Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
Over the past two decades we have seen dramatic improvements in the efficacy, safety and availibity of antiretroviral therapy (ART). In the USA and Europe, life expectancy in people living with HIV disease approaches that of the HIV-uninfected.1 Even in regions hardest hit by the HIV epidemic, effective HIV therapy has reversed more than a decade of HIV-related decreased survival.
Despite these advances in ART, motivations to pursue HIV cure remain strong due to the toxicity, adherence challenges, cost and access to care issues associated with HIV therapy, as well as the persistant stigma associated with having HIV infection. Further and renewed motivation comes from a single case of HIV cure after stem cell transplantation for acute leukaemia.
Given the tremendous improvements in ART, it is important to assess how effective and safe an HIV cure would need to be in order to be a viable option compared to ART. We argue that this should be done prior to the availability of a cure to provide realistic goals for researchers and policy makers.
The value of mathematical and cost-effectiveness models
One methodology that has been increasingly popular over the past decade is the use of mathematical simulation modelling to assess the clinical impact, cost-effectiveness and clinical role of different treatment strategies in HIV disease, as well as in medicine broadly.2 Such models provide a framework and approach for using the best available data at any point in time, and assessing the potential impact of emerging innovations. Further, unlike individual trials focused on a single endpoint, these models can integrate multiple data sources to project beyond the timeline or outcomes of individual studies and project long-term outcomes in many domains, including virologic, immunologic, clinical and cost.3
Modelling uncertainty and ‘what if’ analyses
Mathematical models have particular value in their ability to assess uncertainty in clinical care. Examples include parameters determined in …
Footnotes
Funding Supported in part by R01 AI42006, R01 AI114617, R56 AI114617 and the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research (NIH P30 AI060354), all from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- CD4 cell count and viral load monitoring in patients undergoing antiretroviral therapy in Uganda: cost effectiveness study
- Testing strategies to detect acute and prevalent HIV infection in adult outpatients seeking healthcare for symptoms compatible with acute HIV infection in Kenya: a cost-effectiveness analysis
- The cost effectiveness and optimal configuration of HIV self-test distribution in South Africa: a model analysis
- Prevention of vertical transmission of HIV: analysis of cost effectiveness of options available in South Africa
- Where to deploy pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in sub-Saharan Africa?
- Cost-effectiveness of implementing HIV and HIV/syphilis dual testing among key populations in Viet Nam: a modelling analysis
- Modelling the potential clinical and economic impact of universal antenatal hepatitis C (HCV) screening and providing treatment for pregnant women with HCV and their infants in Egypt: a cost-effectiveness study
- Cost and cost-effectiveness of a real-world HCV treatment program among HIV-infected individuals in Myanmar
- Cost effectiveness of vaccination against pandemic influenza in European countries: mathematical modelling analysis
- The role of HIV viral load in mathematical models of HIV transmission and treatment: a review