Impact and cost-effectiveness of the national scale-up of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among female sex workers in South Africa: a modelling analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In 2016, South Africa (SA) initiated a national programme to scale-up pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among female sex workers (FSWs), with ∼20,000 PrEP initiations among FSWs (∼14% of FSW) by 2020. We evaluated the impact and cost-effectiveness of this programme, including future scale-up scenarios and the potential detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A compartmental HIV transmission model for SA was adapted to include PrEP. Using estimates on self-reported PrEP adherence from a national study of FSW (67.7%) and the Treatment and Prevention for FSWs (TAPS) PrEP demonstration study in SA (80.8%), we down-adjusted TAPS estimates for the proportion of FSWs with detectable drug levels (adjusted range: 38.0-70.4%). The model stratified FSW by low (undetectable drug; 0% efficacy) and high adherence (detectable drug; 79.9%; 95% CI: 67.2-87.6% efficacy). FSWs can transition between adherence levels, with lower loss-to-follow-up among highly adherent FSWs (aHR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.40-0.85; TAPS data). The model was calibrated to monthly data on the national scale-up of PrEP among FSWs over 2016-2020, including reductions in PrEP initiations during 2020. The model projected the impact of the current programme (2016-2020) and the future impact (2021-2040) at current coverage or if initiation and/or retention are doubled. Using published cost data, we assessed the cost-effectiveness (healthcare provider perspective; 3% discount rate; time horizon 2016-2040) of the current PrEP provision. RESULTS: Calibrated to national data, model projections suggest that 2.1% of HIV-negative FSWs were currently on PrEP in 2020, with PrEP preventing 0.45% (95% credibility interval, 0.35-0.57%) of HIV infections among FSWs over 2016-2020 or 605 (444-840) infections overall. Reductions in PrEP initiations in 2020 possibly reduced infections averted by 18.57% (13.99-23.29). PrEP is cost-saving, with $1.42 (1.03-1.99) of ART costs saved per dollar spent on PrEP. Going forward, existing coverage of PrEP will avert 5,635 (3,572-9,036) infections by 2040. However, if PrEP initiation and retention doubles, then PrEP coverage increases to 9.9% (8.7-11.6%) and impact increases 4.3 times with 24,114 (15,308-38,107) infections averted by 2040. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings advocate for the expansion of PrEP to FSWs throughout SA to maximize its impact. This should include strategies to optimize retention and should target women in contact with FSW services.

Comparing Prospective Incident Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Rates During Successive Waves of Delta and Omicron in Johannesburg, South Africa.

In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures.

Randomized clinical trial of nitazoxanide or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: The COVER trial evaluated whether nitazoxanide or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir could lower the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nitazoxanide was selected given its favourable pharmacokinetics and in vitro antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir had shown favourable results in early clinical trials. METHODS: In this clinical trial in Johannesburg, South Africa, healthcare workers and others at high risk of infection were randomized to 24 weeks of either nitazoxanide or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir as prevention, or standard prevention advice only. Participants were evaluated every 4 weeks for COVID-19 symptoms and had antibody and PCR testing. The primary endpoint was positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR and/or serology ≥7 days after randomization, regardless of symptoms. A Poisson regression model was used to estimate the incidence rate ratios of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 between each experimental arm and control. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and January 2022, 828 participants were enrolled. COVID-19 infections were confirmed in 100 participants on nitazoxanide (2234 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI 1837-2718), 87 on sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (2125 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI 1722-2622) and 111 in the control arm (1849 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI 1535-2227). There were no significant differences in the primary endpoint between the treatment arms, and the results met the criteria for futility. In the safety analysis, the frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was low and similar across arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, nitazoxanide and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir had no significant preventative effect on infection with SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers and others at high risk of infection.