Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Optimal costs of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men

  • Jennie McKenney ,

    jennie.l.mckenney@emory.edu

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Anders Chen,

    Affiliation Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America

  • Karen W. Hoover,

    Affiliation Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Jane Kelly,

    Affiliation HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Unit, Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • David Dowdy,

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

  • Parastu Sharifi,

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

  • Patrick S. Sullivan,

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Eli S. Rosenberg

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Optimal costs of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men

  • Jennie McKenney, 
  • Anders Chen, 
  • Karen W. Hoover, 
  • Jane Kelly, 
  • David Dowdy, 
  • Parastu Sharifi, 
  • Patrick S. Sullivan, 
  • Eli S. Rosenberg
PLOS
x

Correction

27 Jul 2017: McKenney J, Chen A, Hoover KW, Kelly J, Dowdy D, et al. (2017) Correction: Optimal costs of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men. PLOS ONE 12(7): e0182593. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182593 View correction

Abstract

Introduction

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV due to their increased risk of infection. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effictive HIV-prevention strategy for MSM. Despite evidence of its effectiveness, PrEP uptake in the United States has been slow, in part due to its cost. As jurisdictions and health organizations begin to think about PrEP scale-up, the high cost to society needs to be understood.

Methods

We modified a previously-described decision-analysis model to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, over a 1-year duration of PrEP intervention and lifetime time horizon. Using updated parameter estimates, we calculated: 1) the cost per QALY gained, stratified over 4 strata of PrEP cost (a function of both drug cost and provider costs); and 2) PrEP drug cost per year required to fall at or under 4 cost per QALY gained thresholds.

Results

When PrEP drug costs were reduced by 60% (with no sexual disinhibition) to 80% (assuming 25% sexual disinhibition), PrEP was cost-effective (at <$100,000 per QALY averted) in all scenarios of base-case or better adherence, as long as the background HIV prevalence was greater than 10%. For PrEP to be cost saving at base-case adherence/efficacy levels and at a background prevalence of 20%, drug cost would need to be reduced to $8,021 per year with no disinhibition, and to $2,548 with disinhibition.

Conclusion

Results from our analysis suggest that PrEP drug costs need to be reduced in order to be cost-effective across a range of background HIV prevalence. Moreover, our results provide guidance on the pricing of generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, in order to provide those at high risk for HIV an affordable prevention option without financial burden on individuals or jurisdictions scaling-up coverage.

Introduction

Men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 4% of the United States (U.S.) adult male population, however, they are disproportionately affected by HIV due to their increased risk of infection [1, 2]. In the U.S., MSM account for almost half of people living with HIV and 65% of all new HIV diagnoses [3, 4]. The majority of new diagnoses are in persons of color [3].

Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can be a highly effective HIV prevention strategy that has the potential to decrease the number of new HIV infections among MSM in the U.S [5, 6]. The original iPrEX landmark study of PrEP in MSM found an overall 44% reduction of HIV transmission. Effectiveness was highly dependent on adherence, with a 92% reduction in the high-adherence subgroup [7]. Subsequent studies have found that PrEP reduced the incidence of HIV infection by as much as 99% if taken daily [810]. In 2012 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) for PrEP, and in 2014 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published clinical guidelines for its use as PrEP to prevent acquisition of HIV infection among high-risk individuals, including MSM, heterosexual men and women, and people who inject drugs [911]. Recent mathematical models have demonstrated impact and cost-effectiveness of PrEP among U.S. MSM similar to findings in clinical trials, but have produced mixed results in terms of cost-effectiveness [1216].

Despite overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of PrEP at reducing the risk of acquiring an HIV infection, its uptake in the U.S. has been low [1719]. Uptake has increased markedly over the past few years among white men, yet only a small fraction of the 400,000 men with PrEP indications were prescribed PrEP [20]. Compared to white men, uptake has been very low among black men [21]. In large part, the low uptake can be attributed to cost barriers [1719, 2224]. Out-of-pocket PrEP costs approximately $1500 per month, although manufacturer and state and city medication assistance programs might pay prescription costs for those who qualify. The majority of private insurance companies cover PrEP, but high insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments can make PrEP unaffordable for low-income, high-risk individuals. As jurisdictions and health organizations make important decisions about supporting PrEP scale-up, the clinical and economic impact that results from high drug pricing needs to be understood. Previous analyses [1216] have evaluated PrEP cost-effectiveness at the current drug price, generally concluding that PrEP is cost-effective in high risk populations (e.g. high background HIV prevalence). In the analysis we describe in this article, we consider cost-effectiveness under alternative pricing for PrEP, in order to help identify a price point at which large-scale delivery of PrEP to MSM is economically justified.

