CH leads to major socioeconomic impact on patients as well as society due to direct healthcare costs and indirect costs caused by loss of working capacity.

The prevalence of CRFs remains high in an HIV-infected population. CRF management of HIV-infected patients deserves further improvement.

Expenditures for HIV-infection are driven mainly by drug costs. We identified several clinical variables influencing the costs of HIV-treatment. This information could assist policymakers when allocating limited health care resources to HIV care.

This checklist is an initial approach to improve transparency and understanding of CoI studies in terms of the extent, structure and development of the socioeconomic burden of diseases. The checklist supports the comparability of different studies and facilitates study conception.

Background HIV-infected patients are at increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cardiac screenings for HIV-positive men at intermediate or greater CAD risk. Design We developed a lifetime microsimulation model of CAD incidence and progression in HIV-infected men. Methods Input parameters were derived from two HIV cohort studies and the literature. We compared no CAD screening with stress testing and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based strategies. Patients with test results indicating 3-vessel/left main CAD underwent invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and received coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In the “Stress-testing+Medication”/“CCTA+Medication” strategies, patients with 1-/2-vessel CAD results received lifetime medical treatment without further diagnostics whereas in the “Stress-testing+Intervention”/“CCTA+Intervention” strategies, patients with these results underwent ICA and received percutaneous coronary intervention. Results Compared to no screening, the “Stress-testing+Medication”, “Stress-testing+Intervention”, “CCTA+Medication” and “CCTA+Intervention” strategies resulted in 14, 11, 19, and 14 quality-adjusted life days per patient and incremental cost effectiveness ratios of 49,261, 57,817, 34,887 and 56,518 € per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. Screening only at higher CAD risk thresholds was more cost-effective. Repeated screening was clinically beneficial compared to one-time screening but only “Stress-testing+Medication” every five years remained cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 83,000 €/QALY (~100,000 US$/QALY), implementing any CAD screening was cost-effective with a probability of 75-95%. Conclusion Screening HIV-positive men for CAD would be clinically beneficial and comes at a cost-effectiveness ratio comparable to other accepted interventions in HIV care.