Search bioRxivSearch

bioRxiv · 10.1101/061929

Ending AIDS: Progress and prospects for the control of HIV and TB in South Africa

Abstract

We assess the prospects for ending AIDS in South Africa using a dynamical model to fit data on time trends in HIV prevalence and anti-retroviral treatment (ART) coverage for adults. We estimate current and project future trends in HIV incidence, prevalence and AIDS related deaths, in ART coverage and incidence, and in TB notification rates. We consider two scenarios: constant effort under which people continue to be started on treatment at the current rate and expanded treatment and prevention under which testing rates are increased, everyone is started on treatment as soon as they are found to be infected with HIV, and voluntary medical male circumcision, pre-exposure prophylaxis and condom distribution programmes are expanded.\n\nAs a result of the roll-out of ART the incidence of HIV has fallen from a peak of 2.3% per annum in 1996 to 0.65% in 2016, the AIDS related mortality from a peak of 1.4% per annum in 2006 to 0.37% p.a. in 2016 and both continue to fall at a relative rate of 17% p.a. Maintaining a policy of constant effort will lead to further declines in HIV incidence, AIDS related mortality and TB notification rates but will not end AIDS. Implementing a policy of expanded treatment and prevention in September 2016 should ensure that by 2020 new infections and deaths will be less than one per thousand adults and the UNAIDS Goal of Ending AIDS by 2030 will be reached. Scaling up voluntary medical male circumcision, pre-exposure prophylaxis and condom availability will avert some new infections but will save relatively few lives. Nevertheless, equity demands that people at very high risk of infection including commercial sex-workers, men-who-have-sex-with-men and young women should have access to the best available methods of prevention.\n\nThe current cost to the health services of managing HIV and TB among adults in South Africa is about US$2.1 Bn p.a. (0.6% of GDP p.a.) and this will rise to a peak of US$2.7 Bn p.a. in 2018 (0.8% GDP p.a.). As treatment is scaled up and prevention made available to those at high risk, the cost will fall to US$ 1.8 Bn p.a. in 2030 and US$ 1.0 Bn p.a. in 2050 as those that are living with HIV on ART, die of natural causes. The cost of testing people for HIV is never more than about 8% of the total cost and since testing is the sine qua non of treatment it will be essential to invest sufficient resources in testing. The cost of treating tuberculosis is never more than about 10% of the total and since this is the major cause of AIDS related illness and deaths, efforts should be made to optimise TB treatment.\n\nEnding AIDS in the world will depend critically on what happens in South Africa which accounts for 20% of all people living with HIV. The increasing availability of ART has had a major impact on both HIV incidence and AIDS related mortality and universal access to ART is affordable. With the commitment to make treatment available to all those infected with HIV in September 2016, the South African government is well placed to eliminate HIV as a major threat to public health by 2020 and to end AIDS by 2030. Individuals at high risk of infection deserve access to the best available methods of protecting themselves and they will become increasingly important in the final stages of ending the epidemic.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Brian Gerard Williams, Somya Gupta, Matthew Wollmers, Reuben Granich. 2016-07-05. Ending AIDS: Progress and prospects for the control of HIV and TB in South Africa. https://doi.org/10.1101/061929

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

A risk stratification approach for improved interpretation of diagnostic accuracy statistics

Diagnostic accuracy statistics, including predictive values, risk-differences, Youdens index and Area Under the Curve (AUC), assess the promise of novel biomarkers proposed as diagnostic tests. We reinterpret these statistics in light of risk-stratification (how well a biomarker separates those at higher risk from those at lower risk) to better understand their implications for public-health programs. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values can mislead because they do not account for disease prevalence or test-positivity rates. Little risk-stratification is possible for rare diseases, demonstrating a \"high-bar\" to justify population-based screening. Importantly, we demonstrate that the risk-difference, Youdens index, and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC=0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC=0.9 achieves 80%). However, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare or if the test is rarely positive. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC=0.72 in China (visual inspection with ascetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification of the test with best AUC=0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Epidemiology

Collider Scope: How selection bias can induce spurious associations

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited - either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e., a form of collider bias). While it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.\n\nKey MessagesSelection bias (including selective attrition) may limit the representativeness of large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies.\n\nThis selection bias may induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that variable is conditioned upon).\n\nThis may lead to substantially biased estimates of associations, including of genetic associations, even when selection / attrition is relatively modest.

Epidemiology

A comparative analysis of Chikungunya and Zika transmission

The recent global dissemination of Chikungunya and Zika has fostered public health concern worldwide. To better understand the drivers of transmission of these two arboviral diseases, we propose a joint analysis of Chikungunya and Zika epidemics in the same territories, taking into account the common epidemiological features of the epidemics: transmitted by the same vector, in the same environments, and observed by the same surveillance systems. We analyse eighteen outbreaks in French Polynesia and the French West Indies using a hierarchical time-dependent SIR model accounting for the effect of virus, location and weather on transmission, and based on a disease specific serial interval. We show that Chikungunya and Zika have similar transmission potential in the same territories (transmissibility ratio between Zika and Chikungunya of 1.04 [95% credible interval: 0.97; 1.13]), but that detection and reporting rates were different (around 19% for Zika and 40% for Chikungunya). Temperature variations between 22{degrees}C and 29{degrees}C did not alter transmission, but increased precipitation showed a dual effect, first reducing transmission after a two-week delay, then increasing it around five weeks later. The present study provides valuable information for risk assessment and introduces a modelling framework for the comparative analysis of arboviral infections that can be extended to other viruses and territories.

Epidemiology