Methods

Model structure

We modified a previously published and described decision-analysis model [12] to estimate the cost effectiveness ratio (CER), or the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, comparing one year of PrEP to no PrEP over a lifetime horizon, incorporating first-order transmission of HIV. Our primary outcome measures were: 1) the cost per QALY gained; and 2) the PrEP drug cost required to meet specific cost-effectiveness thresholds, as modeled across a number of different scenarios.

Updated parameter estimates

We updated three parameter values for this analysis. The per-act probability of HIV acquisition for receptive anal intercourse and the risk ratio for insertive intercourse were changed to reflect a recent meta-analysis [25]. Prior estimates remain referenced [2628]. Additionally, the lifetime cost of HIV per patient was updated to reflect current estimates of the costs associated with an HIV diagnosis [16, 29, 30]. The full parameters can be found in Table 1.

HIV acquisition and disease progression

HIV acquisition was modeled as an independent risk per unprotected receptive anal intercourse act with an HIV-infected partner. To this risk we applied literature-estimated risks and prevalence of several modifiable variables, as per Table 1 [7, 16, 25, 27, 2945]. We then used estimates of HIV prevalence among members of a person’s sexual network to calculate a per-act risk of HIV acquisition. HIV disease progression is then modeled linearly as per previous cost-effectiveness analyses, using literature estimates of life expectancy, stages of HIV disease progression and duration in each stage (with and without treatment), disability-adjusted weights associated with each HIV disease stage, and cost of HIV care. Behavioral disinhibition was modeled in some scenarios, as an increase in sex acts and decrease in condom use, with associated increase in HIV transmission and STI transmission, and resulting changes in both QALYs and costs. Additional detail has been previously described [12].

Economic analysis

Cost of PrEP.

The cost of PrEP and the cost per QALY gained were estimated taking a societal perspective and using a lifetime analytic horizon [16, 46]. When implemented according to CDC clinical guidelines, the costs associated with PrEP include HIV screening before initiation of PrEP; quarterly HIV screening after introduction; renal function tests before initiation, and bi-annually thereafter; bi-annual testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); and drug and physician costs. QALYs associated with PrEP use were estimated using literature estimates of life expectancy and quality of life of a HIV-infected individual according to stage of infection [16]. Toxicity and drug resistance due to PrEP were not included in the model.

Drug price and cost per QALY threshold analysis.

We calculated the cost per QALY gained for 4 strata of overall PrEP cost (a function of both drug cost and provider costs): $11,884, $7,600 (40% reduction in PrEP drug cost), $5,457 (60% reduction in PrEP drug cost), and $3,315 (80% reduction in PrEP drug cost), while varying background HIV prevalence (10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%), behavioral disinhibition (no disinhibition and 25% increase in sexual risk, including a 25% decrease in condom use, 25% increase in sexual encounters, and 25% increase in STIs), and PrEP adherence/efficacy levels (low adherence/32% risk reduction, base-case /44% risk reduction, and high adherence/92% risk reduction). Percent drug cost reductions were selected a priori and were based on a report published by the Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), examining literature estimates of generic drug prices and the effect of market saturation on generic drug prices [47]. We also estimated the requisite PrEP drug cost in order to fall at or under 4 strata of cost per QALY thresholds: Cost saving, $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY, while varying the same parameters listed above (HIV prevalence, PrEP effectiveness and behavioral disinhibition). Cost per QALY thresholds were determined a priori and were based on literature estimates of acceptable cost per QALY thresholds [2, 48].

Sensitivity analysis

The previously published paper introducing this model includes a one-way sensitivity analysis of all parameters which impacted the CER significantly. We include an updated one way sensitivity analysis based on the updated model input parameters. We also conducted a probabilistic uncertainty analysis on the primary outcome measures, using point estimates and upper and lower bounds estimated from the literature (Table 1). We used Latin Hypercube Sampling to select values from beta distributions with shape parameter (alpha) = 4 and minimum/maximum value as given in Table 1. We then calculated 95% uncertainty ranges as the boundaries of the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile from 10,000 simulations.

Results

With updated parameter estimates, the cost per QALY gained for our base case scenario is estimated at $64,000 [95% UR: cost saving to $420,000]. The original analysis [12] estimated a cost per QALY gained of $160,000 (95% UR: cost saving to $740,000). The difference in the CER reflects the updated parameter estimate of the per-act probability of HIV acquisition for receptive anal intercourse, per a 2014 meta-analysis [25], which presents a significantly higher per-sex act transmission risk, thereby improving the absolute risk reduction and cost effectiveness of PrEP.

Fig 1 displays additional results from the analysis. Fig 1a and 1b estimate the cost per QALY gained stratified by four PrEP price points, while varying 3 different population parameters: background HIV prevalence, PrEP adherence/efficacy, and change in sexual behavior. Fig 1a shows scenarios without sexual disinhibition. When PrEP drug costs were reduced by 60%, PrEP was cost saving over the range of adherence/efficacy levels, at a background HIV prevalence of 20% or greater. PrEP becomes cost saving when drug cost was reduced by 80%, over the entire range of both adherence/efficacy and background HIV prevalence.

thumbnail
Fig 1.

a-b: Incremental cost-effectiveness of PrEP (cost per QALY gained in thousands of US$) *Combines drug cost, physician visits, and laboratory testing: drug cost: $10711/year, cost of physician visits: $1035/year, cost of renal function test: $30/year, cost of HIV testing: $108/year Drug cost: $10711/year Drug cost: $6427/year §Drug cost: $4284/year Drug cost: $2142/year #Dominated refers to cost-effectiveness scenarios with higher cost and worse outcomes. c-d: PrEP drug cost stratified by cost per QALY threshold. *Current drug cost estimated at $10711.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178170.g001

Fig 1b shows scenarios when sexual disinhibition is present. At low adherence/efficacy, PrEP is always dominated regardless of PrEP drug price (e.g. total QALYs lost due to sexual disinhibition are greater than QALYs gained due to PrEP, so price is irrelevant) At base case PrEP efficacy levels, even with 60 or 80% reduction in drug costs, PrEP is not cost effective at the $100,000 per QALY threshold at lower HIV prevalence levels (10%), but is cost effective or cost saving at higher HIV prevalence (20% or greater). With high adherence/efficacy, at a 40% price reduction or greater PrEP is cost saving across all HIV prevalence levels.

Fig 1c and 1d estimate what the PrEP drug price would need to be set at in order to fall at or under four different cost per QALY thresholds, when varying the same 3 population parameters listed above. Without reducing PrEP drug cost, PrEP is already cost-effective (and under some scenarios cost saving) when PrEP adherence/efficacy is high. In other scenarios, PrEP would need to undergo a price reduction to be cost effective (at the $100,000/QALY threshold) or cost saving.

With base case adherence/efficacy and no disinhibition, in order for PrEP to be cost saving, drug cost would need to be reduced to $3,635 [95% UR: $1279-$7967] (66% reduction) at the lowest background HIV prevalence and to $8,021 [95% UR: $3460- no price change] (25% reduction) at a background prevalence of 20%. Under those same conditions, in order for PrEP to be cost-effective at less than $100,000 per QALY gained, drug cost would need to be reduced to $6,402 [95% UR: $2788- no price change] (40% reduction) at a background prevalence of 10%, and at a background prevalence of 20% or greater, PrEP would not need to undergo a price reduction [95% UR: $6421- no price change].

Additionally, for PrEP to be cost saving at base case adherence/efficacy when assuming sexual disinhibition is present, drug cost would be need to be reduced to $801 [95% UR: $0-$3925] (93% reduction) at the lowest background HIV prevalence and to $2,548 [95% UR: $0-$8490] (76% reduction) at a background prevalence of 20%. To be cost-effective at less than $100,000 per QALY gained under those same conditions, drug cost would need to be reduced to $1,848 [95% UR: $0-$6770] (83% reduction) at a background prevalence of 10% and to $4,634 [95% UR: $0- no price change] (57% reduction) at a background HIV prevalence of 20%.

Under scenarios where PrEP adherence/efficacy is low without disinhibition, drug cost would need to be reduced even further to meet cost effectiveness or cost savings threshold, as per Fig 1c. Under scenarios in which PrEP adherence/efficacy was low and disinhibition present, PrEP was never cost-effective.

Fig 2 shows the updated one-way sensitivity analysis of key model parameters. Results from the tornado plot suggest that HIV prevalence and PrEP relative risk reduction/adherence are the two parameters that affect the cost-effectiveness of PrEP the most. Additionally, the estimated risk of HIV transmission per sex act clearly has an important impact, as the change in this parameter value in our current analysis leads to a base case cost per QALY gained of $64,000 compared to the original analysis of $160,000 [12]. Together, this reflects that PrEP cost effectiveness in the real world varies tremendously based on both biologic factors and patient/population specific factors. Table 2 shows QALYs gained, cost, and cost-effectiveness of PrEP vs. No Prep under certain scenarios selected.

thumbnail
Table 2. Accumulated quality-adjusted life years gained, cost, and cost-effectiveness of selected scenarios.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178170.t002

thumbnail
Fig 2. One-way sensitivity analysis of PrEP cost-effectiveness (in US$).

The black vertical line represents the base case-scenario relative to no PrEP ($64,000 per QALY gained). Blue bars represent the low value of the range, and red bars represent the high value of the range. Bars to the left of the base case scenario represent more favorable scenarios. Only parameters which affected the cost-effectiveness ratio by more than 50% in either direction are shown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178170.g002

Discussion

Our analysis found that at base-case levels of adherence and efficacy, PrEP would be cost-effective over a range of higher background HIV prevalence. In some cases, PrEP would be cost-saving, if drug costs were reduced. For example, PrEP would be cost-effective if the drug price was reduced by at least 60% and used by MSM with base-case level of PrEP adherence and efficacy, who practice disinhibition, and live in a population with a HIV prevalence of 10% or greater, representing a realistic setting. Based on published data [49, 50], 34 U.S. jurisdictions have populations of MSM with an HIV prevalence of 10% or greater. This setting also reflects adherence and efficacy levels found in the iPrEx clinical trial, and accounts for decreased condom use with PrEP, although evidence for risk compensation is mixed [6, 9, 10, 5154]. In scenarios where adherence and efficacy were low and disinhibition occurred, PrEP would never be cost-effective, highlighting the importance of both behavioral risk reduction interventions for the target population and the need for lower PrEP pricing.

A reduction in the price of PrEP would benefit a wide range of U.S. MSM, and would make PrEP cost-effective or even cost-saving. Moreover, lower drug costs would likely lead to greater uptake and adherence, and potentially decreased HIV incidence, and thus, decreased HIV prevalence in the population in the future. At its current cost, PrEP is not a cost-effective prevention intervention for all MSM in the U.S [14, 16] However, with reduced PrEP costs we estimated that the cost per QALY gained would be substantially lower than other public health prevention interventions. If PrEP costs were reduced by 80% in the context of base-case level of adherence and efficacy, disinhibition, and a background prevalence of HIV greater than 10%, PrEP would be cost-saving. Hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease is often used as a benchmark for cost per QALY thresholds, at $125,000 to $150,000 per QALY [5557]. Further, the cost per QALY gained for cervical cancer screening is estimated to be $19,530, higher than the cost per QALY for PrEP when drug cost is reduced by 80% [58]. A recent modeling study of PrEP implementation in England found that the price of PrEP would need to be reduced by 80% or more of its current cost for it to be cost-effective and affordable to scale-up for population impact [59].

Although evidence from clinical trials, demonstration projects, and mathematical models suggest that PrEP could have substantial impact on the HIV epidemic within the U.S., scale-up has been slow. Several barriers have hindered its implementation, including access to health insurance [1719, 2224, 60, 61]. Although the Affordable Care Act has reduced the number of Americans without health insurance from 18% in 2013 to 11.9% in 2015, healthcare disparities remain, especially among black Americans who are also disproportionately affected by HIV [60, 61]. A study measuring the PrEP care continuum of MSM in Atlanta, found black MSM were less likely than white MSM to have access to healthcare (53% and 76%, respectively) and to ultimately receive a prescription for PrEP, resulting in only 12.3% of black MSM achieving protection from PrEP, compared to 17.8% of white MSM [60]. Similar results are seen from a meta-analysis examining disparities between black and white MSM that identified structural barriers, such as access to healthcare, as one of the highest ranked disparities affecting HIV acquisition between these two groups [62].

