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.