The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2019
Cost-Effectiveness of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Among Adolescent Sexual Minority Males.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Li Yan, Hamilton Deven T, Rosenberg Eli S, Aslam Maria V, Sullivan Patrick S, Katz David A, Dunville Richard L, Barrios Lisa C, Goodreau Steven M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been proven safe and effective in preventing HIV among adolescent sexual minority males (ASMM), but the cost-effectiveness of PrEP in ASMM remains unknown. Building on a recent epidemiological network modeling study of PrEP among ASMM, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of PrEP use in a high prevalence U.S. setting with significant disparities in HIV between black and white ASMM.
METHODS: Based on the estimated number of infections averted and the number of ASMM on PrEP from the previous model and published estimates of PrEP costs, HIV treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per infection prevented, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of PrEP use in black and white ASMM over 10 years using a societal perspective and lifetime horizon. Effectiveness was measured as lifetime QALYs gained. Cost estimates included 10-year PrEP costs and lifetime HIV treatment costs saved. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost/QALY gained. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed on key model input parameters and assumptions used.
RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, PrEP use yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $33,064 per QALY in black ASMM and $427,788 per QALY in white ASMM. In all sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness ratio of PrEP use remained <$100,000 per QALY in black ASMM and >$100,000 per QALY in white ASMM.
CONCLUSIONS: We found favorable cost-effectiveness ratios for PrEP use among black ASMM or other ASMM in communities with high HIV burden at current PrEP costs. Clinicians providing services in high-prevalence communities, and particularly those serving high-prevalence communities of color, should consider including PrEP services.
METHODS: Based on the estimated number of infections averted and the number of ASMM on PrEP from the previous model and published estimates of PrEP costs, HIV treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per infection prevented, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of PrEP use in black and white ASMM over 10 years using a societal perspective and lifetime horizon. Effectiveness was measured as lifetime QALYs gained. Cost estimates included 10-year PrEP costs and lifetime HIV treatment costs saved. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost/QALY gained. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed on key model input parameters and assumptions used.
RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, PrEP use yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $33,064 per QALY in black ASMM and $427,788 per QALY in white ASMM. In all sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness ratio of PrEP use remained <$100,000 per QALY in black ASMM and >$100,000 per QALY in white ASMM.
CONCLUSIONS: We found favorable cost-effectiveness ratios for PrEP use among black ASMM or other ASMM in communities with high HIV burden at current PrEP costs. Clinicians providing services in high-prevalence communities, and particularly those serving high-prevalence communities of color, should consider including PrEP services.