Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for provision of HIV preexposure prophylaxis for people who inject drugs.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Fu R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5906044 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for provision of HIV preexposure prophylaxis for people who inject drugs.

Fu Rui R Owens Douglas K DK Brandeau Margaret L ML

AIDS (London, England) 20180301 5

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for enrolling PWID in PrEP.<h4>Design</h4>Dynamic network model that captures HIV transmission and progression among PWID in a representative US urban center.<h4>Outcome measures</h4>HIV infections avert ...[more]

PMID: 29334549

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsIn Latin America, Mexico was first to launch a hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination strategy, where people who inject drugs (PWID) are a main risk group for transmission. In Tijuana, HCV seroprevalence among PWID is > 90%, with minimal harm reduction (HR). We evaluated cost-effectiveness of strategies to achieve the incidence elimination target among PWID in Tijuana.MethodsModeling study using a dynamic, cost-effectiveness model of HCV transmission and progression among active and former PWID in Tijuana, to assess the cost-effectiveness of incidence elimination strategies from a health-care provider perspective. The model incorporated PWID transitions between HR stages (no HR, only opioid agonist therapy, only high coverage needle-syringe programs, both). Four strategies that could achieve the incidence target (80% reduction by 2030) were compared with the status quo (no intervention). The strategies incorporated the number of direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) treatments required with: (1) no HR scale-up, (2) HR scale-up from 2019 to 20% coverage among PWID, (3) HR to 40% coverage and (4) HR to 50% coverage. Costs (2019 US$) and health outcomes [disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)] were discounted 3% per year. Mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, $/DALY averted) were compared with one-time per capita gross domestic product (GDP) ($9698 in 2019) and purchasing power parity-adjusted per capita GDP ($4842-13 557) willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.ResultsDAAs alone were the least costly elimination strategy [$173 million, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 126-238 million], but accrued fewer health benefits compared with strategies with HR. DAAs + 50% HR coverage among PWID averted the most DALYs but cost $265 million, 95% CI = 210-335 million). The optimal strategy was DAAs + 50% HR (ICER $6743/DALY averted compared to DAAs only) under the one-time per-capita GDP WTP ($9698).ConclusionsA combination of high-coverage harm reduction and hepatitis C virus treatment is the optimal cost-effective strategy to achieve the HCV incidence elimination goal in Mexico.

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:AimsTo examine the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID), combined with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and syringe-service programs (SSP), to tackle the increasing HCV epidemic in the United States.DesignHCV transmission and disease progression models with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective.SettingRural Perry County, KY (PC) and urban San Francisco, CA (SF), USA. Compared with PC, SF has a greater proportion of PWID with access to MAT or SSP. HCV treatment of PWID is negligible in both settings.ParticipantsPWID data were collected between 1998 and 2015 from Social Networks Among Appalachian People, U Find Out, Urban Health Study and National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System studies.Interventions and comparatorThree intervention scenarios modeled: baseline-existing SSP and MAT coverage with HCV screening and treatment with direct-acting antiviral for ex-injectors only as per standard of care; intervention 1-scale-up of SSP and MAT without changes to treatment; and intervention 2-scale-up as intervention 1 combined with HCV screening and treatment for current PWID.MeasurementsIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).FindingsFor both settings, intervention 2 is preferred to intervention 1 and the appropriate comparator for intervention 2 is the baseline scenario. Relative to baseline, for PC intervention 2 averts 1852 more HCV infections, increases QALYS by 3095, costs $21.6 million more and has an ICER of $6975/QALY. For SF, intervention 2 averts 36 473 more HCV infections, increases QALYs by 7893, costs $872 million more and has an ICER of $11 044/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of intervention 2 was robust to several sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsHepatitis C screening and treatment for people who inject drugs, combined with medication-assisted treatment and syringe-service programs, is a cost-effective strategy for reducing hepatitis C burden in the United States.

Project description:IntroductionThe main harm reduction interventions for people who inject drugs (PWID) are supervised injection facilities, needle and syringe programmes and opioid agonist treatment. Current evidence supporting their implementation and operation underestimates their usefulness by excluding skin, soft tissue and vascular infections (SSTVIs) and anoxic/toxicity-related brain injury from cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). Our goal is to conduct a comprehensive CEA of harm reduction interventions in a setting with a large, dispersed, heterogeneous population of PWID, and include prevention of SSTVIs and anoxic/toxicity-related brain injury as measures of benefit in addition to HIV, hepatitis C and overdose morbidity and mortalities averted.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes how we will develop an open, retrospective cohort of adult PWID living in Québec between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2020 using administrative health record data. By complementing this data with non-linkable paramedic dispatch records, regional monthly needle and syringe dispensation counts and repeated cross-sectional biobehavioural surveys, we will estimate the hazards of occurrence and the impact of Montréal's harm reduction interventions on the incidence of drug-use-related injuries, infections and deaths. We will synthesise results from our empirical analyses with published evidence to simulate infections and injuries in a hypothetical population of PWID in Montréal under different intervention scenarios including current levels of use and scale-up, and assess the cost-effectiveness of each intervention from the public healthcare payer's perspective.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by McGill University's Institutional Review Board (Study Number: A08-E53-19B). We will work with community partners to disseminate results to the public and scientific community via scientific conferences, a publicly accessible report, op-ed articles and open access peer-reviewed journals.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for provision of HIV preexposure prophylaxis for people who inject drugs.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for provision of HIV preexposure prophylaxis for people who inject drugs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets