Ed randomly between the current level and a double proportion of

Ed randomly between the current level and a double proportion of 20 [23]. We assumed different test rates for different stages of disease progression (Table 1). Treatment. After a positive HIV-test, 70 of individuals are retained in care. Treatment is then started at CD4,350 cells/ mm3. In the AIDS stage, there is therefore immediate treatment after diagnosis. Additionally it takes approximately 4 years to progress from infection to CD4,350 cells/mm3 [24]. Treatment reduces the infectivity by 90?00 as compared to the chronic stage [25,26,27].prevalence of drug resistance is expressed as the proportion of individuals with a resistant virus over the total number of infections in the population.Cost-effectiveness TA01 AnalysisIn order to evaluate the feasibility of the range in PrEP implementations, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Each compartment in our deterministic model was assigned a range of cost and quality adjusted life year (QALY) depending on the intervention (Table 1, and Tables S1, S2, S3). A QALY of 1 means one year of life lived in perfect health. As our base, a susceptible person not on PrEP was considered to have no reduction in health-related quality of life. Rates of HIV clinical tests were taken from Macha’s standard practice, including the different types of tests and how frequently they are administered. Costs and rates for hospitalization of HIV infected persons, opportunistic infections (Table S4), HIV testing, and treatment, were all taken into account using costs from Macha and the WHO-CHOICE costing database [28]. Current ARV costs were taken from the 2011 Clinton Health Access Initiative negotiated prices [29]. An intervention is said to be cost-effective if it costs less than three times the gross national income (GNI) per capita ( 3210 in Zambia [30]) per QALY gained. An intervention is defined as very cost-effective at a cost up to one times the GNI per capital ( 1070 in Zambia [30]) per QALY [31,32]. We calculated both the average cost-effectiveness ratios where we compared each scenario to baseline, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios where we compared each scenario to the next least-costly scenario [33]. We follow methodological guidelines on cost-effectiveness analysis [33], and only consider the latter as meaningful for making optimal resource allocation decisions. All costs have been discounted yearly (converting future costs into present terms) at the standard of 3 .Scenario AssumptionsBaseline. Our baseline in this model is the current practice in Macha (i.e. test rate 10?0 , retention 70 and start of treatment at CD4,350 cells/mm3). Non-Prioritized versus Prioritized PrEP distribution. We examined the impact of two hypotheticalscenarios where PrEP is perfectly and imperfectly prioritized to MedChemExpress CAL 120 represent both ends of the prioritization spectrum. In the first hypothetical scenario, we examined the impact of completely perfect prioritization by assigning approximately half of the individuals in the two highest sexual activity groups, 5?5 of the population (4,500?3,500 individuals), 16574785 to receive PrEP. We assigned just half of the highest sexual activity groups, as identifying those groups completely would likely not be feasible. In the second hypothetical scenario where PrEP is imperfectly prioritized, PrEP is assigned to half of the population in a nonprioritized manner by assigning PrEP to 40?0 of the population at random (36,000?4,000 individuals). Time to reach PrEP coverage was 1? y.Ed randomly between the current level and a double proportion of 20 [23]. We assumed different test rates for different stages of disease progression (Table 1). Treatment. After a positive HIV-test, 70 of individuals are retained in care. Treatment is then started at CD4,350 cells/ mm3. In the AIDS stage, there is therefore immediate treatment after diagnosis. Additionally it takes approximately 4 years to progress from infection to CD4,350 cells/mm3 [24]. Treatment reduces the infectivity by 90?00 as compared to the chronic stage [25,26,27].prevalence of drug resistance is expressed as the proportion of individuals with a resistant virus over the total number of infections in the population.Cost-effectiveness AnalysisIn order to evaluate the feasibility of the range in PrEP implementations, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Each compartment in our deterministic model was assigned a range of cost and quality adjusted life year (QALY) depending on the intervention (Table 1, and Tables S1, S2, S3). A QALY of 1 means one year of life lived in perfect health. As our base, a susceptible person not on PrEP was considered to have no reduction in health-related quality of life. Rates of HIV clinical tests were taken from Macha’s standard practice, including the different types of tests and how frequently they are administered. Costs and rates for hospitalization of HIV infected persons, opportunistic infections (Table S4), HIV testing, and treatment, were all taken into account using costs from Macha and the WHO-CHOICE costing database [28]. Current ARV costs were taken from the 2011 Clinton Health Access Initiative negotiated prices [29]. An intervention is said to be cost-effective if it costs less than three times the gross national income (GNI) per capita ( 3210 in Zambia [30]) per QALY gained. An intervention is defined as very cost-effective at a cost up to one times the GNI per capital ( 1070 in Zambia [30]) per QALY [31,32]. We calculated both the average cost-effectiveness ratios where we compared each scenario to baseline, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios where we compared each scenario to the next least-costly scenario [33]. We follow methodological guidelines on cost-effectiveness analysis [33], and only consider the latter as meaningful for making optimal resource allocation decisions. All costs have been discounted yearly (converting future costs into present terms) at the standard of 3 .Scenario AssumptionsBaseline. Our baseline in this model is the current practice in Macha (i.e. test rate 10?0 , retention 70 and start of treatment at CD4,350 cells/mm3). Non-Prioritized versus Prioritized PrEP distribution. We examined the impact of two hypotheticalscenarios where PrEP is perfectly and imperfectly prioritized to represent both ends of the prioritization spectrum. In the first hypothetical scenario, we examined the impact of completely perfect prioritization by assigning approximately half of the individuals in the two highest sexual activity groups, 5?5 of the population (4,500?3,500 individuals), 16574785 to receive PrEP. We assigned just half of the highest sexual activity groups, as identifying those groups completely would likely not be feasible. In the second hypothetical scenario where PrEP is imperfectly prioritized, PrEP is assigned to half of the population in a nonprioritized manner by assigning PrEP to 40?0 of the population at random (36,000?4,000 individuals). Time to reach PrEP coverage was 1? y.