Another barrier to PrEP implementation is the high cost of PrEP medication [1719, 2224]. Despite the fact that most private insurance and Medicaid plans include PrEP as a benefit, and medication assistance programs help to pay for PrEP drugs for those who qualify, PrEP is too expensive for many persons who might benefit from it. Out-of-pocket costs hinder the ability of PrEP scale-up for low-income, high-risk individuals, with often unaffordable insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for those with insurance and approximately $1500 per month in drug cost for those without insurance. The availability of a generic form of the drug might help to make PrEP more affordable. Generic drugs are, on average, priced at 80% of the price of brand name drugs [47]. Truvada, the only drug approved for PrEP in the U.S., is protected by a patent that will expire in 2017. Assuming the patent terms of Truvada are not extended, generic formulations will likely be produced and result in reductions in price. However, lower drug pricing typically lags following expiration of a patent and the loss of market exclusivity [63,64]. Market saturation with a generic drug and reduction in the price might not occur immediately or until multiple competitors enter the market [47]. Only two known Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for generic PrEP drugs have been filed by competitors [65, 66], so it is likely that saturation of the PrEP market will be delayed. To facilitate PrEP scale-up for an estimated 1.2 million adults eligible for PrEP [67], the pricing of generic PrEP would need to be substantially less expensive than Truvada.

There are several limitations associated with our study. First, the model does not incorporate the non-linear dynamics of HIV if PrEP were to prevent not only an index infection but also forward transmission of HIV infection in the population. This may lead to a more conservative estimate of the cost effectiveness of PrEP. Second, important heterogeneities are not incorporated in the model. For example, we did not account for dense, associative, and heterogeneous sexual networks that can result in pockets of very high transmission density. These high risk pockets are where PrEP can be most effective and cost effective so the simplification of sexual transmission in our model may again lead to a more conservative estimate of the cost effectiveness of PrEP.

It is important for federal, state, and local policy makers to understand how the cost of PrEP medications might impact their capacity to scale-up it up for MSM. Lower pricing of PrEP drugs ensures that drug formularies include these medications in their top tiers not only for HIV treatment but also for PrEP, and that PrEP medications are included on state Medicaid Preferred Drug Lists. Also, many MSM who would benefit from PrEP do not have private insurance or live in states where Medicaid has not been expanded and lower medication pricing would make self-pay of PrEP more affordable. In addition, with lower drug pricing, state and local PrEP assistance programs, such as the Washington State PrEP Drug Assistance Program, would be able to expand PrEP services to an increased number of men [68].

Jurisdictional decisions on HIV prevention and treatment are constrained by limited resources, and ensuring access to PrEP for eligible high-risk persons is a high priority [69]. The cost-effectiveness of a public health intervention is often considered by funders and legislators, and enumerating threshold conditions at which PrEP becomes cost-saving provides guidance for the direction of funds. Results from this analysis provide the tools needed to make sense of cost-breaks and guide public health decision-making. For example, Georgia has a high HIV prevalence, so PrEP is cost-effective at a higher price break than in a lower prevalence state such as Montana, where PrEP scale-up might not be feasible until prices are substantially lower.

PrEP has the potential to reduce HIV incidence in the U.S. Our analysis suggests that, for many scenarios, PrEP is cost-effective compared to traditional thresholds often used to benchmark cost-effectiveness. If the price of PrEP were lowered by its manufacturer or with eventual generic manufacturing, PrEP could be cost-saving in most jurisdictions. Our results provide support for continued efforts to implement PrEP for MSM in the U.S., and suggest that with medication price reductions PrEP could be accessible to those at highest risk of acquiring HIV but without personal or societal financial burden.

Author Contributions

  1. Conceptualization: ESR KH.
  2. Formal analysis: JM AC DD PS.
  3. Methodology: JM ESR AC.
  4. Project administration: JM.
  5. Supervision: JM ESR KH.
  6. Visualization: JM AC.
  7. Writing – original draft: JM.
  8. Writing – review & editing: JM AC DD KH JK PSS ESR.

