Sarah-Jane Anderson1, Peter Cherutich2, Nduku Kilonzo3, Ide Cremin4, Daniela Fecht5, Davies Kimanga2, Malayah Harper6, Ruth Laibon Masha6, Prince Bahati Ngongo7, William Maina2, Mark Dybul8, Timothy B Hallett4. 1. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: sarah-jane.anderson@imperial.ac.uk. 2. National AIDS & STI Control Programme (NASCOP), Nairobi, Kenya. 3. Liverpool VCT, Care and Treatment, Nairobi, Kenya. 4. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU), MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. UNAIDS, Nairobi, Kenya. 7. International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), Nairobi, Kenya. 8. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data show substantial variation in the risk of HIV infection between communities within African countries. We hypothesised that focusing appropriate interventions on geographies and key populations at high risk of HIV infection could improve the effect of investments in the HIV response. METHODS: With use of Kenya as a case study, we developed a mathematical model that described the spatiotemporal evolution of the HIV epidemic and that incorporated the demographic, behavioural, and programmatic differences across subnational units. Modelled interventions (male circumcision, behaviour change communication, early antiretoviral therapy, and pre-exposure prophylaxis) could be provided to different population groups according to their risk behaviours or their location. For a given national budget, we compared the effect of a uniform intervention strategy, in which the same complement of interventions is provided across the country, with a focused strategy that tailors the set of interventions and amount of resources allocated to the local epidemiological conditions. FINDINGS: A uniformly distributed combination of HIV prevention interventions could reduce the total number of new HIV infections by 40% during a 15-year period. With no additional spending, this effect could be increased by 14% during the 15 years-almost 100,000 extra infections, and result in 33% fewer new HIV infections occurring every year by the end of the period if the focused approach is used to tailor resource allocation to reflect patterns in local epidemiology. The cumulative difference in new infections during the 15-year projection period depends on total budget and costs of interventions, and could be as great as 150,000 (a cumulative difference as great as 22%) under different assumptions about the unit costs of intervention. INTERPRETATION: The focused approach achieves greater effect than the uniform approach despite exactly the same investment. Through prioritisation of the people and locations at greatest risk of infection, and adaption of the interventions to reflect the local epidemiological context, the focused approach could substantially increase the efficiency and effectiveness of investments in HIV prevention. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UNAIDS.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data show substantial variation in the risk of HIV infection between communities within African countries. We hypothesised that focusing appropriate interventions on geographies and key populations at high risk of HIV infection could improve the effect of investments in the HIV response. METHODS: With use of Kenya as a case study, we developed a mathematical model that described the spatiotemporal evolution of the HIV epidemic and that incorporated the demographic, behavioural, and programmatic differences across subnational units. Modelled interventions (male circumcision, behaviour change communication, early antiretoviral therapy, and pre-exposure prophylaxis) could be provided to different population groups according to their risk behaviours or their location. For a given national budget, we compared the effect of a uniform intervention strategy, in which the same complement of interventions is provided across the country, with a focused strategy that tailors the set of interventions and amount of resources allocated to the local epidemiological conditions. FINDINGS: A uniformly distributed combination of HIV prevention interventions could reduce the total number of new HIV infections by 40% during a 15-year period. With no additional spending, this effect could be increased by 14% during the 15 years-almost 100,000 extra infections, and result in 33% fewer new HIV infections occurring every year by the end of the period if the focused approach is used to tailor resource allocation to reflect patterns in local epidemiology. The cumulative difference in new infections during the 15-year projection period depends on total budget and costs of interventions, and could be as great as 150,000 (a cumulative difference as great as 22%) under different assumptions about the unit costs of intervention. INTERPRETATION: The focused approach achieves greater effect than the uniform approach despite exactly the same investment. Through prioritisation of the people and locations at greatest risk of infection, and adaption of the interventions to reflect the local epidemiological context, the focused approach could substantially increase the efficiency and effectiveness of investments in HIV prevention. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UNAIDS.
Authors: Xiao Zang; Emanuel Krebs; Linwei Wang; Brandon D L Marshall; Reuben Granich; Bruce R Schackman; Julio S G Montaner; Bohdan Nosyk Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Sarah Masyuko; Irene Mukui; Olivia Njathi; Maureen Kimani; Patricia Oluoch; Joyce Wamicwe; Jane Mutegi; Susan Njogo; Micah Anyona; Phillip Muchiri; Lucy Maikweki; Helgar Musyoki; Prince Bahati; Jordan Kyongo; Tom Marwa; Elizabeth Irungu; Michael Kiragu; Urbanus Kioko; Justus Ogando; Dan Were; Kigen Bartilol; Martin Sirengo; Nelly Mugo; Jared M Baeten; Peter Cherutich; On Behalf Of The PrEP Technical Working Group Journal: Sex Health Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: D Panagiotoglou; M Olding; B Enns; D J Feaster; C Del Rio; L R Metsch; R M Granich; S A Strathdee; B D L Marshall; M R Golden; S Shoptaw; B R Schackman; B Nosyk Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2018-09
Authors: Vladimir Novitsky; Melanie Prague; Sikhulile Moyo; Tendani Gaolathe; Mompati Mmalane; Etienne Kadima Yankinda; Unoda Chakalisa; Refeletswe Lebelonyane; Nealia Khan; Kathleen M Powis; Erik Widenfelt; Simani Gaseitsiwe; Scott L Dryden-Peterson; Molly Pretorius Holme; Victor De Gruttola; Pam Bachanas; Joseph Makhema; Shahin Lockman; M Essex Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Stéphanie Blaizot; Andrea A Kim; Clement Zeh; Benjamin Riche; David Maman; Kevin M De Cock; Jean-François Etard; René Ecochard Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Ruanne V Barnabas; Heidi van Rooyen; Elioda Tumwesigye; Justin Brantley; Jared M Baeten; Alastair van Heerden; Bosco Turyamureeba; Philip Joseph; Meighan Krows; Katherine K Thomas; Torin T Schaafsma; James P Hughes; Connie Celum Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 12.767