The Price of Prevention: Cost Effectiveness of Biomedical HIV Prevention Strategies in South Africa.

Clinical research in HIV/AIDS Pub Date : 2016-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-11-27
Nishila Moodley, Glenda Gray, Melanie Bertram
{"title":"The Price of Prevention: Cost Effectiveness of Biomedical HIV Prevention Strategies in South Africa.","authors":"Nishila Moodley, Glenda Gray, Melanie Bertram","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>South Africa has the highest global burden of human immunodefciency virus [HIV]. The study compared the cost-effectiveness of individual and combination HIV preventive strategies against the current rollout of ART and possible ART scale-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adolescents attending South African schools in 2012 were included in the semi-Markov running annual cycles. The ART and HIV counseling and testing program [comparator] was weighed against the interventions [viz. HIV vaccine, a dual vaccine strategy [HIV and HPV vaccines], oral pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] and voluntary medical male circumcision [VMMC]; and various combinations thereof. Quality-adjusted life years [QALY] determined changes in HIV associated mortality and infections averted. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined parameter uncertainty. Discount rates of 3% with a lifetime horizon [70 years] were applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dual vaccination was highly cost-effective strategy [US$ 7 per QALY gained] and averted 29% of new HIV infections. VMMC [US$ 30 per QALY gained] proved more cost-effective than HIV vaccination alone [US$ 93 per QALY gained], though VMMC averted 6% more new infections than the HIV vaccine when considered among male participants. PrEP interventions were the least cost-effective with pharmaceutical and human resource spending driving the costs. Combined dual vaccination and VMMC strategies were a dominant intervention. Strategies involving PrEP were the least cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VMMC, HIV vaccination and dual vaccination strategies were more cost-effective than any PrEP strategies. A multi-intervention biomedical approach could avert considerable new HIV infections and present a cost-effective use of resources; particularly where large scale multi-interventional randomized controlled trials are absent.</p>","PeriodicalId":72627,"journal":{"name":"Clinical research in HIV/AIDS","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5562157/pdf/nihms884981.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical research in HIV/AIDS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/11/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: South Africa has the highest global burden of human immunodefciency virus [HIV]. The study compared the cost-effectiveness of individual and combination HIV preventive strategies against the current rollout of ART and possible ART scale-up.

Methods: Adolescents attending South African schools in 2012 were included in the semi-Markov running annual cycles. The ART and HIV counseling and testing program [comparator] was weighed against the interventions [viz. HIV vaccine, a dual vaccine strategy [HIV and HPV vaccines], oral pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] and voluntary medical male circumcision [VMMC]; and various combinations thereof. Quality-adjusted life years [QALY] determined changes in HIV associated mortality and infections averted. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined parameter uncertainty. Discount rates of 3% with a lifetime horizon [70 years] were applied.

Results: Dual vaccination was highly cost-effective strategy [US$ 7 per QALY gained] and averted 29% of new HIV infections. VMMC [US$ 30 per QALY gained] proved more cost-effective than HIV vaccination alone [US$ 93 per QALY gained], though VMMC averted 6% more new infections than the HIV vaccine when considered among male participants. PrEP interventions were the least cost-effective with pharmaceutical and human resource spending driving the costs. Combined dual vaccination and VMMC strategies were a dominant intervention. Strategies involving PrEP were the least cost-effective.

Conclusion: VMMC, HIV vaccination and dual vaccination strategies were more cost-effective than any PrEP strategies. A multi-intervention biomedical approach could avert considerable new HIV infections and present a cost-effective use of resources; particularly where large scale multi-interventional randomized controlled trials are absent.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预防的代价:南非生物医学艾滋病预防战略的成本效益。
背景:南非是全球人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)感染率最高的国家。该研究比较了单项和综合 HIV 预防策略与当前抗逆转录病毒疗法的推广以及可能的抗逆转录病毒疗法推广的成本效益:方法:将 2012 年在南非学校就读的青少年纳入半马尔可夫运行年度周期。将抗逆转录病毒疗法和艾滋病毒咨询与检测计划[比较者]与干预措施[即艾滋病毒疫苗、双疫苗策略[艾滋病毒疫苗和人乳头瘤病毒疫苗]、口服暴露前预防[PrEP]和自愿包皮环切术[VMMC];以及它们的各种组合]进行权衡。质量调整生命年[QALY]决定了艾滋病毒相关死亡率和避免感染的变化。单向和概率敏感性分析确定了参数的不确定性。采用 3% 的贴现率和终生期限[70 年]:结果:双重疫苗接种是成本效益很高的策略[每 QALY 收益 7 美元],可避免 29% 的艾滋病毒新感染。VMMC [每 QALY 收益 30 美元] 被证明比单独接种 HIV 疫苗 [每 QALY 收益 93 美元] 更具成本效益,尽管在男性参与者中,VMMC 比 HIV 疫苗多避免了 6% 的新感染。PrEP 干预措施的成本效益最低,其成本主要来自药品和人力资源支出。疫苗接种和 VMMC 双管齐下的策略是最主要的干预措施。涉及 PrEP 的策略成本效益最低:结论:VMMC、HIV 疫苗接种和双重疫苗接种策略比任何 PrEP 策略更具成本效益。多重干预的生物医学方法可以避免大量新的艾滋病毒感染,是一种具有成本效益的资源利用方式;尤其是在缺乏大规模多重干预随机对照试验的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dasatinib: effects on the macrophage phospho proteome with a focus on SAMHD1 and HIV-1 infection. Survival Time of People Living With HIV: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis The Price of Prevention: Cost Effectiveness of Biomedical HIV Prevention Strategies in South Africa. Amyloid beta accumulation in HIV-1 infected brain: the role of altered cholesterol homeostasis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1