| Literature DB >> 30486800 |
Jinghua Li1, Liping Peng2, Stuart Gilmour3, Jing Gu4, Yuhua Ruan5, Huachun Zou6,7, Chun Hao4, Yuantao Hao4, Joseph Tak-Fai Lau8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The new HIV treatment guidelines in China recommend antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all people living with HIV, but significant gaps in implementation still exist. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can effectively reduce the risk of HIV transmission among men who have sex with men (MSM). This study assessed the epidemiological impact and cost effectiveness of PrEP, enhanced biomedical interventions and their combination among MSM in China.Entities:
Keywords: Biomedical intervention; China; HIV; Mathematical model; Men who have sex with men; Pre-exposure prophylaxis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30486800 PMCID: PMC6263536 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3516-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1HIV transmission compartmental model structure
Fig. 2Estimated HIV prevalence and incidence between 2005 and 2037 in the status quo and the ten intervention scenarios. Left) HIV prevalence; Right) HIV incidence
Benefits, costs and savings in healthcare costs of the individual and combined interventions, 2018~2037
| Total infection over 20 years (2018~2037), million | HIV infections prevented over 20 years, million | HIV infections prevented over 20 years, % | HIV prevalence at 2037, % | HIV incidence rate at 2037, per 100 person-years | Incremental costs, Int.$ (billion) | Incremental QALYs, million | Average CER, Int.$/QALY, relative to base case | Saving in healthcare cost, Int.$ (billion) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | 0.78 (0.60–1.00) | – | – | 11.2 (9.1–14.2) | 0.73 (0.56–0.98) | – | – | – | – |
| Test and treat (90–90) | 0.33 (0.28–0.39) | 0.45 (0.28–0.62) | 57.9% (46.4–66.5%) | 5.8 (4.8–6.8) | 0.24 (0.18–0.29) | 2.13 (0.61–4.03) | 1.22 (0.94–1.53) | 1754 (462–3960) | 8.86 (5.33–13.92) |
| PrEP-25% HRMSM | 0.68 (0.57–0.87) | 0.09 (0.06–0.14) | 12.1% (8.7–16.7%) | 9.8 (8.2–12.8) | 0.61 (0.50–0.80) | 3.08 (1.76–5.30) | 0.18 (0.12–0.23) | 17,277 (12,127–23,711) | 1.73 (0.94–2.79) |
| PrEP-50% HRMSM | 0.62 (0.52–0.80) | 0.16 (0.10–0.23) | 20.2% (15.1–26.9%) | 8.9 (7.5–11.7) | 0.53 (0.44–0.70) | 5.34 (3.07–9.10) | 0.30 (0.21–0.38) | 17,979 (12,631–24,991) | 2.87 (1.60–4.52) |
| PrEP-75% HRMSM | 0.57 (0.49–0.75) | 0.20 (0.13–0.29) | 25.7% (19.6–33.3%) | 8.4 (7.0–11.0) | 0.47 (0.40–0.63) | 6.98 (4.05–11.80) | 0.38 (0.27–0.48) | 18,452 (12,972–25,846) | 3.64 (2.06–5.64) |
| Test+PrEP-25% HRMSM | 0.53 (0.46–0.68) | 0.24 (0.15–0.34) | 30.8% (23.9–39.3%) | 7.9 (6.8–10.2) | 0.42 (0.36–0.53) | 6.83 (4.39–10.62) | 0.49 (0.37–0.61) | 13,835 (9600–18,598) | 4.36 (2.46–6.82) |
| Test+PrEP-50% HRMSM | 0.46 (0.39–0.59) | 0.32 (0.21–0.44) | 41.0% (33.3–49.9%) | 6.8 (5.8–8.8) | 0.31 (0.26–0.40) | 10.61 (6.65–16.76) | 0.64 (0.48–0.78) | 16,636 (11,595–22,919) | 5.77 (3.37–8.86) |
| Test+PrEP-75% HRMSM | 0.41 (0.35–0.53) | 0.36 (0.25–0.49) | 47.0% (39.3–55.6%) | 6.2 (5.2–8.1) | 0.25 (0.20–0.33) | 13.20 (8.25–20.85) | 0.73 (0.56–0.88) | 18,110 (12,660–25,289) | 6.64 (3.95–10.12) |
| Test and treat (90–90) + PrEP 25% HRMSM | 0.24 (0.21–0.30) | 0.53 (0.39–0.68) | 68.3% (61.1–75.4%) | 4.6 (3.7–5.6) | 0.12 (0.08–0.15) | 10.11 (7.42–13.49) | 1.33 (1.12–1.69) | 7574 (5166–10,243) | 10.17 (6.30–16.33) |
| Test and treat (90–90) + PrEP 50% HRMSM | 0.21 (0.18–0.26) | 0.56 (0.43–0.72) | 72.8% (66.6–78.7%) | 4.1 (3.4–5.1) | 0.09 (0.06–0.11) | 14.69 (10.27–20.60) | 1.40 (1.19–1.76) | 10,485 (7199–14,484) | 10.83 (6.82–17.25) |
| Test and treat (90–90) + PrEP 75% HRMSM | 0.19 (0.16–0.24) | 0.58 (0.45–0.74) | 75.2% (69.7–80.5%) | 3.9 (3.2–4.8) | 0.07 (0.05–0.09) | 17.63 (12.14–25.06) | 1.44 (1.23–1.81) | 12,218 (8415–16,992) | 11.23 (7.13–17.81) |
PrEP pre-exposure prophylaxis, QALY quality-adjusted life years, CER cost-effectiveness ratio, Int.$ international dollars, HRMSM, high-risk MSM
aInterventions that cost less than per capita gross domestic product (i.e., 15,943 Int.$) per QALYgained are defined as very cost effective [40]
bInterventions that cost between one and three times per capita gross domestic product per QALY gained are defined as cost effective [40]
Fig. 3Cost-effectiveness frontier for all strategies. PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis; QALY, quality-adjusted life years. Zone 1 (areas above the red dashed line): Interventions located in zone 1 cost more than three times per capita gross domestic product per QALY gained, and are defined as not cost effective. Zone 2 (areas between the red dashed line and the blue dashed line): Interventions located in zone 2 cost between one and three times per capita gross domestic product per QALY gained, and are defined as cost effective [40, 41]. Zone 3 (areas below the blue dashed line): Interventions located in zone 3 cost less than per capita gross domestic product per QALY gained, and are defined as very cost effective [40, 41]. The black dashed line represents the optimal cost-effectiveness path.