BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) used as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seronegative individuals reduces the risk of acquiring HIV. However, the population-level impact and cost-effectiveness of using PrEP as a public health intervention remains debated. METHODS: We used a stochastic agent-based model of HIV transmission and progression to simulate the clinical and cost outcomes of different strategies of providing PrEP to men who have sex with men (MSM) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2013 Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG). RESULTS: The use of PrEP in 10%-30% of the entire NSW MSM population was projected to cost an additional $316-$952 million over the course of 10 years, and cost >$400 000 per QALYG compared with the status quo. Targeting MSM with sexual partners ranging between >10 to >50 partners within 6 months cost an additional $31-$331 million dollars, and cost >$110 000 per QALYG compared with the status quo. We found that preexposure prophylaxis is most cost-effective when targeted for HIV-negative MSM in a discordant regular partnership. The ICERs ranged between $8399 and $11 575, for coverage ranging between 15% and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting HIV-negative MSM in a discordant regular partnership is a cost-effective intervention. However, this highly targeted strategy would not have large population-level impact. Other scenarios are unlikely to be cost-effective.
BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) used as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seronegative individuals reduces the risk of acquiring HIV. However, the population-level impact and cost-effectiveness of using PrEP as a public health intervention remains debated. METHODS: We used a stochastic agent-based model of HIV transmission and progression to simulate the clinical and cost outcomes of different strategies of providing PrEP to men who have sex with men (MSM) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2013 Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG). RESULTS: The use of PrEP in 10%-30% of the entire NSW MSM population was projected to cost an additional $316-$952 million over the course of 10 years, and cost >$400 000 per QALYG compared with the status quo. Targeting MSM with sexual partners ranging between >10 to >50 partners within 6 months cost an additional $31-$331 million dollars, and cost >$110 000 per QALYG compared with the status quo. We found that preexposure prophylaxis is most cost-effective when targeted for HIV-negative MSM in a discordant regular partnership. The ICERs ranged between $8399 and $11 575, for coverage ranging between 15% and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting HIV-negative MSM in a discordant regular partnership is a cost-effective intervention. However, this highly targeted strategy would not have large population-level impact. Other scenarios are unlikely to be cost-effective.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV prevention; cost-effectiveness; men who have sex with men; preexposure prophylaxis
Authors: Richard T Gray; Jo Watson; Aaron J Cogle; Don E Smith; Jennifer F Hoy; Lisa A Bastian; Robert Finlayson; Fraser M Drummond; Bill Whittaker; Matthew G Law; Kathy Petoumenos Journal: Sex Health Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: David I Dolling; Monica Desai; Alan McOwan; Richard Gilson; Amanda Clarke; Martin Fisher; Gabriel Schembri; Ann K Sullivan; Nicola Mackie; Iain Reeves; Mags Portman; John Saunders; Julie Fox; Jake Bayley; Michael Brady; Christine Bowman; Charles J Lacey; Stephen Taylor; David White; Simone Antonucci; Mitzy Gafos; Sheena McCormack; Owen N Gill; David T Dunn; Anthony Nardone Journal: Trials Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Richard E Nelson; Makoto Jones; Molly Leecaster; Matthew H Samore; William Ray; Angela Huttner; Benedikt Huttner; Karim Khader; Vanessa W Stevens; Dale Gerding; Marin L Schweizer; Michael A Rubin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240