Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
How plausible is it that PEP would be cost‐effective in sub‐Saharan Africa?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
How plausible is it that PEP would be cost‐effective in sub‐Saharan Africa?
Do you wish to request the book?
How plausible is it that PEP would be cost‐effective in sub‐Saharan Africa?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
How plausible is it that PEP would be cost‐effective in sub‐Saharan Africa?
2025
Overview
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.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
Subject
Africa South of the Sahara - epidemiology
/ Disease Transmission, Infectious - prevention & control
/ Female
/ Females
/ HIV
/ HIV Infections - epidemiology
/ HIV Infections - prevention & control
/ HIV Infections - transmission
/ Human immunodeficiency virus
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Males
/ Post-Exposure Prophylaxis - economics
/ Post-Exposure Prophylaxis - methods
/ Sexually transmitted diseases
/ STD
