The funding landscape for HIV in Asia and the Pacific.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent and robust economic growth across the Asia-Pacific region, the majority of low- and middle-income countries in the region remain dependent on some donor support for HIV programmes. We describe the availability of bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (ODA) for HIV programmes in the region. METHODS: The donor countries considered in this analysis are Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. To estimate bilateral and multilateral ODA financing for HIV programmes in the Asia-Pacific region between 2004 and 2013, we obtained funding data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Creditor Reporting System database. Where possible, we checked these amounts against the funding data available from government aid agencies. Estimates of multilateral ODA financing for HIV/AIDS were based on the country allocations announcement by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund) for the period 2014 to 2016. RESULTS: Countries in the Asia-Pacific region receive the largest share of aid for HIV from the Global Fund. Bilateral funding for HIV in the region has been relatively stable over the last decade and is projected to remain below 10% of the worldwide response to the epidemic. Bilateral donors continue to prioritize ODA for HIV to other regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa; Australia is an exception in prioritizing the Asia-Pacific region, but the United States is the bilateral donor providing the greatest amount of assistance in the region. Funding from the Global Fund has increased consistently since 2005, reaching a total of US$1.2 billion for the Asia-Pacific region from 2014 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Even with Global Fund allocations, countries in the Asia-Pacific region will not have enough resources to meet their epidemiological targets. Prevention funding is particularly vulnerable and requires greater domestic leadership and coordination. Bilateral donors are still crucially important in the response to HIV throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The cost-effectiveness of harm reduction.

HIV prevalence worldwide among people who inject drugs (PWID) is around 19%. Harm reduction for PWID includes needle-syringe programs (NSPs) and opioid substitution therapy (OST) but often coupled with antiretroviral therapy (ART) for people living with HIV. Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of each harm reduction strategy. This commentary discusses the evidence of effectiveness of the packages of harm reduction services and their cost-effectiveness with respect to HIV-related outcomes as well as estimate resources required to meet global and regional coverage targets. NSPs have been shown to be safe and very effective in reducing HIV transmission in diverse settings; there are many historical and very recent examples in diverse settings where the absence of, or reduction in, NSPs have resulted in exploding HIV epidemics compared to controlled epidemics with NSP implementation. NSPs are relatively inexpensive to implement and highly cost-effective according to commonly used willingness-to-pay thresholds. There is strong evidence that substitution therapy is effective, reducing the risk of HIV acquisition by 54% on average among PWID. OST is relatively expensive to implement when only HIV outcomes are considered; other societal benefits substantially improve the cost-effectiveness ratios to be highly favourable. Many studies have shown that ART is cost-effective for keeping people alive but there is only weak supportive, but growing evidence, of the additional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ART as prevention among PWID. Packages of combined harm reduction approaches are highly likely to be more effective and cost-effective than partial approaches. The coverage of harm reduction programs remains extremely low across the world. The total annual costs of scaling up each of the harm reduction strategies from current coverage levels, by region, to meet WHO guideline coverage targets are high with ART greatest, followed by OST and then NSPs. But scale-up of all three approaches is essential. These interventions can be cost-effective by most thresholds in the short-term and cost-saving in the long-term.