Can the United States Achieve Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic Control? A New Initiative Offers Hope

Call to action: how can the US Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative succeed?

With more than 1·2 million people living with HIV in the USA, a complex epidemic across the large and diverse country, and a fragmented health-care system marked by widening health disparities, the US HIV epidemic requires sustained scientific and public health attention. The epidemic has been stubbornly persistent; high incidence densities have been sustained over decades and the epidemic is increasingly concentrated among racial, ethnic, and sexual and gender minority communities. This fact remains true despite extraordinary scientific advances in prevention, treatment, and care-advances that have been led, to a substantial degree, by US-supported science and researchers. In this watershed year of 2021 and in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that the USA will not meet the stated goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, particularly those goals relating to reductions in new infections, decreases in morbidity, and reductions in HIV stigma. The six papers in the Lancet Series on HIV in the USA have each examined the underlying causes of these challenges and laid out paths forward for an invigorated, sustained, and more equitable response to the US HIV epidemic than has been seen to date. The sciences of HIV surveillance, prevention, treatment, and implementation all suggest that the visionary goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative in the USA might be achievable. However, fundamental barriers and challenges need to be addressed and the research effort sustained if we are to succeed.

Can the 'Ending the HIV Epidemic' initiative transition the USA towards HIV/AIDS epidemic control?

: Using a dynamic HIV transmission model calibrated for six USA cities, we projected HIV incidence from 2020 to 2040 and estimated whether an established UNAIDS HIV epidemic control target could be met under ideal implementation of optimal combination strategies previously defined for each city. Four of six cities (Atlanta, Baltimore, New York City and Seattle) were projected to achieve epidemic control by 2040 and we identified differences in reaching epidemic control across racial/ethnic groups.

The impact of localized implementation: determining the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention and care interventions across six United States cities

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.