Abstract
Background
Expanded access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) using universal test and treat (UTT) has been suggested as a strategy to eliminate HIV in South Africa within 7 y based on an influential mathematical modeling study. However, the underlying deterministic model was criticized widely, and other modeling studies did not always confirm the study’s finding. The objective of our study is to better understand the implications of different model structures and assumptions, so as to arrive at the best possible predictions of the long-term impact of UTT and the possibility of elimination of HIV.
Methods and Findings
We developed nine structurally different mathematical models of the South African HIV epidemic in a stepwise approach of increasing complexity and realism. The simplest model resembles the initial deterministic model, while the most comprehensive model is the stochastic microsimulation model STDSIM, which includes sexual networks and HIV stages with different degrees of infectiousness. We defined UTT as annual screening and immediate ART for all HIV-infected adults, starting at 13% in January 2012 and scaled up to 90% coverage by January 2019. All models predict elimination, yet those that capture more processes underlying the HIV transmission dynamics predict elimination at a later point in time, after 20 to 25 y. Importantly, the most comprehensive model predicts that the current strategy of ART at CD4 count ≤350 cells/µl will also lead to elimination, albeit 10 y later compared to UTT. Still, UTT remains cost-effective, as many additional life-years would be saved. The study’s major limitations are that elimination was defined as incidence below 1/1,000 person-years rather than 0% prevalence, and drug resistance was not modeled.
Conclusions
Our results confirm previous predictions that the HIV epidemic in South Africa can be eliminated through universal testing and immediate treatment at 90% coverage. However, more realistic models show that elimination is likely to occur at a much later point in time than the initial model suggested. Also, UTT is a cost-effective intervention, but less cost-effective than previously predicted because the current South African ART treatment policy alone could already drive HIV into elimination.
Discussion
Our study confirms previous reports that an intervention of universal voluntary counseling and testing for individuals aged 15+ y and immediate ART for all HIV-infected individuals (UTT) at 90% coverage will eventually result in the elimination of HIV, even in a highly endemic setting such as South Africa and with realistic assumptions about the efficacy of ART in reducing HIV transmission and enhancing survival. However, the predicted timing of the elimination of HIV (defined as an incidence of below one new infection per 1,000 person-years) differs substantially for the different models in our study, and HIV elimination is likely to take three times longer than the mere 7 y predicted by Granich et al. [9]. In addition, the relative impact of the UTT intervention compared to the baseline differs substantially. Whereas 1,800 infections are averted per 100,000 person-years (range: 1,600; 2,500) in the simplest model, this value is only 100 (range: 83; 150) in the most comprehensive model. In fact, the latter model shows that the current scale-up of ART for patients with CD4 cell counts of ≤350 cells/µl already leads to elimination of HIV without the additional UTT intervention. However, the considerable number of life-years saved makes UTT at 90% coverage still a highly cost-effective intervention, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$170/life-year saved (range: 19; 406).
Our sub-model analysis shows that choices in model structure and assumptions have an important impact on the predicted impact of UTT. It makes sense that more up-to-date assumptions on the overall efficacy of ART in reducing infectiousness (90% versus 99.4%) lead to delayed HIV elimination. Also, incorporating high infectiousness during the acute stage results in a less profound impact of UTT, since relatively many transmission events will then occur during this short period of high infectiousness, which is difficult to target in UTT interventions[17],[58]. Adding heterogeneity in sexual behavior and sexual networks to the model also increases the time until elimination—this is because the relative force of infection of HIV is high in certain high-risk groups (e.g., FSWs) and therefore the impact of UTT is less profound in these subgroups. Finally, explicitly modeling male circumcision, condom use, and STI co-factors, and using increases in condom use to quantify the HIV epidemic in South Africa [2],[3], decreases the time until HIV elimination, since the counterfactual of no UTT already shows a substantial decline in incidence, despite the fact that these interventions are not further scaled up in the model after 2012. A model that relies on implicit modeling of these interventions to capture the steady state (e.g., through a prevalence density function, as was used by Granich et al. [9]) will therefore overestimate the impact of UTT. Finally, it appears vital to incorporate the current ART rollout in the counterfactual scenario. The availability of ART in South Africa and many other African countries is now a fact of life, and the rollout that generally started in 2003–2004 is already affecting the epidemics through increased survival and decreased transmission [2].
Given that the stepwise inclusion of model components appeared to change the predicted impact of a UTT intervention, the model that incorporates all these components (model D) gives the most accurate prediction of the impact. In addition, although all models were able to accurately replicate the UNAIDS-reported HIV prevalence in South Africa, model D was the only model that was also able to capture the observed decline in incidence over the past decade [2],[3]. In model D, incidence in the population aged 15–49 y declined from 1.9/100 person-years in 2002 to 1.3/100 person-years in 2008, which is nearly the same as the observed reduction from 2.0/100 person-years in 2002–2005 to 1.3/100 person-years in 2005–2008, as reported by Rehle et al. [3]. Incidence rates in the other models remained constant over the same period (models A to C). In addition, model D was able to replicate data on demographic structure, age-specific HIV prevalence, sexual behavior, STI prevalence, and ART coverage in South Africa (Figure S7; Text S2). Finally, previous studies with STDSIM have shown that the model is capable of reproducing HIV prevalence (overall and age- and sex-specific), incidence, and mortality data from a population-based HIV and demographic surveillance site in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa [25],[36],[37],[59],[60]. The simulated impact of ART in this highly endemic area of South Africa [25] was very similar to what was recently observed by Tanser et al. [5], providing reassurance that our model predictions are accurate.
To our knowledge, this is the first study that shows that the current rollout of ART for all HIV-infected patients with CD4 cell counts of ≤350 cells/µl will eventually eliminate HIV. This raises questions about the value for money of the additional investments required to implement UTT. Although we show that the UTT intervention proposed by Granich et al. [9] is highly cost-effective, the required number of health workers and financial resources for such a strategy far exceeds the current availability in South Africa [61]. Also, the assumed rates of HIV testing, ART uptake, retention in care, and treatment adherence are rather optimistic [62],[63]. Adherence and retention are likely to decrease when treatment is initiated at higher CD4 cell counts [64], while the number of patients lost to follow-up increases when treatment programs are scaled up[65]. Both these issues are especially important in UTT strategies, where patient numbers increase substantially, and many patients initiate ART at high CD4 cell counts. In addition, maintaining screening coverage levels at 90% for 40+ y seems not very plausible. It is likely that test refusal will be substantially higher than the 10% assumed in our analyses [66], increase over time [67], and be more common among people with HIV [67], resulting in a lower and declining screening coverage over time. Still, our sensitivity analysis shows that UTT would remain a cost-effective strategy, even with coverage rates of only 60%. A recent study on the cost-effectiveness of ART provision in South Africa showed that cost savings will be achieved after just 5 y of UTT at 90% coverage [68], while our modeling indicates that there will be no net savings from this UTT intervention in South Africa. The underlying compartmental transmission model in that study [68] is essentially the same as that previously used by Granich et al. [9],[68], and thus resembles our model A. We show that these types of models, which ignore sexual networks and background prevention interventions underlying the current South African epidemic, predict a far more optimistic impact of UTT compared to the baseline. Cost-effectiveness and economic impact studies based on such models should therefore be interpreted with caution. More research with comprehensive models of the impact of more modest UTT interventions is necessary in order to determine whether universal treatment for HIV really is a cost-effective intervention.
Our study has a number of limitations. We defined elimination as incidence below 1/1,000 person-years. However, real elimination is achieved when both incidence and prevalence reach 0%. Microsimulation allows for such an analysis, and we found that in a model population of about 35,000 people, by 2080, 99% of all model runs predict that HIV prevalence reaches 0% in model A (Figure S5). In model D this point is reached only in year 2116 for the UTT scenario, and in year 2164 for continued scale-up of ART at CD4 count ≤350 cells/µl (Figure S5). In addition, we did not model the development and transmission of drug-resistant strains. Both acquired resistance (development of resistance within an individual on treatment) and transmitted resistance (spread of drug-resistant strains) will have an impact on the effectiveness of treatment programs, and will consequently result in a less profound effect of the current ART scale-up or UTT in South Africa. It is currently unclear, however, to what extent the fears of rapidly spreading drug resistance expressed at the start of the ART scale-up were justified [69]. The prevalence of drug resistance remains low in South Africa after nearly 10 y of scaling up ART [70],[71]. In addition, adherence to treatment is as high as in many high-income countries[72], and survival of patients on treatment in sub-Saharan Africa approaches general life expectancy [73], suggesting that resistance may not become a major problem in South Africa in the near future.
Elimination of HIV in South Africa will have huge implications for public health and socioeconomic development in the country. The current ART rollout is already resulting in a substantial increase in the life expectancy of the general population [74] and in the employment rates of HIV-infected people [75]. Finally, elimination of HIV will also substantially reduce the tuberculosis burden in South Africa, given the close link between the two epidemics [76].
In conclusion, our results from a series of structurally different models support the main message from previous studies that HIV in South Africa can be eliminated through a strategy of annual screening of individuals aged 15+ y and immediate ART for all HIV-infected patients at 90% coverage, but elimination will occur substantially later than previously predicted. Importantly, the most comprehensive model suggests that HIV incidence in South Africa can reach the elimination phase even if the current treatment scale-up of ART at CD4 count ≤350 cells/µl continues without the addition of a UTT intervention. Results from upcoming community randomized trials of treatment as prevention will need to be evaluated with models that allow for sufficient detail in assumptions in order to adequately project the population-level impact and overall cost-effectiveness of the UTT intervention.
SOURCE: PLOS