Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27365203›Full record

ArticleThe lancet. HIV2016

Maximising HIV prevention by balancing the opportunities of today with the promises of tomorrow: a modelling study.

Jennifer A Smith, Sarah-Jane Anderson, Kate L Harris, Jessica B McGillen, Edward Lee, Geoff P Garnett, Timothy B Hallett

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The lancet. HIV, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. PrEP 1.0 and Beyond: Optimizing a Biobehavioral Intervention.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer A SmithImperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: jennifer.smith@imperial.ac.uk.
Sarah-Jane AndersonImperial College London, London, UK.
Kate L HarrisBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jessica B McGillenImperial College London, London, UK.
Edward LeeBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA; Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, USA.
Geoff P GarnettBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
Timothy B HallettImperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBBill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USBoston Consulting Group (United States)

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany ways of preventing HIV infection have been proposed and more are being developed. We sought to construct a strategic approach to HIV prevention that would use limited resources to achieve the greatest possible prevention impact through the use of interventions available today and in the coming years.

methodsWe developed a deterministic compartmental model of heterosexual HIV transmission in South Africa and formed assumptions about the costs and effects of a range of interventions, encompassing the further scale-up of existing interventions (promoting condom use, male circumcision, early antiretroviral therapy [ART] initiation for all [including increased HIV testing and counselling activities], and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP]), the introduction of new interventions in the medium term (offering intravaginal rings, long-acting injectable antiretroviral drugs) and long term (vaccine, broadly neutralising antibodies [bNAbs]). We examined how available resources could be allocated across these interventions to achieve maximum impact, and assessed how this would be affected by the failure of the interventions to be developed or scaled up.

findingsIf all interventions are available, the optimum mix would place great emphasis on the following: scale-up of male circumcision and early ART initiation with outreach testing, as these are available immediately and assumed to be low cost and highly efficacious; intravaginal rings targeted to sex workers; and vaccines, as these can achieve a large effect if scaled up even if imperfectly efficacious. The optimum mix would rely less on longer term developments, such as long-acting antiretroviral drugs and bNAbs, unless the costs of these reduced. However, if impossible to scale up existing interventions to the extent assumed, emphasis on oral PrEP, intravaginal rings, and long-acting antiretroviral drugs would increase. The long-term effect on the epidemic is most affected by scale-up of existing interventions and the successful development of a vaccine.

interpretationWith current information, a strategic approach in which limited resources are used to maximise prevention impact would focus on strengthening the scale-up of existing interventions, while pursuing a workable vaccine and developing other approaches that can be used if further scale-up of existing interventions is limited.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAIDS VaccinesAntiretroviral Therapy, Highly ActiveCircumcision, MaleCondomsFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSouth AfricaYoung AdultAIDS Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID27365203
PMCPMC4935669
OpenAlexW2469591829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.