Adrien Le Guillou1,2, Susan Buchbinder3, Hyman Scott3, Albert Liu3, Diane Havlir4, Susan Scheer3,5, Samuel M Jenness1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 2. Department of Research and Public Health, Reims Teaching Hospitals, Robert Debré Hospital, Reims, France. 3. Bridge HIV, San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; and. 5. HIV Epidemiology Section, San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Key components of Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) plan include increasing HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) coverage. One complication to addressing this service delivery challenge is the wide heterogeneity of HIV burden and health care access across the United States. It is unclear how the effectiveness and efficiency of expanded PrEP will depend on different baseline ART coverage. METHODS: We used a network-based model of HIV transmission for men who have sex with men (MSM) in San Francisco. Model scenarios increased varying levels of PrEP coverage relative under current empirical levels of baseline ART coverage and 2 counterfactual levels. We assessed the effectiveness of PrEP with the cumulative percentage of infections averted (PIA) over the next decade and efficiency with the number of additional person-years needed to treat (NNT) by PrEP required to avert one HIV infection. RESULTS: In our projections, only the highest levels of combined PrEP and ART coverage achieved the EHE goals. Increasing PrEP coverage up to 75% showed that PrEP effectiveness was higher at higher baseline ART coverage. Indeed, the PIA was 61% in the lowest baseline ART coverage population and 75% in the highest. The efficiency declined with increasing ART (NNT range from 41 to 113). CONCLUSIONS: Improving both PrEP and ART coverage would have a synergistic impact on HIV prevention even in a high baseline coverage city such as San Francisco. Efforts should focus on narrowing the implementation gaps to achieve higher levels of PrEP retention and ART sustained viral suppression.
BACKGROUND: Key components of Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) plan include increasing HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) coverage. One complication to addressing this service delivery challenge is the wide heterogeneity of HIV burden and health care access across the United States. It is unclear how the effectiveness and efficiency of expanded PrEP will depend on different baseline ART coverage. METHODS: We used a network-based model of HIV transmission for men who have sex with men (MSM) in San Francisco. Model scenarios increased varying levels of PrEP coverage relative under current empirical levels of baseline ART coverage and 2 counterfactual levels. We assessed the effectiveness of PrEP with the cumulative percentage of infections averted (PIA) over the next decade and efficiency with the number of additional person-years needed to treat (NNT) by PrEP required to avert one HIV infection. RESULTS: In our projections, only the highest levels of combined PrEP and ART coverage achieved the EHE goals. Increasing PrEP coverage up to 75% showed that PrEP effectiveness was higher at higher baseline ART coverage. Indeed, the PIA was 61% in the lowest baseline ART coverage population and 75% in the highest. The efficiency declined with increasing ART (NNT range from 41 to 113). CONCLUSIONS: Improving both PrEP and ART coverage would have a synergistic impact on HIV prevention even in a high baseline coverage city such as San Francisco. Efforts should focus on narrowing the implementation gaps to achieve higher levels of PrEP retention and ART sustained viral suppression.
Authors: Xiao Zang; Emanuel Krebs; Cassandra Mah; Jeong E Min; Brandon D L Marshall; Daniel J Feaster; Bruce R Schackman; Lisa R Metsch; Steffanie A Strathdee; Czarina N Behrends; Bohdan Nosyk Journal: AIDS Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Samuel M Jenness; Kevin M Maloney; Dawn K Smith; Karen W Hoover; Steven M Goodreau; Eli S Rosenberg; Kevin M Weiss; Albert Y Liu; Darcy W Rao; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Steven M Goodreau; Deven T Hamilton; Samuel M Jenness; Patrick S Sullivan; Rachel K Valencia; Li Yan Wang; Richard L Dunville; Lisa C Barrios; Eli S Rosenberg Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Alison J Rodger; Valentina Cambiano; Tina Bruun; Pietro Vernazza; Simon Collins; Jan van Lunzen; Giulio Maria Corbelli; Vicente Estrada; Anna Maria Geretti; Apostolos Beloukas; David Asboe; Pompeyo Viciana; Félix Gutiérrez; Bonaventura Clotet; Christian Pradier; Jan Gerstoft; Rainer Weber; Katarina Westling; Gilles Wandeler; Jan M Prins; Armin Rieger; Marcel Stoeckle; Tim Kümmerle; Teresa Bini; Adriana Ammassari; Richard Gilson; Ivanka Krznaric; Matti Ristola; Robert Zangerle; Pia Handberg; Antonio Antela; Sris Allan; Andrew N Phillips; Jens Lundgren Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Albert Y Liu; Eric Vittinghoff; Patricia von Felten; K Rivet Amico; Peter L Anderson; Richard Lester; Erin Andrew; Ixchell Estes; Pedro Serrano; Jennifer Brothers; Susan Buchbinder; Sybil Hosek; Jonathan D Fuchs Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 9.079