Investment Case for a Comprehensive Package of Interventions Against Hepatitis B in China: Applied Modeling to Help National Strategy Planning.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the first global viral hepatitis elimination targets were endorsed. An estimated one-third of the world's population of individuals with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection live in China and liver cancer is the sixth leading cause of mortality, but coverage of first-line antiviral treatment was low. In 2015, China was one of the first countries to initiate a consultative process for a renewed approach to viral hepatitis. We present the investment case for the scale-up of a comprehensive package of HBV interventions. METHODS: A dynamic simulation model of HBV was developed and used to simulate the Chinese HBV epidemic. We evaluated the impact, costs, and return on investment of a comprehensive package of prevention and treatment interventions from a societal perspective, incorporating costs of management of end-stage liver disease and lost productivity costs. RESULTS: Despite the successes of historical vaccination scale-up since 1992, there will be a projected 60 million people still living with HBV in 2030 and 10 million HBV-related deaths, including 5.7 million HBV-related cancer deaths between 2015 and 2030. This could be reduced by 2.1 million by highly active case-finding and optimal antiviral treatment regimens. The package of interventions is likely to have a positive return on investment to society of US$1.57 per US dollar invested. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in HBV-related deaths for the next few decades pose a major public health threat in China. Active case-finding and access to optimal antiviral treatment are required to mitigate this risk. This investment case approach provides a real-world example of how applied modeling can support national dialog and inform policy planning.

Transformation of HIV from pandemic to low-endemic levels: a public health approach to combination prevention.

Large declines in HIV incidence have been reported since 2001, and scientific advances in HIV prevention provide strong hope to reduce incidence further. Now is the time to replace the quest for so-called silver bullets with a public health approach to combination prevention that understands that risk is not evenly distributed and that effective interventions can vary by risk profile. Different countries have different microepidemics, with very different levels of transmission and risk groups, changing over time. Therefore, focus should be on high-transmission geographies, people at highest risk for HIV, and the package of interventions that are most likely to have the largest effect in each different microepidemic. Building on the backbone of behaviour change, condom use, and medical male circumcision, as well as expanded use of antiretroviral drugs for infected people and pre-exposure prophylaxis for uninfected people at high risk of infection, it is now possible to consider the prospect of what would be one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of public health: reduction of HIV transmission from a pandemic to low-level endemicity.

Towards an actionable One Health approach.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing focus on strengthening One Health capacity building on global level, challenges remain in devising and implementing real-world interventions particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Recognizing these gaps, the One Health Action Commission (OHAC) was established as an academic community for One Health action with an emphasis on research agenda setting to identify actions for highest impact. MAIN TEXT: This viewpoint describes the agenda of, and motivation for, the recently formed OHAC. Recognizing the urgent need for evidence to support the formulation of necessary action plans, OHAC advocates the adoption of both bottom-up and top-down approaches to identify the current gaps in combating zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance, addressing food safety, and to enhance capacity building for context-sensitive One Health implementation. CONCLUSIONS: By promoting broader engagement and connection of multidisciplinary stakeholders, OHAC envisions a collaborative global platform for the generation of innovative One Health knowledge, distilled practical experience and actionable policy advice, guided by strong ethical principles of One Health.

Tackling global health security by building an academic community for One Health action.

BACKGROUND: One Health approach is crucial to tackling complex global public health threats at the interface of humans, animals, and the environment. As outlined in the One Health Joint Plan of Action, the international One Health community includes stakeholders from different sectors. Supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, an academic community for One Health action has been proposed with the aim of promoting the understanding and real-world implementation of One Health approach and contribution towards the Sustainable Development Goals for a healthy planet. MAIN TEXT: The proposed academic community would contribute to generating high-quality scientific evidence, distilling local experiences as well as fostering an interconnected One Health culture and mindset, among various stakeholders on different levels and in all sectors. The major scope of the community covers One Health governance, zoonotic diseases, food security, antimicrobial resistance, and climate change along with the research agenda to be developed. The academic community will be supported by two committees, including a strategic consultancy committee and a scientific steering committee, composed of influential scientists selected from the One Health information database. A workplan containing activities under six objectives is proposed to provide research support, strengthen local capacity, and enhance global participation. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed academic community for One Health action is a crucial step towards enhancing communication, coordination, collaboration, and capacity building for the implementation of One Health. By bringing eminent global experts together, the academic community possesses the potential to generate scientific evidence and provide advice to local governments and international organizations, enabling the pursuit of common goals, collaborative policies, and solutions to misaligned interests.

HIV prevention transformed: the new prevention research agenda.

We have entered a new era in HIV prevention whereby priorities have expanded from biomedical discovery to include implementation, effectiveness, and the effect of combination prevention at the population level. However, gaps in knowledge and implementation challenges remain. In this Review we analyse trends in the rapidly changing landscape of HIV prevention, and chart a new path for HIV prevention research that focuses on the implementation of effective and efficient combination prevention strategies to turn the tide on the HIV pandemic.

Towards an improved investment approach for an effective response to HIV/AIDS.

