Several
presentations at the Eighteenth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections this week used
mathematical modelling to forecast the impact of adopting oral pre-exposure
prophlyaxis (PrEP) or a topical microbicide in a high-prevalence country, added
to HIV treatment or on its own. Three used South Africa as a model, while one
analysed how PrEP might affect a serodiscordant couple.
In
this piece we look at the first two models, which look at how PrEP/microbicides
might affect HIV incidence and prevalence. The other two models looked at
cost-effectiveness (see Modellers examine
the cost-effectiveness of PrEP in Africa).
PrEP’s effect on prevalence
Ume
Abbas from the Cleveland Clinical Foundation modelled the effect of increased
antiretroviral provision with or without additional oral PrEP in South Africa.
She
used an optimistic scenario for the expansion of HIV treatment, assuming that antiretrovirals
(ARVs) would eventually reach 80% of people with a CD4 count below 200 cells/mm3.
She assumed various mortality, dropout and treatment failure rates, and also
assumed that, in line with the Partners
in Prevention study, that suppressive ARV treatment would cut people’s
infectiousness by 92%.
This
expansion of treatment alone would prevent 696,000 new HIV infections up to the
year 2022. However, there would also be 295,000 cases of drug resistance (8.5%
of 3.4 million on treatment, a third of it due to transmitted resistance).
She
then assumed that PrEP for HIV-negative people was substituted for antiretroviral
treatment for people with HIV. This is not a scenario likely to be adopted. If
it was, though, it would prevent 200,000 new HIV infections, and there would be
a lot less drug resistance (24,500 new cases or 1.1% of 2.2 million on PrEP).
If
both ARV treatment and PrEP on this basis were introduced, 839,000 HIV
infections would be prevented (20% more than with treatment alone), and there
would be 323,000 cases of drug resistance (9.5% of 3.4 million on treatment and PrEP).
This
was on the basis of a realistic model of PrEP based on levels achieved in the
iPrEx study: the model parameters were that PrEP would reach 50% of those in need
of it within five years from now, that it would have 50% efficacy, that people would only
take it half the time, and that the average length of time on PrEP would be
five years.
With
a more optimistic PrEP scenario where it had 70% efficacy, adherence was 80%
and people stayed on it for ten years, 1.25 million infections would be
averted.
A microbicide’s effect
Valentina
Cambiano and a team from University College London modelled the effect of a continued,
slow scale-up of HIV treatment with a tenofovir gel microbicide added for women.
It was assumed that the gel would have the same efficacy as that seen in
CAPRISA 004 and the same adherence characteristics would apply: 40% of the
women would use it more than 80% of the time, 40% less than 50% of the time, and
the other 20% between 50 and 80% of the time. They assumed that 70% of women
in need would have access to tenofovir gel by 2015. Scale-up of ARVs was similar
to the Abbas paper, with 65% of people with HIV diagnosed by 2025 and 70% of
them on ARVs (45% of all HIV-positive people).
If
this scale-up continues but a microbicide is not introduced, the model finds
that HIV incidence in the adult population would be 1.13% a year in men and
1.48% in women by 2025. If a microbicide is added, then incidence in men would
be 0.85% a year and 0.81% in women. Altogether there would be 32% fewer
infections between 2012 and 2025 if a microbicide was used.
Abstracts and webcast
You can view the abstracts from this research on the official conference
website:
Abstract 98LB: http://www.retroconference.org/2011/Abstracts/42475.htm
Abstract 998: http://www.retroconference.org/2011/Abstracts/42598.htm
You can also watch a webcast of the presentations made at this conference
session.
Webcast from Advances in PrEP.
We rely on donations
to continue our work to help people with HIV, support us today at: www.aidsmap.com/donate