A cost-effectiveness study by Sabina Alistar and colleagues evaluates the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different levels of investment in methadone, ART, or both, in the mixed HIV epidemic in Ukraine.

ObjectiveIn many high-income countries with low HIV prevalence, significant numbers of persons living with HIV (PLHIV) remain undiagnosed. Identification of PLHIV via HIV testing offers timely access to lifesaving antiretroviral therapy (ART) and decreases HIV transmission. We estimated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV testing in the United Kingdom (UK), where 25% of PLHIV are estimated to be undiagnosed.DesignWe developed a dynamic compartmental model to analyze strategies to expand HIV testing and treatment in the UK, with particular focus on men who have sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs (PWID), and individuals from HIV-endemic countries.MethodsWe estimated HIV prevalence, incidence, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and health care costs over 10 years, and cost-effectiveness.ResultsAnnual HIV testing of all adults could avert 5% of new infections, even with no behavior change following HIV diagnosis because of earlier ART initiation, or up to 18% if risky behavior is halved. This strategy costs £67,000–£106,000/QALY gained. Providing annual testing only to MSM, PWID, and people from HIV-endemic countries, and one-time testing for all other adults, prevents 4–15% of infections, requires one-fourth as many tests to diagnose each PLHIV, and costs £17,500/QALY gained. Augmenting this program with increased ART access could add 145,000 QALYs to the population over 10 years, at £26,800/QALY gained.ConclusionsAnnual HIV testing of key populations in the UK is very cost-effective. Additional one-time testing of all other adults could identify the majority of undiagnosed PLHIV. These findings are potentially relevant to other low-prevalence, high-income countries.

BackgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis with oral antiretroviral treatment (oral PrEP) for HIV-uninfected injection drug users (IDUs) is potentially useful in controlling HIV epidemics with a significant injection drug use component. We estimated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of strategies for using oral PrEP in various combinations with methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and antiretroviral treatment (ART) in Ukraine, a representative case for mixed HIV epidemics.Methods and FindingsWe developed a dynamic compartmental model of the HIV epidemic in a population of non-IDUs, IDUs who inject opiates, and IDUs in MMT, adding an oral PrEP program (tenofovir/emtricitabine, 49% susceptibility reduction) for uninfected IDUs. We analyzed intervention portfolios consisting of oral PrEP (25% or 50% of uninfected IDUs), MMT (25% of IDUs), and ART (80% of all eligible patients). We measured health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), HIV prevalence, HIV infections averted, and incremental cost effectiveness. A combination of PrEP for 50% of IDUs and MMT lowered HIV prevalence the most in both IDUs and the general population. ART combined with MMT and PrEP (50% access) averted the most infections (14,267). For a PrEP cost of $950, the most cost-effective strategy was MMT, at $520/QALY gained versus no intervention. The next most cost-effective strategy consisted of MMT and ART, costing $1,000/QALY gained compared to MMT alone. Further adding PrEP (25% access) was also cost effective by World Health Organization standards, at $1,700/QALY gained. PrEP alone became as cost effective as MMT at a cost of $650, and cost saving at $370 or less.ConclusionsOral PrEP for IDUs can be part of an effective and cost-effective strategy to control HIV in regions where injection drug use is a significant driver of the epidemic. Where budgets are limited, focusing on MMT and ART access should be the priority, unless PrEP has low cost.

BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy (ART) and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are effective in reducing HIV transmission in heterosexual adults. The epidemiologic impact and cost-effectiveness of combined prevention approaches in resource-limited settings remain unclear.MethodsWe develop a dynamic mathematical model of the HIV epidemic in South Africa’s adult population. We assume ART reduces HIV transmission by 95% and PrEP by 60%. We model two ART strategies: scaling up access for those with CD4 counts ≤ 350 cells/μL (Guidelines) and for all identified HIV-infected individuals (Universal). PrEP strategies include use in the general population (General) and in high-risk individuals (Focused). We consider strategies where ART, PrEP, or both are scaled up to 100% of remaining eligible individuals yearly. We measure infections averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over 20 years.ResultsScaling up ART to 50% of eligible individuals averts 1,513,000 infections over 20 years (Guidelines) and 3,591,000 infections (Universal). Universal ART is the most cost-effective strategy at any scale ($160-$220/QALY versus comparable scale Guidelines ART expansion). General PrEP is costly and provides limited benefits beyond ART scale-up ($7,680/QALY to add 100% PrEP to 50% Universal ART). Cost-effectiveness of General PrEP becomes less favorable when ART is widely given ($12,640/QALY gained when added to 100% Universal ART). If feasible, Focused PrEP is cost saving or highly cost effective versus status quo and when added to ART strategies.ConclusionsExpanded ART coverage to individuals in early disease stages may be more cost-effective than current guidelines. PrEP can be cost-saving if delivered to individuals at increased risk of infection.

Background Effectively controlling the HIV epidemic will require efficient use of limited resources. Despite ambitious global goals for HIV prevention and treatment scale up, few comprehensive practical tools exist to inform such decisions. Methods We briefly summarize modeling approaches for resource allocation for epidemic control, and discuss the practical limitations of these models. We describe typical challenges of HIV resource allocation in practice and some of the tools used by decision makers. We identify the characteristics needed in a model that can effectively support planners in decision making about HIV prevention and treatment scale up. Results An effective model to support HIV scale-up decisions will be flexible, with capability for parameter customization and incorporation of uncertainty. Such a model needs certain key technical features: it must capture epidemic effects; account for how intervention effectiveness depends on the target population and the level of scale up; capture benefit and cost differentials for packages of interventions versus single interventions, including both treatment and prevention interventions; incorporate key constraints on potential funding allocations; identify optimal or near-optimal solutions; and estimate the impact of HIV interventions on the health care system and the resulting resource needs. Additionally, an effective model needs a user-friendly design and structure, ease of calibration and validation, and accessibility to decision makers in all settings. Conclusions Resource allocation theory can make a significant contribution to decision making about HIV prevention and treatment scale up. What remains now is to develop models that can bridge the gap between theory and practice.