Projecting the Potential Clinical and Economic Impact of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention Resource Reallocation in Tennessee.

BACKGROUND: In 2023, Tennessee replaced $6.2 M in US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention funding with state funds to redirect support away from men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender women (TGW), and heterosexual Black women (HSBW) and to prioritize instead first responders (FR), pregnant people (PP), and survivors of sex trafficking (SST). METHODS: We used a simulation model of HIV disease to compare the clinical impact of Current, the present allocation of condoms, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and HIV testing to CDC priority risk groups (MSM/TGW/HSBW); with Reallocation, funding instead increased HIV testing and linkage of Tennessee-determined priority populations (FR/PP/SST). Key model inputs included baseline condom use (45%-49%), PrEP provision (0.1%-8%), HIV testing frequency (every 2.5-4.8 years), and 30-day HIV care linkage (57%-65%). We assumed Reallocation would reduce condom use (-4%), PrEP provision (-26%), and HIV testing (-47%) in MSM/TGW/HSBW, whereas it would increase HIV testing among FR (+47%) and HIV care linkage (to 100%/90%) among PP/SST. RESULTS: Reallocation would lead to 166 additional HIV transmissions, 190 additional deaths, and 843 life-years lost over 10 years. HIV testing reductions were most influential in sensitivity analysis; even a 24% reduction would result in 287 more deaths compared to Current. With pessimistic assumptions, we projected 1359 additional HIV transmissions, 712 additional deaths, and 2778 life-years lost over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Redirecting HIV prevention funding in Tennessee would greatly harm CDC priority populations while conferring minimal benefits to new priority populations.

Projected Life Expectancy for Adolescents With HIV in the US.

Importance: Life expectancy is a key measure of overall population health. Life expectancy estimates for youth with HIV in the US are needed in the current HIV care and treatment context to guide health policies and resource allocation. Objective: To compare life expectancy between 18-year-old youth with perinatally acquired HIV (PHIV), youth with nonperinatally acquired HIV (NPHIV), and youth without HIV. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a US-focused adolescent-specific Monte Carlo state-transition HIV model, we simulated individuals from age 18 years until death. We estimated probabilities of HIV treatment and care engagement, HIV progression, clinical events, and mortality from observational cohorts and clinical trials for model input parameters. The simulated individuals were 18-year-old race and ethnicity-matched youth with PHIV, youth with NPHIV, and youth without HIV; 47%, 85%, and 50% were assigned male sex at birth, respectively. Individuals were categorized by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-defined HIV acquisition risk: men who have sex with men, people who ever injected drugs, heterosexually active individuals at increased risk for HIV infection, or average risk for HIV infection. Distributions were 3%, 2%, 12%, and 83% for youth with PHIV and youth without HIV, and 80%, 6%, 14%, and 0% for youth with NPHIV, respectively. Among the simulated youth in this analysis, individuals were 61% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 15% White, respectively. Exposures: HIV status by timing of acquisition. Main Outcomes: Life expectancy loss for youth with PHIV and youth with NPHIV: difference between mean projected life expectancy under current and ideal HIV care scenarios compared with youth without HIV. Uncertainty intervals reflect varying adolescent HIV-related mortality inputs (95% CIs). Results: Compared with youth without HIV (life expectancy: male, 76.3 years; female, 81.7 years), male youth with PHIV and youth with NPHIV had projected life expectancy losses of 10.4 years (95% CI, 5.5-18.1) and 15.0 years (95% CI, 9.3-26.8); female youth with PHIV and youth with NPHIV had projected life expectancy losses of 11.8 years (95% CI, 6.4-20.2) and 19.5 years (95% CI, 13.8-31.6), respectively. When receiving ideal HIV care, life expectancy losses were projected to improve for youth with PHIV (male: 0.5 years [95% CI, 0.3-1.8]: female: 0.6 years [95% CI, 0.4-2.1]) but were projected to persist for youth with NPHIV (male: 6.0 years [95% CI, 5.0-9.1]; female: 10.4 years [95% CI, 9.4-13.6]). Conclusions: This adolescent-focused microsimulation modeling analysis projected that youth with HIV would have shorter life expectancy than youth without HIV. Projected differences were larger for youth with NPHIV compared with youth with PHIV. Differences in mortality by sex at birth, sexual behavior, and injection drug use contributed to lower projected life expectancy among youth with NPHIV. Interventions focused on HIV care and social factors are needed to improve life expectancy for youth with HIV in the US.

