Suchergebnisse

IntroductionInternational investment in the response to HIV and AIDS has plateaued and its future level is uncertain. With many countries committed to ending the epidemic, it is essential to allocate available resources efficiently over different response periods to maximize impact. The objective of this study is to propose a technique to determine the optimal allocation of funds over time across a set of HIV programmes to achieve desirable health outcomes.MethodsWe developed a technique to determine the optimal time‐varying allocation of funds (1) when the future annual HIV budget is pre‐defined and (2) when the total budget over a period is pre‐defined, but the year‐on‐year budget is to be optimally determined. We use this methodology with Optima, an HIV transmission model that uses non‐linear relationships between programme spending and associated programmatic outcomes to quantify the expected epidemiological impact of spending. We apply these methods to data collected from Zambia to determine the optimal distribution of resources to fund the right programmes, for the right people, at the right time.Results and discussionConsidering realistic implementation and ethical constraints, we estimate that the optimal time‐varying redistribution of the 2014 Zambian HIV budget between 2015 and 2025 will lead to a 7.6% (7.3% to 7.8%) decrease in cumulative new HIV infections compared with a baseline scenario where programme allocations remain at 2014 levels. This compares to a 5.1% (4.6% to 5.6%) reduction in new infections using an optimal allocation with constant programme spending that recommends unrealistic programmatic changes. Contrasting priorities for programme funding arise when assessing outcomes for a five‐year funding period over 5‐, 10‐ and 20‐year time horizons.ConclusionsCountries increasingly face the need to do more with the resources available. The methodology presented here can aid decision‐makers in planning as to when to expand or contract programmes and to which coverage levels to maximize impact.

IntroductionHIV prevalence is declining in key populations in Armenia including in people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men, prison inmates, and female sex workers (FSWs); however, prevalence is increasing among Armenians who seasonally migrate to work in countries with higher HIV prevalence, primarily to the Russian Federation.MethodsWe conducted a modelling study using the Optima model to assess the optimal resource allocation to meet targets from the 2013 to 2016 national strategic plan to minimize HIV incidence and AIDS‐related deaths by 2020. Demographic, epidemiological, behavioural, and programme cost data from 2000 through 2014 were used to inform the model. The levels of coverage that could be attained among targeted populations with different investments, as well as their expected outcomes, were determined. In the absence of evidence of the efficacy of HIV programmes targeted at seasonal labour migrants, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the cost‐effective funding threshold for the seasonal labour migrant programme.ResultsThe optimization analysis revealed that shifts in funding allocations could further minimize incidence and deaths by 2020 within the available resource envelope. The largest emphasis should be on antiretroviral therapy (ART), with the optimal investment to increase treatment coverage by 40%. Optimal investments also involve increases in opiate substitution therapy and FSW programmes, as well as maintenance of other prevention programmes for PWID and prevention of mother‐to‐child transmission. Additional funding for these increases should come from budgets for general population programmes. This is projected to avert 17% of new infections and 29% of AIDS‐related deaths by 2020 compared to a baseline scenario of maintaining 2013 spending. Our sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at current spending, coverage of annual testing among migrants of at least 43% should be achieved to warrant continuation of funding for this programme.ConclusionsOptimization of HIV/AIDS investment in Armenia, with a main priority for scaling‐up ART, and less emphasis on primary prevention in the general non‐key population could significantly reduce incidence and deaths by 2020.

AbstractIntroductionIn 2014, city leaders from around the world endorsed the Paris Declaration on Fast‐Track Cities, pledging to achieve the 2020 and 2030 HIV targets championed by UNAIDS. The City of Johannesburg – one of South Africa's metropolitan municipalities and also a health district – has over 600,000 people living with HIV (PLHIV), more than any other city worldwide. We estimate what it would take in terms of programmatic targets and costs for the City of Johannesburg to meet the Fast‐Track targets, and demonstrate the impact that this would have.MethodsWe applied the Optima HIV epidemic and resource allocation model to demographic, epidemiological and behavioural data on 26 sub‐populations in Johannesburg. We used data on programme costs and coverage to produce baseline projections. We calculated how many people must be diagnosed, put onto treatment and maintained with viral suppression to achieve the 2020 and 2030 targets. We also estimated how treatment needs – and therefore fiscal commitments – could be reduced if the treatment targets are combined with primary HIV prevention interventions (voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC), an expanded condom programme, and comprehensive packages for female sex workers (FSW) and young females).ResultsIf current programmatic coverage were maintained, Johannesburg could expect 303,000 new infections and 96,000 AIDS‐related deaths between 2017 and 2030 and 769,000 PLHIV by 2030. Achieving the Fast‐Track targets would require an additional 135,000 diagnoses and 232,000 people on treatment by 2020 (an increase in around 80% over 2016 treatment numbers), but would avert 176,000 infections and 56,500 deaths by 2030. Assuming stable ART unit costs, this would require ZAR 29 billion (USD 2.15 billion) in cumulative treatment investments over the 14 years to 2030. Plausible scale‐ups of other proven interventions (VMMC, condom distribution and FSW strategies) could yield additional reductions in new infections (between 4 and 15%), and in overall treatment investment needs. Scaling up VMMC in line with national targets is found to be cost‐effective in the medium term.ConclusionsThe scale‐up in testing and treatment programmes over this decade has been rapid, but these efforts must be doubled to reach 2020 targets. Strategic investments in proven interventions will help Johannesburg achieve the treatment targets and be on track to end AIDS by 2030.