Substantial changes are needed to achieve a more targeted and strategic approach to investment in the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic that will yield long-term dividends. Until now, advocacy for resources has been done on the basis of a commodity approach that encouraged scaling up of numerous strategies in parallel, irrespective of their relative effects. We propose a strategic investment framework that is intended to support better management of national and international HIV/AIDS responses than exists with the present system. Our framework incorporates major efficiency gains through community mobilisation, synergies between programme elements, and benefits of the extension of antiretroviral therapy for prevention of HIV transmission. It proposes three categories of investment, consisting of six basic programmatic activities, interventions that create an enabling environment to achieve maximum effectiveness, and programmatic efforts in other health and development sectors related to HIV/AIDS. The yearly cost of achievement of universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support by 2015 is estimated at no less than US$22 billion. Implementation of the new investment framework would avert 12·2 million new HIV infections and 7·4 million deaths from AIDS between 2011 and 2020 compared with continuation of present approaches, and result in 29·4 million life-years gained. The framework is cost effective at $1060 per life-year gained, and the additional investment proposed would be largely offset from savings in treatment costs alone.

Lives saved by Global Fund-supported HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria programs: estimation approach and results between 2003 and end-2007.

BACKGROUND: Since 2003, the Global Fund has supported the scale-up of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria control in low- and middle-income countries. This paper presents and discusses a methodology for estimating the lives saved through selected service deliveries reported to the Global Fund. METHODS: Global Fund-supported programs reported, by end-2007, 1.4 million HIV-infected persons on antiretroviral treatment (ARV), 3.3 million new smear-positive tuberculosis cases detected in DOTS (directly observed TB treatment, short course) programs, and 46 million insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs) delivered. We estimated the corresponding lives saved using adaptations of existing epidemiological estimation models. RESULTS: By end-2007, an estimated 681,000 lives (95% uncertainty range 619,000-774,000) were saved and 1,097,000 (993,000-1,249,000) life-years gained by ARV. DOTS treatment would have saved 1.63 million lives (1.09-2.17 million) when compared against no treatment, or 408,000 lives (265,000-551,000) when compared against non-DOTS treatment. ITN distributions in countries with stable endemic falciparum malaria were estimated to have achieved protection from malaria for 26 million of child-years at risk cumulatively, resulting in 130,000 (27,000-232,000) under-5 deaths prevented. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the scale of mortality effects that supported programs may have achieved in recent years, despite margins of uncertainty and covering only selected intervention components. Evidence-based evaluation of disease impact of the programs supported by the Global Fund with international and in-country partners must be strengthened using population-level data on intervention coverage and demographic outcomes, information on quality of services, and trends in disease burdens recorded in national health information systems.

The Global Fund in China: Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis nationwide programmatic scale-up and challenges to transition to full country ownership.

China has the world's second largest burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB; resistance to at least isoniazid and rifampicin), with an estimated 57,000 cases (range, 48,000-67,000) among notified pulmonary TB patients in 2015. During October 1, 2006-June 30, 2014, China expanded MDR-TB care through a partnership with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (Global Fund). We analyzed data on site expansion, patient enrolment, treatment outcomes, cost per patient, and overall programme expenditure. China expanded MDR-TB diagnostic and treatment services from 2 prefectures in 2006 to 92 prefectures, covering 921 of the country's 3,000 counties by June 2014. A total of 130,910 patients were tested for MDR-TB, resulting in 13,744 laboratory-confirmed cases, and 9,183 patients started on MDR-TB treatment. Treatment success was 48.4% (2011 cohort). The partnership between China and the Global Fund resulted in enormous gains. However, changes to health system TB delivery and financing coincided with the completion of the Global Fund Programme, and could potentially impact TB and MDR-TB control. Transition to full country financial ownership is proving difficult, with a decline in enrollment and insufficient financial coverage. Given needed improvement to the current treatment success rates, these factors jeopardise investments made for MDR-TB control and care. China now has a chance to cement its status in TB control by strengthening future financing and ensuring ongoing commitment to quality service delivery.

Integrating HIV prevention and treatment: from slogans to impact.

BACKGROUND: Through major efforts to reduce costs and expand access to antiretroviral therapy worldwide, widespread delivery of effective treatment to people living with HIV/AIDS is now conceivable even in severely resource-constrained settings. However, the potential epidemiologic impact of treatment in the context of a broader strategy for HIV/AIDS control has not yet been examined. In this paper, we quantify the opportunities and potential risks of large-scale treatment roll-out. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used an epidemiologic model of HIV/AIDS, calibrated to sub-Saharan Africa, to investigate a range of possible positive and negative health outcomes under alternative scenarios that reflect varying implementation of prevention and treatment. In baseline projections, reflecting "business as usual," the numbers of new infections and AIDS deaths are expected to continue rising. In two scenarios representing treatment-centered strategies, with different assumptions about the impact of treatment on transmissibility and behavior, the change in the total number of new infections through 2020 ranges from a 10% increase to a 6% reduction, while the number of AIDS deaths through 2020 declines by 9% to 13%. A prevention-centered strategy provides greater reductions in incidence (36%) and mortality reductions similar to those of the treatment-centered scenarios by 2020, but more modest mortality benefits over the next 5 to 10 years. If treatment enhances prevention in a combined response, the expected benefits are substantial-29 million averted infections (55%) and 10 million averted deaths (27%) through the year 2020. However, if a narrow focus on treatment scale-up leads to reduced effectiveness of prevention efforts, the benefits of a combined response are considerably smaller-9 million averted infections (17%) and 6 million averted deaths (16%). Combining treatment with effective prevention efforts could reduce the resource needs for treatment dramatically in the long term. In the various scenarios the numbers of people being treated in 2020 ranges from 9.2 million in a treatment-only scenario with mixed effects, to 4.2 million in a combined response scenario with positive treatment-prevention synergies. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate the importance of integrating expanded care activities with prevention activities if there are to be long-term reductions in the number of new HIV infections and significant declines in AIDS mortality. Treatment can enable more effective prevention, and prevention makes treatment affordable. Sustained progress in the global fight against HIV/AIDS will be attained only through a comprehensive response.