Daily Oral HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States: Cost-saving at Generic Drug Price.

BACKGROUND: Adherence and retention concerns raise questions about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in young men who have sex with men (YMSM). METHODS: Using an adolescent-focused simulation model, we compared annual HIV screening alone with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine-based oral PrEP with every 3-month HIV screening in YMSM (aged 15-24) at increased risk of HIV. Data derived from published sources included: age-stratified HIV incidence/100 person-years (PY) on- or off-PrEP (0.6-10.1 or 0.4-6.4), PrEP retention at 6 years (28%), transmissions by HIV RNA level (0.0-78.4/100PY) and annual costs of antiretroviral therapy ($32 000-69 000), HIV care ($3100-34 600), and PrEP program/generic drug ($900/360). Outcomes included transmissions (percent of cohort infected), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs ($), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($/QALY). We explored the sensitivity of findings to variation in HIV incidence and drug prices. RESULTS: Compared with annual screening alone, PrEP would increase QALYs (9.58 to 9.67), reduce new infections (37% to 30%), and decrease costs (by $5000) over 10 years. PrEP would remain cost-saving for HIV incidence off-PrEP ≥5.1/100PY or annual PrEP price ≤$1200. Over a lifetime horizon, PrEP would be cost-saving for HIV incidence off-PrEP ≥1.0/100PY, across all retention assumptions examined. PrEP would not be cost-effective at HIV incidence ≤0.1/100PY, regardless of drug price, due to programmatic costs. CONCLUSIONS: In US YMSM at increased risk of HIV, generic oral PrEP and every-3-month screening would be cost-saving compared with annual screening alone, even with high discontinuation and low adherence, over a range of HIV incidences.

Projecting the Clinical and Economic Impacts of Changes to HIV Care Among Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US youth with HIV (YHIV) used telehealth services; others experienced disruptions in clinic and antiretroviral therapy (ART) access. METHODS: Using the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-Adolescent HIV microsimulation model, we evaluated 3 scenarios: 1) Clinic: in-person care; 2) Telehealth: virtual visits, without CD4 or viral load monitoring for 12 months, followed by return to usual care; and 3) Interruption: complete care interruption with no ART access or laboratory monitoring for 6 months (maximum clinic closure time), followed by return to usual care for 80%. We assigned higher 1-year retention (87% vs 80%) and lower cost/visit ($49 vs $56) for Telehealth vs Clinic. We modeled 2 YHIV cohorts with non-perinatal (YNPHIV) and perinatal (YPHIV) HIV, which differed by mean age (22 vs 16 years), sex at birth (85% vs 47% male), starting CD4 count (527/µL vs 635/µL), ART, mortality, and HIV-related costs. We projected life months (LMs) and costs/100 YHIV over 10 years. RESULTS: Over 10 years, LMs in Clinic and Telehealth would be similar (YNPHIV: 11 350 vs 11 360 LMs; YPHIV: 11 680 LMs for both strategies); costs would be $0.3M (YNPHIV) and $0.4M (YPHIV) more for Telehealth than Clinic. Interruption would be less effective (YNPHIV: 11 230 LMs; YPHIV: 11 620 LMs) and less costly (YNPHIV: $1.3M less; YPHIV: $0.2M less) than Clinic. Higher retention in Telehealth led to increased ART use and thus higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth could be as effective as in-person care for some YHIV, at slightly increased cost. Short interruptions to ART and laboratory monitoring may have negative long-term clinical implications.

