Abstract
Background: Online pharmacy HIV pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP/PEP) provision is a novel strategy to expand HIV prevention coverage. In the ePrEP pilot study, we found online pharmacy PrEP/PEP was feasible and reached populations at HIV risk in Kenya. However, program costs data are lacking. Methods: We conducted a costing within the ePrEP pilot study in Nairobi from 11/01/2022-12/29/2023. We obtained costs from expense reports and conducted time-and-motion observations and staff interviews. We estimated total and unit costs in the first year of implementation, cost per client and per PrEP client-month (2023 US Dollars (USD)). Results: Overall, 229 clients initiated PrEP (507 months of PrEP coverage) and 1320 initiated PEP. Based on observed program volume, annual financial cost was $109,945 USD (PrEP: $19,456; PEP: $90,489). Cost per client was higher for PrEP than PEP ($85 vs $68.6), and cost per PrEP client-month was $38 (mean duration: 2.2 months). Main drivers of financial costs were courier-delivery of HIV testing kits and drugs (PrEP: 50.6%; PEP: 40.5%), demand generation (PrEP: 25.9%; PEP: 32.1%), and equipment, system development, and utilities (PrEP: 9.3%; PEP: 9.8%). Assuming a scaled-up client volume of 2500 (PrEP: 370; PEP: 2130) reduced per-client financial costs for PrEP ($65.5) and PEP ($56) and cost per PrEP client-month ($29.6). Conclusions: Costs of online PrEP/PEP provision is likely higher than clinic-based PrEP. Implementing cost sharing models including charging clients for HIV testing and optimizing courier delivery routes can increase program efficiencies. Our cost estimates can inform economic evaluations of online PrEP/PEP delivery.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-037646).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Scientific and Ethics Review Unit at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (Nairobi, Kenya) and was granted an exempt status by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Washington (Seattle, USA).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos