Search

Each year about 2 million babies are born to HIV-1- infected women. Despite widespread knowledge of proven methods to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of the virus most infants at risk of contracting the infection from their mothers receive no prophylactic intervention. This inaction leads to the infection and ultimate death of about 800 000 children per year. It has been known since 1994 that MTCT is largely preventable and interventions appropriate for use in the developing world have been available since 1999. Singledose intrapartum and neonatal nevirapine—the simplest and perhaps most effective of the short-course antiretroviral regimens studied—has been available free of charge from the manufacturer since 2000. Nevertheless few women have access to MTCT-prevention services. In the more than 3 years since its inception the donation programme has shipped only 189 000 courses of the drug a tiny fraction (

Summary Data on the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa and on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) indicate that prevention is at least 28 times more cost effective than HAART. We aim to show that funding HAART at the expense of prevention means greater loss of life. To maximise health benefits, the next major increments of HIV funding in sub-Saharan Africa should be devoted mainly to prevention and to some non-HAART treatment and care. Funds should be allocated to HAART primarily for demonstration projects that will help prepare for scaled-up HAART provision following broad population coverage by prevention programmes. UNAIDS and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine recently estimated that at least US$9·2 billion annually is required to mount an appropriate response to the HIV pandemic, including substantial funding for HAART. To date, US$1·96 billion has been committed to the newly-established UN Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. It is a moral imperative that expanded programmes to control HIV be implemented without delay, and that the goal of US$9·2 billion or more in annual spending be attained as rapidly as possible. The findings and recommendations of this analysis pertain to the phasing in of additional HIV-related activities during the current period of improved but inadequate funding.

Summary Background 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. Methods 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. Findings 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. Interpretation 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.