The new role of antiretrovirals in combination HIV prevention

aDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK bCollege of Nursing Global, New York University, New York, New York cO'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia dGeorge W. Bush Institute, Dallas, Texas, USA eLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK fBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA.
AIDS (London, England) (Impact Factor: 5.55). 01/2013; 27(3):447-58. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835ca2dd
Source: PubMed


: Antiretroviral drugs can reduce HIV acquisition among uninfected individuals (as pre-exposure prophylaxis: PrEP) and reduce onward transmission among infected individuals (as antiretroviral treatment: ART). We estimate the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral-based HIV prevention strategies.
: We developed and analysed a mathematical model of a hyperendemic setting with relatively low levels of condom use. We estimated the prevention impact and cost of various PrEP interventions, assuming a fixed amount of spending on PrEP; investigated the optimal role of PrEP and earlier ART in terms of epidemiological impact and cost; and systematically explored the impact of earlier ART and PrEP, in combination with medical male circumcision services; on HIV transmission.
: A PrEP intervention is unlikely to generate a large reduction in HIV incidence, unless the cost is substantially reduced. In terms of infections averted and quality adjusted life years gained, at a population-level maximal cost-effectiveness is achieved by providing ART to more infected individuals earlier rather than providing PrEP to uninfected individuals. However, early ART alone cannot reduce HIV incidence to very low levels and PrEP can be used cost-effectively in addition to earlier ART to reduce incidence further. If implemented in combination and at ambitious coverage levels, medical male circumcision, earlier ART and PrEP could produce dramatic declines in HIV incidence, but not stop transmission completely.
: A combination prevention approach based on proven-efficacy interventions provides the best opportunity for achieving the much hoped for prevention advance and curbing the spread of HIV.

Download full-text


Available from: Ramzi A Alsallaq, Oct 07, 2014
84 Reads
  • AIDS (London, England) 01/2013; 27(3):475-6. DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835c1509 · 5.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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.
    PLoS Medicine 03/2013; 10(3):e1001401. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001401 · 14.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New tools are needed to bring down ongoing high HIV incidence. This review aims to evaluate the place of one of these new tools (pre-exposure prophylaxis) in a comprehensive prevention strategy. Several trials have demonstrated the safety and the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis in HIV prevention. Two large trials have, however, failed to show such efficacy. This was likely due to poor adherence in these trials. New forms of long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis currently in trials may deal with these problems of low adherence. Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to be cost-effective within certain settings. The introduction of pre-exposure prophylaxis into prevention programs needs to be carefully thought through. For example, pre-exposure prophylaxis-induced risk compensation, at both an individual and population level, could undermine other aspects of a comprehensive HIV prevention program. In conclusion, pre-exposure prophylaxis could be a useful additional tool for the prevention of HIV in specific high-risk groups. It should be implemented in a way that deals with issues such as ensuring high adherence and ensuring that pre-exposure prophylaxis does not detract from, but complements, other more fundamental elements of HIV prevention programs.
    AIDS reviews 05/2013; 15(2):102-111. · 3.79 Impact Factor
Show more