Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-08
Are Unequal Policies in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Uptake Needed to Improve Equality? An Examination Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Los Angeles County
Racial and ethnic minority men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS in Los Angeles County (LAC), an important epicenter in the battle to end HIV. We examine tradeoffs between effectiveness and equality of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) allocation strategies among different racial and ethnic groups of MSM in LAC and provide a framework for quantitatively evaluating disparities in HIV outcomes. To do this, we developed a microsimulation model of HIV among MSM in LAC using county epidemic surveillance and survey data to capture demographic trends and subgroup-specific partnership patterns, disease progression, patterns of PrEP use, and patterns for viral suppression. We limit analysis to MSM, who bear most of the burden of HIV/AIDS in LAC. We simulated interventions where 3000, 6000, or 9000 PrEP prescriptions are provided annually in addition to current levels, following different allocation scenarios to each racial/ethnic group (Black, Hispanic, or White). We estimated cumulative infections averted and measures of equality, after 15 years (2021–2035), relative to base case (no intervention). By comparing allocation strategies on the health equality impact plane, we find that, of the policies evaluated, targeting PrEP preferentially to Black individuals would result in the largest reductions in incidence and disparities across the equality measures we considered. This result was consistent over a range of PrEP coverage levels, demonstrating that there are “win–win” PrEP allocation strategies that do not require a tradeoff between equality and efficiency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CDC. HIV Surveillance Report: Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and DependentAreas, 2018. (Updated). 2020. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/geographicdistribution.html (Last accessed August27, 2021).
2.
SullivanPS, WoodyattC, KoskiC, et al.A data visualization and dissemination resource to support HIV prevention and care at the local level: Analysis and uses of the AIDSVu public data resource. J Med Internet Res, 2020; 22:e23173.
3.
Division of HIV and STD Programs Department of Public Health County of Los Angeles. HIV Surveillance Annual Report. 2019. Available at: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dhsp/Reports/HIV/2019HIVSurveillanceReport_051920Final.pdf (Last accessed August27, 2021).
4.
CDC. Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and DependentAreas, 2018: Persons Living withHIV. 2020. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance/vol-31/content/living.html (Last accessed August27, 2021).
5.
HustedC. Los Angeles COunty Comprehensive HIV Plan (2017–2021). 2016. Available at: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dhsp/Reports/Publications/LAC-Comprehensive-HIV-Plan2017-2021.pdf (Last accessed August27, 2021).
6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC's Role in Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. . Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/endhiv/overview.html (Last accessed August27, 2021).
7.
McCreeDH, ChessonH, BradleyELP, et al.Exploring changes in racial/ethnic disparities of HIV diagnosis rates under the “Ending the HIV Epidemic: A plan for America” initiative. Public Health Rep, 2020; 135:685–690.
8.
KolmS-C.Unequal inequalities. I. J Econ Theory, 1976; 12:416–442.
9.
Castillo-SalgadoC, SchneiderC, LoyolaE, et al.Measuring health inequalities: Gini coefficient and concentration index. Epidemiol Bull, 2001; 22:3–4.
10.
CatalanoM, LeiseT, PfaffT.Measuring resource inequality: The Gini coefficient. Numeracy [Epub ahead of print July 2009]. DOI: 10.5038/1936-4660.2.2.4.
11.
BowlesS, CarlinW. Inequality as experienced difference: A reformulation of the Gini coefficient. Econ Lett, 2020; 186:108789.
12.
MartinEG, RosenbergES, HoltgraveDR. Economic and policy analytic approaches to inform the acceleration of HIV prevention in the United States: Future directions for the field. AIDS Educ Prev, 2018; 30:199–207.
13.
FauciAS, RedfieldRR, SigounasG, et al.Ending the HIV epidemic. JAMA, 2019; 321:844.
14.
Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS PolicyH. Ending the HIV Epidemic: Overview. 2020. Available at: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/overview (Last accessed December7, 2020).
