Search

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.)

Background: Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at a disproportionately high risk of HIV infection. We aimed to determine the highest-valued combination implementation strategies to reduce the burden of HIV among PWID in 6 US cities., Methods: Using a dynamic HIV transmission model calibrated for Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and Seattle, we assessed the value of implementing combinations of evidence-based interventions at optimistic (drawn from best available evidence) or ideal (90% coverage) scale-up. We estimated reduction in HIV incidence among PWID, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each city (10-year implementation; 20-year horizon; 2018 $ US)., Results: Combinations that maximized health benefits contained between 6 (Atlanta and Seattle) and 12 (Miami) interventions with ICER values ranging from $94 069/QALY in Los Angeles to $146 256/QALY in Miami. These strategies reduced HIV incidence by 8.1% (credible interval [CI], 2.8%-13.2%) in Seattle and 54.4% (CI, 37.6%-73.9%) in Miami. Incidence reduction reached 16.1%-75.5% at ideal scale., Conclusions: Evidence-based interventions targeted to PWID can deliver considerable value; however, ending the HIV epidemic among PWID will require innovative implementation strategies and supporting programs to reduce social and structural barriers to care., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Effective interventions to reduce the public health burden of HIV/AIDS can vary in their ability to deliver value at different levels of scale and in different epidemiological contexts. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of HIV treatment and prevention interventions implemented at previously documented scales of delivery in six US cities with diverse HIV microepidemics., Design: Dynamic HIV transmission model-based cost-effectiveness analysis., Methods: We identified and estimated previously documented scale of delivery and costs for 16 evidence-based interventions from the US CDC's Compendium of Evidence-Based Interventions and Best Practices for HIV Prevention. Using a model calibrated for Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City and Seattle, we estimated averted HIV infections, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (healthcare perspective; 3% discount rate, 2018$US), for each intervention and city (10-year implementation) compared with the status quo over a 20-year time horizon., Results: Increased HIV testing was cost-saving or cost-effective across cities. Targeted preexposure prophylaxis for high-risk MSM was cost-saving in Miami and cost-effective in Atlanta ($6123/QALY), Baltimore ($18 333/QALY) and Los Angeles ($86 117/QALY). Interventions designed to improve antiretroviral therapy initiation provided greater value than other treatment engagement interventions. No single intervention was projected to reduce HIV incidence by more than 10.1% in any city., Conclusion: Combination implementation strategies should be tailored to local epidemiological contexts to provide the most value. Complementary strategies addressing factors hindering access to HIV care will be necessary to meet targets for HIV elimination in the United States.