Cost-effectiveness of easy-access, risk-informed oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa: a modelling study
Authors: Andrew N Phillips, Anna Bershteyn, Paul Revill, Loveleen Bansi-Matharu, Katharine Kripke, Marie-Claude Boily, Rowan Martin-Hughes, Leigh F Johnson, Zindoga Mukandavire, Lise Jamieson, Gesine Meyer-Rath, Timothy B Hallett, Debra ten Brink, Sherrie L Kelly, Brooke E Nichols, Eran Bendavid, Edinah Mudimu, Isaac Taramusi, Jennifer Smith, Shona Dalal, Rachel Baggaley, Siobhan Crowley, Fern Terris-Prestholt, Peter Godfrey-Faussett, Irene Mukui, Andreas Jahn, Kelsey K Case, Diane Havlir, Maya Petersen, Moses Kamya, Catherine A Koss, Laura B Balzer, Tsitsi Apollo, Thato Chidarikire, John W Mellors, Urvi M Parikh, Catherine Godfrey, Valentina Cambiano
Journal: The Lancet HIV (2022)

BackgroundApproaches that allow easy access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), such as over-the-counter provision at pharmacies, could facilitate risk-informed PrEP use and lead to lower HIV incidence, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. We aimed to evaluate conditions under which risk-informed PrEP use is cost-effective.MethodsWe applied a mathematical model of HIV transmission to simulate 3000 setting-scenarios reflecting a range of epidemiological characteristics of communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults (HIV positive and negative) varied from 1·1% to 7·4% (90% range). We hypothesised that if PrEP was made easily available without restriction and with education regarding its use, women and men would use PrEP, with sufficient daily adherence, during so-called seasons of risk (ie, periods in which individuals are at risk of acquiring infection). We refer to this as risk-informed PrEP. For each setting-scenario, we considered the situation in mid-2021 and performed a pairwise comparison of the outcomes of two policies: immediate PrEP scale-up and then continuation for 50 years, and no PrEP. We estimated the relationship between epidemic and programme characteristics and cost-effectiveness of PrEP availability to all during seasons of risk. For our base-case analysis, we assumed a 3-monthly PrEP cost of US$29 (drug $11, HIV test $4, and $14 for additional costs necessary to facilitate education and access), a cost-effectiveness threshold of $500 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, an annual discount rate of 3%, and a time horizon of 50 years. In sensitivity analyses, we considered a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 per DALY averted, a discount rate of 7% per annum, the use of PrEP outside of seasons of risk, and reduced uptake of risk-informed PrEP.FindingsIn the context of PrEP scale-up such that 66% (90% range across setting-scenarios 46–81) of HIV-negative people with at least one non-primary condomless sex partner take PrEP in any given period, resulting in 2·6% (0·9–6·0) of all HIV negative adults taking PrEP at any given time, risk-informed PrEP was predicted to reduce HIV incidence by 49% (23–78) over 50 years compared with no PrEP. PrEP was cost-effective in 71% of all setting-scenarios, and cost-effective in 76% of setting-scenarios with prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults higher than 2%. In sensitivity analyses with a $100 per DALY averted cost-effectiveness threshold, a 7% per year discount rate, or with PrEP use that was less well risk-informed than in our base case, PrEP was less likely to be cost-effective, but generally remained cost-effective if the prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults was higher than 3%. In sensitivity analyses based on additional setting-scenarios in which risk-informed PrEP was less extensively used, the HIV incidence reduction was smaller, but the cost-effectiveness of risk-informed PrEP was undiminished.InterpretationUnder the assumption that making PrEP easily accessible for all adults in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of community education leads to risk-informed use, PrEP is likely to be cost-effective in settings with prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults higher than 2%, suggesting the need for implementation of such approaches, with ongoing evaluation.FundingUS Agency for International Development, US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.