HIV prevention before HAART in sub-Saharan Africa

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.

[1]  S. Weir,et al.  Prevention of sexual transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: lessons learned. , 1997, AIDS.

[2]  D. Callahan,et al.  Rationing medical progress. The way to affordable health care. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Structural Barriers and Facilitators in HIV Prevention: A Review of International Research , 2000 .

[4]  S. Kippax,et al.  Modelling the effect of combination antiretroviral treatments on HIV incidence , 2001, AIDS.

[5]  M. Merson,et al.  Effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions in developing countries. , 2000, AIDS.

[6]  M. Battegay,et al.  Sexual transmission during the incubation period of primary HIV infection. , 2001, JAMA.

[7]  Elliot Marseille,et al.  Cost effectiveness of single-dose nevirapine regimen for mothers and babies to decrease vertical HIV-1 transmission in sub-Saharan Africa , 1999, The Lancet.

[8]  T. Coates,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention in developing countries. , 2002 .

[9]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  Controlling HIV in Africa: effectiveness and cost of an intervention in a high‐frequency STD transmitter core group , 1991, AIDS.

[10]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  Reducing HIV Transmission in Developing Countries , 2001, Science.

[11]  Paul Farmer,et al.  Community-based approaches to HIV treatment in resource-poor settings , 2001, The Lancet.

[12]  S. Gregorich,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of voluntary HIV-1 counselling and testing in reducing sexual transmission of HIV-1 in Kenya and Tanzania , 2000, The Lancet.

[13]  J. Saba,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of the female condom in preventing HIV and STDs in commercial sex workers in rural South Africa. , 2001, Social science & medicine.

[14]  T. Quinn,et al.  Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Rakai Project Study Group. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  J. Todd,et al.  Impact of improved treatment of sexually transmitted diseases on HIV infection in rural Tanzania: randomised controlled trial , 1995, The Lancet.

[16]  M. Ainsworth Confronting AIDS : public priorities in a global epidemic , 1997 .

[17]  J. Sachs,et al.  Defining and refining international donor support for combating the AIDS pandemic , 2001, The Lancet.

[18]  C. Watts,et al.  Resource Needs for HIV/AIDS , 2001, Science.

[19]  A. Jonsen Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. , 1986, Law, medicine & health care : a publication of the American Society of Law & Medicine.

[20]  H. Gershengorn,et al.  A tale of two futures: HIV and antiretroviral therapy in San Francisco. , 2000, Science.