OBJECTIVE: To compare the value and effectiveness of different prioritization strategies of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in New York City (NYC). DESIGN: Mathematical modelling utilized as clinical trial is not feasible. METHODS: Using a model accounting for both sexual and parenteral transmission of HIV, we compare different PrEP prioritization strategies (PPS) with two scenarios – no PrEP and PrEP for all susceptible at-risk individuals. The PPS included PrEP for all MSM,only high-risk MSM, high-risk heterosexuals, and IDUs, and all combinations of these four strategies. Outcomes included HIV infections averted, and incremental cost effectiveness(per-infection averted) ratios. Initial assumptions regarding PrEP included a 44% reduction in HIV transmission, 50% uptake in the prioritized population and an annual cost per person of $9762. Sensitivity analyses on key parameters were conducted. RESULTS: Prioritization to all MSM results in a 19% reduction in new HIV infections. Compared with PrEP for all persons at-risk, this PPS retains 79% of the preventive effect at 15% of the total cost. PrEP prioritized to only high-risk MSM results in a reduction in new HIV infections of 15%. This PPS retains 60% of the preventive effect at 6% of the total cost. There are diminishing returns when PrEP utilization is expanded beyond this group. CONCLUSION: PrEP implementation is relatively cost-inefficient under our initial assumptions. Our results suggest that PrEP should first be promoted among MSM who are at particularly high risk of HIV acquisition. Further expansion beyond this group may be cost-effective, but is unlikely to be cost-saving.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the value and effectiveness of different prioritization strategies of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in New York City (NYC). DESIGN: Mathematical modelling utilized as clinical trial is not feasible. METHODS: Using a model accounting for both sexual and parenteral transmission of HIV, we compare different PrEP prioritization strategies (PPS) with two scenarios – no PrEP and PrEP for all susceptible at-risk individuals. The PPS included PrEP for all MSM,only high-risk MSM, high-risk heterosexuals, and IDUs, and all combinations of these four strategies. Outcomes included HIV infections averted, and incremental cost effectiveness(per-infection averted) ratios. Initial assumptions regarding PrEP included a 44% reduction in HIV transmission, 50% uptake in the prioritized population and an annual cost per person of $9762. Sensitivity analyses on key parameters were conducted. RESULTS: Prioritization to all MSM results in a 19% reduction in new HIV infections. Compared with PrEP for all persons at-risk, this PPS retains 79% of the preventive effect at 15% of the total cost. PrEP prioritized to only high-risk MSM results in a reduction in new HIV infections of 15%. This PPS retains 60% of the preventive effect at 6% of the total cost. There are diminishing returns when PrEP utilization is expanded beyond this group. CONCLUSION: PrEP implementation is relatively cost-inefficient under our initial assumptions. Our results suggest that PrEP should first be promoted among MSM who are at particularly high risk of HIV acquisition. Further expansion beyond this group may be cost-effective, but is unlikely to be cost-saving.
Authors: Ronald A Brooks; Raphael J Landovitz; Rachel L Kaplan; Eli Lieber; Sung-Jae Lee; Thomas W Barkley Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Martin Holt; Dean A Murphy; Denton Callander; Jeanne Ellard; Marsha Rosengarten; Susan C Kippax; John B F de Wit Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Michael C Thigpen; Poloko M Kebaabetswe; Lynn A Paxton; Dawn K Smith; Charles E Rose; Tebogo M Segolodi; Faith L Henderson; Sonal R Pathak; Fatma A Soud; Kata L Chillag; Rodreck Mutanhaurwa; Lovemore Ian Chirwa; Michael Kasonde; Daniel Abebe; Evans Buliva; Roman J Gvetadze; Sandra Johnson; Thom Sukalac; Vasavi T Thomas; Clyde Hart; Jeffrey A Johnson; C Kevin Malotte; Craig W Hendrix; John T Brooks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Snigdha Vallabhaneni; Xin Li; Eric Vittinghoff; Deborah Donnell; Christopher D Pilcher; Susan P Buchbinder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andreas B Eisingerich; Ana Wheelock; Gabriela B Gomez; Geoffrey P Garnett; Mark R Dybul; Peter K Piot Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeb Jones; Martin Hoenigl; Aaron J Siegler; Patrick S Sullivan; Susan Little; Eli Rosenberg Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Kenneth H Mayer; Philip A Chan; Rupa R Patel; Charlene A Flash; Douglas S Krakower Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Aaron J Siegler; Anna Bratcher; Kevin M Weiss; Farah Mouhanna; Lauren Ahlschlager; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2018-05-26 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Jeffrey A Kelly; Yuri A Amirkhanian; Jennifer L Walsh; Kevin D Brown; Katherine G Quinn; Andrew E Petroll; Broderick M Pearson; A Noel Rosado; Thom Ertl Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2020-03-13
Authors: Samuel M Jenness; Steven M Goodreau; Eli Rosenberg; Emily N Beylerian; Karen W Hoover; Dawn K Smith; Patrick Sullivan Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Sarah K Calabrese; Kristen Underhill; Valerie A Earnshaw; Nathan B Hansen; Trace S Kershaw; Manya Magnus; Douglas S Krakower; Kenneth H Mayer; Joseph R Betancourt; John F Dovidio Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2016-07
Authors: Albert Y Liu; Stephanie E Cohen; Eric Vittinghoff; Peter L Anderson; Susanne Doblecki-Lewis; Oliver Bacon; Wairimu Chege; Brian S Postle; Tim Matheson; K Rivet Amico; Teri Liegler; M Keith Rawlings; Nikole Trainor; Robert Wilder Blue; Yannine Estrada; Megan E Coleman; Gabriel Cardenas; Daniel J Feaster; Robert Grant; Susan S Philip; Richard Elion; Susan Buchbinder; Michael A Kolber Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 21.873