RESUMO
Product development is a high-risk undertaking, especially so when investments are prioritized for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where markets may be smaller, fragile, and resource-constrained. New HIV prevention technologies, such as the dapivirine vaginal ring (DVR) and long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA), are being introduced to these markets with one indication, meeting different needs of groups such as adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) and female sex workers (FSWs) in settings with high HIV burden. However, limited supply and demand have made their uptake a challenge. Economic evaluations conducted before Phase III trials can help optimize the potential public health value proposition of products in early-stage research and development (R&D), targeting investments in the development pathway that result in products likely to be available and taken up. Public investors in the HIV prevention pipeline, in particular those focused on innovative presentations such as multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), can leverage early economic evaluations to understand the intrinsic uncertainty in market characterization. In this perspective piece, we reflect on the role of economic evaluations in early product development and on methodological considerations that are central to these analyses. We also discuss methods, in quantitative and qualitative research that can be deployed in early economic evaluations to address uncertainty, with examples applied to the development of future technologies for HIV prevention and MPTs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is only effective in preventing new HIV infections when taken consistently. In clinical practice, asking a patient about their adherence (self-report) is the predominant method of assessing adherence to PrEP. Although inexpensive and noninvasive, self-report is subject to social desirability and recall biases. Several clinical trials demonstrate a discrepancy between self-reported adherence and biomarker-based recent adherence. Less is known about the accuracy of self-report in real-world clinical settings. This brief report addresses this knowledge gap and describes the concordance between self-reported adherence and biomarker-based adherence in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: A liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry urine test for tenofovir was developed and used clinically to detect recent nonadherence (no dose in at least 48 hours) for each individual. Two clinics' standard operating procedures recommend utilization of the urine-based adherence test for patients who self-report that they are not struggling with adherence. Those who self-report struggling with adherence receive enhanced adherence support without the need for additional testing. The number of results indicating recent nonadherence from these 2 clinics were analyzed to assess the concordance between self-reported adherence and biomarker-based adherence. RESULTS: Across 2 clinics, 3987 tests were conducted from patients self-reporting as "adherent," and 564 [14.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.1% to 15.2%] demonstrated recent nonadherence with the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry test. At clinic #1 in Florida, 3200 tests were conducted, and 465 (14.5%; 95% CI: 13.3% to 15.8%) demonstrated recent nonadherence. At clinic #2 in Texas, 787 tests were conducted, and 99 (12.6%; 95% CI: 10.4% to 14.9%) demonstrated recent nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of biomarker-based adherence monitoring at these 2 clinics resulted in 564 additional patients receiving enhanced adherence support who otherwise would not have been identified as nonadherent to their prescribed PrEP regimen. These findings suggest that objective adherence monitoring can be used clinically to enable providers to identify nonadherent patients and allocate support services accordingly.
