MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410579089 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(25)00098-1

Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men in Cotonou, Benin: a mathematical modelling study

2025· article· en· W4410579089 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Trystan Leng, Léon Kessou, Jesse Heitner, Fernand Guédou, Luc Béhanzin, Marius Olodo, Souleymane Diabaté, Romain Silhol, Dobromir Dimitrov, Peter Vickerman, Michel Alary, Marie‐Claude Boily, Kate M. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsPre-exposure prophylaxisMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Men who have sex with menEnvironmental healthDemographyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can effectively reduce HIV incidence. A 2020-21 demonstration project assessed the feasibility and health outcomes of offering oral PrEP to men who have sex with men (MSM) in Cotonou, Benin. We evaluated the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of this project and the potential scale-up of oral HIV PrEP for MSM in Cotonou. METHODS: We calibrated an HIV transmission-dynamic model structured by age and risk within a Bayesian framework to MSM-specific HIV prevalence and treatment data, parameterised with project behavioural and cost (including PrEP drug, implementation, and HIV care costs) data. We estimated the impact and cost-effectiveness of the 2020-21 Cotonou demonstration project (PrEP coverage, 5-10% of all MSM who are not living with HIV in Grand Cotonou; and adherence, 13-21% taking at least four of seven required doses [ie, at least four doses per week for daily users and at least four of seven expected doses given reported sexual activity for on-demand users]) and of its potential scale-up over 5 years (from 2022 to 2027), reaching 30% coverage of MSM in Grand Cotonou and with demonstration project adherence levels. We additionally modelled ideal PrEP adherence (100% taking at least four of seven required doses). We estimated the percentage of cumulative new HIV infections averted among participating MSM over 1 year and among all MSM in Grand Cotonou and their female partners over 20 years, and cost-effectiveness as cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted over 20 years. Costs and DALYs were discounted 3% annually. FINDINGS: We found that the demonstration project averted an estimated 21·5% (95% uncertainty interval 16·6 to 26·2) of HIV infections among participants over 1 year. With ideal adherence, cases that would be averted increased to 95·2% (90·8 to 98·8). A 5-year PrEP scale-up could avert 3·2% (1·6 to 4·8) of HIV infections among all MSM and female partners over 20 years, at US$388 (36 to 2792) per DALY averted. With ideal adherence, this decreased to -$28 (-126 to 589) per DALY averted. INTERPRETATION: Low adherence to PrEP restricted the impact of the demonstration project. At 30% coverage among MSM by 2027, PrEP scale-up would be cost-effective at a $1225 threshold with 86·6% probability, and it could be more cost-effective if high adherence could be reached without substantially increasing costs. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and US National Institutes of Health. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207