JuusolaJL, BrandeauML, OwensDK, et al.The cost-effectiveness of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in the United States in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med, 2012; 156:541–550.
17.
DraboEF, HayJW, VardavasR, et al.A cost-effectiveness analysis of preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV among Los Angeles County men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis, 2016; 63:1495–1504.
18.
PaltielAD, FreedbergKA, ScottCA, et al.HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: Impact on lifetime infection risk, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Clin Infect Dis, 2009; 48:806–815.
19.
KoppenhaverRT, SorensenSW, FarnhamPG, et al.The cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men in the United States: An epidemic model. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2011; 58:e51–e52.
20.
LA County Department of Public Health. Ending the HIV Epidemic in Los Angeles County. 2020. Available at: https://www.lacounty.hiv/ (Last accessed August27, 2021).
21.
KhuranaN, YaylaliE, FarnhamPG, et al.Impact of improved HIV care and treatment on PrEP effectiveness in the United States, 2016–2020. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2018; 78:399–405.
22.
KasaieP, PenningtonJ, ShahMS, et al.The impact of preexposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men: An individual-based model. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2017; 75:175–183.
23.
JennessSM, GoodreauSM, RosenbergE, et al.Impact of the Centers for Disease control's HIV preexposure prophylaxis guidelines for men who have sex with men in the United States. J Infect Dis, 2016; 214:1800–1807.
24.
ShenM, XiaoY, RongL, et al.The cost-effectiveness of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and early antiretroviral therapy in the presence of drug resistance among men who have sex with men in San Francisco. BMC Med, 2018; 16:58.
25.
ApentengOO, OseiPP, IsmailNA, et al.Analysing the impact of migration on HIV/AIDS cases using epidemiological modelling to guide policy makers. Infect Dis Model, 2022; 7:252–261.
26.
Bruneiera de OlilveiraR, RubioFA, AnderleR, et al.Incorporating social determinants of health into the mathematical modelling of HIV/AIDS. Res Sq, 2022. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1304192/v1rs.3.rs-1304192/v1.
27.
PicklesM, CoriA, ProbertWJM, et al.PopART-IBM, a highly efficient stochastic individual-based simulation model of generalised HIV epidemics developed in the context of the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial. PLoS Comput Biol, 2021; 17:e1009301.
28.
BinghamA, ShresthaRK, KhuranaN, et al.Estimated lifetime HIV–related medical costs in the United States. Sex Transm Dis, 2021; 48:299–304.
29.
LimaVD, ZhuJ, CardKG, et al.Can the combination of TasP and PrEP eliminate HIV among MSM in British Columbia, Canada?. Epidemics, 2021; 35:100461.
30.
GoedelWC, KingMRF, LurieMN, et al.Effect of racial inequities in pre-exposure prophylaxis use on racial disparities in HIV incidence among men who have sex with men: A modeling study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2018; 79:323–329.
31.
GoedelWC, BesseyS, LurieMN, et al.Projecting the impact of equity-based preexposure prophylaxis implementation on racial disparities in HIV incidence among MSM. AIDS, 2020; 34:1509–1517.
32.
JennessSM, MaloneyKM, SmithDK, et al.Addressing gaps in HIV preexposure prophylaxis care to reduce racial disparities in HIV incidence in the United States. Am J Epidemiol, 2019; 188:743–752.
33.
SieglerAJ, MouhannaF, GilerRM, et al.The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis–to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United States. Ann Epidemiol, 2018; 28:841–849.
34.
KotaKK, ManserghG, StephensonR, et al.Sociodemographic characteristics of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use and reasons for nonuse among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men from three US Cities. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2021; 35:158–166.
35.
MounzerKC, FuscoJS, HsuRK, et al.Are we hitting the target? HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis from 2012 to 2020 in the OPERA cohort. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2021; 35:419–427.
36.
TaoJ, MontgomeryMC, WilliamsR, et al.Loss to follow-up and re-engagement in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care in the United States, 2013–2019. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2021; 35:271–277.
