ArticleAIDS (London, England)2018
Cost-effectiveness of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention for conception in the United States.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolving landscape of economic evaluations of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation strategies: a systematic review.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Pooled it
- Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Biomedical, Non-Surgical HIV Prevention Interventions: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Exploration for the Priority of HIV Intervention: Modelling Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness - Six Cities, Eastern China, 2019-2028.China CDC weekly · 2024Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness of HIV/STI Prevention in High-Income Countries with Concentrated Epidemic Settings: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2022Article
- HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for Conception Among HIV Serodiscordant Couples in the United States: A Cohort Study.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2020Article
- A clinical practice guide: What HIV care providers need to know about HIV pregnancy planning to optimize preconception care for their patients.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2020Article
- PrEP policy implementation gaps and opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean: a scoping review.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the value of coformulated Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for conception in the U.S. and to identify scenarios in which 'Undetectable = Untransmittable' (U = U) may not be adequate, and rather, PrEP or assisted reproduction would improve outcomes.
designWe developed a Markov cohort simulation model to estimate the incremental benefits and cost-effectiveness of PrEP compared with alternative safer conception strategies, including combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) alone for the HIV-infected partner and assisted reproductive technologies. We modelled various scenarios in which HIV RNA suppression in the male partner was less than perfect.
settingU.S. healthcare sector perspective.
participantsSerodiscordant couples in the U.S. was composed of an HIV-infected male and HIV-uninfected female seeking conception.
interventionEconomic analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cumulative risks of HIV transmission to women and babies, maternal life expectancy, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALY), discounted lifetime medical costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
resultscART with condomless intercourse limited to ovulation was the preferred HIV prevention strategy among women seeking to conceive with an HIV-infected partner who is HIV-suppressed. PrEP was not cost-effective for women who had partners who were virologically suppressed. When the probability of male partner HIV suppression was low and we assumed generic pricing of PrEP, PrEP was cost-effective, and sometimes even cost-saving compared with cART alone.
conclusionFrom a U.S. healthcare sector perspective, when the male partner was not reliably suppressed, PrEP became economically attractive, and in some cases, cost-saving.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.