Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22508731›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2012

The cost-effectiveness of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in the United States in men who have sex with men.

Jessie L Juusola, Margaret L Brandeau, Douglas K Owens, Eran Bendavid

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

138 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 238 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessie L JuusolaStanford University, California, USA. jjuusola@stanford.edu
Margaret L Brandeau
Douglas K Owens
Eran Bendavid
VA Palo Alto Health Care System · US

Funding

Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug AbuseR01DA015612 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI OWENS, DOUGLAS K · 2002 to 2017
$9.4M
Improving the Public Health Impact of HIV Testing in Highly Endemic RegionsK01AI084582 · NIAID · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BENDAVID, ERAN · 2009 to 2013
$652k
NIAID NIH HHS K01 AI084582NIAID NIH HHS K01-AI084582NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA015612NIDA NIH HHS R01-DA15612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA recent randomized, controlled trial showed that daily oral preexposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP) was effective for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men (MSM). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently provided interim guidance for PrEP in MSM at high risk for HIV. Previous studies did not reach a consistent estimate of its cost-effectiveness.

objectiveTo estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PrEP in MSM in the United States.

designDynamic model of HIV transmission and progression combined with a detailed economic analysis. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: MSM aged 13 to 64 years in the United States. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal.

interventionPrEP was evaluated in both the general MSM population and in high-risk MSM and was assumed to reduce infection risk by 44% on the basis of clinical trial results. OUTCOME MEASURES: New HIV infections, discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Initiating PrEP in 20% of MSM in the United States would reduce new HIV infections by an estimated 13% and result in a gain of 550,166 QALYs over 20 years at a cost of $172,091 per QALY gained. Initiating PrEP in a larger proportion of MSM would prevent more infections but at an increasing cost per QALY gained (up to $216,480 if all MSM receive PrEP). Preexposure chemoprophylaxis in only high-risk MSM can improve cost-effectiveness. For MSM with an average of 5 partners per year, PrEP costs approximately $50,000 per QALY gained. Providing PrEP to all high-risk MSM for 20 years would cost $75 billion more in health care-related costs than the status quo and $600,000 per HIV infection prevented, compared with incremental costs of $95 billion and $2 million per infection prevented for 20% coverage of all MSM. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: PrEP in the general MSM population would cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained if the daily cost of antiretroviral drugs for PrEP was less than $15 or if PrEP efficacy was greater than 75%. LIMITATION: When examining PrEP in high-risk MSM, the investigators did not model a mix of low- and high-risk MSM because of lack of data on mixing patterns.

conclusionPrEP in the general MSM population could prevent a substantial number of HIV infections, but it is expensive. Use in high-risk MSM compares favorably with other interventions that are considered cost-effective but could result in annual PrEP expenditures of more than $4 billion. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Veterans Affairs, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Indexed as

Homosexuality, MaleAdolescentAdultAnti-Retroviral AgentsChemopreventionCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ProgressionEpidemiologic MethodsHealth Care CostsHIV InfectionsHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrevalenceAnti-Retroviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID22508731
PMCPMC3690921
OpenAlexW1981177608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.