Since the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy, in developed countries HIV increasingly is perceived as a long-term illness. Individuals may experience health-related consequences of HIV and its associated treatments, a concept that may be termed disability. To date, a comprehensive framework for understanding the health-related consequences experienced by people living with HIV has not been developed. The purpose of this research was to develop a conceptual framework of disability from the perspective of adults living with HIV.

Background: The cost-effectiveness of Canada9s only supervised injection facility has not been rigorously evaluated. We estimated the impact of the facility on survival, rates of HIV and hepatitis C virus infection, referral to methadone maintenance treatment and associated costs. Methods: We simulated the population of Vancouver, British Columbia, including injection drug users and persons infected with HIV and hepatitis C virus. The model used a time horizon of 10 years and the perspective of the health care system. We compared the situation of the supervised injection facility with one that had no facility but that had other interventions, such as needle-exchange programs. The effects considered were decreased needle sharing, increased use of safe injection practices and increased referral to methadone maintenance treatment. Outcomes included life-years gained, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios discounted at 5% per year. Results: Focusing on the base assumption of decreased needle sharing as the only effect of the supervised injection facility, we found that the facility was associated with an incremental net savings of almost $14 million and 920 life-years gained over 10 years. When we also considered the health effect of increased use of safe injection practices, the incremental net savings increased to more than $20 million and the number of life-years gained to 1070. Further increases were estimated when we considered all 3 health benefits: the incremental net savings was more than $18 million and the number of life-years gained 1175. Results were sensitive to assumptions related to injection frequency, the risk of HIV transmission through needle sharing, the frequency of safe injection practices among users of the facility, the costs of HIV-related care and of operating the facility, and the proportion of users who inject in the facility. Interpretation: Vancouver9s supervised injection site is associated with improved health and cost savings, even with conservative estimates of efficacy.

Background: The costs and side effects of several antiandrogen therapies for advanced prostate cancer differ substantially. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of antiandrogen therapies for advanced prostate cancer. Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model based on a formal meta-analysis and literature review. The base case was assumed to be a 65-year-old man with a clinically evident, local recurrence of prostate cancer. The model used a societal perspective and a time horizon of 20 years. Six androgen suppression strategies were evaluated: diethylstilbestrol (DES), orchiectomy, a nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA), a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, and combinations of an NSAA with an LHRH agonist or orchiectomy. Outcome measures were survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: DES, the least expensive therapy, had a discounted lifetime cost of $3600 and the lowest quality-adjusted survival, 4.6 QALYs. At a cost of $7000, orchiectomy was associated with 5.1 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7500/QALY relative to DES. All other strategies—LHRH agonists, NSAA, and both combined androgen blockade strategies—had higher costs and lower quality-adjusted survival than orchiectomy. These results were sensitive to the quality of life associated with orchiectomy and the efficacy of combined androgen blockade, and they changed little when prostate-specific antigen results were used to guide therapy. Under a wide range of other assumptions, the cost-effectiveness of orchiectomy relative to DES was consistently less than $20 000/QALY. Androgen suppression therapies were most cost-effective if initiated after patients became symptomatic from prostate metastases. Conclusions: For men who accept it, orchiectomy is likely to be the most cost-effective androgen suppression strategy. Combined androgen blockade is the least economically attractive option, yielding small health benefits at high relative costs.

Background: An increasing number of individuals may be living with the health‐related consequences of HIV and its associated treatments, a concept we term disability. However, the context in which disability is experienced from the HIV perspective is not well understood. The purpose of this paper is to describe the contextual factors that influence the experiences of disability from the perspective of adults living with HIV.Methods: We conducted four focus groups and 15 face‐to‐face interviews with 38 men and women living with HIV. We asked participants to describe their health‐related challenges, the physical, social and psychological areas of their life affected, and the impact of these challenges on their overall health. We also conducted two validity check focus groups with seven returning participants. We analyzed data using grounded theory techniques to develop a conceptual framework of disability for adults living with HIV, called the Episodic Disability Framework.Results: Contextual factors that influenced disability were integral to participants' experiences and emerged as a key component of the framework. Extrinsic contextual factors included social support (support from friends, family, partners, pets and community, support from health care services and personnel, and programme and policy support) and stigma. Intrinsic contextual factors included living strategies (seeking social interaction with others, maintaining a sense of control over life and the illness, “blocking HIV out of the mind”, and adopting attitudes and beliefs to help manage living with HIV) and personal attributes (gender and aging). These factors may exacerbate or alleviate dimensions of HIV disability.Conclusion: This framework is the first to consider the contextual factors that influence experiences of disability from the perspective of adults living with HIV. Extrinsic factors (level of social support and stigma) and intrinsic factors (living strategies and personal attributes) may exacerbate or alleviate episodes of HIV‐related disability. These factors offer a broader understanding of the disability experience and may suggest ways to prevent or reduce disability for adults living with HIV.