Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Biomed Inform. 2020 Jun 8;107:103475. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103475

Table 6.

Comparison of HOPE and CEPAC model transmission output.

MSM
PWID
HOPE CEPAC HOPE CEPAC
Status Quo
 Total infections 102,410 103,917 16,676 15,880
PrEP (base case) 73% efficacy; 40% uptake 49% efficacy; 10% uptake
 Total infections 76,562 81,756 15,849 14,704
 Infections averted (%) 25,848 (25.2%) 22,161 (21.3%) 827 (5.0%) 1,176 (7.4%)
Lower PrEP efficacy 44% efficacy 9.6% efficacy
 Total infections 85,847 89,544 16,462 15,379
 Infections averted (%) 16,563 (16.2%) 14,373 (13.8%) 214 (1.3%) 501 (3.2%)
Higher PrEP efficacy 92% efficacy 70% efficacy
 Total infections 70,539 76,622 15,516 14,338
 Infections averted (%) 31,871 (31.1%) 27,295 (26.3%) 1,160 (7.0%) 1,542 (9.7%)
Lower PrEP uptake 20% uptake 5% uptake
 Total infections 89,179 92,298 16,262 15,260
 Infections averted (%) 13,231 (12.9%) 11,619 (11.2%) 414 (2.5%) 620 (3.9%)
Higher PrEP uptake 60% uptake 15% uptake
 Total infections 64,461 71,452 15,442 14,143
 Infections averted (%) 37,949 (37.1%) 32,465 (31.2%) 1,234 (7.4%) 1,737 (10.9%)

CEPAC: Cost-effectiveness of preventing AIDS complications microsimulation model; HOPE: HIV Optimization and Prevention Economics dynamic transmission model; MSM: men who have sex with men; PrEP: pre-exposure prophylaxis; PWID: people who inject drugs.