URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero . Unique identifier: CRD42016048257.

BackgroundThe increasing numbers of people living with HIV (PLHIV) who are receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) have near normal life-expectancy, resulting in more people living with HIV over the age of 50 years (PLHIV50+). Estimates of the number of PLHIV50+ are needed for the development of tailored therapeutic and prevention interventions at country, regional and global level.MethodsThe AIDS Impact Module of the Spectrum software was used to compute the numbers of PLHIV, new infections, and AIDS-related deaths for PLHIV50+ for the years 2000–2016. Projections until 2020 were calculated based on an assumed ART scale-up to 81% coverage by 2020, consistent with the UNAIDS 90–90–90 treatment targets.ResultsGlobally, there were 5.7 million [4.7 million– 6.6 million] PLHIV50+ in 2016. The proportion of PLHIV50+ increased substantially from 8% in 2000 to 16% in 2016 and is expected to increase to 21% by 2020. In 2016, 80% of PLHIV50+ lived in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with Eastern and Southern Africa containing the largest number of PLHIV50+. While the proportion of PLHIV50+ was greater in high income countries, LMICs have higher numbers of PLHIV50+ that are expected to continue to increase by 2020.ConclusionsThe number of PLHIV50+ has increased dramatically since 2000 and this is expected to continue by 2020, especially in LMICs. HIV prevention campaigns, testing and treatment programs should also focus on the specific needs of PLHIV50+. Integrated health and social services should be developed to cater for the changing physical, psychological and social needs of PLHIV50+, many of whom will need to use HIV and non-HIV services.

BackgroundLittle information exists on the impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on health-care provision in South Africa despite increasing scale-up of access to HAART and gradual reduction in HAART prices.Methods and FindingsUse and cost of services for 265 HIV-infected adults without AIDS (World Health Organization [WHO] stage 1, 2, or 3) and 27 with AIDS (WHO stage 4) receiving HAART between 1995 and 2000 in Cape Town were compared with HIV-infected controls matched for baseline WHO stage, CD4 count, age, and socioeconomic status, who did not receive antiretroviral therapy (ART; No-ART group). Costs of service provision (January 2004 prices, US$1 = 7.6 Rand) included local unit costs, and two scenarios for HAART prices for WHO recommended first-line regimens: scenario 1 used current South African public-sector ART drug prices of $730 per patient-year (PPY), whereas scenario 2 was based on the anticipated public-sector price for locally manufactured drug of $181 PPY. All analyses are presented in terms of patients without AIDS and patients with AIDS.For patients without AIDS, the mean number of inpatient days PPY was 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97–1.19) for the HAART group versus 3.73 (95% CI: 3.55–3.97) for the No-ART group, and 8.71 (95% CI: 8.40–9.03) versus 4.35 (95% CI: 4.12–5.61), respectively, for mean number of outpatient visits PPY. Average service provision PPY was $950 for the No-ART group versus $1,342 and $793 PPY for the HAART group for scenario 1 and 2, respectively, whereas the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) was $1,622 for scenario 1 and $675 for scenario 2. For patients with AIDS, mean inpatients days PPY was 2.04 (95% CI: 1.63–2.52) for the HAART versus 15.36 (95% CI: 13.97–16.85) for the No-ART group. Mean outpatient visits PPY was 7.62 (95% CI: 6.81–8.49) compared with 6.60 (95% CI: 5.69–7.62) respectively. Average service provision PPY was $3,520 for the No-ART group versus $1,513 and $964 for the HAART group for scenario 1 and 2, respectively, whereas the incremental cost per LYG was cost saving for both scenarios. In a sensitivity analysis based on the lower (25%) and upper (75%) interquartile range survival percentiles, the incremental cost per LYG ranged from $1,557 to $1,772 for the group without AIDS and from cost saving to $111 for patients with AIDS.ConclusionHAART is a cost-effective intervention in South Africa, and cost saving when HAART prices are further reduced. Our estimates, however, were based on direct costs, and as such the actual cost saving might have been underestimated if indirect costs were also included.

ObjectiveIn many high-income countries with low HIV prevalence, significant numbers of persons living with HIV (PLHIV) remain undiagnosed. Identification of PLHIV via HIV testing offers timely access to lifesaving antiretroviral therapy (ART) and decreases HIV transmission. We estimated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV testing in the United Kingdom (UK), where 25% of PLHIV are estimated to be undiagnosed.DesignWe developed a dynamic compartmental model to analyze strategies to expand HIV testing and treatment in the UK, with particular focus on men who have sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs (PWID), and individuals from HIV-endemic countries.MethodsWe estimated HIV prevalence, incidence, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and health care costs over 10 years, and cost-effectiveness.ResultsAnnual HIV testing of all adults could avert 5% of new infections, even with no behavior change following HIV diagnosis because of earlier ART initiation, or up to 18% if risky behavior is halved. This strategy costs £67,000–£106,000/QALY gained. Providing annual testing only to MSM, PWID, and people from HIV-endemic countries, and one-time testing for all other adults, prevents 4–15% of infections, requires one-fourth as many tests to diagnose each PLHIV, and costs £17,500/QALY gained. Augmenting this program with increased ART access could add 145,000 QALYs to the population over 10 years, at £26,800/QALY gained.ConclusionsAnnual HIV testing of key populations in the UK is very cost-effective. Additional one-time testing of all other adults could identify the majority of undiagnosed PLHIV. These findings are potentially relevant to other low-prevalence, high-income countries.

