Cost-effectiveness of Injectable Preexposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention in South Africa.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Long-acting injectable antiretrovirals such as rilpivirine (RPV) could promote adherence to preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. However, the cost-effectiveness of injectable PrEP is unclear.We constructed a dynamic model of the heterosexual HIV epidemic in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and analyzed scenarios of RPV PrEP scale-up for combination HIV prevention in comparison with a reference scenario without PrEP. We estimated new HIV infections, life-years and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), over 10-year and lifetime horizons, assuming a societal perspective.Compared with no PrEP, unprioritized scale-up of RVP PrEP covering 2.5%-15% of adults prevented up to 9% of new infections over 10 years. HIV prevention doubled (17%) when the same coverage was prioritized to 20- to 29-year-old women, costing $10 880-$19 213 per infection prevented. Prioritization of PrEP to 80% of individuals at highest behavioral risk achieved comparable prevention (4%-8%) at <1% overall coverage, costing $298-$1242 per infection prevented. Over lifetime, PrEP scale-up among 20- to 29-year-old women was very cost-effective (<$1600 per life-year gained), dominating unprioritized PrEP, while risk prioritization was cost-saving. PrEP's 10-year impact decreased by almost 50% with increases in ICERs (up to 4.2-fold) in conservative base-case analysis. Sensitivity analysis identified PrEP's costs, efficacy, and reliability of delivery as the principal drivers of uncertainty in PrEP's cost-effectiveness, and PrEP remained cost-effective under the assumption of universal access to second-line antiretroviral therapy.Compared with no PrEP, prioritized scale-up of RPV PrEP in KwaZulu-Natal could be very cost-effective or cost-saving, but suboptimal PrEP would erode benefits and increase costs.
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20160518 4
<h4>Background</h4>Long-acting injectable antiretrovirals such as rilpivirine (RPV) could promote adherence to preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. However, the cost-effectiveness of injectable PrEP is unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>We constructed a dynamic model of the heterosexual HIV epidemic in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and analyzed scenarios of RPV PrEP scale-up for combination HIV prevention in comparison with a reference scenario without PrEP. We e ...[more]
Project description:BackgroundThe HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 083 trial demonstrated the superiority of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) compared with oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).ObjectiveTo identify the maximum price premium (that is, greatest possible price differential) that society should be willing to accept for the additional benefits of CAB-LA over tenofovir-based PrEP among men who have sex with men and transgender women (MSM/TGW) in the United States.DesignSimulation, cost-effectiveness analysis.Data sourcesTrial and published data, including estimated HIV incidence (5.32, 1.33, and 0.26 per 100 person-years for off PrEP, generic F/TDF and branded emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), and CAB-LA, respectively); 28% 6-year PrEP retention. Annual base-case drug costs: $360 and $16 800 for generic F/TDF and branded F/TAF. Fewer side effects with branded F/TAF versus generic F/TDF were assumed.Target population476 700 MSM/TGW at very high risk for HIV (VHR).Time horizon10 years.PerspectiveHealth care system.InterventionCAB-LA versus generic F/TDF or branded F/TAF for HIV PrEP.Outcome measuresPrimary transmissions, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2020 U.S. dollars), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; U.S. dollars per QALY), maximum price premium for CAB-LA versus tenofovir-based PrEP.Results of base-case analysisCompared with generic F/TDF (or branded F/TAF), CAB-LA increased life expectancy by 28 000 QALYs (26 000 QALYs) among those at VHR. Branded F/TAF cost more per QALY gained than generic F/TDF compared with no PrEP. At 10 years, CAB-LA could achieve an ICER of at most $100 000 per QALY compared with generic F/TDF at a maximum price premium of $3700 per year over generic F/TDF (CAB-LA price <$4100 per year).Results of sensitivity analysisIn a PrEP-eligible population at high risk for HIV, rather than at VHR (n = 1 906 800; off PrEP incidence: 1.54 per 100 person-years), CAB-LA could achieve an ICER of at most $100 000 per QALY versus generic F/TDF at a maximum price premium of $1100 per year over generic F/TDF (CAB-LA price <$1500 per year).LimitationUncertain clinical and economic benefits of averting future transmissions.ConclusionEffective oral PrEP limits the additional price society should be willing to pay for CAB-LA.Primary funding sourceFHI 360; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Reich HIV Scholar Award; and the Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholars Award.
