Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy and pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in South Africa.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Alistar SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4003813 | biostudies-other | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy and pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in South Africa.

Alistar Sabina S SS Grant Philip M PM Bendavid Eran E

BMC medicine 20140317

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 acc ...[more]

PMID: 24629217

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMathematical modelers have given little attention to the question of how pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) may impact on a generalized national HIV epidemic and its cost-effectiveness, in the context of control strategies such as condom use promotion and expanding ART programs.Methodology/principal findingsWe use an age- and gender-structured model of the generalized HIV epidemic in South Africa to investigate the potential impact of PrEP in averting new infections. The model utilizes age-structured mortality, fertility, partnership and condom use data to model the spread of HIV and the shift of peak prevalence to older age groups. The model shows that universal PrEP coverage would have to be impractically high to have a significant effect on incidence reduction while ART coverage expands. PrEP targeted to 15-35-year-old women would avert 10%-25% (resp. 13%-28%) of infections in this group and 5%-12% (resp. 7%-16%) of all infections in the period 2014-2025 if baseline incidence is 0.5% per year at 2025 (resp. 0.8% per year at 2025). The cost would be $12,500-$20,000 per infection averted, depending on the level of ART coverage and baseline incidence. An optimistic scenario of 30%-60% PrEP coverage, efficacy of at least 90%, no behavior change among PrEP users and ART coverage less than three times its 2010 levels is required to achieve this result. Targeting PrEP to 25-35-year-old women (at highest risk of infection) improves impact and cost-effectiveness marginally. Relatively low levels of condom substitution (e.g., 30%) do not nullify the efficacy of PrEP, but reduces cost-effectiveness by 35%-40%.Conclusions/significancePrEP can avert as many as 30% of new infections in targeted age groups of women at highest risk of infection. The cost-effectiveness of PrEP relative to ART decreases rapidly as ART coverage increases beyond three times its coverage in 2010, after which the ART program would provide coverage to more than 65% of HIV(+) individuals. To have a high relative cost-effective impact on reducing infections in generalized epidemics, PrEP must utilize a window of opportunity until ART has been scaled up beyond this level.

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:BackgroundExpanded HIV prevention options are needed to increase uptake of HIV prevention among women, especially in generalized epidemics. As the dapivirine vaginal ring moves forward through regulatory review and open-label extension studies, the potential public health impact and cost-effectiveness of this new prevention method are not fully known. We used mathematical modeling to explore the impact and cost-effectiveness of the ring in different implementation scenarios alongside scale-up of other HIV prevention interventions. Given the knowledge gaps about key factors influencing the ring's implementation, including potential uptake and delivery costs, we engaged in a stakeholder consultation process to elicit plausible parameter ranges and explored scenarios to identify the possible range of impact, cost, and cost-effectiveness.Methods and findingsWe used the Goals model to simulate scenarios of oral and ring pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation among female sex workers and among other women ≤21 years or >21 years with multiple male partners, in Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. In these scenarios, we varied antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage, dapivirine ring coverage and ring effectiveness (encompassing efficacy and adherence) by risk group. Following discussions with stakeholders, the maximum level of PrEP coverage (oral and/or ring) considered in each country was equal to modern contraception use minus condom use in the two age groups. We assessed results for 18 years, from 2018 to 2035. In South Africa, for example, the HIV infections averted by PrEP (ring plus oral PrEP) ranged from 310,000 under the highest-impact scenario (including ART held constant at 2017 levels, high ring coverage, and 85% ring effectiveness) to 55,000 under the lowest-impact scenario (including ART reaching the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets by 2020, low ring coverage, and 30% ring effectiveness). This represented a range of 6.4% to 2.2% of new HIV infections averted. Given our assumptions, the addition of the ring results in 11% to 132% more impact than oral PrEP alone. The cost per HIV infection averted for the ring ranged from US$13,000 to US$121,000.ConclusionsThis analysis offers a wide range of scenarios given the considerable uncertainty over ring uptake, consistency of use, and effectiveness, as well as HIV testing, prevention, and treatment use over the next two decades. This could help inform donors and implementers as they decide where to allocate resources in order to maximize the impact of the dapivirine ring in light of funding and implementation constraints. Better understanding of the cost and potential uptake of the intervention would improve our ability to estimate its cost-effectiveness and assess where it can have the most impact.

Project description:BackgroundCost-effectiveness studies inform resource allocation, strategy, and policy development. However, due to their complexity, dependence on assumptions made, and inherent uncertainty, synthesising, and generalising the results can be difficult. We assess cost-effectiveness models evaluating expected health gains and costs of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) interventions.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review comparing epidemiological and economic assumptions of cost-effectiveness studies using various modelling approaches. The following databases were searched (until January 2013): PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, EconLIT, and region-specific databases. We included modelling studies reporting both cost and expected impact of a PrEP roll-out. We explored five issues: prioritisation strategies, adherence, behaviour change, toxicity, and resistance. Of 961 studies retrieved, 13 were included. Studies modelled populations (heterosexual couples, men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs) in generalised and concentrated epidemics from Southern Africa (including South Africa), Ukraine, USA, and Peru. PrEP was found to have the potential to be a cost-effective addition to HIV prevention programmes in specific settings. The extent of the impact of PrEP depended upon assumptions made concerning cost, epidemic context, programme coverage, prioritisation strategies, and individual-level adherence. Delivery of PrEP to key populations at highest risk of HIV exposure appears the most cost-effective strategy. Limitations of this review include the partial geographical coverage, our inability to perform a meta-analysis, and the paucity of information available exploring trade-offs between early treatment and PrEP.ConclusionsOur review identifies the main considerations to address in assessing cost-effectiveness analyses of a PrEP intervention--cost, epidemic context, individual adherence level, PrEP programme coverage, and prioritisation strategy. Cost-effectiveness studies indicating where resources can be applied for greatest impact are essential to guide resource allocation decisions; however, the results of such analyses must be considered within the context of the underlying assumptions made. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy and pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in South Africa.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy and pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in South Africa.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets