Robert L Glaubius1, Greg Hood2, Kerri J Penrose3, Urvi M Parikh3, John W Mellors3, Eran Bendavid4, Ume L Abbas5. 1. Departments of Infectious Disease and Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio. 2. Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon University. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, California. 5. Departments of Infectious Disease and Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio Departments of Medicine and Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable antiretrovirals such as rilpivirine (RPV) could promote adherence to preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. However, the cost-effectiveness of injectable PrEP is unclear. METHODS: We constructed a dynamic model of the heterosexual HIV epidemic in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and analyzed scenarios of RPV PrEP scale-up for combination HIV prevention in comparison with a reference scenario without PrEP. We estimated new HIV infections, life-years and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), over 10-year and lifetime horizons, assuming a societal perspective. RESULTS: Compared with no PrEP, unprioritized scale-up of RVP PrEP covering 2.5%-15% of adults prevented up to 9% of new infections over 10 years. HIV prevention doubled (17%) when the same coverage was prioritized to 20- to 29-year-old women, costing $10 880-$19 213 per infection prevented. Prioritization of PrEP to 80% of individuals at highest behavioral risk achieved comparable prevention (4%-8%) at <1% overall coverage, costing $298-$1242 per infection prevented. Over lifetime, PrEP scale-up among 20- to 29-year-old women was very cost-effective (<$1600 per life-year gained), dominating unprioritized PrEP, while risk prioritization was cost-saving. PrEP's 10-year impact decreased by almost 50% with increases in ICERs (up to 4.2-fold) in conservative base-case analysis. Sensitivity analysis identified PrEP's costs, efficacy, and reliability of delivery as the principal drivers of uncertainty in PrEP's cost-effectiveness, and PrEP remained cost-effective under the assumption of universal access to second-line antiretroviral therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no PrEP, prioritized scale-up of RPV PrEP in KwaZulu-Natal could be very cost-effective or cost-saving, but suboptimal PrEP would erode benefits and increase costs.
BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable antiretrovirals such as rilpivirine (RPV) could promote adherence to preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. However, the cost-effectiveness of injectable PrEP is unclear. METHODS: We constructed a dynamic model of the heterosexual HIV epidemic in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and analyzed scenarios of RPV PrEP scale-up for combination HIV prevention in comparison with a reference scenario without PrEP. We estimated new HIV infections, life-years and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), over 10-year and lifetime horizons, assuming a societal perspective. RESULTS: Compared with no PrEP, unprioritized scale-up of RVP PrEP covering 2.5%-15% of adults prevented up to 9% of new infections over 10 years. HIV prevention doubled (17%) when the same coverage was prioritized to 20- to 29-year-old women, costing $10 880-$19 213 per infection prevented. Prioritization of PrEP to 80% of individuals at highest behavioral risk achieved comparable prevention (4%-8%) at <1% overall coverage, costing $298-$1242 per infection prevented. Over lifetime, PrEP scale-up among 20- to 29-year-old women was very cost-effective (<$1600 per life-year gained), dominating unprioritized PrEP, while risk prioritization was cost-saving. PrEP's 10-year impact decreased by almost 50% with increases in ICERs (up to 4.2-fold) in conservative base-case analysis. Sensitivity analysis identified PrEP's costs, efficacy, and reliability of delivery as the principal drivers of uncertainty in PrEP's cost-effectiveness, and PrEP remained cost-effective under the assumption of universal access to second-line antiretroviral therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no PrEP, prioritized scale-up of RPV PrEP in KwaZulu-Natal could be very cost-effective or cost-saving, but suboptimal PrEP would erode benefits and increase costs.
Authors: Quarraisha Abdool Karim; Salim S Abdool Karim; Janet A Frohlich; Anneke C Grobler; Cheryl Baxter; Leila E Mansoor; Ayesha B M Kharsany; Sengeziwe Sibeko; Koleka P Mlisana; Zaheen Omar; Tanuja N Gengiah; Silvia Maarschalk; Natasha Arulappan; Mukelisiwe Mlotshwa; Lynn Morris; Douglas Taylor Journal: Science Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Andrew H Briggs; Milton C Weinstein; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Jonathan Karnon; Mark J Sculpher; A David Paltiel Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Jared M Baeten; Deborah Donnell; Patrick Ndase; Nelly R Mugo; James D Campbell; Jonathan Wangisi; Jordan W Tappero; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Craig R Cohen; Elly Katabira; Allan Ronald; Elioda Tumwesigye; Edwin Were; Kenneth H Fife; James Kiarie; Carey Farquhar; Grace John-Stewart; Aloysious Kakia; Josephine Odoyo; Akasiima Mucunguzi; Edith Nakku-Joloba; Rogers Twesigye; Kenneth Ngure; Cosmas Apaka; Harrison Tamooh; Fridah Gabona; Andrew Mujugira; Dana Panteleeff; Katherine K Thomas; Lara Kidoguchi; Meighan Krows; Jennifer Revall; Susan Morrison; Harald Haugen; Mira Emmanuel-Ogier; Lisa Ondrejcek; Robert W Coombs; Lisa Frenkel; Craig Hendrix; Namandjé N Bumpus; David Bangsberg; Jessica E Haberer; Wendy S Stevens; Jairam R Lingappa; Connie Celum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Leigh F Johnson; Joel Mossong; Rob E Dorrington; Michael Schomaker; Christopher J Hoffmann; Olivia Keiser; Matthew P Fox; Robin Wood; Hans Prozesky; Janet Giddy; Daniela Belen Garone; Morna Cornell; Matthias Egger; Andrew Boulle Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Hiroyuki Gatanaga; Zabrina L Brumme; Emily Adland; Gustavo Reyes-Terán; Santiago Avila-Rios; Carlos R Mejía-Villatoro; Tsunefusa Hayashida; Takayuki Chikata; Giang Van Tran; Kinh Van Nguyen; Rita I Meza; Elsa Y Palou; Humberto Valenzuela-Ponce; Juan M Pascale; Guillermo Porras-Cortés; Marvin Manzanero; Guinevere Q Lee; Jeffrey N Martin; Mary N Carrington; Mina John; Simon Mallal; Art F Y Poon; Philip Goulder; Masafumi Takiguchi; Shinichi Oka Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Stéphanie Blaizot; Helena Huerga; Benjamin Riche; Tom Ellman; Amir Shroufi; Jean-François Etard; René Ecochard Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Kerri J Penrose; Chanson J Brumme; Maritsa Scoulos-Hanson; Kristen Hamanishi; Kelley Gordon; Raquel V Viana; Carole L Wallis; P Richard Harrigan; John W Mellors; Urvi M Parikh Journal: Antivir Chem Chemother Date: 2018 Jan-Dec
Authors: Robert Glaubius; Yajun Ding; Kerri J Penrose; Greg Hood; Erik Engquist; John W Mellors; Urvi M Parikh; Ume L Abbas Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Marjolein M van Vliet; Cheryl Hendrickson; Brooke E Nichols; Charles Ab Boucher; Remco Ph Peters; David Amc van de Vijver Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Robert L Glaubius; Urvi M Parikh; Greg Hood; Kerri J Penrose; Eran Bendavid; John W Mellors; Ume L Abbas Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 4.423
Authors: Chutima Suraratdecha; Robyn M Stuart; Chomnad Manopaiboon; Dylan Green; Cheewanan Lertpiriyasuwat; David P Wilson; Patcharaporn Pavaputanon; Prin Visavakum; Patama Monkongdee; Thana Khawcharoenporn; Phiphatthananon Tharee; Chonticha Kittinunvorakoon; Michael Martin Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.396