Project description:Antiretroviral therapy (ART) and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are effective in reducing HIV transmission in heterosexual adults. The epidemiologic impact and cost-effectiveness of combined prevention approaches in resource-limited settings remain unclear.We develop a dynamic mathematical model of the HIV epidemic in South Africa's adult population. We assume ART reduces HIV transmission by 95% and PrEP by 60%. We model two ART strategies: scaling up access for those with CD4 counts ? 350 cells/?L (Guidelines) and for all identified HIV-infected individuals (Universal). PrEP strategies include use in the general population (General) and in high-risk individuals (Focused). We consider strategies where ART, PrEP, or both are scaled up to 100% of remaining eligible individuals yearly. We measure infections averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over 20 years.Scaling up ART to 50% of eligible individuals averts 1,513,000 infections over 20 years (Guidelines) and 3,591,000 infections (Universal). Universal ART is the most cost-effective strategy at any scale ($160-$220/QALY versus comparable scale Guidelines ART expansion). General PrEP is costly and provides limited benefits beyond ART scale-up ($7,680/QALY to add 100% PrEP to 50% Universal ART). Cost-effectiveness of General PrEP becomes less favorable when ART is widely given ($12,640/QALY gained when added to 100% Universal ART). If feasible, Focused PrEP is cost saving or highly cost effective versus status quo and when added to ART strategies.Expanded ART coverage to individuals in early disease stages may be more cost-effective than current guidelines. PrEP can be cost-saving if delivered to individuals at increased risk of infection.
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the value of coformulated Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for conception in the U.S. and to identify scenarios in which 'Undetectable = Untransmittable' (U = U) may not be adequate, and rather, PrEP or assisted reproduction would improve outcomes.DesignWe developed a Markov cohort simulation model to estimate the incremental benefits and cost-effectiveness of PrEP compared with alternative safer conception strategies, including combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) alone for the HIV-infected partner and assisted reproductive technologies. We modelled various scenarios in which HIV RNA suppression in the male partner was less than perfect.SettingU.S. healthcare sector perspective.ParticipantsSerodiscordant couples in the U.S. was composed of an HIV-infected male and HIV-uninfected female seeking conception.InterventionEconomic analysis.Main outcome measure(s)Cumulative risks of HIV transmission to women and babies, maternal life expectancy, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALY), discounted lifetime medical costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultscART with condomless intercourse limited to ovulation was the preferred HIV prevention strategy among women seeking to conceive with an HIV-infected partner who is HIV-suppressed. PrEP was not cost-effective for women who had partners who were virologically suppressed. When the probability of male partner HIV suppression was low and we assumed generic pricing of PrEP, PrEP was cost-effective, and sometimes even cost-saving compared with cART alone.ConclusionFrom a U.S. healthcare sector perspective, when the male partner was not reliably suppressed, PrEP became economically attractive, and in some cases, cost-saving.
