Identification of economical interventions to decrease HIV-1 transmission to children is an urgent public-health priority in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed the cost effectiveness of the HIVNET 012 nevirapine regimen.
We assessed cost effectiveness in a hypothetical cohort of 20,000 pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa. Our main outcome measures were programme cost, paediatric HIV-1 cases averted, cost per case averted, and cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY). We compared HIVNET 012 with other short-course antiretroviral regimens. We also compared two implementation strategies: counselling and HIV-1 testing before treatment (targeted treatment), or nevirapine for all pregnant women (universal treatment, no counselling and testing). We did univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.
For universal treatment with 30% HIV-1 seroprevalence, the HIVNET 012 regimen would avert 603 cases of HIV-1 in babies, cost US$83,333, and generate 15,862 DALYs. The associated cost-effectiveness ratios were $138 per case averted or $5.25 per DALY. At 15% seroprevalence, the universal treatment option would cost $83,333 and avert 302 cases at $276 per case averted or $10.51 per DALY. For targeted treatment at 30% seroprevalence, HIVNET 012 would cost $141,922 and avert 476 cases at $298 per case averted or $11.29 per DALY. With seroprevalence higher than 3.0% for universal and 4.5% for targeted treatment, the HIVNET 012 regimen was likely to be as cost effective as other public-health interventions. The cost effectiveness of HIVNET 012 was robust under a wide range of parameters in the sensitivity analysis.
The HIVNET 012 regimen can be highly cost-effective in high seroprevalence settings. In lower seroprevalence areas, when multidose regimens are not cost effective, nevirapine therapy could have a major public-health impact at a reasonable cost.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,848,500
of 32,332,113 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#16,007
of 50,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,277
of 49,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#64
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,332,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 50,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 49,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
