Search

Introduction: Socioeconomic status (SES) influences well-being among people living with HIV (people with HIV [PWH]); when individual-level SES information is not available, area-level SES indicators may be a suitable alternative. We hypothesized that (1) select ZIP code-level SES indicators would be associated with viral suppression and (2) accounting for ZIP code-level SES would attenuate racial disparities in viral suppression among PWH., Setting: The NA-ACCORD, a collaboration of clinical and interval cohorts of PWH, was used., Methods: Participants with ≥1 viral load measurement and ≥1 US residential 5-digit ZIP code(s) between 2010 and 2018 were included. In this serial cross-sectional analysis, multivariable logistic regression models were used to quantify the annual association of race and ethnicity with viral suppression, in the presence of SES indicators and sex, hepatitis C status, and age., Results: We observed a dose-response relationship between SES factors and viral suppression. Lower income and education were associated with 0.5-0.7-fold annual decreases in odds of viral suppression. We observed racial disparities of approximately 40% decreased odds of viral suppression among non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White participants. The disparity persisted but narrowed by 3%-4% when including SES in the models., Conclusions: ZIP code-based SES was associated with viral suppression, and accounting for SES narrowed racial disparities in viral suppression among PWH in the NA-ACCORD. Inclusion of ZIP code-level indicators of SES as surrogates for individual-level SES should be considered to improve our understanding of the impact of social determinants of health and racial disparities on key outcomes among PWH in North America., Competing Interests: J.G. is an ad hoc member of HIV national advisory boards to Merck, Gilead, and ViiV Health. K.V.C.M. has received consultation fees from Eli Lilly, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and ViiV. P.R. has received consultation fees from Gilead and Janssen. K.N.A. serves on the scientific advisory board for TrioHealth, Inc. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several clinical trials of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) for household contacts of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are nearing completion. The potential benefits of TPT for MDR-TB contacts extend beyond the outcomes that clinical trials can measure., Methods: We developed an agent-based, household-structured TB and MDR-TB transmission model, calibrated to an illustrative setting in India, the country accounting for 26% of global MDR-TB burden. We simulated household contact investigation for contacts of patients with MDR-TB, comparing an MDR-TPT regimen against alternatives of isoniazid preventive treatment, household contact investigation without TPT, or no household contact intervention. We simulated outcomes of a clinical trial and estimated the patient-level and population-level effects over a longer time horizon., Findings: During two years of follow-up per recipient, a simulated 6-month MDR-TPT regimen with 70% efficacy against both DS- and MDR-TB infection could prevent 72% [Interquartile range (IQR): 45 - 100%] of incident MDR-TB among TPT recipients (number needed to treat (NNT) 73 [44 - 176] to prevent one MDR-TB case), compared to household contact investigation without TPT. This NNT decreased to 54 [30 - 183] when median follow-up was increased from two to 16 years, to 27 [11 - Inf] when downstream transmission effects were also considered, and to 12 [8 - 22] when these effects were compared to a scenario of no household contact intervention., Interpretation: If forthcoming trial results demonstrate efficacy, the long-term population impact of MDR-TPT implementation could be much greater than suggested by trial outcomes alone., Funding: NIH K01AI138853 and K08AI127908; Johns Hopkins Catalyst Award.

Objectives: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended for preventing HIV infection among individuals at high risk, including men who have sex with men (MSM). Although its individual-level efficacy is proven, questions remain regarding population-level impact of PrEP implementation., Design: We developed an agent-based simulation of HIV transmission among MSM, accounting for demographics, sexual contact network, HIV disease stage, and use of antiretroviral therapy. We use this framework to compare PrEP delivery strategies in terms of impact on HIV incidence and prevalence., Results: The projected reduction in HIV incidence achievable with PrEP reflects both population-level coverage and individual-level adherence (as a proportion of days protected against HIV transmission). For example, provision of PrEP to 40% of HIV-negative MSM reporting more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months, taken with sufficient adherence to provide protection on 40% of days, can reduce HIV incidence by 9.5% (95% uncertainty range: 8%-11%) within 5 years. However, if this could be increased to 80% coverage on 80% of days (eg, through mass campaigns with a long-acting injectable formulation), a 43% (42%-44%) reduction in HIV incidence could be achieved. Delivering PrEP to MSM at high risk for HIV acquisition can augment population-level impact up to 1.8-fold., Conclusions: If highly ambitious targets for coverage and adherence can be achieved, PrEP can substantially reduce HIV incidence in the short-term. Although the reduction in HIV incidence largely reflects the proportion of person-years protected, the efficiency of PrEP delivery can be enhanced by targeting high-risk populations.