Pooyan Kazemian1,2,3, Sydney Costantini1, Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy4, A David Paltiel5, Kenneth H Mayer3,6,7, Nomita Chandhiok8, Rochelle P Walensky1,2,3,9,10, Kenneth A Freedberg1,2,3,9,10,11. 1. Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. CART Clinical Research Site, Infectious Diseases Medical Centre, Voluntary Health Services, Chennai, India. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India. 9. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, Boston, Massachusetts. 11. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic in India is concentrated among 3.1 million men who have sex with men (MSM) and 1.1 million people who inject drugs (PWID), with a mean incidence of 0.9-1.4 per 100 person-years. We examined the cost-effectiveness of both preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and HIV testing strategies for MSM and PWID in India. METHODS: We populated an HIV microsimulation model with India-specific data and projected clinical and economic outcomes of 7 strategies for MSM/PWID, including status quo; a 1-time HIV test; routine HIV testing every 3, 6, or 12 months; and PrEP with HIV testing every 3 or 6 months. We used a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$1950, the 2017 Indian per capita gross domestic product, to define cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: HIV testing alone increased life expectancy by 0.07-0.30 years in MSM; PrEP added approximately 0.90 life-years to status quo. Results were similar in PWID. PrEP with 6-month testing was cost-effective for both MSM (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $1000/year of life saved [YLS]) and PWID (ICER, $500/YLS). Results were most sensitive to HIV incidence. PrEP with 6-month testing would increase HIV-related expenditures by US$708 million (MSM) and US$218 million (PWID) over 5 years compared to status quo. CONCLUSIONS: While the World Health Organization recommends PrEP with quarterly HIV testing, our analysis identifies PrEP with semiannual testing as the cost-effective HIV prevention strategy for Indian MSM and PWID. Since nationwide scale-up would require a substantial fiscal investment, areas of highest HIV incidence may be the appropriate initial targets for PrEP scale-up.
BACKGROUND: The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic in India is concentrated among 3.1 million men who have sex with men (MSM) and 1.1 million people who inject drugs (PWID), with a mean incidence of 0.9-1.4 per 100 person-years. We examined the cost-effectiveness of both preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and HIV testing strategies for MSM and PWID in India. METHODS: We populated an HIV microsimulation model with India-specific data and projected clinical and economic outcomes of 7 strategies for MSM/PWID, including status quo; a 1-time HIV test; routine HIV testing every 3, 6, or 12 months; and PrEP with HIV testing every 3 or 6 months. We used a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$1950, the 2017 Indian per capita gross domestic product, to define cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: HIV testing alone increased life expectancy by 0.07-0.30 years in MSM; PrEP added approximately 0.90 life-years to status quo. Results were similar in PWID. PrEP with 6-month testing was cost-effective for both MSM (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $1000/year of life saved [YLS]) and PWID (ICER, $500/YLS). Results were most sensitive to HIV incidence. PrEP with 6-month testing would increase HIV-related expenditures by US$708 million (MSM) and US$218 million (PWID) over 5 years compared to status quo. CONCLUSIONS: While the World Health Organization recommends PrEP with quarterly HIV testing, our analysis identifies PrEP with semiannual testing as the cost-effective HIV prevention strategy for Indian MSM and PWID. Since nationwide scale-up would require a substantial fiscal investment, areas of highest HIV incidence may be the appropriate initial targets for PrEP scale-up.
Authors: Jean-Michel Molina; Catherine Capitant; Bruno Spire; Gilles Pialoux; Laurent Cotte; Isabelle Charreau; Cecile Tremblay; Jean-Marie Le Gall; Eric Cua; Armelle Pasquet; François Raffi; Claire Pintado; Christian Chidiac; Julie Chas; Pierre Charbonneau; Constance Delaugerre; Marie Suzan-Monti; Benedicte Loze; Julien Fonsart; Gilles Peytavin; Antoine Cheret; Julie Timsit; Gabriel Girard; Nicolas Lorente; Marie Préau; James F Rooney; Mark A Wainberg; David Thompson; Willy Rozenbaum; Veronique Doré; Lucie Marchand; Marie-Christine Simon; Nicolas Etien; Jean-Pierre Aboulker; Laurence Meyer; Jean-François Delfraissy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gregory M Lucas; Sunil S Solomon; Aylur K Srikrishnan; Alok Agrawal; Syed Iqbal; Oliver Laeyendecker; Allison M McFall; Muniratnam S Kumar; Elizabeth L Ogburn; David D Celentano; Suniti Solomon; Shruti H Mehta Journal: AIDS Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Shruti H Mehta; Gregory M Lucas; Suniti Solomon; Aylur K Srikrishnan; Allison M McFall; Neeraj Dhingra; Paneerselvam Nandagopal; M Suresh Kumar; David D Celentano; Sunil S Solomon Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kartik K Venkatesh; Jessica E Becker; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Yoriko M Nakamura; Kenneth H Mayer; Elena Losina; Soumya Swaminathan; Timothy P Flanigan; Rochelle P Walensky; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sheena McCormack; David T Dunn; Monica Desai; David I Dolling; Mitzy Gafos; Richard Gilson; Ann K Sullivan; Amanda Clarke; Iain Reeves; Gabriel Schembri; Nicola Mackie; Christine Bowman; Charles J Lacey; Vanessa Apea; Michael Brady; Julie Fox; Stephen Taylor; Simone Antonucci; Saye H Khoo; James Rooney; Anthony Nardone; Martin Fisher; Alan McOwan; Andrew N Phillips; Anne M Johnson; Brian Gazzard; Owen N Gill Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Amir M Mohareb; Joseph Larmarange; Arthur Y Kim; Patrick A Coffie; Menan Gérard Kouamé; Anders Boyd; Kenneth A Freedberg; Emily P Hyle Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 16.070
Authors: Pooyan Kazemian; Delaney D Ding; Justine A Scott; Mary K Feser; Katie Biello; Beena E Thomas; Alpana Dange; C Andres Bedoya; Vinoth Balu; Shruta Rawat; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Matthew J Mimiaga; Conall O'Cleirigh; Milton C Weinstein; Jacob Prem Kumar; Senthil Kumar; Kenneth H Mayer; Steven A Safren; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: AIDS Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 4.632
Authors: Debra C Ten Brink; Rowan Martin-Hughes; Mark E Minnery; Aaron J Osborne; Heather-Marie A Schmidt; Shona Dalal; Kimberly E Green; Reshmie Ramaurtarsing; David P Wilson; Sherrie L Kelly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Ashwin Belludi; Allison M McFall; Sunil Suhas Solomon; David D Celentano; Shruti H Mehta; A K Srikrishnan; M Suresh Kumar; Suniti Solomon; Gregory M Lucas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David Coomes; Dylan Green; Ruanne Barnabas; Monisha Sharma; Magdalena Barr-DiChiara; Muhammad S Jamil; R Baggaley; Morkor Newman Owiredu; Virginia Macdonald; Van Thi Thuy Nguyen; Son Hai Vo; Melanie Taylor; Teodora Wi; Cheryl Johnson; Alison L Drake Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 3.006