The impact of PrEP: results from a multicenter Health Technology Assessment into the Italian setting.

Introduction The use of oral tenofovir/emtricitabine (FTC/TDF) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among high-risk people without Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), is emerging as an innovative strategy to decrease HIV epidemic. The study aims at evaluating the implications related to PrEP introduction, from a multidimensional point of view, as required by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach, with a particular attention on sustainability and social factors, influencing PrEP implementation. Methods An analysis was conducted involving 35 Italian Infectious Disease Departments. The introduction of PrEP (applied both as "add-on" and "substitute" prevention strategy) into the clinical practice was compared with a baseline scenario, consisting of condoms among men who have sex with men, and serodiscordant couples, and the use of Needle Syringe Programme among injection drugs users The above scenarios were analysed by means of a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach. The 9 EUnetHTA Core Model domains were assessed through comparative information, retrieved from literature evidence, and collection of qualitative and quantitative information, derived from real-world evidence, in particular from 35 Infectious Disease Departments and potential PrEP' users involved. A final multi-criteria decision analysis approach (MCDA) was implemented to simulate the appraisal phase and providing evidence-based information with regard to the preferable technology. Results Despite the improvement in patients' quality of life, PrEP would generate the development of other sexually transmitted and blood-borne diseases, with a consequent decrease of patients' safety in case of PrEP applied as a "substitute" prevention strategy. In addition, PrEP would generate an increase in staff workflow, with investment in medical supplies and training courses. PrEP would lead to significant economic investments both for the NHS (+40%), and for citizens (+2,377%) if used as an add-on strategy, assuming FTC/TDF patent cost. With the off-patent drug, the NHS would benefit from an advantage (37%), and a shrink of the patients' expenditure emerged (+682%). More economic resources are required if PrEP is applied as a substitute strategy, considering both the patent (NHS: 212%; citizens: 3,423%) and the off-patent drug (NHS: 73%; citizens: 1,077%). Conclusions. The most cost-containing strategy would be the use of PrEP, as an add-on strategy, with a consequent improvement in patients' safety, even if drug-related adverse events would be considered. The implementation of the off-patent drug would decrease the economic burden of the innovative prevention strategy. Hence, the organizational aspects related to its adoption would be deeply investigated, with the potential opportunity to create specific ambulatories devoted to PrEP users' especially for medium and big size hospitals.