Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
National AIDS & STI Control Programme (NASCOP), Nairobi, Kenya.
Lancet. 2014 Jul 19;384(9939):249-56. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61053-9.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data show substantial variation in the risk of HIV infection between communities within African countries. We hypothesised that focusing appropriate interventions on geographies and key populations at high risk of HIV infection could improve the effect of investments in the HIV response. METHODS: With use of Kenya as a case study, we developed a mathematical model that described the spatiotemporal evolution of the HIV epidemic and that incorporated the demographic, behavioural, and programmatic differences across subnational units. Modelled interventions (male circumcision, behaviour change communication, early antiretoviral therapy, and pre-exposure prophylaxis) could be provided to different population groups according to their risk behaviours or their location. For a given national budget, we compared the effect of a uniform intervention strategy, in which the same complement of interventions is provided across the country, with a focused strategy that tailors the set of interventions and amount of resources allocated to the local epidemiological conditions. FINDINGS: A uniformly distributed combination of HIV prevention interventions could reduce the total number of new HIV infections by 40% during a 15-year period. With no additional spending, this effect could be increased by 14% during the 15 years-almost 100,000 extra infections, and result in 33% fewer new HIV infections occurring every year by the end of the period if the focused approach is used to tailor resource allocation to reflect patterns in local epidemiology. The cumulative difference in new infections during the 15-year projection period depends on total budget and costs of interventions, and could be as great as 150,000 (a cumulative difference as great as 22%) under different assumptions about the unit costs of intervention. INTERPRETATION: The focused approach achieves greater effect than the uniform approach despite exactly the same investment. Through prioritisation of the people and locations at greatest risk of infection, and adaption of the interventions to reflect the local epidemiological context, the focused approach could substantially increase the efficiency and effectiveness of investments in HIV prevention. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UNAIDS.
背景:流行病学数据显示,在非洲国家内部,不同社区之间感染艾滋病毒的风险存在显著差异。我们假设,将适当的干预措施集中在艾滋病毒感染风险较高的地理区域和重点人群上,可以提高对艾滋病毒应对措施投资的效果。
方法:以肯尼亚为例,我们开发了一种数学模型,该模型描述了艾滋病毒疫情的时空演变,并纳入了次国家单位之间的人口统计学、行为和方案差异。可根据风险行为或位置向不同人群提供模型化干预措施(男性包皮环切术、行为改变沟通、早期抗逆转录病毒治疗和暴露前预防)。在给定的国家预算内,我们比较了一种统一干预策略的效果,即全国范围内提供相同的干预组合,与一种有针对性的策略,根据当地的流行病学情况调整干预措施和资源分配。
结果:在 15 年期间,均匀分配的艾滋病毒预防综合干预措施组合可减少 40%的新艾滋病毒感染人数。如果不增加额外支出,在 15 年内,通过有针对性的方法调整资源分配以反映当地流行病学模式,这种效果可增加 14%,几乎可额外减少 10 万例新感染,并且在该期间结束时,每年新感染艾滋病毒的人数减少 33%。在 15 年预测期内,新感染人数的累积差异取决于总预算和干预措施的成本,在干预措施单位成本的不同假设下,差异可能高达 15 万(累积差异高达 22%)。
解释:尽管投资完全相同,但有针对性的方法比统一方法更能产生效果。通过对感染风险最大的人群和地点进行优先排序,并调整干预措施以反映当地的流行病学情况,有针对性的方法可以大大提高艾滋病毒预防投资的效率和效果。
资助:比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会和联合国艾滋病规划署。
2017-11-3
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016-10-18
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024-5-14
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2024-4-8