Cost-effectiveness of easy-access, risk-informed oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Approaches 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. METHODS: We 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. FINDINGS: In 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. INTERPRETATION: Under 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. FUNDING: US Agency for International Development, US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Comparison of guidelines for HIV viral load monitoring among pregnant and breastfeeding women in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Intensified viral load monitoring for pregnant and breastfeeding women has been proposed to help address concerns around antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, viraemia and transmission risk, but there have been no systematic evaluations of existing policies. METHODS: We used an individual Monte Carlo simulation to describe longitudinal ART adherence and viral load from conception until 2 years' postpartum. We applied national and international guidelines for viral load monitoring to the simulated data. We compared guidelines on the percentage of women receiving viral load monitoring and the percentage of women monitored at the time of elevated viral load. RESULTS: Coverage of viral load monitoring in pregnancy and breastfeeding varied markedly, with between 14% and 100% of women monitored antenatally and 38-98% monitored during breastfeeding. Specific recommendations for testing at either a fixed gestation or a short, fixed period after ART initiation achieved more than 95% testing in pregnancy but this was much lower (14-83%) among guidelines with no special stipulations. By the end of breastfeeding, only a small proportion of simulated episodes of elevated viral load more than 1000 copies/ml were successfully detected by monitoring (range, 20-50%). DISCUSSION: Although further research is needed to understand optimal viral load frequency and timing in this population, these results suggest that current policies yield suboptimal detection of elevated viral load in pregnant and breastfeeding women.