37.
LA County Department of Public Health. Los Angeles County HIV/AIDS Strategy for. 2020. and Beyond. Available at: https://www.lacounty.hiv/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/LACHAS2018-English.pdf (Last accessed August27, 2021).
38.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC Fact Sheet: HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf (Last accessed August27, 2021).
39.
GreyJA, BernsteinKT, SullivanPS, et al.Estimating the Population Sizes of Men Who Have Sex With Men in US States and Counties Using Data From the American Community Survey. JMIR Public Heal Surveill, 2016; 2:e14.
40.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. America's HIV Epidemic Analysis Dashboard. Available at: https://ahead.hiv.gov/locations/los-angeles-county (Last accessed August27, 2021).
41.
AIDSVu Los Angeles. AIDSVu. 2016. Available at: https://aidsvu.org/local-data/united-states/west/california/los-angeles-count/ (Last accessed August27, 2021).
42.
LiebS, FallonSJ, FriedmanSR, et al.Statewide estimation of racial/ethnic populations of men who have sex with men in the U.S. Public Health Rep, 2011; 126:60–72.
43.
HallHI, AnQ, TangT, et al.Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV infection—United States, 2008–2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2015; 64:657–662.
44.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV Infection Risk, Prevention, and Testing Behaviors Among Men Who Have Sex With Men—National HIV Behavioral Surveillance 23 U.S. Cities, 2017. 2019. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-special-report-number-22.pdf (Last accessed August27, 2021).
45.
United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Los Angeles County. Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/losangelescountycalifornia/PST045219 (Last accessed August27, 2021).
46.
Race and Ethnicity in Los Angeles County, California. Available at: https://statisticalatlas.com/county/California/Los-Angeles-County/Race-and-Ethnicity (accessed January11, 2020).
47.
SinghS, MitschA, WuB. HIV care outcomes among men who have sex with men with diagnosed HIV infection—United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2017; 66:969–974.
48.
California HIV/AIDS ResearchCenters. Examining PrEP Uptake among Medi-Cal Beneficiaries in California: Differences byAge, Gender, Race/Ethnicity and GeographicRegion.2018. Available at: https://www.californiaaidsresearch.org/files/PrEP_Brief_2.8.18.pdf (Last accessed August27, 2021).
49.
ShoverC, JavanbakhtM, ShoptawS, et al. High Discontinuation of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Within Six Months of Initiation—Los Angeles. In: CROI. 2018. Available at: https://www.natap.org/2018/CROI/croi_166.htm (Last accessed August27, 2021).
50.
ShoverCL, ShoptawS, JavanbakhtM, et al.Mind the gaps: Prescription coverage and HIV incidence among patients receiving pre-exposure prophylaxis from a large federally qualified health center in Los Angeles, California. AIDS Behav, 2019; 23:2730–2740.
51.
HughesAJ, MattsonCL, ScheerS, et al.Discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy among adults receiving HIV care in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2014; 66:80–89.
52.
KoenigLJ, LylesC, SmithDK. Adherence to antiretroviral medications for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: Lessons learned from trials and treatment studies. Am J Prev Med, 2013; 44:S91–S98.
53.
SupervieV, BarrettM, KahnJS, et al.Modeling dynamic interactions between pre-exposure prophylaxis interventions & treatment programs: Predicting HIV transmission & resistance. Sci Rep, 2011; 1:185.
54.
MarshallBDL, GoedelWC, KingMRF, et al.Potential effectiveness of long-acting injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men: A modelling study. Lancet HIV, 2018; 5:e498–e505.
55.
StephensW. PARTNER2 Study: Viral Suppression of HIV Prevents Sexual Transmission Between GayMen. AJMC. 2019. Available at: https://www.ajmc.com/view/partner2-study-viral-suppression-of-hiv-prevents-sexual-transmission-between-gay-men (Last accessed August27, 2021).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
