S Verguet1, J A Walsh. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA. verguet@uw.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the hypothetical cost-effectiveness of vaginal microbicides preventing male to female HIV transmission. METHODS: A mathematical epidemiological and cost-effectiveness model using data from South Africa and the USA was used. The prospective 1-year-long intervention targeted a general population of women in a city of 1,000,000 inhabitants in two very different epidemiological settings, South Africa with a male HIV prevalence of 18.80% and the USA with a male HIV prevalence of 0.72%. The base case scenario assumes a microbicide effective at 55%, used in 30% of sexual episodes at a retail price for the public sector in South Africa of US$0.51 per use and in the USA of US$2.23 per use. RESULTS: In South Africa, over 1 year, the intervention would prevent 1908 infections, save US$6712 per infection averted as compared with antiretroviral treatment. In the USA, it would be more costly: over 1 year, the intervention would prevent 21 infections, amounting to a net cost per infection averted of US$405,077. However, in the setting of Washington DC, with a higher HIV prevalence, the same intervention would prevent 93 infections and save US$91,176 per infection averted. Sensitivity analyses were conducted and even a microbicide with a low effectiveness of 30% would still save healthcare costs in South Africa. CONCLUSIONS: A microbicide intervention is likely to be very cost-effective in a country undergoing a high-level generalised epidemic such as South Africa, but is unlikely to be cost-effective in a developed country presenting epidemiological features similar to the USA unless the male HIV prevalence exceeds 2.4%.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the hypothetical cost-effectiveness of vaginal microbicides preventing male to female HIV transmission. METHODS: A mathematical epidemiological and cost-effectiveness model using data from South Africa and the USA was used. The prospective 1-year-long intervention targeted a general population of women in a city of 1,000,000 inhabitants in two very different epidemiological settings, South Africa with a male HIV prevalence of 18.80% and the USA with a male HIV prevalence of 0.72%. The base case scenario assumes a microbicide effective at 55%, used in 30% of sexual episodes at a retail price for the public sector in South Africa of US$0.51 per use and in the USA of US$2.23 per use. RESULTS: In South Africa, over 1 year, the intervention would prevent 1908 infections, save US$6712 per infection averted as compared with antiretroviral treatment. In the USA, it would be more costly: over 1 year, the intervention would prevent 21 infections, amounting to a net cost per infection averted of US$405,077. However, in the setting of Washington DC, with a higher HIV prevalence, the same intervention would prevent 93 infections and save US$91,176 per infection averted. Sensitivity analyses were conducted and even a microbicide with a low effectiveness of 30% would still save healthcare costs in South Africa. CONCLUSIONS: A microbicide intervention is likely to be very cost-effective in a country undergoing a high-level generalised epidemic such as South Africa, but is unlikely to be cost-effective in a developed country presenting epidemiological features similar to the USA unless the male HIV prevalence exceeds 2.4%.
Authors: Kathleen M Morrow; Joseph L Fava; Rochelle K Rosen; Sara Vargas; Julia G Shaw; E Milu Kojic; Patrick F Kiser; David R Friend; David F Katz Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Kathleen M Morrow; Kristen Underhill; Jacob J van den Berg; Sara Vargas; Rochelle K Rosen; David F Katz Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2014-01-23
Authors: Fern Terris-Prestholt; Kara Hanson; Catherine MacPhail; Peter Vickerman; Helen Rees; Charlotte Watts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fern Terris-Prestholt; Anna M Foss; Andrew P Cox; Lori Heise; Gesine Meyer-Rath; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Thomas Mertenskoetter; Helen Rees; Peter Vickerman; Charlotte H Watts Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Martha A Abdulai; Frank Baiden; George Adjei; Samuel Afari-Asiedu; Kwame Adjei; Charlotte Tawiah; Sam Newton Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Gabriela B Gomez; Annick Borquez; Kelsey K Case; Ana Wheelock; Anna Vassall; Catherine Hankins Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 11.069