Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
EpiResult, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
J Int AIDS Soc. 2020 Jun;23 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):e25498. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25498.
To achieve significant progress in global HIV prevention from 2020 onward, it is essential to ensure that appropriate programmes are being delivered with high quality and sufficient intensity and scale and then taken up by the people who most need and want them in order to have both individual and public health impact. Yet, currently, there is no standard way of assessing this. Available HIV prevention indicators do not provide a logical set of measures that combine to show reduction in HIV incidence and allow for comparison of success (or failure) of HIV prevention programmes and for monitoring progress in meeting global targets. To redress this, attention increasingly has turned to the prospects of devising an HIV prevention cascade, similar to the now-standard HIV treatment cascade; but this has proven to be a controversial enterprise, chiefly due to the complexity of primary prevention.
We address a number of core issues attendant with devising prevention cascades, including: determining the population of interest and accounting for the variability and fluidity of HIV-related risk within it; the fact that there are multiple HIV prevention methods, and many people are exposed to a package of them, rather than a single method; and choosing the final step (outcome) in the cascade. We propose two unifying models of prevention cascades-one more appropriate for programme managers and monitors and the other for researchers and programme developers-and note their relationship. We also provide some considerations related to cascade data quality and improvement.
The HIV prevention field has been grappling for years with the idea of developing a standardised way to regularly assess progress and to monitor and improve programmes accordingly. The cascade provides the potential to do this, but it is complicated and highly nuanced. We believe the two models proposed here reflect emerging consensus among the range of stakeholders who have been engaging in this discussion and who are dedicated to achieving global HIV prevention goals by ensuring the most appropriate and effective programmes and methods are supported.
为了在 2020 年以后在全球艾滋病预防方面取得重大进展,必须确保以高质量、足够强度和规模实施适当的方案,并由最需要和最希望获得这些方案的人接受,从而产生个人和公共卫生影响。然而,目前还没有评估这一点的标准方法。现有的艾滋病预防指标并没有提供一套合乎逻辑的措施,这些措施结合起来可以显示艾滋病发病率的下降,并能够比较艾滋病预防方案的成功(或失败),以及监测实现全球目标的进展情况。为了解决这一问题,人们越来越关注设计艾滋病预防级联的前景,类似于现在标准的艾滋病治疗级联;但这已被证明是一项有争议的事业,主要是由于初级预防的复杂性。
我们解决了在设计预防级联时伴随的一些核心问题,包括:确定感兴趣的人群,并考虑其中与艾滋病相关的风险的可变性和流动性;存在多种艾滋病预防方法,许多人接触的是一整套方法,而不是单一方法;以及选择级联中的最后一步(结果)。我们提出了两种统一的预防级联模型——一种更适合方案管理者和监测者,另一种更适合研究人员和方案开发者,并注意到它们之间的关系。我们还提供了一些关于级联数据质量和改进的考虑因素。
艾滋病预防领域多年来一直在努力制定一种标准化的方法,以便定期评估进展情况,并相应地监测和改进方案。级联提供了这样做的潜力,但它很复杂,需要高度细致的考虑。我们认为,这里提出的两种模型反映了一直在参与这一讨论的一系列利益相关者之间正在形成的共识,这些利益相关者致力于通过确保支持最合适和最有效的方案和方法来实现全球艾滋病预防目标。