Search

Objective: Combination strategies generate health benefits through improved health outcomes among people living with HIV (PLHIV) and prevention of new infections. We aimed to determine health benefits attributable to improved health among PLHIV versus HIV prevention for a set of combination strategies in six US cities., Design: A dynamic HIV transmission model., Methods: Using a model calibrated for Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City (NYC) and Seattle, we assessed the health benefits of city-specific optimal combinations of evidence-based interventions implemented at publicly documented levels and at ideal (90% coverage) scale-up (2020-2030 implementation, 20-year study period). We calculated the proportion of health benefit gains (measured as quality-adjusted life-years) resulting from averted and delayed HIV infections; improved health outcomes among PLHIV; and improved health outcomes due to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD)., Results: The HIV-specific proportion of total benefits ranged from 68.3% (95% credible interval: 55.3-80.0) in Seattle to 98.5% (97.5-99.3) in Miami, with the rest attributable to MOUD. The majority of HIV-specific health benefits in five of six cities were attributable HIV prevention, and ranged from 33.1% (26.1-41.1) in NYC to 83.1% (79.6-86.6) in Atlanta. Scaling up to ideal service levels resulted in three to seven-fold increases in additional health benefits, mostly from MOUD, with HIV-specific health gains primarily driven by HIV prevention., Conclusion: Optimal combination strategies generated a larger proportion of health benefits attributable to HIV prevention in five of six cities, underlining the substantial benefits of antiretroviral therapy engagement for the prevention of HIV transmission through viral suppression. Understanding to whom benefits accrue may be important in assessing the equity and impact of HIV investments., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the USA, Black and Hispanic or Latinx individuals continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV. Applying a distributional cost-effectiveness framework, we estimated the cost-effectiveness and epidemiological impact of two combination implementation approaches to identify the approach that best meets the dual objectives of improving population health and reducing racial or ethnic health disparities., Methods: We adapted a dynamic, compartmental HIV transmission model to characterise HIV micro-epidemics in six US cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Seattle. We considered combinations of 16 evidence-based interventions to diagnose, treat, and prevent HIV transmission according to previously documented levels of scale-up. We then identified optimal combination strategies for each city, with the distribution of each intervention implemented according to existing service levels (proportional services approach) and the racial or ethnic distribution of new diagnoses (between Black, Hispanic or Latinx, and White or other ethnicity individuals; equity approach). We estimated total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of strategies implemented from 2020 to 2030 (health-care perspective; 20-year time horizon; 3% annual discount rate). We estimated three measures of health inequality (between-group variance, index of disparity, Theil index), incidence rate ratios, and rate differences for the selected strategies under each approach., Findings: In all cities, optimal combination strategies under the equity approach generated more QALYs than those with proportional services, ranging from a 3·1% increase (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·4-5·3) in New York to more than double (101·9% [75·4-134·6]) in Atlanta. Compared with proportional services, the equity approach delivered lower costs over 20 years in all cities except Los Angeles; cost reductions ranged from $22·9 million (95% CrI 5·3-55·7 million) in Seattle to $579·8 million (255·4-940·5 million) in Atlanta. The equity approach also reduced incidence disparities and health inequality measures in all cities except Los Angeles., Interpretation: Equity-focused HIV combination implementation strategies that reduce disparities for Black and Hispanic or Latinx individuals can significantly improve population health, reduce costs, and drive progress towards Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the USA., Funding: National Institute on Drug Abuse., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KA reports grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), personal fees from The All of Us Research Program (NIH), personal fees from TrioHealth, and non-financial support from Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, outside the submitted work. CNB reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, during the conduct of the study. EE reports personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. KAG reports personal fees from Simon Fraser University, during the conduct of the study. SHM reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. MG reports research support from Hologic, outside the submitted work. SAS reports grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. HT reports grants from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. BN reports grants from NIH, during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)