OBJECTIVE: To create a simple model to help public health decision makers determine how to best invest limited resources in HIV treatment scale-up and prevention. METHOD: A linear model was developed for determining the optimal mix of investment in HIV treatment and prevention, given a fixed budget. The model incorporates estimates of secondary health benefits accruing from HIV treatment and prevention and allows for diseconomies of scale in program costs and subadditive benefits from concurrent program implementation. Data sources were published literature. The target population was individuals infected with HIV or at risk of acquiring it. Illustrative examples of interventions include preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), community-based education (CBE), and antiretroviral therapy (ART) for men who have sex with men (MSM) in the US. Outcome measures were incremental cost, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and HIV infections averted. RESULTS: Base case analysis indicated that it is optimal to invest in ART before PrEP and to invest in CBE before scaling up ART. Diseconomies of scale reduced the optimal investment level. Subadditivity of benefits did not affect the optimal allocation for relatively low implementation levels. The sensitivity analysis indicated that investment in ART before PrEP was optimal in all scenarios tested. Investment in ART before CBE became optimal when CBE reduced risky behavior by 4% or less. Limitations of the study are that dynamic effects are approximated with a static model. CONCLUSIONS: Our model provides a simple yet accurate means of determining optimal investment in HIV prevention and treatment. For MSM in the US, HIV control funds should be prioritized on inexpensive, effective programs like CBE, then on ART scale-up, with only minimal investment in PrEP.
OBJECTIVE: To create a simple model to help public health decision makers determine how to best invest limited resources in HIV treatment scale-up and prevention. METHOD: A linear model was developed for determining the optimal mix of investment in HIV treatment and prevention, given a fixed budget. The model incorporates estimates of secondary health benefits accruing from HIV treatment and prevention and allows for diseconomies of scale in program costs and subadditive benefits from concurrent program implementation. Data sources were published literature. The target population was individuals infected with HIV or at risk of acquiring it. Illustrative examples of interventions include preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), community-based education (CBE), and antiretroviral therapy (ART) for men who have sex with men (MSM) in the US. Outcome measures were incremental cost, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and HIV infections averted. RESULTS: Base case analysis indicated that it is optimal to invest in ART before PrEP and to invest in CBE before scaling up ART. Diseconomies of scale reduced the optimal investment level. Subadditivity of benefits did not affect the optimal allocation for relatively low implementation levels. The sensitivity analysis indicated that investment in ART before PrEP was optimal in all scenarios tested. Investment in ART before CBE became optimal when CBE reduced risky behavior by 4% or less. Limitations of the study are that dynamic effects are approximated with a static model. CONCLUSIONS: Our model provides a simple yet accurate means of determining optimal investment in HIV prevention and treatment. For MSM in the US, HIV control funds should be prioritized on inexpensive, effective programs like CBE, then on ART scale-up, with only minimal investment in PrEP.
Authors: Cliff C Kerr; Robyn M Stuart; Richard T Gray; Andrew J Shattock; Nicole Fraser-Hurt; Clemens Benedikt; Markus Haacker; Maxim Berdnikov; Ahmed Mohamed Mahmood; Seham Abdalla Jaber; Marelize Gorgens; David P Wilson Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: A David Paltiel; Milton C Weinstein; April D Kimmel; George R Seage; Elena Losina; Hong Zhang; Kenneth A Freedberg; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; Milton C Weinstein; April D Kimmel; George R Seage; Elena Losina; Paul E Sax; Hong Zhang; Heather E Smith; Kenneth A Freedberg; A David Paltiel Journal: Am J Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Alethea W McCormick; Rochelle P Walensky; Marc Lipsitch; Elena Losina; Heather Hsu; Milton C Weinstein; A David Paltiel; Kenneth A Freedberg; George R Seage Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-03-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lalit Dandona; Pratap Sisodia; S G Prem Kumar; Y K Ramesh; A Anod Kumar; M Chalapathi Rao; Elliot Marseille; M Someshwar; Nell Marshall; James G Kahn Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2005-09-24 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Margaret May; Jonathan A C Sterne; Caroline Sabin; Dominique Costagliola; Amy C Justice; Rodolphe Thiébaut; John Gill; Andrew Phillips; Peter Reiss; Robert Hogg; Bruno Ledergerber; Antonella D'Arminio Monforte; Norbert Schmeisser; Shlomo Staszewski; Matthias Egger Journal: AIDS Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Elliot Marseille; Lalit Dandona; Nell Marshall; Paul Gaist; Sergio Bautista-Arredondo; Brandi Rollins; Stefano M Bertozzi; Jerry Coovadia; Joseph Saba; Dmitry Lioznov; Jo-Ann Du Plessis; Evgeny Krupitsky; Nicci Stanley; Mead Over; Alena Peryshkina; S G Prem Kumar; Sowedi Muyingo; Christian Pitter; Mattias Lundberg; James G Kahn Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-07-12 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Kate M Mitchell; Holly J Prudden; Reynold Washington; Shajy Isac; Subramanian P Rajaram; Anna M Foss; Fern Terris-Prestholt; Marie-Claude Boily; Peter Vickerman Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Blythe Adamson; Louis Garrison; Ruanne V Barnabas; Josh J Carlson; James Kublin; Dobromir Dimitrov Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Jennifer A Smith; Sarah-Jane Anderson; Kate L Harris; Jessica B McGillen; Edward Lee; Geoff P Garnett; Timothy B Hallett Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 12.767