Project description:IntroductionAlthough pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP.) is an efficacious HIV prevention strategy, its preventive benefit has not been shown among young women in sub-Saharan Africa, likely due to non-adherence. Adherence may be improved with the use of injectable long-acting PrEP methods currently being developed. We hypothesize that providing long-acting PrEP to women using injectable contraceptives, the most frequently used contraceptive method in South Africa, could improve adherence to PrEP, result in a reduction of new HIV infections, and be a relatively easy-to-reach target population. In this modelling study, we assessed the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of providing long-acting PrEP to injectable contraceptive users in Limpopo, South Africa.MethodsWe developed a deterministic mathematical model calibrated to the HIV epidemic in Limpopo. Long-acting PrEP was provided to 50% of HIV negative injectable contraceptive users in 2018 and scaled-up over two years. We estimated the number of HIV infections that could be averted by 2030 and the drug price of long-acting PrEP for which this intervention would be cost-effective over a time horizon of 40 years, from a healthcare payer perspective. In the base-case scenario we assumed long-acting PrEP is 75% effective in preventing HIV infections and 85% of infected individuals are on antiretroviral drug therapy (ART) by 2030. In sensitivity analyses we adjusted PrEP effectiveness and ART coverage. Costs between $519 and $1119 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted were considered potentially cost-effective, and <$519 as cost-effective.ResultsWithout long-acting injectable PrEP, 224,000 (interquartile range 176,000 to 271,000) new infections will occur by 2030; use of long-acting injectable PrEP could prevent 21,000 (17,000 to 26,000) or 9.8% (8.9% to 10.6%) new HIV infections by 2030 (including 6000 (4000 to 7000) in men). Long-acting PrEP would prevent 34,000 (29,000 to 39,000) or 12,000 (8000 to 15,000) at 75% and 95% ART coverage by 2030 respectively. To be considered potentially cost-effective the annual long-acting PrEP drug price should be <$16, and/or ART coverage remains at <85% in 2030.ConclusionsProviding long-acting PrEP to injectable contraceptive users in Limpopo is only potentially cost-effective when long-acting PrEP drug prices are low. If low prices are not feasible, providing long-acting PrEP only to women at high risk of HIV infection will become important.
Project description:A recent randomized, controlled trial showed that daily oral preexposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP) was effective for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men (MSM). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently provided interim guidance for PrEP in MSM at high risk for HIV. Previous studies did not reach a consistent estimate of its cost-effectiveness.To estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PrEP in MSM in the United States.Dynamic model of HIV transmission and progression combined with a detailed economic analysis.Published literature.MSM aged 13 to 64 years in the United States.Lifetime.Societal.PrEP was evaluated in both the general MSM population and in high-risk MSM and was assumed to reduce infection risk by 44% on the basis of clinical trial results.New HIV infections, discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Initiating PrEP in 20% of MSM in the United States would reduce new HIV infections by an estimated 13% and result in a gain of 550,166 QALYs over 20 years at a cost of $172,091 per QALY gained. Initiating PrEP in a larger proportion of MSM would prevent more infections but at an increasing cost per QALY gained (up to $216,480 if all MSM receive PrEP). Preexposure chemoprophylaxis in only high-risk MSM can improve cost-effectiveness. For MSM with an average of 5 partners per year, PrEP costs approximately $50,000 per QALY gained. Providing PrEP to all high-risk MSM for 20 years would cost $75 billion more in health care-related costs than the status quo and $600,000 per HIV infection prevented, compared with incremental costs of $95 billion and $2 million per infection prevented for 20% coverage of all MSM.PrEP in the general MSM population would cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained if the daily cost of antiretroviral drugs for PrEP was less than $15 or if PrEP efficacy was greater than 75%.When examining PrEP in high-risk MSM, the investigators did not model a mix of low- and high-risk MSM because of lack of data on mixing patterns.PrEP in the general MSM population could prevent a substantial number of HIV infections, but it is expensive. Use in high-risk MSM compares favorably with other interventions that are considered cost-effective but could result in annual PrEP expenditures of more than $4 billion.National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Veterans Affairs, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:A