Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
Projecting the Potential Clinical and Economic Impact of HIV Prevention Resource Reallocation in Tennessee.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Borre Ethan D, Ahonkhai Aima A, Chi Kyu-Young Kevin, Osman Amna, Thayer Krista, Person Anna K, Weddle Andrea, Flanagan Clare F, Pettit April C, Closs David, Cotton Mia, Agwu Allison L, Cespedes Michelle S, Ciaranello Andrea L, Gonsalves Gregg, Hyle Emily P, Paltiel A David, Freedberg Kenneth A, Neilan Anne M
Аннотация
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.
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.