References

  1. 1. Purcell D, Johnson C, Lansky A, Prejean J, Stein R, Denning P, et al. Estimating the population size of men who have sex with men in the United States to obtain HIV and syphilis rates. AIDS. 2012; 6: 98–107.
  2. 2. Koppenhaver R, Sorensen S, Farnham P, Sansom S. The cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men in the United Sates: an epidemic model. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011; 58(2):e51–2. pmid:21921730
  3. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimates of new HIV infections in the United States. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2015.
  4. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV among gay and bisexual men. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2015.
  5. 5. Sullivan P, Carballo-Diequez A, Coates T, Goodreau SM, McGowan I, Sanders EJ, et al. Successes and challenges of HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. Lancet. 2012; 380(9839): 388–99. pmid:22819659
  6. 6. Volk J, Marcus J, Phengrasamy T, Blechinger D, Nguyen DP, Follansbee S, Hare CB. No new HIV infections with increasing use of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a clinical practice setting. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 61 (10):1601–3. pmid:26334052
  7. 7. Grant R, Lama J, Anderson P, McMahan V, Lui AY, Vargas L, Goicochea P, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(27):2587–99. pmid:21091279
  8. 8. Anderson PL, Glidden DV, Liu A, Buchbinder S, Lamar JR, Guanira JV, et al. Emtricitabine-tenofovir concentrations and pre-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in men who have sex with men. Sci Transl Med. 2012; 4(151).
  9. 9. Beaten J, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(5):399–410. pmid:22784037
  10. 10. Thigpen M, Kebaabetswe P, Paxton L, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2010; 367(5):423–34.
  11. 11. U.S. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States-2014. Clinical Practice Guidelines; 2014.
  12. 12. Chen A, Dowdy D. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men: risk calculators for real-world decision-making. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10):e108742. pmid:25285793
  13. 13. Desai K, Sansom S, Ackers M, Stewart SR, Hall HI, Hu DJ, et al. Modeling the impact of HIV chemoprophylaxis strategies among men who have sex with men in the United States: HIV infections prevention and cost-effectiveness. AIDS. 2008; 22(14):1829–39. pmid:18753932
  14. 14. Paltiel D, Freedberg K, Scott C, Schackman BR, Losina E, Wang B, et al. HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: impact on lifetime infection risk, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Clin Infect Dis. 2009; 48(6):806–15. pmid:19193111
  15. 15. Kessler J, Myers J, Nucifora K, Mensah N, Toohey C, Khademi A, Cutler B, Braithwaite S. Evaluating the impact of prioritization of antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis in New York. AIDS. 2014; 28(18):2683–91. pmid:25493594
  16. 16. Juusola J, Brandeau M, Owens D, Bendavid E. The cost-effectiveness of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in the United States in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156(8):541–50. pmid:22508731
  17. 17. Krakower D, Oldenburg C, Mitty J, Wilson I, Kurth A, Maloney K, et al. New England healthcare providers’ perceptions, knowledge and practices regarding the use of antiretrovirals for prevention. 9th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence; Abstract 270, June 2014; Miami, Fl.
  18. 18. Hoover KW. Uptake of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent acquisition of HIV infection. In: National HIV Prevention Conference. December 8, 2015; Atlanta, GA.
  19. 19. Mera R, McCallister S, Palmer B, Mayer G, Magnuson D, Rawlings K. FTC/TDF (Truvada) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) utilization in the United States: 2012–2015. In: 21st International AIDS Conference 2016; Durban, South Africa.
  20. 20. Mera R, McCallister S, Palmer B, Mayer G, Magnuson D, Rawlings K. FTC/TDF (Truvada) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) utilization in the United States: 2012–2015. AIDS 2016. Durban, South Africa.
  21. 21. Bush S, Magnuson D, Rawlings K, Hawkins T, McCallister S, Giler M, Robertino . Racial characteristics of FTC/TDF pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users in the US. ASM Microbe 2016. Boston, MA.
  22. 22. Tellalian D, Maznavi K, Bredeek U, Hardy W. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV infection: results for a survey of HIV healthcare providers evaluating their knowledge, attitudes, and prescribing practices. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2013; 27(10):553–9. pmid:24053478
  23. 23. Krakower D, Ware N, Mitty J, Maloney K Mayer KH. HIV providers; perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis in care settings: a qualitative study. AIDS Behav. 2014; 18(9):1712–21. pmid:24965676
