Rozhnova Ganna, Anastasaki Marilena, Kretzschmar Mirjam
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Infect Dis Model. 2018 Sep 21;3:160-170. doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2018.09.001. eCollection 2018.
In 2011 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published guidelines for the use of population viral load (PVL), community viral load (CVL) and monitored viral load (MVL), defined as the average viral load (VL) of all HIV infected individuals in a population, of all diagnosed individuals, and of all individuals on antiretroviral treatment (ART), respectively. Since then, CVL has been used to assess the effectiveness of ART on HIV transmission and as a proxy for HIV incidence. The first objective of this study was to investigate how aggregate VL measures change with the HIV epidemic phase and the drivers behind these changes using a mathematical transmission model. Secondly, we aimed to give some insight into how well CVL correlates with HIV incidence during the course of the epidemic and roll out of ART. We developed a compartmental model for disease progression and HIV transmission with disease stages that differ in viral loads for epidemiological scenarios relevant to a concentrated epidemic in a population of men who have sex with men (MSM) in Western Europe (WE) and to a generalized epidemic in a heterosexual population in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The model predicts that PVL and CVL change with the epidemic phase, while MVL stays constant. These dynamics are linked to the dynamics of infected subgroups (undiagnosed, diagnosed untreated and treated) in different disease stages (primary, chronic and AIDS). In particular, CVL decreases through all epidemic stages: before ART, since chronic population builds up faster than AIDS population and after ART, due to the build-up of treated population with low VL. The trends in CVL and incidence can be both opposing and coinciding depending on the epidemic phase. Before ART is scaled up to sufficiently high levels, incidence increases while CVL decreases. After this point, CVL is a useful indicator of changes in HIV incidence. The model predicts that during the ART scale-up HIV transmission is driven by undiagnosed and diagnosed untreated individuals, and that new infections decline due to the increase in the number of treated. Although CVL is not able to capture the contribution of undiagnosed population to HIV transmission, it declines due to the increase of people on ART too. In the scenarios described by our model, the present epidemic phase corresponds to declining trends in CVL and incidence.
2011年,美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)发布了关于使用人群病毒载量(PVL)、社区病毒载量(CVL)和监测病毒载量(MVL)的指南,分别定义为某一人群中所有HIV感染者、所有已诊断个体以及所有接受抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)个体的平均病毒载量(VL)。从那时起,CVL就被用于评估ART对HIV传播的有效性,并作为HIV发病率的替代指标。本研究的首要目标是使用数学传播模型,研究总体病毒载量指标如何随HIV流行阶段变化以及这些变化背后的驱动因素。其次,我们旨在深入了解在疫情过程和ART推广过程中,CVL与HIV发病率的关联程度。我们针对西欧男男性行为者(MSM)人群中集中流行以及撒哈拉以南非洲异性恋人群中广泛流行这两种与流行病学情景相关的疾病进展和HIV传播情况,开发了一个具有不同病毒载量疾病阶段的 compartments 模型。该模型预测,PVL和CVL会随流行阶段变化,而MVL保持不变。这些动态变化与不同疾病阶段(原发、慢性和艾滋病)中受感染亚组(未诊断、已诊断未治疗和已治疗)的动态变化相关。特别是,CVL在所有流行阶段都会下降:在ART治疗之前,是因为慢性人群的增长速度快于艾滋病人群;在ART治疗之后,是由于低病毒载量的已治疗人群的增加。CVL和发病率的趋势可能既相反又一致,这取决于流行阶段。在ART扩大到足够高的水平之前,发病率上升而CVL下降。在这之后,CVL是HIV发病率变化的一个有用指标。该模型预测,在ART扩大治疗期间,HIV传播由未诊断和已诊断未治疗的个体驱动,并且由于接受治疗人数的增加,新感染人数会下降。虽然CVL无法捕捉未诊断人群对HIV传播的贡献,但它也会因接受ART治疗的人数增加而下降。在我们模型所描述的情景中,当前的流行阶段对应着CVL和发病率的下降趋势。