Modelling the cost-effectiveness of TasP and PrEP in female sex workers in Cotonou, Benin.

Introduction Treatment as prevention (TasP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) could impact the HIV epidemic among Female Sex Workers (FSW) but their cost-effectiveness is uncertain in this group. This study aims to model the cost-effectiveness of TasP and PrEP among FSW in Cotonou, Benin. Methods A demonstration study assessed TasP and PrEP use among FSW in Cotonou. A dynamic HIV transmission model was developed to estimate the impact of this intervention and published elsewhere. Incremental economic costs of the study were collected prospectively capturing both provider and FSW costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per HIV infection and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted were estimated over a 20 year time horizon with costs converted to USD 2020 and both costs and DALYs discounted at 4.5% per year. Different cost scenarios were modelled to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention as delivered by the government reflecting current day implementation and resource costs. Results The mean provider annual economic cost per FSW on TasP was $646, with an initiation cost of $347 and mean annual user costs were $16. The mean initiation costs for PrEP were $268, mean annual provider costs were $359-$499 and annual user cost $15-$21 depending on adherence level. TasP was found to be cost saving for all cost scenarios examined compared to routine HIV care for FSW. PrEP was not cost-effective for any cost scenario, population coverage or adherence level examined. Conclusion Our results support TasP but not PrEP for FSW in our setting. A streamlined, outreach delivery model with reduced costs should be investigated to assess its cost-effectiveness in this setting. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant no. OPP1098973). Complementary funding was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant numbers ROH-115205 and FDN-143218). Truvada for pre-exposure prophylaxis was provided free of charge by Gilead Sciences. ### 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 ethics committee of the CHU de Quebec University Laval, Quebec, Canada, and the Benin National Ethics Committee for Health Research gave ethical approval for this work. 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 All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors