Walensky Rochelle P, Jacobsen Margo M, Bekker Linda-Gail, Parker Robert A, Wood Robin, Resch Stephen C, Horstman N Kaye, Freedberg Kenneth A, Paltiel A David
Medical Practice Evaluation Center Division of Infectious Disease Division of General Internal Medicine Division of Infectious Disease, Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, Harvard Medical School.
Medical Practice Evaluation Center Division of General Internal Medicine.
J Infect Dis. 2016 May 15;213(10):1523-31. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv523. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
For young South African women at risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is one of the few effective prevention options available. Long-acting injectable PrEP, which is in development, may be associated with greater adherence, compared with that for existing standard oral PrEP formulations, but its likely clinical benefits and additional costs are unknown.
Using a computer simulation, we compared the following 3 PrEP strategies: no PrEP, standard PrEP (effectiveness, 62%; cost per patient, $150/year), and long-acting PrEP (effectiveness, 75%; cost per patient, $220/year) in South African women at high risk for HIV infection (incidence of HIV infection, 5%/year). We examined the sensitivity of the strategies to changes in key input parameters among several outcome measures, including deaths averted and program cost over a 5-year period; lifetime HIV infection risk, survival rate, and program cost and cost-effectiveness; and budget impact.
Compared with no PrEP, standard PrEP and long-acting PrEP cost $580 and $870 more per woman, respectively, and averted 15 and 16 deaths per 1000 women at high risk for infection, respectively, over 5 years. Measured on a lifetime basis, both standard PrEP and long-acting PrEP were cost saving, compared with no PrEP. Compared with standard PrEP, long-acting PrEP was very cost-effective ($150/life-year saved) except under the most pessimistic assumptions. Over 5 years, long-acting PrEP cost $1.6 billion when provided to 50% of eligible women.
Currently available standard PrEP is a cost-saving intervention whose delivery should be expanded and optimized. Long-acting PrEP will likely be a very cost-effective improvement over standard PrEP but may require novel financing mechanisms that bring short-term fiscal planning efforts into closer alignment with longer-term societal objectives.
对于有感染人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)风险的年轻南非女性而言,暴露前预防(PrEP)是为数不多的有效预防选择之一。正在研发的长效注射用PrEP与现有的标准口服PrEP制剂相比,可能具有更高的依从性,但其可能的临床益处和额外成本尚不清楚。
我们使用计算机模拟,比较了以下3种PrEP策略:不进行PrEP、标准PrEP(有效性为62%;每位患者每年成本为150美元)和长效PrEP(有效性为75%;每位患者每年成本为220美元),针对HIV感染高危的南非女性(HIV感染发生率为每年5%)。我们在包括5年内避免的死亡人数和项目成本、终身HIV感染风险、生存率、项目成本和成本效益以及预算影响等多个结果指标中,研究了这些策略对关键输入参数变化的敏感性。
与不进行PrEP相比,标准PrEP和长效PrEP每位女性的成本分别高出580美元和870美元,在5年内每1000名高危感染女性中分别避免了15例和16例死亡。从终身角度衡量,与不进行PrEP相比,标准PrEP和长效PrEP均节省成本。与标准PrEP相比,除了在最悲观的假设下,长效PrEP具有很高的成本效益(每挽救生命年150美元)。在5年内,若将长效PrEP提供给50%的符合条件女性,成本为16亿美元。
目前可用的标准PrEP是一种节省成本的干预措施,应扩大并优化其推广。长效PrEP可能是比标准PrEP更具成本效益的改进,但可能需要新的融资机制,使短期财政规划努力与长期社会目标更紧密地结合。