Cost-Effectiveness of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in Preventing HIV-1 Infections in Rural Zambia: A Modeling Study |
| |
| Authors: | Brooke E Nichols Charles A B Boucher Janneke H van Dijk Phil E Thuma Jan L Nouwen Rob Baltussen Janneke van de Wijgert Peter M A Sloot David A M C van de Vijver |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Virology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.; 2. Macha Mission Hospital and Macha Research Trust, Macha, Zambia.; 3. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.; 4. Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.; 5. Computational Science, Faculty of Science University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia, |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir and emtricitabine effectively prevents new HIV infections. The optimal scenario for implementing PrEP where most infections are averted at the lowest cost is unknown. We determined the impact of different PrEP strategies on averting new infections, prevalence, drug resistance and cost-effectiveness in Macha, a rural setting in Zambia.MethodsA deterministic mathematical model of HIV transmission was constructed using data from the Macha epidemic (antenatal prevalence 7.7%). Antiretroviral therapy is started at CD4<350 cells/mm3. We compared the number of infections averted, cost-effectiveness, and potential emergence of drug resistance of two ends of the prioritization spectrum: prioritizing PrEP to half of the most sexually active individuals (5–15% of the total population), versus randomly putting 40–60% of the total population on PrEP.ResultsPrioritizing PrEP to individuals with the highest sexual activity resulted in more infections averted than a non-prioritized strategy over ten years (31% and 23% reduction in new infections respectively), and also a lower HIV prevalence after ten years (5.7%, 6.4% respectively). The strategy was very cost-effective at $323 per quality adjusted life year gained and appeared to be both less costly and more effective than the non-prioritized strategy. The prevalence of drug resistance due to PrEP was as high as 11.6% when all assumed breakthrough infections resulted in resistance, and as low as 1.3% when 10% of breakthrough infections resulted in resistance in both our prioritized and non-prioritized scenarios.ConclusionsEven in settings with low test rates and treatment retention, the use of PrEP can still be a useful strategy in averting infections. Our model has shown that PrEP is a cost-effective strategy for reducing HIV incidence, even when adherence is suboptimal and prioritization is imperfect. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
