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.

Cost-effectiveness of broadly neutralizing antibody prophylaxis for HIV-exposed infants in sub-Saharan African settings.

INTRODUCTION: Infant HIV prophylaxis with broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies (bNAbs) could provide long-acting protection against vertical transmission. We sought to estimate the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of hypothetical bNAb prophylaxis programmes for children known to be HIV exposed at birth in three sub-Saharan African settings. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using the CEPAC-Pediatric model, simulating cohorts of infants from birth through death in Côte d'Ivoire, South Africa and Zimbabwe. These settings were selected to reflect a broad range of HIV care cascade characteristics, antenatal HIV prevalence and budgetary constraints. We modelled strategies targeting bNAbs to only WHO-designated "high-risk" HIV-exposed infants (HR-HIVE) or to all HIV-exposed infants (HIVE). We compared four prophylaxis approaches within each target population: standard of care oral antiretroviral prophylaxis (SOC), and SOC plus bNAbs at birth (1-dose), at birth and 3 months (2-doses), or every 3 months throughout breastfeeding (Extended). Base-case model inputs included bNAb efficacy (60%/dose), effect duration (3 months/dose) and costs ($60/dose), based on published literature. Outcomes included paediatric HIV incidence and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) calculated from discounted life expectancy and lifetime HIV-related costs. RESULTS: The model projects that bNAbs would reduce absolute infant HIV incidence by 0.3-2.2% (9.6-34.9% relative reduction), varying by country, prophylaxis approach and target population. In all three settings, HR-HIVE-1-dose would be cost-saving compared to SOC. Using a 50% GDP per capita ICER threshold, HIVE-Extended would be cost-effective in all three settings with ICERs of $497/YLS in Côte d'Ivoire, $464/YLS in South Africa and $455/YLS in Zimbabwe. In all three settings, bNAb strategies would remain cost-effective at costs up to $200/dose if efficacy is ≥30%. If the bNAb effect duration were reduced to 1 month, the cost-effective strategy would become HR-HIVE-1-dose in Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe and HR-HIVE-2-doses in South Africa. Findings regarding the cost-effectiveness of bNAb implementation strategies remained robust in sensitivity analyses regarding breastfeeding duration, maternal engagement in postpartum care, early infant diagnosis uptake and antiretroviral treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: At current efficacy and cost estimates, bNAb prophylaxis for HIV-exposed children in sub-Saharan African settings would be a cost-effective intervention to reduce vertical HIV transmission.