RESUMO
Introduction: Approximately 130 000 infants acquire HIV annually despite global maternal antiretroviral therapy scale-up. We evaluated the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of offering long-acting, anti-HIV broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb) prophylaxis to infants in three distinct settings. Methods: We simulated infants in Côte d'Ivoire, South Africa, and Zimbabwe using the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications-Pediatric (CEPAC-P) model. We modeled strategies offering a three-bNAb combination in addition to WHO-recommended standard-of-care oral prophylaxis to infants: a) with known, WHO-defined high-risk HIV exposure at birth (HR-HIVE); b) with known HIV exposure at birth (HIVE); or c) with or without known HIV exposure (ALL). Modeled infants received 1-dose, 2-doses, or Extended (every 3 months through 18 months) bNAb dosing. Base case model inputs included 70% bNAb efficacy (sensitivity analysis range: 10-100%), 3-month efficacy duration/dosing interval (1-6 months), and $20/dose cost ($5-$100/dose). Outcomes included pediatric HIV infections, life expectancy, lifetime HIV-related costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, in US$/year-of-life-saved [YLS], assuming a ≤50% GDP per capita cost-effectiveness threshold). Results: The base case model projects that bNAb strategies targeting HIVE and ALL infants would prevent 7-26% and 10-42% additional pediatric HIV infections, respectively, compared to standard-of-care alone, ranging by dosing approach. HIVE-Extended would be cost-effective (cost-saving compared to standard-of-care) in Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe; ALL-Extended would be cost-effective in South Africa (ICER: $882/YLS). BNAb strategies targeting HR-HIVE infants would result in greater lifetime costs and smaller life expectancy gains than HIVE-Extended. Throughout most bNAb efficacies and costs evaluated in sensitivity analyses, targeting HIVE infants would be cost-effective in Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe, and targeting ALL infants would be cost-effective in South Africa. Discussion: Adding long-acting bNAbs to current standard-of-care prophylaxis would be cost-effective, assuming plausible efficacies and costs. The cost-effective target population would vary by setting, largely driven by maternal antenatal HIV prevalence and postpartum incidence.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Infant HIV prophylaxis with broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies (bNAbs) could provide long-acting protection against vertical transmission. We sought to estimate the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of hypothetical bNAb prophylaxis programmes for children known to be HIV exposed at birth in three sub-Saharan African settings. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using the CEPAC-Pediatric model, simulating cohorts of infants from birth through death in Côte d'Ivoire, South Africa and Zimbabwe. These settings were selected to reflect a broad range of HIV care cascade characteristics, antenatal HIV prevalence and budgetary constraints. We modelled strategies targeting bNAbs to only WHO-designated "high-risk" HIV-exposed infants (HR-HIVE) or to all HIV-exposed infants (HIVE). We compared four prophylaxis approaches within each target population: standard of care oral antiretroviral prophylaxis (SOC), and SOC plus bNAbs at birth (1-dose), at birth and 3 months (2-doses), or every 3 months throughout breastfeeding (Extended). Base-case model inputs included bNAb efficacy (60%/dose), effect duration (3 months/dose) and costs ($60/dose), based on published literature. Outcomes included paediatric HIV incidence and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) calculated from discounted life expectancy and lifetime HIV-related costs. RESULTS: The model projects that bNAbs would reduce absolute infant HIV incidence by 0.3-2.2% (9.6-34.9% relative reduction), varying by country, prophylaxis approach and target population. In all three settings, HR-HIVE-1-dose would be cost-saving compared to SOC. Using a 50% GDP per capita ICER threshold, HIVE-Extended would be cost-effective in all three settings with ICERs of $497/YLS in Côte d'Ivoire, $464/YLS in South Africa and $455/YLS in Zimbabwe. In all three settings, bNAb strategies would remain cost-effective at costs up to $200/dose if efficacy is ≥30%. If the bNAb effect duration were reduced to 1 month, the cost-effective strategy would become HR-HIVE-1-dose in Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe and HR-HIVE-2-doses in South Africa. Findings regarding the cost-effectiveness of bNAb implementation strategies remained robust in sensitivity analyses regarding breastfeeding duration, maternal engagement in postpartum care, early infant diagnosis uptake and antiretroviral treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: At current efficacy and cost estimates, bNAb prophylaxis for HIV-exposed children in sub-Saharan African settings would be a cost-effective intervention to reduce vertical HIV transmission.