number of antiretroviral HIV prevention products are efficacious in preventing HIV infection. However, the sexual and reproductive health needs of many women extend beyond HIV prevention, and research is ongoing to develop multi-purpose prevention technologies (MPTs) that offer dual HIV and pregnancy protection. We do not yet know if these products will be an efficient use of constrained health resources. In this paper, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of combinations of candidate multi-purpose prevention technologies (MPTs), in South Africa among general population women and female sex workers (FSWs). METHODS:We combined a cost model with a static model of product impact based on incidence data in South Africa to estimate the cost-effectiveness of five candidate co-formulated or co-provided MPTs: oral PrEP, intravaginal ring, injectable ARV, microbicide gel and SILCS diaphragm used in concert with gel. We accounted for the preferences of end-users by predicting uptake using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Product availability and protection were systematically varied in five potential rollout scenarios. The impact model estimated the number of infections averted through decreased incidence due to product use over one year. The comparator for each scenario was current levels of male condom use, while a health system perspective was used to estimate discounted lifetime treatment costs averted per HIV infection. Product benefit was estimated in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Benefits from contraception were incorporated through adjusting the uptake of these products based on the DCE and through estimating the costs averted from avoiding unwanted pregnancies. We explore the additional impact of STI protection through increased uptake in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS:At central incidence rates, all single- and multi-purpose scenarios modelled were cost-effective among FSWs and women aged 16-24, at a governmental willingness-to-pay threshold of $1175/DALY averted (range: $214-$810/DALY averted among non-dominant scenarios), however, none were cost-effective among women aged 25-49 (minimum $1706/DALY averted). The cost-effectiveness of products improved with additional protection from pregnancy. Estimates were sensitive to variation in incidence assumptions, but robust to other parameters. CONCLUSIONS:To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a range of potential MPTs; suggesting that MPTs will be cost-effective among higher incidence FSWs or young women, but not among lower incidence older women. More work is needed to make attractive MPTs available to potential users who could use them effectively.
Project description:Background:The total population health benefits and costs of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for people who inject drugs (PWID) in the United States are unclear. Objective:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and optimal delivery conditions of PrEP for PWID. Design:Empirically calibrated dynamic compartmental model. Data Sources:Published literature and expert opinion. Target Population:Adult U.S. PWID. Time Horizon:20 years and lifetime. Intervention:PrEP alone, PrEP with frequent screening (PrEP+screen), and PrEP+screen with enhanced provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for individuals who become infected (PrEP+screen+ART). All scenarios are considered at 25% coverage. Outcome Measures:Infections averted, deaths averted, change in HIV prevalence, discounted costs (in 2015 U.S. dollars), discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis:PrEP+screen+ART dominates other strategies, averting 26 700 infections and reducing HIV prevalence among PWID by 14% compared with the status quo. Achieving these benefits costs $253 000 per QALY gained. At current drug prices, total expenditures for PrEP+screen+ART could be as high as $44 billion over 20 years. Results of Sensitivity Analysis:Cost-effectiveness of the intervention is linear in the annual cost of PrEP and is dependent on PrEP drug adherence, individual transmission risks, and community HIV prevalence. Limitation:Data on risk stratification and achievable PrEP efficacy levels for U.S. PWID are limited. Conclusion:PrEP with frequent screening and prompt treatment for those who become infected can reduce HIV burden among PWID and provide health benefits for the entire U.S. population, but, at current drug prices, it remains an expensive intervention both in absolute terms and in cost per QALY gained. Primary Funding Source:National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Project description:BackgroundAntiretroviral Treatment (ART) significantly reduces HIV transmission. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the impact of expanded ART in South Africa.MethodsWe model a best case scenario of 90% annual HIV testing coverage in adults 15-49 years old and four ART eligibility scenarios: CD4 count <200 cells/mm(3) (current practice), CD4 count <350, CD4 count <500, all CD4 levels. 