How plausible is it that PEP would be cost‐effective in sub‐Saharan Africa?

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is an efficacious HIV prevention tool when used soon after a potential exposure. Understanding the drivers of cost-effectiveness of PEP in different contexts will likely play a role in determining local policies for providing PEP. DISCUSSION: The cost-effectiveness of PEP depends upon the likelihood of exposure to HIV, the transmission probability per sexual act and the efficacy of PEP, along with associated costs. The transmission probability per sex act will be greater in the first few acts in a partnership than on average across all acts owing to heterogeneity in the transmission probability between partnerships. In settings with high HIV prevalence and low treatment coverage, appropriately focused PEP is cost-saving. As treatment coverage improves, PEP can remain cost-effective with HIV prevalences above 15% with treatment coverage achieving 90:90:90 treatment targets. At 95:95:95 treatment levels, it is unlikely to be cost-effective. PEP is only cost-effective for the first few sex acts within a partnership. The cost-effectiveness of PEP is sensitive to assumptions about the proportion of the population of partners with unsuppressed HIV, the pattern of mixing of those with unsuppressed virus, the transmission probability per sexual act, PEP efficacy, the costs of PEP and the value attached to preventing HIV acquisition. Where possible local parameters should be used in evaluating PEP cost-effectiveness in our model. CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate the use of simple calculations to define the cost-effectiveness of PEP. In populations where there is a high prevalence of unsuppressed HIV, PEP is likely to be cost-effective but only if used for one off sexual encounters and the first few sex acts within a partnership.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.