Department of Global Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam and Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, The Netherlands.
PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001401. Epub 2013 Mar 12.
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.
成本效益研究为资源分配、战略和政策制定提供信息。然而,由于其复杂性、对假设的依赖以及固有的不确定性,综合和概括研究结果可能具有挑战性。我们评估了评估 HIV 暴露前预防 (PrEP) 干预措施预期健康收益和成本的成本效益模型。
我们进行了一项系统评价,比较了使用各种建模方法的成本效益研究的流行病学和经济假设。以下数据库被搜索(截至 2013 年 1 月):PubMed/Medline、ISI Web of Knowledge、Cochrane 图书馆、EconLIT 和区域特定数据库。我们纳入了报告 PrEP 推出的成本和预期影响的建模研究。我们探讨了五个问题:优先策略、依从性、行为改变、毒性和耐药性。从 961 项研究中检索到 13 项研究。研究中建模的人群(异性恋夫妇、男男性行为者、注射毒品者)来自南非(包括南非)、乌克兰、美国和秘鲁的普遍和集中流行地区。在特定情况下,PrEP 有可能成为 HIV 预防计划的一种具有成本效益的补充。PrEP 的影响程度取决于对成本、流行情况、方案覆盖范围、优先策略和个体依从性的假设。向面临 HIV 暴露风险最高的关键人群提供 PrEP 似乎是最具成本效益的策略。本综述的局限性包括部分地理覆盖范围、我们无法进行荟萃分析以及缺乏有关早期治疗和 PrEP 之间权衡的信息。
我们的综述确定了评估 PrEP 干预措施成本效益分析时需要考虑的主要因素——成本、流行情况、个体依从性水平、PrEP 方案覆盖范围和优先策略。表明资源可以应用于产生最大影响的地方的成本效益研究对于指导资源分配决策至关重要;然而,必须在考虑到潜在假设的情况下考虑此类分析的结果。请在文章后面查看编辑摘要。