations and discussions, a number of specific recommendations were made, which should be considered in conjunction with previously published recommendations.

PURPOSE: To conduct an empirical analysis of self-referred whole-body computed tomography (CT) and develop a profile of the geographic and demographic distribution of centers, types of services and modalities, costs, and procedures for reporting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analysis was conducted of Web sites for imaging centers accepting self-referred patients identified by two widely used Internet search engines with large indexes. These Web sites were analyzed for geographic location, type of screening center, services, costs, and procedures for managing imaging results. Demographic data were extrapolated for analysis on the basis of center location. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, means, SDs, ranges, and CIs, were generated to describe the characteristics of the samples. Data were compared with national norms by using a distribution-free method for calculating a 95% CI (P .05) for the median. RESULTS: Eighty-eight centers identified with the search methods were widely distributed across the United States, with a concentration on both coasts. Demographic analysis further situated them in areas of the country characterized by a population that consisted largely of European Americans (P .05) and individuals of higher education (P .05) and socioeconomic status (P .05). Forty-seven centers offered whole-body screening; heart and lung examinations were most frequently offered. Procedures for reporting results were highly variable. CONCLUSION: The geographic distribution of the centers suggests target populations of educated health-conscious consumers who can assume high out-of-pocket costs. Guidelines developed from within the profession and further research are needed to ensure that benefits of these services outweigh risks to individuals and the health care system.

This abstract was presented at the 26th Annual Meeting for the Society for General Internal Medicine on May 3, 2003, in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Diabetes mellitus is a leading cause of morbidity and death in the United States. Type 2 diabetes mellitus accounts for the majority of affected persons (90% to 95%) and affects older adults, particularly those older than 50 years of age. It affects an estimated 16 million Americans, 11 million of whom have both diabetes and hypertension. Most adverse diabetes outcomes are a result of vascular complications. These complications are generally classified as microvascular, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy (although neuropathy may not be entirely a microvascular disease), or macrovascular, such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease.

In order to prevent, or diminish the progression of, microvascular and macrovascular complications, recommended diabetes management necessarily encompasses both metabolic control and cardiovascular risk factor control. The need for good glycemic control is supported by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial in type 1 diabetes mellitus and, more recently, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) in type 2 diabetes mellitus. In these studies, tight blood sugar control reduced microvascular complications, such as nephropathy and retinopathy, but had little effect on macrovascular outcomes. Up to 80% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus will develop or die of macrovascular disease, underscoring the importance of preventing macrovascular complications.

In an effort to provide internists and other primary care physicians with effective management strategies for diabetes care, the American College of Physicians decided to develop guidelines on the management of hypertension in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The target audience for this guideline is all clinicians who provide care to patients with type 2 diabetes. The target patient population is all persons with type 2 diabetes who have hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mm Hg. This target patient population includes those who already have some form of microvascular complication and, of particular importance, premenopausal women with diabetes. We will attempt to answer the following questions: 1) What are the benefits of tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes? 2) What should the target levels of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure be for patients with type 2 diabetes? and 3) Are certain antihypertensive agents more effective or beneficial in patients with diabetes?

When analyzing benefit or effectiveness for this review, we included only studies that measured clinical end points. The four major classes of clinical end points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or congestive heart failure), and microvascular complications (photocoagulation, nephropathy, neuropathy, or amputation).

The review was divided into two categories. The first included studies that evaluated the effects of blood pressure control if the comparison examined an antihypertensive drug versus placebo or the effects of different target blood pressure levels. The second category evaluated the effect of different classes of drugs. A discussion of this evidence follows.

The United States, physicians insert more than 5 million central venous catheters every year. Central venous catheters allow measurement of hemodynamic variables that cannot be measured accurately by noninvasive means and allow delivery of medications and nutritional support that cannot be given safely through peripheral venous catheters. Unfortunately, the use of central venous catheters is associated with adverse events that are both hazardous to patients and expensive to treat. More than 15 percent of patients who receive these catheters have complications. Mechanical complications are reported to occur in 5 to 19 percent of patients,5,6,8 infectious complications in 5 to 26 percent,5,7,9 and thrombotic complications in 2 to 26 percent. In this review, we explain methods for reducing the frequency of complications in adult patients.