This review of published studies on the costs of HIV treatment and care describes some of the recent developments that have influenced these costs in industrialised and industrialising countries, especially within the context of changing drug treatments. Some of the different approaches to estimating the economic impact of HIV infection are briefly presented. The methods used to review the literature are described, particularly the criteria of a scoring system that was specifically developed to systematically screen some of the studies identified. The mean review score for studies dealing with direct hospital costs increased significantly (p = 0.003) over the 3 periods analysed (before 1987, 1987 to 1995, and 1996 and beyond), indicating that the overall 'quality' of studies increased over time. All cost estimates, other than those from non-industrialised regions, were converted to 1996 US dollars using country-specific total health expenditure inflaters and country-specific Gross Domestic Product Purchasing Power Parity converters. A summary of hospital cost estimates over time and by region demonstrated that the costs of treating asymptomatic individuals and people with symptomatic non-AIDS increased over the period, but that the costs of treating individuals with AIDS appears to have stabilised since the late 1980s. As fewer studies could be identified on the costs of community and informal care, indirect productivity costs and population cost estimates, and costs of care for children with HIV infection, all of these studies were reviewed without the use of the scoring system. Finally, the discussion explores the evidence on the global costs of HIV in non-industrialised economies and the affordability of HIV treatment and care. Some suggestions for the direction of future HIV costing studies are also presented. A need remains for good quality cost data. Adequate research effort should be directed to improving the scope and quality of information on costs of HIV service provision around the world.

Define and identify long-term non-progressors (LTNP) and HIV controllers (HIC), and estimate time until disease progression. LTNP are HIV-1+ patients who maintain stable CD4+ T-cell counts, with no history of opportunistic infection or antiretroviral therapy (ART). HIC are a subset of LTNP who additionally have undetectable viraemia. These individuals may provide insights for prophylactic and therapeutic development. Records of HIV-1+ individuals attending Chelsea and Westminster Hospital (1988–2010), were analysed. LTNP were defined as: HIV-1+ for >7 years; ART-naïve; no history of opportunistic infection and normal, stable CD4+ T-cell counts. MIXED procedure in SAS using random intercept model identified long-term stable CD4+ T-cell counts. Survival analysis estimated time since diagnosis until disease progression. Subjects exhibiting long-term stable CD4+ T-cell counts with history below the normal range (<450 cells/µl blood) were compared to LTNP whose CD4+ T-cell count always remained normal. Within these two groups subjects with HIV-1 RNA load below limit of detection (BLD) were identified. Of 14,227 patients, 1,204 were diagnosed HIV-1+ over 7 years ago and were ART-naïve. Estimated time until disease progression for the 20% (239) whose CD4+ T-cell counts remained within the normal range, was 6.2 years (IQR: 2.0 to 9.6); significantly longer than 4.0 years (IQR: 1.0 to 7.3) for patients with historical CD4+ T-cell count below normal (Logrank chi-squared = 21.26; p<0.001). Within a subpopulation of 312 asymptomatic patients, 50 exhibited long-term stable CD4+ T-cell counts. Of these, 13 were LTNP, one of whom met HIC criteria. Of the remaining 37 patients with long-term stable low CD4+ T-cell counts, 3 controlled HIV-1 RNA load BLD. Individuals with stable, normal CD4+ T-cell counts progressed less rapidly than those with low CD4+ T-cell counts. Few LTNP and HIC identified in this and other studies, endorse the need for universal definitions to facilitate comparison.

Many resource-limited countries are scaling up health services and health-information systems (HISs). The HIV Cascade framework aims to link treatment services and programs to improve outcomes and impact. It has been adapted to HIV prevention services, other infectious and non-communicable diseases, and programs for specific populations. Where successful, it links the use of health services by individuals across different disease categories, time and space. This allows for the development of longitudinal health records for individuals and de-identified individual level information is used to monitor and evaluate the use, cost, outcome and impact of health services. Contemporary digital technology enables countries to develop and implement integrated HIS to support person centred services, a major aim of the Sustainable Development Goals. The key to link the diverse sources of information together is a national health identifier (NHID). In a country with robust civil protections, this should be given at birth, be unique to the individual, linked to vital registration services and recorded every time that an individual uses health services anywhere in the country: it is more than just a number as it is part of a wider system. Many countries would benefit from practical guidance on developing and implementing NHIDs. Organizations such as ASTM and ISO, describe the technical requirements for the NHID system, but few countries have received little practical guidance. A WHO/UNAIDS stake-holders workshop was held in Geneva, Switzerland in July 2016, to provide a ‘road map’ for countries and included policy-makers, information and healthcare professionals, and members of civil society. As part of any NHID system, countries need to strengthen and secure the protection of personal health information. While often the technology is available, the solution is not just technical. It requires political will and collaboration among all stakeholders to be successful.

Most countries had developed national ART guidelines as part of a comprehensive national HIV program. Concordance with WHO recommendations was strong on starting first-line ART regimens and routine monitoring but lower for second-line recommendations.