Suchergebnisse

Objective::Prices of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs in lower income countries have decreased substantially over the past two decades, helping to facilitate greatly expanded access to antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, ART coverage in many parts of the world remains low. We investigate the extent of epidemiological benefits that might be expected if ARV drug prices decline further.Design:A modeling study using data from seven countries in West and Central Africa (Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Togo).Methods:We investigated how the timing of ARV cost reductions could affect the impact and compared three different possible investment strategies: reinvesting in ART, reinvesting in the HIV response according to historical allocations, and reinvesting with the aim of minimizing HIV incidence and mortality.Results:If ARV drug prices fell by 37% relative to 2018 levels (i.e. following continued trend declines), we calculate ART unit costs could decrease by ∼20% (holding other cost components constant). If this could be achieved by 2020 and the savings were reinvested into ART, we estimate that an additional 8% of HIV infections and 11% of HIV-related deaths could be averted over 2020-2030 across the seven countries. Slightly greater gains could be attained if funds were reinvested in ART in combination with primary prevention. Delays in the year of introduction of ARV price reductions would reduce the impact by about 1% per year.Conclusion:ARV price reductions could free up funds that - if strategically invested - would help countries move closer toward the elimination of HIV.

IntroductionDespite recent and robust economic growth across the Asia‐Pacific region, the majority of low‐ and middle‐income countries in the region remain dependent on some donor support for HIV programmes. We describe the availability of bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (ODA) for HIV programmes in the region.MethodsThe donor countries considered in this analysis are Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. To estimate bilateral and multilateral ODA financing for HIV programmes in the Asia‐Pacific region between 2004 and 2013, we obtained funding data from the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development Creditor Reporting System database. Where possible, we checked these amounts against the funding data available from government aid agencies. Estimates of multilateral ODA financing for HIV/AIDS were based on the country allocations announcement by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund) for the period 2014 to 2016.ResultsCountries in the Asia‐Pacific region receive the largest share of aid for HIV from the Global Fund. Bilateral funding for HIV in the region has been relatively stable over the last decade and is projected to remain below 10% of the worldwide response to the epidemic. Bilateral donors continue to prioritize ODA for HIV to other regions, particularly sub‐Saharan Africa; Australia is an exception in prioritizing the Asia‐Pacific region, but the United States is the bilateral donor providing the greatest amount of assistance in the region. Funding from the Global Fund has increased consistently since 2005, reaching a total of US$1.2 billion for the Asia‐Pacific region from 2014 to 2016.ConclusionsEven with Global Fund allocations, countries in the Asia‐Pacific region will not have enough resources to meet their epidemiological targets. Prevention funding is particularly vulnerable and requires greater domestic leadership and coordination. Bilateral donors are still crucially important in the response to HIV throughout the Asia‐Pacific region.

IntroductionInternational investment in the response to HIV and AIDS has plateaued and its future level is uncertain. With many countries committed to ending the epidemic, it is essential to allocate available resources efficiently over different response periods to maximize impact. The objective of this study is to propose a technique to determine the optimal allocation of funds over time across a set of HIV programmes to achieve desirable health outcomes.MethodsWe developed a technique to determine the optimal time‐varying allocation of funds (1) when the future annual HIV budget is pre‐defined and (2) when the total budget over a period is pre‐defined, but the year‐on‐year budget is to be optimally determined. We use this methodology with Optima, an HIV transmission model that uses non‐linear relationships between programme spending and associated programmatic outcomes to quantify the expected epidemiological impact of spending. We apply these methods to data collected from Zambia to determine the optimal distribution of resources to fund the right programmes, for the right people, at the right time.Results and discussionConsidering realistic implementation and ethical constraints, we estimate that the optimal time‐varying redistribution of the 2014 Zambian HIV budget between 2015 and 2025 will lead to a 7.6% (7.3% to 7.8%) decrease in cumulative new HIV infections compared with a baseline scenario where programme allocations remain at 2014 levels. This compares to a 5.1% (4.6% to 5.6%) reduction in new infections using an optimal allocation with constant programme spending that recommends unrealistic programmatic changes. Contrasting priorities for programme funding arise when assessing outcomes for a five‐year funding period over 5‐, 10‐ and 20‐year time horizons.ConclusionsCountries increasingly face the need to do more with the resources available. The methodology presented here can aid decision‐makers in planning as to when to expand or contract programmes and to which coverage levels to maximize impact.

