Article

The Cost-Effectiveness of Preexposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention in the United States in Men Who Have Sex With Men

Stanford University, California, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 04/2012; 156(8):541-50. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A recent randomized, controlled trial showed that daily oral preexposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP) was effective for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men (MSM). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently provided interim guidance for PrEP in MSM at high risk for HIV. Previous studies did not reach a consistent estimate of its cost-effectiveness.
To estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PrEP in MSM in the United States.
Dynamic model of HIV transmission and progression combined with a detailed economic analysis.
Published literature.
MSM aged 13 to 64 years in the United States.
Lifetime.
Societal.
PrEP was evaluated in both the general MSM population and in high-risk MSM and was assumed to reduce infection risk by 44% on the basis of clinical trial results.
New HIV infections, discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
Initiating PrEP in 20% of MSM in the United States would reduce new HIV infections by an estimated 13% and result in a gain of 550,166 QALYs over 20 years at a cost of $172,091 per QALY gained. Initiating PrEP in a larger proportion of MSM would prevent more infections but at an increasing cost per QALY gained (up to $216,480 if all MSM receive PrEP). Preexposure chemoprophylaxis in only high-risk MSM can improve cost-effectiveness. For MSM with an average of 5 partners per year, PrEP costs approximately $50,000 per QALY gained. Providing PrEP to all high-risk MSM for 20 years would cost $75 billion more in health care-related costs than the status quo and $600,000 per HIV infection prevented, compared with incremental costs of $95 billion and $2 million per infection prevented for 20% coverage of all MSM.
PrEP in the general MSM population would cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained if the daily cost of antiretroviral drugs for PrEP was less than $15 or if PrEP efficacy was greater than 75%.
When examining PrEP in high-risk MSM, the investigators did not model a mix of low- and high-risk MSM because of lack of data on mixing patterns.
PrEP in the general MSM population could prevent a substantial number of HIV infections, but it is expensive. Use in high-risk MSM compares favorably with other interventions that are considered cost-effective but could result in annual PrEP expenditures of more than $4 billion.
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Veterans Affairs, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

0 Followers
 · 
112 Views
  • Source
    Sexually Transmitted Infections 07/2011; 87(Suppl 1):A350-A350. DOI:10.1136/sextrans-2011-050119.2 · 3.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As HIV prevalence climbs globally, including more than 50 000 new infections per year in the United States, we need more effective HIV prevention strategies. The use of antiretrovirals for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among high-risk persons without HIV is emerging as 1 such strategy. Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated that once-daily oral PrEP decreased HIV incidence among at-risk men who have sex with men and African heterosexuals, including serodiscordant couples. An additional randomized, controlled trial of a topical pericoital antiretroviral microbicide gel decreased HIV incidence among at-risk heterosexual South African women. Two other studies in African women did not demonstrate the efficacy of oral or topical PrEP, raising concerns about adherence patterns and efficacy in this population.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed these studies and additional data in May 2012 and voted to advise the approval of oral tenofovir-emtricitabine for PrEP in high-risk populations. On 16 July 2012, the FDA recommended that this combination medication be approved for use as PrEP in high-risk persons without HIV. Patients may seek PrEP from their primary care providers, and those receiving PrEP require monitoring. Thus, primary care providers should become familiar with PrEP. This review outlines current knowledge about PrEP as it pertains to primary care, including identifying persons likely to benefit from PrEP; counseling to maximize adherence and reduce potential increases in risky behavior; and monitoring for potential drug toxicities, HIV acquisition, and antiretroviral drug resistance. Issues related to cost and insurance coverage are also discussed. Recent data suggest that PrEP, combined with other prevention strategies, holds promise in helping to curtail the HIV epidemic.
    Annals of internal medicine 07/2012; DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-157-7-201210020-00510 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: On July 16, 2012, emtricitabine/tenofovir (Truvada) became the first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) for adults at high risk. While PrEP appears highly effective with consistent adherence, effective implementation poses ethical challenges for the medical and public health community. For PrEP users, it is necessary to maintain adherence, safe sex practices, and routine HIV testing and medical monitoring, to maximize benefits and reduce risks. On a population level, comparative cost-effectiveness should guide priority-setting, while safety measures must address drug resistance concerns without burdening patients' access. Equitable distribution will require addressing the needs of underserved populations, women (for whom efficacy data are mixed) and people living in developing countries with high HIV incidence; meanwhile, it is necessary to consider the fair use of drugs for treatment vs. prevention and the appropriate design of new HIV prevention studies.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2012; 308(9):867-8. DOI:10.1001/2012.jama.10158 · 30.39 Impact Factor
Show more