  24. 24. Kelley C, Kahle E, Siegler A, Sanchez T, Del Rio C, Sullivan PS, Rosenberg ES. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, GA. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; Epub ahead of print. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/12/cid.civ664.full.pdf+html
  25. 25. Patel P, Borkowf C, Brooks JT, Lasry A, Lansky A, Mermin K. Estimating per-act HIV transmission risk: a systematic review. AIDS. 2014; 28(10):1509–1519. pmid:24809629
  26. 26. Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F, McKirnan D, MacQueen K, Buchbinder SP. Per-contact risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission between male sexual partners. A J Epidemiol. 1999; 150(3):306–11.
  27. 27. Baggaley R, White R, Hollingsworth T, Boily M. Heterosexual HIV-1 infectiousness and antiretroviral use: systematic review of prospective studies of discordant couples. Epidemiology. 2013; 24(1):110–21. pmid:23222513
  28. 28. Jin F, Jansson J, Law M, Prestage GP, Zablotska I, Imrie JC, et al. Per-contact probability of HIV transmission in homosexual men in Sydney in the era of HAART. AIDS. 2010; 24(6): 907–13. pmid:20139750
  29. 29. Gebo K, Fleishman J, Conviser R, Hellinger J, Hellinger FJ, Josephs JS, et al. Contemporary costs of HIV healthcare in the HAART era. AIDS. 2010; 24(17): 2705–15. pmid:20859193
  30. 30. Schackman B, Gebo K, Walensky P, Losina E, Muccio T, Sax PE, et al. The lifetime cost of current human immunodeficiency virus care in the United States. Med Care. 2006; 44(11):990–7. pmid:17063130
  31. 31. Hughes J, Baeten J, Lingappa J, Margaret AS, Wald A, de Bruyn G, Kiarie J, et al. Determinants of per-coital-act HIV-1 infectivity among African HIV-1-serodiscordant couples. J Infect Dis. 2012; 205(3):358–65. pmid:22241800
  32. 32. Xu F, Sternberg M, Markowitz L. Men who have sex with men in the United States: demographic and behavioral characteristics and prevalence of HIV and HSV-2 infection: results from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001–2006. Sex Transm Dis. 2010; 37(6):399–405. pmid:20473245
  33. 33. Cohen M, Chen Y, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(6):493–505. pmid:21767103
  34. 34. Anglemyer A, Rutherford G, Horvath R, Baggaley RC, Egger M, Siegfried N. Antiretroviral therapy for prevention of HIV transmission in HIV-discordant couples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 4:CD009153.
  35. 35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: HIV prevention through care and treatment- United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011; 60(47):1618–23.
  36. 36. Weller S, Davis K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002; CD003255. pmid:11869658
  37. 37. Fleming D, Wasserheit J. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Infect. 1999; 75(1):3–17. pmid:10448335
  38. 38. Mimiaga M, Helms D, Reisner S, Grasso C, Bertrand T, Mosure DJ, et al. Gonococcal, chlamydia, and syphilis infection positivity among NSN attending a large primary care clinic, Boston, 2003 to 2004. Sex Transm Dis. 2009; 36(8):07–11.
  39. 39. Sullivan P, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, Sanchez T. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS. 2009; 23(9):1153–62. pmid:19417579
  40. 40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence and awareness of HIV infection among men who have sex with men- 21 cities, United States, 2008. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010; 59(37):1201–7.
  41. 41. Owusu-Edusei K, Chesson H, Gift T, Tao G, Mahajan R, Ocfemia MC, Kent Ck. The estimated direct medical cost of selected sexually transmitted infections in the United States, 2008. Sex Transm Dis. 2013; 40(3):197–201. pmid:23403600
  42. 42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2011. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2012.
  43. 43. Tengs T, Lin T. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making. 2002; 22(6):475–81. pmid:12458977
  44. 44. Kent C, Chaw J, Wong W, Liska S, Gibson S, Hubbard G, Klausner JD. Prevalence of rectal, urethral, and pharyngeal chlamydia and gonorrhea detected in 2 clinical settings among men who have sex with men: San Francisco, California, 2003. Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 41(1):67–74. pmid:15937765
  45. 45. The World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease 2004 update: disability weight for diseases and conditions. www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD2004_DisabilityWeights.pdf Accessed: September 1, 2015.
  46. 46. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV cost-effectiveness. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/ongoing/costeffectiveness/ Accessed: September 1, 2015.
  47. 47. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Expanding the use of generic drugs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/expanding-use-generic-drugs Accessed: August 30, 2015.
