The Cost and Impact of Scaling Up Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Studies

English version České info

Background:
Cost-effectiveness studies inform resource allocation, strategy, and policy development. However, due to their complexity, dependence on assumptions made, and inherent uncertainty, synthesising, and generalising the results can be difficult. We assess cost-effectiveness models evaluating expected health gains and costs of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) interventions.

Methods and Findings:
We conducted a systematic review comparing epidemiological and economic assumptions of cost-effectiveness studies using various modelling approaches. The following databases were searched (until January 2013): PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, EconLIT, and region-specific databases. We included modelling studies reporting both cost and expected impact of a PrEP roll-out. We explored five issues: prioritisation strategies, adherence, behaviour change, toxicity, and resistance. Of 961 studies retrieved, 13 were included. Studies modelled populations (heterosexual couples, men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs) in generalised and concentrated epidemics from Southern Africa (including South Africa), Ukraine, USA, and Peru. PrEP was found to have the potential to be a cost-effective addition to HIV prevention programmes in specific settings. The extent of the impact of PrEP depended upon assumptions made concerning cost, epidemic context, programme coverage, prioritisation strategies, and individual-level adherence. Delivery of PrEP to key populations at highest risk of HIV exposure appears the most cost-effective strategy. Limitations of this review include the partial geographical coverage, our inability to perform a meta-analysis, and the paucity of information available exploring trade-offs between early treatment and PrEP.

Conclusions:
Our review identifies the main considerations to address in assessing cost-effectiveness analyses of a PrEP intervention—cost, epidemic context, individual adherence level, PrEP programme coverage, and prioritisation strategy. Cost-effectiveness studies indicating where resources can be applied for greatest impact are essential to guide resource allocation decisions; however, the results of such analyses must be considered within the context of the underlying assumptions made.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: The Cost and Impact of Scaling Up Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Studies. PLoS Med 10(3): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001401
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001401

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. GrantRM, LamaJR, AndersonPL, McMahanV, LiuAY, et al. (2010) Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med 363: 2587–2599.

2. BaetenJM, DonnellD, NdaseP, MugoNR, CampbellJD, et al. (2012) Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med 367: 399–410.

3. ThigpenMC, KebaabetswePM, PaxtonLA, SmithDK, RoseCE, et al. (2012) Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med 367: 423–434.

4. Van DammeL, CorneliA, AhmedK, AgotK, LombaardJ, et al. (2012) Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med 367: 411–422.

5. NIH (2011) NIH modifies ‘VOICE’ HIV prevention study in women: oral tenofovir discontinued in clinical trial. Available: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2011/niaid-28.htm). Bethesda: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Accessed 11 February 2013.

6. Facts Consortium (2013) FACTS001 Available: http://www.facts-consortium.co.za/. Accessed 11 February 2013.

7. Abdool KarimQ, Abdool KarimSS, FrohlichJA, GroblerAC, BaxterC, et al. (2010) Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 329: 1168–1174.

8. MTN (2011) MTN statement on decision to discontinue use of tenofovir gel in VOICE, major prevention study in women. Available: http://www.mtnstopshiv.org/node/3909). Pittsburgh: Microbicide Trials Network. Accessed 11 February 2013.

9. CDC (2011) Interim guidance: preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of hiv infection in men who have sex with men. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 60: 65–68.

10. McCormackS, FidlerS, FisherM (2012) The British HIV Association/British Association for Sexual Health and HIV Position Statement on pre-exposure prophylaxis in the UK. Int J STD AIDS 23: 1–4.

11. The Consensus Committee SAHCS (2012) Southern African guidelines for the safe use of pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men who are at risk for HIV infection. S Afr J HIV Med 13: 40–55.

12. WHO (2012) Guidance on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for serodiscordant couples, men and transgender women who have sex with men at high risk of HIV: recommendations for use in the context of demonstration projects. Available: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidance_prep/en/index.html). Geneva. Accessed 11 February 2013.

13. CDC (2012) Interim guidance for clinicians considering the use of preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in heterosexually active adults. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 61: 586–589.

14. Morgan D (2012) FDA panel backs Gilead's Truvada to prevent HIV. Washington (D.C.): Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/us-usa-aids-truvada-idUSBRE84A00C20120511. Accessed 11 February 2013.

15. SchwartlanderB, StoverJ, HallettT, AtunR, AvilaC, et al. (2011) Towards an improved investment approach for an effective response to HIV/AIDS. Lancet 377: 2031–2041.

16. WheelockA, EisingerichAB, GomezGB, GrayE, DybulMR, et al. (2012) Views of policymakers, healthcare workers and NGOs on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): a multinational qualitative study. BMJ Open 2: e001234.

17. KrakowerD, MayerKH (2012) Engaging healthcare providers to implement HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 7: 593–599.

18. ArnoldEA, HazeltonP, LaneT, ChristopoulosKA, GalindoGR, et al. (2012) A qualitative study of provider thoughts on implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in clinical settings to prevent HIV infection. PLoS One 7: e40603 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040603.

19. MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, AltmanDG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

20. DrummondMF, JeffersonTO (1996) Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 313: 275–283.

21. KumaranayakeL (2000) The real and the nominal? Making inflationary adjustments to cost and other economic data. Health Policy Plan 15: 230–234.

22. WHO-CHOICE (2012) Cost effectiveness thresholds: http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/index.html. Accessed 11 February 2013.

23. World Bank (2012) GDP per capita (current US$). Available: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD.

24. ShillcuttSD, WalkerDG, GoodmanCA, MillsAJ (2009) Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics 27: 903–917.

