Rebecca F Baggaley1, Christophe Fraser. 1. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Imperial College London, London, UK. r.baggaley@imperial.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of mathematical models of sexual transmission of HIV: the methods used and their impact. RECENT FINDINGS: We use mathematical modelling of 'universal test and treat' as a case study to illustrate wider issues relevant to all modelling of sexual HIV transmission. SUMMARY: Mathematical models are used extensively in HIV epidemiology to deduce the logical conclusions arising from one or more sets of assumptions. Simple models lead to broad qualitative understanding, whereas complex models can encode more realistic assumptions and, thus, be used for predictive or operational purposes. An overreliance on model analysis in which assumptions are untested and input parameters cannot be estimated should be avoided. Simple models providing bold assertions have provided compelling arguments in recent public health policy, but may not adequately reflect the uncertainty inherent in the analysis.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of mathematical models of sexual transmission of HIV: the methods used and their impact. RECENT FINDINGS: We use mathematical modelling of 'universal test and treat' as a case study to illustrate wider issues relevant to all modelling of sexual HIV transmission. SUMMARY: Mathematical models are used extensively in HIV epidemiology to deduce the logical conclusions arising from one or more sets of assumptions. Simple models lead to broad qualitative understanding, whereas complex models can encode more realistic assumptions and, thus, be used for predictive or operational purposes. An overreliance on model analysis in which assumptions are untested and input parameters cannot be estimated should be avoided. Simple models providing bold assertions have provided compelling arguments in recent public health policy, but may not adequately reflect the uncertainty inherent in the analysis.
Authors: Mark S Clements; Garrett Prestage; Andrew Grulich; Paul Van de Ven; Susan Kippax; Matthew G Law Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Ronald H Gray; Xianbin Li; Maria J Wawer; Stephen J Gange; David Serwadda; Nelson K Sewankambo; Richard Moore; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Tom Lutalo; Thomas C Quinn Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-09-05 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Viviane D Lima; Karissa Johnston; Robert S Hogg; Adrian R Levy; P Richard Harrigan; Aranka Anema; Julio S G Montaner Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Nicolas Nagot; Abdoulaye Ouédraogo; Vincent Foulongne; Issouf Konaté; Helen A Weiss; Laurence Vergne; Marie-Christine Defer; Didier Djagbaré; Anselme Sanon; Jean-Baptiste Andonaba; Pierre Becquart; Michel Segondy; Roselyne Vallo; Adrien Sawadogo; Philippe Van de Perre; Philippe Mayaud Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel J Escudero; Mark N Lurie; Kenneth H Mayer; Caleb Weinreb; Maximilian King; Sandro Galea; Samuel R Friedman; Brandon D L Marshall Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-10-23 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Mona R Loutfy; Wei Wu; Michelle Letchumanan; Lise Bondy; Tony Antoniou; Shari Margolese; Yimeng Zhang; Sergio Rueda; Frank McGee; Ryan Peck; Louise Binder; Patricia Allard; Sean B Rourke; Paula A Rochon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240