RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although HIV prevention science has advanced over the last four decades, evidence suggests that prevention technologies do not always reach their full potential. Critical health economics evidence at appropriate decision-making junctures, particularly early in the development process, could help identify and address potential barriers to the eventual uptake of future HIV prevention products. This paper aims to identify key evidence gaps and propose health economics research priorities for the field of HIV non-surgical biomedical prevention. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach with three distinct components: (i) three systematic literature reviews (costs and cost effectiveness, HIV transmission modelling and quantitative preference elicitation) to understand health economics evidence and gaps in the peer-reviewed literature; (ii) an online survey with researchers working in this field to capture gaps in yet-to-be published research (recently completed, ongoing and future); and (iii) a stakeholder meeting with key global and national players in HIV prevention, including experts in product development, health economics research and policy uptake, to uncover further gaps, as well as to elicit views on priorities and recommendations based on (i) and (ii). RESULTS: Gaps in the scope of available health economics evidence were identified. Little research has been carried out on certain key populations (e.g. transgender people and people who inject drugs) and other vulnerable groups (e.g. pregnant people and people who breastfeed). Research is also lacking on preferences of community actors who often influence or enable access to health services among priority populations. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis, which has been rolled out in many settings, has been studied in depth. However, research on newer promising technologies, such as long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis formulations, broadly neutralising antibodies and multipurpose prevention technologies, is lacking. Interventions focussing on reducing intravenous and vertical transmission are also understudied. A disproportionate amount of evidence on low- and middle-income countries comes from two countries (South Africa and Kenya); evidence from other countries in sub-Saharan Africa as well as other low- and middle-income countries is needed. Further, data are needed on non-facility-based service delivery modalities, integrated service delivery and ancillary services. Key methodological gaps were also identified. An emphasis on equity and representation of heterogeneous populations was lacking. Research rarely acknowledged the complex and dynamic use of prevention technologies over time. Greater efforts are needed to collect primary data, quantify uncertainty, systematically compare the full range of prevention options available, and validate pilot and modelling data once interventions are scaled up. Clarity on appropriate cost-effectiveness outcome measures and thresholds is also lacking. Lastly, research often fails to reflect policy-relevant questions and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a large body of health economics evidence on non-surgical biomedical HIV prevention technologies, important gaps in the scope of evidence and methodology remain. To ensure that high-quality research influences key decision-making junctures and facilitates the delivery of prevention products in a way that maximises impact, we make five broad recommendations related to: improved study design, an increased focus on service delivery, greater community and stakeholder engagement, the fostering of an active network of partners across sectors and an enhanced application of research.