Cost-effectiveness of Routine Provider-Initiated Testing and Counseling for Children With Undiagnosed HIV in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: We compared the cost-effectiveness of pediatric provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling (PITC) vs no PITC in a range of clinical care settings in South Africa. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications Pediatric model to simulate a cohort of children, aged 2-10 years, presenting for care in 4 settings (outpatient, malnutrition, inpatient, tuberculosis clinic) with varying prevalence of undiagnosed HIV (1.0%, 15.0%, 17.5%, 50.0%, respectively). We compared "PITC" (routine testing offered to all patients; 97% acceptance and 71% linkage to care after HIV diagnosis) with no PITC. Model outcomes included life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the health care system perspective and the proportion of children with HIV (CWH) diagnosed, on antiretroviral therapy (ART), and virally suppressed. We assumed a threshold of $3200/year of life saved (YLS) to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses varied the age distribution of children seeking care and costs for PITC, HIV care, and ART. RESULTS: PITC improved the proportion of CWH diagnosed (45.2% to 83.2%), on ART (40.8% to 80.4%), and virally suppressed (32.6% to 63.7%) at 1 year in all settings. PITC increased life expectancy by 0.1-0.7 years for children seeking care (including those with and without HIV). In all settings, the ICER of PITC vs no PITC was very similar, ranging from $710 to $1240/YLS. PITC remained cost-effective unless undiagnosed HIV prevalence was <0.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Routine testing improves HIV clinical outcomes and is cost-effective in South Africa if the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV among children exceeds 0.2%. These findings support current recommendations for PITC in outpatient, inpatient, tuberculosis, and malnutrition clinical settings.

Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Expanded Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. METHODS: We compared 4 testing strategies: (1) hospitalized: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing only for patients with severe/critical symptoms warranting hospitalization; (2) symptomatic: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms, with self-isolation if positive; (3) symptomatic + asymptomatic once: symptomatic and 1-time PCR for the entire population; and (4) symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly: symptomatic with monthly retesting for the entire population. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re = 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We assumed homogeneous mixing among the Massachusetts population (excluding those residing in long-term care facilities). We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70%/100%), and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180 days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). RESULTS: At Re = 0.9, symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly vs hospitalized resulted in a 64% reduction in infections and a 46% reduction in deaths, but required >66-fold more tests/day with 5-fold higher costs. Symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly had an ICER <$100 000/QALY only when Re ≥1.6; when test cost was ≤$3, every 14-day testing was cost-effective at all Re examined. CONCLUSIONS: Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to testing only those whose symptoms warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Despite modest sensitivity, low-cost, repeat screening of the entire population could be cost-effective in all epidemic settings.

Cost-effectiveness of public health strategies for COVID-19 epidemic control in South Africa: a microsimulation modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care resource constraints in low-income and middle-income countries necessitate the identification of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. We aimed to develop a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to assess clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. METHODS: We compared different combinations of five public health interventions: health-care testing alone, where diagnostic testing is done only for individuals presenting to health-care centres; contact tracing in households of cases; isolation centres, for cases not requiring hospital admission; mass symptom screening and molecular testing for symptomatic individuals by community health-care workers; and quarantine centres, for household contacts who test negative. We calibrated infection transmission rates to match effective reproduction number (Re) estimates reported in South Africa. We assessed two main epidemic scenarios for a period of 360 days, with an Re of 1·5 and 1·2. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than US$3250 per year of life saved were considered cost-effective. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying key parameters (Re values, molecular testing sensitivity, and efficacies and costs of interventions) to determine the effect on clinical and cost projections. FINDINGS: When Re was 1·5, health-care testing alone resulted in the highest number of COVID-19 deaths during the 360-day period. Compared with health-care testing alone, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres reduced mortality by 94%, increased health-care costs by 33%, and was cost-effective (ICER $340 per year of life saved). In settings where quarantine centres were not feasible, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and mass symptom screening was cost-effective compared with health-care testing alone (ICER $590 per year of life saved). When Re was 1·2, health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and use of quarantine centres was the least costly strategy, and no other strategies were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres was generally cost-effective, with the exception of scenarios in which Re was 2·6 and when efficacies of isolation centres and quarantine centres for transmission reduction were reduced. INTERPRETATION: In South Africa, strategies involving household contact tracing, isolation, mass symptom screening, and quarantining household contacts who test negative would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and would be cost-effective. The optimal combination of interventions depends on epidemic growth characteristics and practical implementation considerations. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, Royal Society, Wellcome Trust.

Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Adults Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Approximately 356 000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the United States. They have high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To assess the estimated clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for COVID-19 management among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytic model used a simulated cohort of 2258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston, Massachusetts. Cohort characteristics and costs were adapted from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were taken from published literature and national databases. Surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re], 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9, respectively) were examined. Costs were from a health care sector perspective, and the time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. Exposures: Daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of individuals with positive symptom screening results, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternative care sites (ACSs) for mild or moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing were each compared with no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case of COVID-19 prevented. Results: The simulated population of 2258 sheltered homeless adults had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (9.04) years. Compared with no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild or moderate disease was associated with 37% fewer infections (1954 vs 1239) and 46% lower costs ($6.10 million vs $3.27 million) at an Re of 2.6, 75% fewer infections (538 vs 137) and 72% lower costs ($1.46 million vs $0.41 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 51% fewer infections (174 vs 85) and 51% lower costs ($0.54 million vs $0.26 million) at an Re of 0.9. Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with a further decrease in infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1000 at an Re of 2.6, $27 000 at an Re of 1.3, and $71 000 at an Re of 0.9. Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more expensive than other options. Compared with no intervention, temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was associated with 81% fewer infections (376) and 542% higher costs ($39.12 million) at an Re of 2.6, 82% fewer infections (95) and 2568% higher costs ($38.97 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 59% fewer infections (71) and 7114% higher costs ($38.94 million) at an Re of 0.9. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. Conclusions and Relevance: In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for People Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: Approximately 356,000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the US. They are at high risk for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of strategies for COVID-19 management among sheltered homeless adults. DESIGN: We developed a dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 in sheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts. We used cohort characteristics and costs from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were from published literature and national databases. We examined surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re] 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9). Costs were from a health care sector perspective; time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Simulated cohort of 2,258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of screen-positives, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternate care sites [ACSs] for mild/moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing, each compared to no intervention. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case prevented of COVID-19. RESULTS: We simulated a population of 2,258 sheltered homeless adults with mean age of 42.6 years. Compared to no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild/moderate disease led to 37% fewer infections and 46% lower costs (Re=2.6), 75% fewer infections and 72% lower costs (Re=1.3), and 51% fewer infections and 51% lower costs (Re=0.9). Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks further decreased infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1,000 (Re=2.6), $27,000 (Re=1.3), and $71,000 (Re=0.9). Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more costly than other options. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. CONCLUSIONS & RELEVANCE: In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer COVID-19 infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in COVID-19 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Expanded SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Massachusetts.

Background We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. Methods We compared five testing strategies: 1) PCR-severe-only: PCR testing only patients with severe/critical symptoms; 2) Self-screen: PCR-severe-only plus self-assessment of COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 3) PCR-any-symptom: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 4) PCR-all: PCR-any-symptom and one-time PCR for the entire population; and, 5) PCR-all-repeat: PCR-all with monthly re-testing. We examined effective reproduction numbers (R e , 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70/100%) and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). Results In all scenarios, PCR-all-repeat would lead to the best clinical outcomes and PCR-severe-only would lead to the worst; at R e 0.9, PCR-all-repeat vs. PCR-severe-only resulted in a 63% reduction in infections and a 44% reduction in deaths, but required >65-fold more tests/day with 4-fold higher costs. PCR-all-repeat had an ICER <$100,000/QALY only when R e ≥1.8. At all R e values, PCR-any-symptom was cost-saving compared to other strategies. Conclusions Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to restricting testing to only those with symptoms severe enough to warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Universal screening would be cost-effective when paired with monthly retesting in settings where the COVID-19 pandemic is surging.