Emmanuel F Drabo1, Corrina Moucheraud2,3, Anthony Nguyen4, Wendy H Garland5, Ian W Holloway3,6, Arleen Leibowitz3,7, Sze-Chuan Suen4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. 3. UCLA Center for HIV Identification, Prevention and Treatment Services, University of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Daniel J. Epstein Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Division of HIV and STD Programs, Los Angeles, CA. 6. Department of Social Welfare, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA; and. 7. Department of Public Policy, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is essential to ending HIV. Yet, uptake remains uneven across racial and ethnic groups. We aimed to estimate the impacts of alternative PrEP implementation strategies in Los Angeles County. SETTING: Men who have sex with men, residing in Los Angeles County. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of HIV transmission, with inputs from key local stakeholders. With this model, we estimated the 15-year (2021-2035) health and racial and ethnic equity impacts of 3 PrEP implementation strategies involving coverage with 9000 additional PrEP units annually, above the Status-quo coverage level. Strategies included PrEP allocation equally (strategy 1), proportionally to HIV prevalence (strategy 2), and proportionally to HIV diagnosis rates (strategy 3), across racial and ethnic groups. We measured the degree of relative equalities in the distribution of the health impacts using the Gini index (G) which ranges from 0 (perfect equality, with all individuals across all groups receiving equal health benefits) to 1 (total inequality). RESULTS: HIV prevalence was 21.3% in 2021 [Black (BMSM), 31.1%; Latino (LMSM), 18.3%, and White (WMSM), 20.7%] with relatively equal to reasonable distribution across groups (G, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.34). During 2021-2035, cumulative incident infections were highest under Status-quo (n = 24,584) and lowest under strategy 3 (n = 22,080). Status-quo infection risk declined over time among all groups but remained higher in 2035 for BMSM (incidence rate ratio, 4.76; 95% CI: 4.58 to 4.95), and LMSM (incidence rate ratio, 1.74; 95% CI: 1.69 to 1.80), with the health benefits equally to reasonably distributed across groups (G, 0.32; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.35). Relative to Status-quo, all other strategies reduced BMSM-WMSM and BMSM-LMSM disparities, but none reduced LMSM-WMSM disparities by 2035. Compared to Status-quo, strategy 3 reduced the most both incident infections (% infections averted: overall, 10.2%; BMSM, 32.4%; LMSM, 3.8%; WMSM, 3.5%) and HIV racial inequalities (G reduction, 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Microsimulation models developed with early, continuous stakeholder engagement and inputs yield powerful tools to guide policy implementation.
BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is essential to ending HIV. Yet, uptake remains uneven across racial and ethnic groups. We aimed to estimate the impacts of alternative PrEP implementation strategies in Los Angeles County. SETTING: Men who have sex with men, residing in Los Angeles County. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of HIV transmission, with inputs from key local stakeholders. With this model, we estimated the 15-year (2021-2035) health and racial and ethnic equity impacts of 3 PrEP implementation strategies involving coverage with 9000 additional PrEP units annually, above the Status-quo coverage level. Strategies included PrEP allocation equally (strategy 1), proportionally to HIV prevalence (strategy 2), and proportionally to HIV diagnosis rates (strategy 3), across racial and ethnic groups. We measured the degree of relative equalities in the distribution of the health impacts using the Gini index (G) which ranges from 0 (perfect equality, with all individuals across all groups receiving equal health benefits) to 1 (total inequality). RESULTS: HIV prevalence was 21.3% in 2021 [Black (BMSM), 31.1%; Latino (LMSM), 18.3%, and White (WMSM), 20.7%] with relatively equal to reasonable distribution across groups (G, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.34). During 2021-2035, cumulative incident infections were highest under Status-quo (n = 24,584) and lowest under strategy 3 (n = 22,080). Status-quo infection risk declined over time among all groups but remained higher in 2035 for BMSM (incidence rate ratio, 4.76; 95% CI: 4.58 to 4.95), and LMSM (incidence rate ratio, 1.74; 95% CI: 1.69 to 1.80), with the health benefits equally to reasonably distributed across groups (G, 0.32; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.35). Relative to Status-quo, all other strategies reduced BMSM-WMSM and BMSM-LMSM disparities, but none reduced LMSM-WMSM disparities by 2035. Compared to Status-quo, strategy 3 reduced the most both incident infections (% infections averted: overall, 10.2%; BMSM, 32.4%; LMSM, 3.8%; WMSM, 3.5%) and HIV racial inequalities (G reduction, 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Microsimulation models developed with early, continuous stakeholder engagement and inputs yield powerful tools to guide policy implementation.
Authors: Marissa B Reitsma; Anneke L Claypool; Jason Vargo; Priya B Shete; Ryan McCorvie; William H Wheeler; David A Rocha; Jennifer F Myers; Erin L Murray; Brooke Bregman; Deniz M Dominguez; Alyssa D Nguyen; Charsey Porse; Curtis L Fritz; Seema Jain; James P Watt; Joshua A Salomon; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Jeffrey W Eaton; Nicolas A Menzies; John Stover; Valentina Cambiano; Leonid Chindelevitch; Anne Cori; Jan A C Hontelez; Salal Humair; Cliff C Kerr; Daniel J Klein; Sharmistha Mishra; Kate M Mitchell; Brooke E Nichols; Peter Vickerman; Roel Bakker; Till Bärnighausen; Anna Bershteyn; David E Bloom; Marie-Claude Boily; Stewart T Chang; Ted Cohen; Peter J Dodd; Christophe Fraser; Chaitra Gopalappa; Jens Lundgren; Natasha K Martin; Evelinn Mikkelsen; Elisa Mountain; Quang D Pham; Michael Pickles; Andrew Phillips; Lucy Platt; Carel Pretorius; Holly J Prudden; Joshua A Salomon; David A M C van de Vijver; Sake J de Vlas; Bradley G Wagner; Richard G White; David P Wilson; Lei Zhang; John Blandford; Gesine Meyer-Rath; Michelle Remme; Paul Revill; Nalinee Sangrujee; Fern Terris-Prestholt; Meg Doherty; Nathan Shaffer; Philippa J Easterbrook; Gottfried Hirnschall; Timothy B Hallett Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Pooyan Kazemian; Sydney Costantini; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; A David Paltiel; Kenneth H Mayer; Nomita Chandhiok; Rochelle P Walensky; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 20.999
Authors: Philip A Chan; Leandro Mena; Rupa Patel; Catherine E Oldenburg; Laura Beauchamps; Amaya G Perez-Brumer; Sharon Parker; Kenneth H Mayer; Matthew J Mimiaga; Amy Nunn Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Emmanuel Njeuhmeli; Melissa Schnure; Andrea Vazzano; Elizabeth Gold; Peter Stegman; Katharine Kripke; Michel Tchuenche; Lori Bollinger; Steven Forsythe; Catherine Hankins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240