  48. 48. Braithwaite R, Meltzer D, King J, Leslie D, Roberts MS. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care. 2008; 46(6):349–56.
  49. 49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV infection- United States, 2008–2012. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015; 62(24):657–662.
  50. 50. Grey J, Bernstein K, Sullivan P, Purcell DW, Chesson HW, Gift TL, Rosenberg ES. Estimating the population sizes of men who have sex with men (MSM) in US states and counties using data from the American Community Survey. JMIR Pub Health Surveil. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.5365
  51. 51. McCormack S, Dunn D, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD); effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomized trial. Lancet. 2015. Epub ahead of print. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00056-2
  52. 52. Hojilla J, Koester K, Cohen S, Buchbinder S, Ladzekpo D, Matheson T, Liu AY. Sexual behavior, risk compensation and HIV prevention strategies among participants in the San Francisco Demonstration Project: a qualitative analysis of counseling notes. AIDS. 2015; Epub ahead of print. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1055-5
  53. 53. Ryan B. 45% of PrEP users at SF clinic report using condoms less often. AIDSMEDS. 2014. Epub ahead of print. http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/PrEP_condoms_less_1667_26573.shtml
  54. 54. Golub S, Kowalczyk W, Weinberger C, Parsons J. Preexposure prophylaxis and predict condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013; 54(5):548–55.
  55. 55. Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N, Krueger H, Ferguson B, Wong C, Muirhead N. A study of the quality of life and cost—utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int.1996; 50(1), 235–42. pmid:8807593
  56. 56. Winkelmayer W, Weinstein M, Mittleman M, Glynn R, Pliskin J. Health economic evaluations: the special case of end-stage renal disease treatment. Med Decis Making. 2002; 22(5):417–30. pmid:12365484
  57. 57. Quinn R, Naimark D, Oliver M, Bayoumi A. Should hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation undergo systemic anticoagulation? A cost—utility analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007; 50(3): 421–32. pmid:17720521
  58. 58. Kim J, Campos N, Sy S, Burger EA, Cuzick J, Castle PE, et al. Inefficiencies and high-value improvements in U.S. cervical cancer screening practice: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015; Epub ahead of print. http://annals.org.proxy.library.emory.edu/article.aspx?articleid=2446187
  59. 59. Gill N. Prospects for PrEP in England- need, policy, cost, and impact. IAPAC Controlling the HIV Epidemic with Antiretrovirals. 2016, Geneva.
  60. 60. Kelley C, Kahle E, Siegler A, Sanchez T, Del Rio C, Sullivan PS, Rosenberg ES. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 61(10): 1590–7. pmid:26270691
  61. 61. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV among African American gay and bisexual men. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/bmsm.html Accessed: December 1, 2015.
  62. 62. Millett G, Peterson J, Flores S, Hart TA, Jeffries WL 4th, Wilson PA, et al. Comparisons of disparities and risks of HIV infection in black and other men who have sex with men in Canada, UK, and USA: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012; 380(9839): 341–8. pmid:22819656
  63. 63. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Paragraph IV drug product applications: generic drug patent challenge notifications. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDAGenerics/ucm147166.htm Accessed: August 30, 2015.
  64. 64. Conti R, Berndt E. Specialty drug prices and utilization after loss of U.S. patent exclusivity, 2001–2007. NBER Working Paper. 2014; #20016.
  65. 65. Gilead. Gilead Sciences announces notification of ANDA filing for Viread. http://www.gilead.com/news/press-releases/2010/1/gilead-sciences-announces-notification-of-anda-filing-for-viread Accessed: August 30, 2015.
  66. 66. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 8-K: Gilead Sciencies, Inc. www.sex.gov/Archives/edgar/data/882095/000088209514000031/a2014may308-klupintdf.htm Accessed: August 31, 2015.
  67. 67. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: Estimated percentages and numbers of adults with indications for preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition- United States, 2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015; 64(46):1291–95.
  68. 68. Washington State Department of Health. PrEP DAP. http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/HIVAIDS/HIVCareClientServices/PrEPDAP Accessed: November 9, 2015.
  69. 69. Mayer K, Gazzard B, Zuniga JM, Amico KR, Anderson J, Azad Y, et al. Controlling the HIV epidemic with antiretrovirals: IAPAC consensus statement on treatment as prevention and preexposure prophylaxis. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2013; 12(3): 208–16. pmid:23666450