Methods and procedures for estimating HIV/AIDS and its impact: the UNAIDS/WHO estimates for the end of 2001.

BACKGROUND: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have produced country-specific estimates of HIV/AIDS biannually since 1997. These estimates are a primary source of information about the extent and spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and its impact. The importance of having comparable country-specific estimates of HIV/AIDS is growing as estimates are used to determine how international resources to fight HIV/AIDS will be allocated to countries. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the procedures and process used to make the 2001 round of UNAIDS/WHO estimates of HIV/AIDS. The paper focuses on the different approaches used to make estimates of prevalence in countries with generalized and low-level and concentrated epidemics as well as on new curve-fitting software that was developed to produce epidemic curves for each country. In addition, it presents the assumptions used (e.g. survival from infection to death, the rate of mother-to-child transmission) that are required to derive estimates of incidence and mortality in adults, as well as prevalence, incidence and mortality in children. CONCLUSION: The paper describes the general process by which the estimation and modelling procedures have been refined and improved over time. The paper also discusses the limitations and weaknesses of the procedures and the data used to make the estimates, and suggests areas where further improvements need to be made.

Estimating resource needs for HIV/AIDS health care services in low-income and middle-income countries.

As funding mechanisms like the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria increasingly make funding decisions on the basis of burden of disease estimates and financial need calculations, the importance of reliable and comparable estimating methods is growing. This paper presents a model for estimating HIV/AIDS health care resource needs in low- and middle-income countries. The model presented was the basis for the United Nations' call for US dollars 9.2 billion to address HIV/AIDS in developing countries by 2005 with US dollars 4.4 billion to address HIV/AIDS health care and the rest to deal with HIV/AIDS prevention. The model has since been updated and extended to produce estimates for 2007. This paper details the methods and assumptions used to estimate HIV/AIDS health care financial needs and it discusses the limitations and data needs for this model.

How can we get close to zero? The potential contribution of biomedical prevention and the investment framework towards an effective response to HIV.

BACKGROUND: In 2011 an Investment Framework was proposed that described how the scale-up of key HIV interventions could dramatically reduce new HIV infections and deaths in low and middle income countries by 2015. This framework included ambitious coverage goals for prevention and treatment services resulting in a reduction of new HIV infections by more than half. However, it also estimated a leveling in the number of new infections at about 1 million annually after 2015. METHODS: We modeled how the response to AIDS can be further expanded by scaling up antiretroviral treatment (ART) within the framework provided by the 2013 WHO treatment guidelines. We further explored the potential contributions of new prevention technologies: 'Test and Treat', pre-exposure prophylaxis and an HIV vaccine. FINDINGS: Immediate aggressive scale up of existing approaches including the 2013 WHO guidelines could reduce new infections by 80%. A 'Test and Treat' approach could further reduce new infections. This could be further enhanced by a future highly effective pre-exposure prophylaxis and an HIV vaccine, so that a combination of all four approaches could reduce new infections to as low as 80,000 per year by 2050 and annual AIDS deaths to 260,000. INTERPRETATION: In a set of ambitious scenarios, we find that immediate implementation of the 2013 WHO antiretroviral therapy guidelines could reduce new HIV infections by 80%. Further reductions may be achieved by moving to a 'Test and Treat' approach, and eventually by adding a highly effective pre-exposure prophylaxis and an HIV vaccine, if they become available.

Evaluation of large-scale combination HIV prevention programs: essential issues.

HIV prevention research has shifted to the evaluation of combination prevention programs whereby biomedical, behavioral, and structural interventions are implemented concurrently to maximize synergies among interventions. However, these kinds of combination prevention packages, particularly when implemented at scale, pose significant evaluation challenges, including how best to determine impact and how and whether to measure the effectiveness of component strategies. In addition, methodological challenges unique to HIV infection such as the absence of a reliable incidence assay, the lack of naive control groups, and no suitable surrogates further complicate rigorous evaluation. In this commentary, we discuss the key considerations for planning impact evaluations of combination HIV prevention programs in light of these challenges, including defining the evaluable package, determining which component programs require independent assessment of impact, choosing study designs with valid counterfactuals, selecting appropriate outcomes of interest, and the importance of mid-course program corrections.