Valentina Cambiano1, Alec Miners2, David Dunn3, Sheena McCormack3, Koh Jun Ong4, O Noel Gill4, Anthony Nardone4, Monica Desai4, Nigel Field5, Graham Hart6, Valerie Delpech4, Gus Cairns7, Alison Rodger5, Andrew N Phillips5. 1. Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: v.cambiano@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 3. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK. 4. HIV and STI Department, Public Health England, London, UK. 5. Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. 6. Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK. 7. NAM Publications, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the UK, HIV incidence among men who have sex with men (MSM) has remained high for several years, despite widespread use of antiretroviral therapy and high rates of virological suppression. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be highly effective in preventing further infections in MSM, but its cost-effectiveness is uncertain. METHODS: In this modelling study and economic evaluation, we calibrated a dynamic, individual-based stochastic model, the HIV Synthesis Model, to multiple data sources (surveillance data provided by Public Health England and data from a large, nationally representative survey, Natsal-3) on HIV among MSM in the UK. We did a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (sampling 22 key parameters) along with a range of univariate sensitivity analyses to evaluate the introduction of a PrEP programme with sexual event-based use of emtricitabine and tenofovir for MSM who had condomless anal sexual intercourse in the previous 3 months, a negative HIV test at baseline, and a negative HIV test in the preceding year. The main model outcomes were the number of HIV infections, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. FINDINGS: Introduction of such a PrEP programme, with around 4000 MSM initiated on PrEP by the end of the first year and almost 40 000 by the end of the 15th year, would result in a total cost saving (£1·0 billion discounted), avert 25% of HIV infections (42% of which would be directly because of PrEP), and lead to a gain of 40 000 discounted QALYs over an 80-year time horizon. This result was particularly sensitive to the time horizon chosen, the cost of antiretroviral drugs (for treatment and PrEP), and the underlying trend in condomless sex. INTERPRETATION: This analysis suggests that the introduction of a PrEP programme for MSM in the UK is cost-effective and possibly cost-saving in the long term. A reduction in the cost of antiretroviral drugs (including the drugs used for PrEP) would substantially shorten the time for cost savings to be realised. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.
BACKGROUND: In the UK, HIV incidence among men who have sex with men (MSM) has remained high for several years, despite widespread use of antiretroviral therapy and high rates of virological suppression. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be highly effective in preventing further infections in MSM, but its cost-effectiveness is uncertain. METHODS: In this modelling study and economic evaluation, we calibrated a dynamic, individual-based stochastic model, the HIV Synthesis Model, to multiple data sources (surveillance data provided by Public Health England and data from a large, nationally representative survey, Natsal-3) on HIV among MSM in the UK. We did a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (sampling 22 key parameters) along with a range of univariate sensitivity analyses to evaluate the introduction of a PrEP programme with sexual event-based use of emtricitabine and tenofovir for MSM who had condomless anal sexual intercourse in the previous 3 months, a negative HIV test at baseline, and a negative HIV test in the preceding year. The main model outcomes were the number of HIV infections, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. FINDINGS: Introduction of such a PrEP programme, with around 4000 MSM initiated on PrEP by the end of the first year and almost 40 000 by the end of the 15th year, would result in a total cost saving (£1·0 billion discounted), avert 25% of HIV infections (42% of which would be directly because of PrEP), and lead to a gain of 40 000 discounted QALYs over an 80-year time horizon. This result was particularly sensitive to the time horizon chosen, the cost of antiretroviral drugs (for treatment and PrEP), and the underlying trend in condomless sex. INTERPRETATION: This analysis suggests that the introduction of a PrEP programme for MSM in the UK is cost-effective and possibly cost-saving in the long term. A reduction in the cost of antiretroviral drugs (including the drugs used for PrEP) would substantially shorten the time for cost savings to be realised. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.
Authors: Robert M Grant; Javier R Lama; Peter L Anderson; Vanessa McMahan; Albert Y Liu; Lorena Vargas; Pedro Goicochea; Martín Casapía; Juan Vicente Guanira-Carranza; Maria E Ramirez-Cardich; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Telmo Fernández; Valdilea G Veloso; Susan P Buchbinder; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Kenneth H Mayer; Esper Georges Kallás; K Rivet Amico; Kathleen Mulligan; Lane R Bushman; Robert J Hance; Carmela Ganoza; Patricia Defechereux; Brian Postle; Furong Wang; J Jeff McConnell; Jia-Hua Zheng; Jeanny Lee; James F Rooney; Howard S Jaffe; Ana I Martinez; David N Burns; David V Glidden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brooke E Nichols; Charles A B Boucher; Marc van der Valk; Bart J A Rijnders; David A M C van de Vijver Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Kamal Desai; Stephanie L Sansom; Marta L Ackers; Scott R Stewart; H Irene Hall; Dale J Hu; Rachel Sanders; Carol R Scotton; Sada Soorapanth; Marie-Claude Boily; Geoffrey P Garnett; Peter D McElroy Journal: AIDS Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: A David Paltiel; Kenneth A Freedberg; Callie A Scott; Bruce R Schackman; Elena Losina; Bingxia Wang; George R Seage; Caroline E Sloan; Paul E Sax; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Estelle Ouellet; Madeleine Durand; Jason R Guertin; Jacques LeLorier; Cécile L Tremblay Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: Andrew N Phillips; Valentina Cambiano; Alec Miners; Fiona C Lampe; Alison Rodger; Fumiyo Nakagawa; Alison Brown; O Noel Gill; Daniela De Angelis; Jonathan Elford; Graham Hart; Anne M Johnson; Jens D Lundgren; Simon Collins; Valerie Delpech Journal: AIDS Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Jing Zhang; Chunyan Li; Junjie Xu; Zhili Hu; Sarah E Rutstein; Joseph D Tucker; Jason J Ong; Yongjun Jiang; Wenqing Geng; Sarah T Wright; Myron S Cohen; Hong Shang; Weiming Tang Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 16.070
Authors: Dora Arnold-Forster; Robert Horne; Will Nutland; Sonali Wayal; Michael Rayment; Caroline Rae; Monica Desai; Amanda Clarke; Ann Sullivan; Sheena McCormack; Mitzy Gafos Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2022-02-19
Authors: Janneke P Bil; Elske Hoornenborg; Maria Prins; Arjan Hogewoning; Fernando Dias Goncalves Lima; Henry J C de Vries; Udi Davidovich Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-02-09
Authors: Ngai Sze Wong; Tsz Ho Kwan; Owen T Y Tsang; Man Po Lee; Wing Cheong Yam; Wilson Lam; Wai Shing Leung; Jacky M C Chan; Kai Man Ho; Shui Shan Lee Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 4.379