25. AbbasUL, AndersonRM, MellorsJW (2007) Potential impact of antiretroviral chemoprophylaxis on HIV-1 transmission in resource-limited settings. PLoS One 2: e875 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000875.

26. DesaiK, SansomSL, AckersML, StewartSR, HallHI, et al. (2008) Modeling the impact of HIV chemoprophylaxis strategies among men who have sex with men in the United States: HIV infections prevented and cost-effectiveness. AIDS 22: 1829–1839.

27. GomezGB, BorquezA, CaceresCF, SeguraER, GrantRM, et al. (2012) The potential impact of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among men who have sex with men in Lima, Peru. PLoS Med 9: e1001323 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001323.

28. HallettTB, BaetenJM, HeffronR, BarnabasR, de BruynG, et al. (2011) Optimal uses of antiretrovirals for prevention in HIV-1 serodiscordant heterosexual couples in South Africa: a modelling study. PLoS Med 8: e1001123 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001123.

29. KoppenhaverRT, SorensenSW, FarnhamPG, SansomSL (2011) The cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men in the United States: an epidemic model. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 58: e51–e52.

30. PretoriusC, StoverJ, BollingerL, BacaerN, WilliamsB (2010) Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and its impact on HIV-1 transmission in South Africa. PLoS One 5: e13646 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013646.

31. WalenskyRP, ParkJE, WoodR, FreedbergKA, ScottCA, et al. (2012) The cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection in South African women. Clin Infect Dis 54: 1504–1513.

32. WilliamsBG, Abdool KarimSS, KarimQA, GouwsE (2011) Epidemiological impact of tenofovir gel on the HIV epidemic in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 58: 207–210.

33. Alistar SS (2011) TR2-2: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for injection drug users in mixed HIV epidemics. Available: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2011ch/webprogram/Paper6553.html). 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, Hillsborough, USA. Accessed 11 February 2013.

34. PaltielAD, FreedbergKA, ScottCA, SchackmanBR, LosinaE, et al. (2009) HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: impact on lifetime infection risk, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Clin Infect Dis 48: 806–815.

35. JuusolaJL, BrandeauML, OwensDK, BendavidE (2012) The cost-effectiveness of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in the United States in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med 156: 541–550.

36. CreminI, AlsallaqR, DybulM, PiotP, GarnettG, et al. (2013) The new role of antiretrovirals in combination HIV prevention: a mathematical modelling analysis. Aids 27: 447–458.

37. Alistar SS, Grant P, Bendavid E (2012) Paper #1081 - An economic analysis of ART and PrEP for HIV prevention: South Africa. Available: http://www.retroconference.org/2012b/Abstracts/44724.htm). 19th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Seattle. Accessed 11 February 2013.

38. MartinM, VanichseniS, SuntharasamaiP, SangkumU, ChuachoowongR, et al. (2011) Enrollment characteristics and risk behaviors of injection drug users participating in the Bangkok Tenofovir Study, Thailand. PLoS One 6: e25127 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025127.

39. KellerSB, SmithDM (2011) The price of tenofovir-emtricitabine undermines the cost-effectiveness and advancement of pre-exposure prophylaxis. Aids 25: 2308–2310.

40. LeeDH, VielemeyerO (2011) Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention. N Engl J Med 364: 1372–1373 author reply 1374-1375.

41. iPrEXOle (2012) Press release. Available: http://www.iprexnews.com/pdfswhatisnew/closedenrollment/iPrEx%20OLE%20Fully%20Enrolled%20-%2001JUL12.pdf. Accessed 11 February 2013.

42. VernazzaPL, GrafI, Sonnenberg-SchwanU, GeitM, MeurerA (2011) Preexposure prophylaxis and timed intercourse for HIV-discordant couples willing to conceive a child. Aids 25: 2005–2008.

43. MatthewsLT, BaetenJM, CelumC, BangsbergDR (2010) Periconception pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV transmission: benefits, risks, and challenges to implementation. Aids 24: 1975–1982.

44. MutuaG, SandersE, MugoP, AnzalaO, HabererJE, et al. (2012) Safety and adherence to intermittent pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV-1 in African men who have sex with men and female sex workers. PLoS One 7: e33103 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033103.

45. IPERGAY: un essai ANRS (2013) ANRS Intervention Preventive de l'Exposition aux Risques avec et pour les GAYS. Available: http://www.ipergay.fr/. Accessed 11 February 2013.

46. HPTN (2013) HPTN 067: ADAPT study, a phase II, randomized, open-label, pharmacokinetic and behavioral study of the use of intermittent oral emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). http://www.hptn.org/research_studies/hptn067.asp. Accessed 11 February 2013.

47. EisingerichAB, WheelockA, GomezGB, GarnettGP, DybulMR, et al. (2012) Attitudes and acceptance of oral and parenteral HIV preexposure prophylaxis among potential user groups: a multinational study. PLoS One 7: e28238 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028238.

48. SimpsonKN (2010) Economic modeling of HIV treatments. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 5: 242–248.

49. LingappaJR, KahleE, MugoN, MujugiraA, MagaretA, et al. (2009) Characteristics of HIV-1 discordant couples enrolled in a trial of HSV-2 suppression to reduce HIV-1 transmission: the partners study. PLoS One 4: e5272 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005272.

50. TengsTO, LinTH (2002) A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making 22: 475–481.

51. VerguetS, WalshJA (2010) Vaginal microbicides save money: a model of cost-effectiveness in South Africa and the USA. Sex Transm Infect 86: 212–216.