| Literature DB >> 24405719 |
Fern Terris-Prestholt1, Anna M Foss, Andrew P Cox, Lori Heise, Gesine Meyer-Rath, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, Thomas Mertenskoetter, Helen Rees, Peter Vickerman, Charlotte H Watts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is urgent need for effective HIV prevention methods that women can initiate. The CAPRISA 004 trial showed that a tenofovir-based vaginal microbicide had significant impact on HIV incidence among women. This study uses the trial findings to estimate the population-level impact of the gel on HIV and HSV-2 transmission, and price thresholds at which widespread product introduction would be as cost-effective as male circumcision in urban South Africa.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24405719 PMCID: PMC3899035 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-14
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Figure 1Model-projected HIV prevalence and incidence trends over time and data used to fit model*. a: HIV prevalence trends among general population males and females in 2002 and 2005. b: HIV prevalence trends among the general population and among female sex workers in 2008. c: HIV incidence trends among general population males and females. *The points with error bars for males and females in 2002 and 2005 represent the mean and 95% confidence intervals derived from data [12,26]. The dotted line represents the model-projected female HIV prevalence while the solid line represents the model-projected male HIV prevalence. The shaded areas represent the range of prevalence estimates spanned by all model fits.
Figure 2Projected population-level HIV impact in Gauteng for different assumptions about gel efficacy, uptake and use, and its influence on condom use**. **Main shaded bars show best-fit model projections and error bars indicate range spanned by 95% of all model fits (2.5% to 97.5% percentile range or 95% credibility interval), with the dark bars illustrating the main scenario (54% HIV efficacy and 71% HSV-2 efficacy, gel uptake reaching 30% by year 10, gel used in 72% of sex-acts, and no reduction in condom use).
Projected impact from microbicide intervention*
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIV impact projections*: | ||||||
| Percentage reduction in population HIV incidence by year 15 | 12.5% | 8.7% | 2.0% | 1.4% | 19.0% | 13.3% |
| (11.5-12.7%) | (8–8.8%) | (1.8-2.0%) | (1.3-1.4%) | (17.6-19.3%) | (12.3-13.5%) | |
| Cumulative number of HIV infections averted over 15 years | 55,366 | 38,382 | 8,661 | 6,011 | 85,026 | 58,900 |
| (49,309-58,173) | (34,132-40,297) | (7,708-9,255) | (5,348-6,422) | (75,845-89,447) | (52,447-61,890) | |
| Cumulative number of HIV infections averted per 100,000 population | 970 | 672 | 152 | 105 | 1,489 | 1,031 |
| (864-1,019) | (598-706) | (132-162) | (94-112) | (1,328-1,560) | (918-1,084) | |
| Number of sex-acts protected by gel per HIV infection averted | 1,317 | 1,896 | 8,372 | 12,060 | 861 | 1,239 |
| (1,266-1,481) | (1,853-2,133) | (8,176-9,257) | (11,779-13,338) | (839–966) | (1,209-1,392) | |
| HSV-2 impact projections*: | ||||||
| Percentage reduction in population HSV-2 incidence in year 15 | 4.9% | 3.4% | 1.6% | 1.1% | 7.0% | 4.8% |
| (4.7-5.5%) | (3.2-3.7%) | (1.5-1.8%) | (1.0-1.2%) | (6.8-7.9%) | (4.6-5.4%) | |
| Cumulative number of HSV-2 infections averted over 15 years | 83,997 (76,312-88,153) | 57,343 (52,139-60,191) | 27,181 (24,537-28,617) | 18,723 (16,930-19,711) | 121,846 (110,559-127,721) | 82,662 (75,047-86,655) |
| Cumulative number of HSV-2 infections averted per 100,000 population | 1,471 | 1,004 | 476 | 327 | 2,133 | 1,447 |
| (1,336-1,543) | (913-1,054) | (430-501) | (296-345) | (1,936-2,236) | (1,314-1,518) | |
| Number of sex-acts protected by gel per HSV-2 infection averted | 868 | 1,269 | 2,668 | 3,872 | 601 | 883 |
| (831-977) | (1,213-1,428) | (2,566-2,994) | (3,721-4,346) | (575-677) | (845-994) | |
*Assuming gel only used by HIV-negative women, and levels of condom use are maintained after microbicide introduction.
Cost-effectiveness and threshold prices under varying programmatic assumptions (2012 US$)*
| | | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline programme: 3 annual HIV tests, 3 gel collection visits | | $297 | | | | $0.12 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| HIV tests per year | 2 | $190 | -36% | -$29 | -137% | $0.19 | 49% |
| | 4 | $405 | 36% | $186 | 137% | $0.06 | -49% |
| | 6 | $619 | 108% | $401 | 411% | Cannot be achieved | |
| Adherence counselling and gel collection visits | 2 | $272 | -9% | $53 | -32% | $0.14 | 12% |
| | 6 | $374 | 26% | $155 | 97% | $0.08 | -35% |
| Integrated adherence counselling and gel collection into HIV testing (3) | $221 | -26% | $2 | -97% | $0.17 | 35% | |
*Assuming 30% uptake after 10 years and trial consistency of gel use and mean imputed efficacy estimates, 10% product wastage during distribution, and a 3% discount rate on costs and effects.
Cost-effectiveness and threshold gel prices under variations to introduction scenario assumptions and sensitivity analysis [2012 USD]
| | | | | | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 0% | 30% | 72% | 54% | $297 | | $0.12 | |
| | 5% | 30% | 72% | 54% | $586 | 97% | $0.03 | -74% |
| | 10% | 30% | 72% | 54% | $1,219 | 310% | cannot be achieved | |
| | 0% | 60% | 72% | 54% | $285 | -4% | $0.13 | 5% |
| | 0% | 60% | 50% | 54% | $468 | 58% | $0.03 | -78% |
| | 0% | 30% | 72% | 83% | -$14 | -105% | $0.33 | 166% |
| | | | | | | | ||
| 1 dose per sex-act | | | | $78 | -74% | $0.25 | 100% | |
| Discount rate 0% | | | | | -182% | $0.43 | 244% | |
| Discount rate 6% | | | | | $525 | 77% | cannot be achieved | |
| ART costs 10% lower | | | | $344 | 16% | $0.10 | -21% | |
| ART costs 25% lower | | | | $413 | 39% | $0.06 | -53% | |
| All other input costs 25% higher | | | | $402 | 35% | $0.06 | -48% | |
| All other input costs 25% lower | | | | $193 | -35% | $0.18 | 48% | |
| Input +25%, ART-10% | | | | $448 | 51% | $0.04 | -69% | |
| Input +25%, ART-25% | | | | $518 | 74% | -$0.00 | -100% | |
| ART coverage 80% | $163 | -45% | $0.24 | 90% | ||||