IntroductionHIV prevalence is declining in key populations in Armenia including in people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men, prison inmates, and female sex workers (FSWs); however, prevalence is increasing among Armenians who seasonally migrate to work in countries with higher HIV prevalence, primarily to the Russian Federation.MethodsWe conducted a modelling study using the Optima model to assess the optimal resource allocation to meet targets from the 2013 to 2016 national strategic plan to minimize HIV incidence and AIDS‐related deaths by 2020. Demographic, epidemiological, behavioural, and programme cost data from 2000 through 2014 were used to inform the model. The levels of coverage that could be attained among targeted populations with different investments, as well as their expected outcomes, were determined. In the absence of evidence of the efficacy of HIV programmes targeted at seasonal labour migrants, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the cost‐effective funding threshold for the seasonal labour migrant programme.ResultsThe optimization analysis revealed that shifts in funding allocations could further minimize incidence and deaths by 2020 within the available resource envelope. The largest emphasis should be on antiretroviral therapy (ART), with the optimal investment to increase treatment coverage by 40%. Optimal investments also involve increases in opiate substitution therapy and FSW programmes, as well as maintenance of other prevention programmes for PWID and prevention of mother‐to‐child transmission. Additional funding for these increases should come from budgets for general population programmes. This is projected to avert 17% of new infections and 29% of AIDS‐related deaths by 2020 compared to a baseline scenario of maintaining 2013 spending. Our sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at current spending, coverage of annual testing among migrants of at least 43% should be achieved to warrant continuation of funding for this programme.ConclusionsOptimization of HIV/AIDS investment in Armenia, with a main priority for scaling‐up ART, and less emphasis on primary prevention in the general non‐key population could significantly reduce incidence and deaths by 2020.

AbstractIntroductionIn 2014, the Government of Thailand recommended pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an additional HIV prevention programme within Thailand's National Guidelines on HIV/AIDS Treatment Prevention. However, to date implementation and uptake of PrEP programmes have been limited, and evidence on the costs and the epidemiological and economic impact is not available.MethodsWe estimated the costs associated with PrEP provision among men having sex with men (MSM) participating in a facility‐based, prospective observational cohort study: the Test, Treat and Prevent HIV Programme in Thailand. We created a suite of scenarios to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of PrEP and sensitivity of the results to the model input parameters, including PrEP programme effectiveness, PrEP uptake among high‐risk and low‐risk MSM, baseline and future antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage, condom use, unit cost of delivering PrEP, and the discount rate.ResultsDrug costs accounted for 82.5% of the total cost of providing PrEP, followed by lab testing (8.2%) and personnel costs (7.8%). The estimated costs of providing the PrEP package in accordance with the national recommendation ranges from US$223 to US$311 per person per year. Based on our modelling results, we estimate that PrEP would be cost‐effective when provided to either high‐risk or all MSM. However, we found that the programme would be approximately 32% more cost‐effective if offered to high‐risk MSM than it would be if offered to all MSM, with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of US$4,836 per disability‐adjusted life years (DALY) averted and US$7,089 per DALY averted respectively. Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves demonstrate that 80% of scenarios would be cost‐effective when PrEP is provided solely to higher‐risk MSM.ConclusionWe provide the first estimates on cost and cost‐effectiveness of PrEP in the Asia‐Pacific region, and offer insights on how to deliver PrEP in combination with ART. While the high drug cost poses a budgeting challenge, incorporating PrEP delivery into an existing ART programme could be a cost‐effective strategy to prevent HIV infections among MSM in Thailand.

AbstractIntroductionIn 2014, city leaders from around the world endorsed the Paris Declaration on Fast‐Track Cities, pledging to achieve the 2020 and 2030 HIV targets championed by UNAIDS. The City of Johannesburg – one of South Africa's metropolitan municipalities and also a health district – has over 600,000 people living with HIV (PLHIV), more than any other city worldwide. We estimate what it would take in terms of programmatic targets and costs for the City of Johannesburg to meet the Fast‐Track targets, and demonstrate the impact that this would have.MethodsWe applied the Optima HIV epidemic and resource allocation model to demographic, epidemiological and behavioural data on 26 sub‐populations in Johannesburg. We used data on programme costs and coverage to produce baseline projections. We calculated how many people must be diagnosed, put onto treatment and maintained with viral suppression to achieve the 2020 and 2030 targets. We also estimated how treatment needs – and therefore fiscal commitments – could be reduced if the treatment targets are combined with primary HIV prevention interventions (voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC), an expanded condom programme, and comprehensive packages for female sex workers (FSW) and young females).ResultsIf current programmatic coverage were maintained, Johannesburg could expect 303,000 new infections and 96,000 AIDS‐related deaths between 2017 and 2030 and 769,000 PLHIV by 2030. Achieving the Fast‐Track targets would require an additional 135,000 diagnoses and 232,000 people on treatment by 2020 (an increase in around 80% over 2016 treatment numbers), but would avert 176,000 infections and 56,500 deaths by 2030. Assuming stable ART unit costs, this would require ZAR 29 billion (USD 2.15 billion) in cumulative treatment investments over the 14 years to 2030. Plausible scale‐ups of other proven interventions (VMMC, condom distribution and FSW strategies) could yield additional reductions in new infections (between 4 and 15%), and in overall treatment investment needs. Scaling up VMMC in line with national targets is found to be cost‐effective in the medium term.ConclusionsThe scale‐up in testing and treatment programmes over this decade has been rapid, but these efforts must be doubled to reach 2020 targets. Strategic investments in proven interventions will help Johannesburg achieve the treatment targets and be on track to end AIDS by 2030.

AbstractIntroductionWith limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources.MethodsEach study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts.Results and discussionThe optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required.ConclusionsGreater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources.

INTRODUCTION: With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources. METHODS: Each study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required. CONCLUSIONS: Greater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

INTRODUCTION With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources. METHODS Each study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required. CONCLUSIONS Greater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

INTRODUCTION: With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources. METHODS: Each study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required. CONCLUSIONS: Greater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.