Modelling impact and cost‐effectiveness of oral pre‐exposure prophylaxis in 13 low‐resource countries. Issue 2 (28th February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pretorius, Carel; Schnure, Melissa; Dent, Juan; Glaubius, Robert; Mahiane, Guy; Hamilton, Matthew; Reidy, Meghan; Matse, Sindy; Njeuhmeli, Emmanuel; Castor, Delivette; Kripke, Katharine
• Is Part Of: Journal of the International AIDS Society. Volume 23:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-02-28
• Subjects: PrEP -- pre‐exposure prophylaxis -- cost‐effectiveness -- mathematical modelling -- HIV -- policy; AIDS (Disease) -- Periodicals; HIV infections -- Periodicals; 616.9792005
• DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25451
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1758-2652

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Oral pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision is a priority intervention for high HIV prevalence settings and populations at substantial risk of HIV acquisition. This mathematical modelling analysis estimated the impact, cost and cost‐effectiveness of scaling up oral PrEP in 13 countries. Methods: We projected the impact and cost‐effectiveness of oral PrEP between 2018 and 2030 using a combination of the Incidence Patterns Model and the Goals model. We created four PrEP rollout scenarios involving three priority populations—female sex workers (FSWs), serodiscordant couples (SDCs) and adolescent girls and young women (AGYW)—both with and without geographic prioritization. We applied the model to 13 countries (Eswatini, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe). The base case assumed achievement of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 90‐90‐90 antiretroviral therapy targets, 90% male circumcision coverage by 2020 and 90% efficacy and adherence levels for oral PrEP. Results: In the scenarios we examined, oral PrEP averted 3% to 8% of HIV infections across the 13 countries between 2018 and 2030. For all but three countries, more than 50% of the HIV infections averted by oral PrEP in the scenarios we examined could be obtained by rollout to FSWs and SDCs alone. For several countries, expanding oral PrEP to include medium‐risk AGYW in all regions greatly increased the impact. The efficiency and impact benefits of geographic prioritization of rollout to AGYW varied across countries. Variations in cost‐effectiveness across countries reflected differences in HIV incidence and expected variations in unit cost. For most countries, rolling out oral PrEP to FSWs, SDCs and geographically prioritized AGYW was not projected to have a substantial impact on the supply chain for antiretroviral drugs. Conclusions: These modelling results can inform prioritization, target‐setting and other decisions related to oral PrEP scale‐up within combination prevention programmes. We caution against extensive use given limitations in cost data and implementation approaches. This analysis highlights some of the immediate challenges facing countries—for example, trade‐offs between overall impact and cost‐effectiveness—and emphasizes the need to improve data availability and risk assessment tools to help countries make informed decisions.