2011-2050 outcomes include deaths, disability adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV infections, cost, and cost per DALY averted. Service and ART costs reflect South African data and international generic prices. ART reduces transmission by 92%. We conducted sensitivity analyses.ResultsExpanding ART to CD4 count <350 cells/mm(3) prevents an estimated 265,000 (17%) and 1.3 million (15%) new HIV infections over 5 and 40 years, respectively. Cumulative deaths decline 15%, from 12.5 to 10.6 million; DALYs by 14% from 109 to 93 million over 40 years. Costs drop $504 million over 5 years and $3.9 billion over 40 years with breakeven by 2013. Compared with the current scenario, expanding to <500 prevents an additional 585,000 and 3 million new HIV infections over 5 and 40 years, respectively. Expanding to all CD4 levels decreases HIV infections by 3.3 million (45%) and costs by $10 billion over 40 years, with breakeven by 2023. By 2050, using higher ART and monitoring costs, all CD4 levels saves $0.6 billion versus current; other ART scenarios cost $9-194 per DALY averted. If ART reduces transmission by 99%, savings from all CD4 levels reach $17.5 billion. Sensitivity analyses suggest that poor retention and predominant acute phase transmission reduce DALYs averted by 26% and savings by 7%.ConclusionIncreasing the provision of ART to <350 cells/mm3 may significantly reduce costs while reducing the HIV burden. Feasibility including HIV testing and ART uptake, retention, and adherence should be evaluated.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been recommended as a means of HIV prevention among people who inject drugs (PWIDs) but, at current prices, is unlikely to be cost-effective for all PWID. OBJECTIVE:To determine the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for enrolling PWID in PrEP. DESIGN:Dynamic network model that captures HIV transmission and progression among PWID in a representative US urban center. OUTCOME MEASURES:HIV infections averted, discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. INTERVENTION:We assume 25% PrEP coverage and investigate four strategies: first, random PWID are enrolled (Unselected Enrollment); second, individuals are randomly selected and enrolled together with their partners (Enroll Partners); third, individuals with the highest number of sexual and needle-sharing partnerships are enrolled (Most Partners); fourth, individuals with the greatest number of infected partners are enrolled (Most Positive Partners). RESULTS:PrEP can achieve significant health benefits: compared with the status quo of no PrEP, the strategies gain 1114 QALYs (Unselected Enrollment), 2194 QALYs (Enroll Partners), 2481 QALYs (Most Partners), and 3046 QALYs (Most Positive Partners) over 20 years in a population of approximately 8500 people. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each strategy compared with the status quo (cost per QALY gained) is $272 000 (Unselected Enrollment), $158 000 (Enroll Partners), $124 000 (Most Partners), and $101 000 (Most Positive Partners). All strategies except Unselected Enrollment are cost-effective according to WHO criteria. CONCLUSION:Selection of high-risk PWID for PrEP can improve the cost-effectiveness of PrEP for PWID.
Project description:Purpose of reviewTo review current laboratory and clinical data on the frequency and relative risk of drug resistance and range of mutations selected from approved and investigational antiretroviral agents used for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of HIV-1 infection, including tenofovir disproxil fumarate (TDF)-based oral PrEP, dapivirine ring, injectable cabotegravir (CAB), islatravir, lenacapavir and broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs).Recent findingsThe greatest risk of HIV-1 resistance from PrEP with oral TDF/emtricitabine (FTC) or injectable CAB is from starting or continuing PrEP after undiagnosed acute HIV infection. By contrast, the dapivirine intravaginal ring does not appear to select nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance in clinical trial settings. Investigational inhibitors including islatravir, lenacapavir, and bNAbs are promising for use as PrEP due to their potential for sustained delivery and low risk of cross-resistance to currently used antiretrovirals, but surveillance for emergence of resistance mutations in more HIV-1 gene regions (gag, env) will be important as the same drugs are being developed for HIV therapy.SummaryPrEP is highly effective in preventing HIV infection. Although HIV drug resistance from PrEP use could impact future options in individuals who seroconvert on PrEP, the current risk is low and continued monitoring for the emergence of resistance and cross-resistance during product development, clinical studies, and product roll-out is advised to preserve antiretroviral efficacy for both treatment and prevention.