The HIV epidemic amongst men who have sex with men (MSM) in Bangkok is substantial. The population size of MSM in Bangkok is 120,000-250,000, with approximately one-third (33.5 percent) considered high-risk, characterized by their young age, multiple partnerships, frequent unprotected anal intercourse, and sexual activities around MSM hotspots. In metropolitan Bangkok, HIV prevalence among MSM reportedly increased from 21 percent to 28 percent between 2000 and 2012. The Thai Working Group of Estimation and Projection (2013) projected an estimate of 39,000 new HIV infections would occur in Thailand during 2012-2016, based on the AIDS Epidemic Model (AEM). MSM will account for 44 percent of these new HIV cases, and 25-30 percent of these infections will likely to occur in Bangkok. In 2011, the United Nations held a high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS where they adopted the ambitious epidemiological targets of the United Nations Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS (UNPD), to be met by 2015. Attaining these specific targets would lead to substantial progress towards ending AIDS. UNAIDS has also been prioritizing the "Getting to Zero" initiative ("Zero new HIV infections. Zero AIDS-related deaths. Zero discrimination."). The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) recently responded with the "Bangkok: Getting to Zero" initiative, which strategizes an increased focus on prevention amongst MSM in the city. The clinical trial, HPTN052, demonstrated a 96 percent reduction of HIV transmission among heterosexual discordant couples who received ART. "Treatment as prevention" has become an increasingly accepted strategy to prevent new infections. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing current levels of investment in targeted HIV prevention interventions for MSM in Bangkok (including treatment), with scenarios of increased coverage, would provide evidence to shape efficient national and metropolitan strategies. A return-on-investment analysis would provide an economic rationale to finance this strategy in allocating sufficient resources to address the epidemic at the most appropriate scale. Demonstration by the study that a significant reduction in transmission (including potential elimination) are both feasible and cost effective, may galvanize global political support.

AbstractIntroductionAs prevalence of undiagnosed HIV declines, it is unclear whether testing programmes will be cost‐effective. To guide their HIV testing programmes, countries require appropriate metrics that can be measured. The cost‐per‐diagnosis is potentially a useful metric.MethodsWe simulated a series of setting‐scenarios for adult HIV epidemics and ART programmes typical of settings in southern Africa using an individual‐based model and projected forward from 2018 under two policies: (i) a minimum package of "core" testing (i.e. testing in pregnant women, for diagnosis of symptoms, in sex workers, and in men coming forward for circumcision) is conducted, and (ii) core‐testing as above plus additional testing beyond this ("additional‐testing"), for which we specify different rates of testing and various degrees to which those with HIV are more likely to test than those without HIV. We also considered a plausible range of unit test costs. The aim was to assess the relationship between cost‐per‐diagnosis and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional‐testing policy. The discount rate used in the base case was 3% per annum (costs in 2018 U.S. dollars).ResultsThere was a strong graded relationship between the cost‐per‐diagnosis and the ICER. Overall, the ICER was below $500 per‐DALY‐averted (the cost‐effectiveness threshold used in primary analysis) so long as the cost‐per‐diagnosis was below $315. This threshold cost‐per‐diagnosis was similar according to epidemic and programmatic features including the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV, the HIV incidence and a measure of HIV programme quality (the proportion of HIV diagnosed people having a viral load <1000 copies/mL). However, restricting to women, additional‐testing did not appear cost‐effective even at a cost‐per‐diagnosis of below $50, while restricting to men additional‐testing was cost‐effective up to a cost‐per‐diagnosis of $585. The threshold cost per diagnosis for testing in men to be cost‐effective fell to $256 when the cost‐effectiveness threshold was $300 instead of $500, and to $81 when considering a discount rate of 10% per annum.ConclusionsFor testing programmes in low‐income settings in southern African there is an extremely strong relationship between the cost‐per‐diagnosis and the cost‐per‐DALY averted, indicating that the cost‐per‐diagnosis can be used to monitor the cost‐effectiveness of testing programmes.

AbstractIntroductionWith limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources.MethodsEach study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts.Results and discussionThe optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required.ConclusionsGreater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources.

INTRODUCTION: With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources. METHODS: Each study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required. CONCLUSIONS: Greater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

INTRODUCTION With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources. METHODS Each study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required. CONCLUSIONS Greater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

INTRODUCTION: With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources. METHODS: Each study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required. CONCLUSIONS: Greater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

HIV modelling and economic analyses have had a prominent role in guiding programmatic responses to HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. We reflect critically how the HIV modelling field might develop in future. We argue for HIV modelling to be more routinely aligned with national government and ministry of health priorities, recognizing their legitimate mandates and stewardship responsibilities, for HIV and other wider health programmes. We also place importance on an environment existing in which collaboration between modellers, and joint approaches to addressing modelling questions, becomes the norm rather than exception. Such an environment can accelerate translation of modelling analyses into policy formulation because areas where models agree can be prioritized for action, whereas areas over which uncertainty prevails can be slated for additional study, data collection and analysis. We also argue the need for HIV modelling to increasingly be integrated with the modelling of health needs beyond HIV, particularly in allocative efficiency analyses, where focusing on one disease over another may lead to worse health overall. Such integration may also enhance partnership with national governments whose mandates extend beyond HIV and to all of health care. Finally, we see a need for there to be substantial and equitable investment in capacity strengthening within African countries, so that African researchers will increasingly be leading modelling exercises. Building a critical mass of expertise, strengthened through external collaboration and knowledge exchange, should be the ultimate goal.