Jeffrey W Eaton1, Nicolas Bacaër2, Anna Bershteyn3, Valentina Cambiano4, Anne Cori5, Rob E Dorrington6, Christophe Fraser5, Chaitra Gopalappa7, Jan A C Hontelez8, Leigh F Johnson9, Daniel J Klein3, Andrew N Phillips4, Carel Pretorius10, John Stover10, Thomas M Rehle11, Timothy B Hallett12. 1. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: jeffrey.eaton@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Bondy, France. 3. Institute for Disease Modeling, Intellectual Ventures, Bellevue, WA, USA. 4. Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. 5. MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. Centre for Actuarial Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 7. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA. 8. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Nijmegen International Center for Health System Analysis and Education, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands; Africa Centre for Health and Population Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Mtubatuba, South Africa. 9. Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 10. Avenir Health, Glastonbury, CT, USA. 11. Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa. 12. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mathematical models are widely used to simulate the effects of interventions to control HIV and to project future epidemiological trends and resource needs. We aimed to validate past model projections against data from a large household survey done in South Africa in 2012. METHODS: We compared ten model projections of HIV prevalence, HIV incidence, and antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage for South Africa with estimates from national household survey data from 2012. Model projections for 2012 were made before the publication of the 2012 household survey. We compared adult (age 15-49 years) HIV prevalence in 2012, the change in prevalence between 2008 and 2012, and prevalence, incidence, and ART coverage by sex and by age groups between model projections and the 2012 household survey. FINDINGS: All models projected lower prevalence estimates for 2012 than the survey estimate (18·8%), with eight models' central projections being below the survey 95% CI (17·5-20·3). Eight models projected that HIV prevalence would remain unchanged (n=5) or decline (n=3) between 2008 and 2012, whereas prevalence estimates from the household surveys increased from 16·9% in 2008 to 18·8% in 2012 (difference 1·9, 95% CI -0·1 to 3·9). Model projections accurately predicted the 1·6 percentage point prevalence decline (95% CI -0·3 to 3·5) in young adults aged 15-24 years, and the 2·2 percentage point (0·5 to 3·9) increase in those aged 50 years and older. Models accurately represented the number of adults on ART in 2012; six of ten models were within the survey 95% CI of 1·54-2·12 million. However, the differential ART coverage between women and men was not fully captured; all model projections of the sex ratio of women to men on ART were lower than the survey estimate of 2·22 (95% CI 1·73-2·71). INTERPRETATION: Projections for overall declines in HIV epidemics during the ART era might have been optimistic. Future treatment and HIV prevention needs might be greater than previously forecasted. Additional data about service provision for HIV care could help inform more accurate projections. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
BACKGROUND: Mathematical models are widely used to simulate the effects of interventions to control HIV and to project future epidemiological trends and resource needs. We aimed to validate past model projections against data from a large household survey done in South Africa in 2012. METHODS: We compared ten model projections of HIV prevalence, HIV incidence, and antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage for South Africa with estimates from national household survey data from 2012. Model projections for 2012 were made before the publication of the 2012 household survey. We compared adult (age 15-49 years) HIV prevalence in 2012, the change in prevalence between 2008 and 2012, and prevalence, incidence, and ART coverage by sex and by age groups between model projections and the 2012 household survey. FINDINGS: All models projected lower prevalence estimates for 2012 than the survey estimate (18·8%), with eight models' central projections being below the survey 95% CI (17·5-20·3). Eight models projected that HIV prevalence would remain unchanged (n=5) or decline (n=3) between 2008 and 2012, whereas prevalence estimates from the household surveys increased from 16·9% in 2008 to 18·8% in 2012 (difference 1·9, 95% CI -0·1 to 3·9). Model projections accurately predicted the 1·6 percentage point prevalence decline (95% CI -0·3 to 3·5) in young adults aged 15-24 years, and the 2·2 percentage point (0·5 to 3·9) increase in those aged 50 years and older. Models accurately represented the number of adults on ART in 2012; six of ten models were within the survey 95% CI of 1·54-2·12 million. However, the differential ART coverage between women and men was not fully captured; all model projections of the sex ratio of women to men on ART were lower than the survey estimate of 2·22 (95% CI 1·73-2·71). INTERPRETATION: Projections for overall declines in HIV epidemics during the ART era might have been optimistic. Future treatment and HIV prevention needs might be greater than previously forecasted. Additional data about service provision for HIV care could help inform more accurate projections. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Authors: Y Caro-Vega; P F Belaunzarán-Zamudio; B Crabtree-Ramírez; B E Shepherd; F Mejia; M J Giganti; P Patterson; B Grinsztejn; M Wolff; J W Pape; D Padgett; J L Castilho; C McGowan; J G Sierra-Madero Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Anjuli D Wagner; Kate S Wilson; Joseph B Babigumira; Cyrus Mugo; Peter M Mutiti; Jillian Neary; Dalton C Wamalwa; David Bukusi; Grace C John-Stewart; Pamela K Kohler; Jennifer A Slyker Journal: J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.354
Authors: Maria P Lemos; Erica Lazarus; Abby Isaacs; Janan Dietrich; Cecilia Morgan; Yunda Huang; Doug Grove; Michele Andrasik; Fatima Laher; John Hural; Eva Chung; Joan Dragavon; Adrian Puren; Reena K Gulati; Robert Coombs; Margaret Juliana McElrath; Glenda Gray; James G Kublin Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Ameya R Kirtane; Omar Abouzid; Daniel Minahan; Taylor Bensel; Alison L Hill; Christian Selinger; Anna Bershteyn; Morgan Craig; Shirley S Mo; Hormoz Mazdiyasni; Cody Cleveland; Jaimie Rogner; Young-Ah Lucy Lee; Lucas Booth; Farhad Javid; Sarah J Wu; Tyler Grant; Andrew M Bellinger; Boris Nikolic; Alison Hayward; Lowell Wood; Philip A Eckhoff; Martin A Nowak; Robert Langer; Giovanni Traverso Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Leigh F Johnson; Margaret T May; Rob E Dorrington; Morna Cornell; Andrew Boulle; Matthias Egger; Mary-Ann Davies Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Marion Vermeulen; Ronel Swanevelder; Dhuly Chowdhury; Charlotte Ingram; Ravi Reddy; Evan M Bloch; Brian S Custer; Edward L Murphy Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: J E Truscott; D Gurarie; R Alsallaq; J Toor; N Yoon; S H Farrell; H C Turner; A E Phillips; H O Aurelio; J Ferro; C H King; R M Anderson Journal: Epidemics Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Stewart T Chang; Violet N Chihota; Katherine L Fielding; Alison D Grant; Rein M Houben; Richard G White; Gavin J Churchyard; Philip A Eckhoff; Bradley G Wagner Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 8.775