Offering a choice of daily and event-driven preexposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men in the Netherlands: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) programme offering a choice of daily and event-driven PrEP for men who have sex with men (MSM) in the Netherlands. METHODS: We used an agent-based transmission model and an economic model to simulate a programme offering only daily PrEP and a programme offering daily and event-driven PrEP. Use of PrEP medication and preference for daily versus event-driven PrEP were estimated from the Amsterdam PrEP Demonstration Project (AMPrEP). We calculated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), over 2018-2027. An ICER less than €20 000 per QALY gained was considered cost-effective. RESULTS: Using AMPrEP data, we estimated that 27% of PrEP users chose event-driven PrEP with a median of 12 pills per month; daily PrEP users used a median of 30 pills per month. With PrEP, 3740 HIV infections were averted and 1482 QALYs were gained over 2018-2027, compared to the scenario without PrEP. The probability of the PrEP programme being cost-effective (compared to not having a PrEP programme) increased from 91% with daily PrEP to 94% with a choice of daily and event-driven PrEP. The probability of being cost-saving increased from 42% with only daily PrEP to 48% with choice of daily and event-driven PrEP. CONCLUSIONS: A daily PrEP programme for MSM would be cost-effective. Providing a choice of daily and event-driven PrEP can result in savings and is more likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving, compared to a programme offering only daily PrEP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".