Optimal Resource Allocation for HIV Prevention and Control

  • Dmitry Gromov
  • Ingo Bulla
  • Ethan O. Romero-Severson


When dealing with economically and socially significant infectious diseases, in particular AIDS and tuberculosis, the central problem is to optimally distribute the limited resources among different treatment and prophylaxis programs. The main difficulty in doing so is that while the individual-level effect of these interventions can be determined using controlled trials, their effectiveness as public health interventions cannot be ascertained with certainty. This is due to the fact that affected populations are different not only in terms of the disease transmission dynamics, but also in the efficacy of available instruments given a specific population structure. Identifying the optimal strategy of resource allocation must be based on a (dynamic) model of the underlying medical, biological, and social processes that captures the relevant features of the population.



This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/OID/NCHHSTP/DSTDP, Department of Health and Human Services, under Interagency Agreement No. 17FED1710397.

Dmitry Gromov thanks to the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) for partial support of living expenses in Moscow, during the 17th BIOMAT International Symposium, October 29–November 04, 2017.


  1. 1.
    S.S. Alistar, D.K. Owens, M.L. Brandeau, Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in a portfolio of prevention programs for injection drug users in mixed HIV epidemics. PLoS One 9(1), e86584 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.H. Auchincloss, A.V. Diez Roux, A new tool for epidemiology: the usefulness of dynamic-agent models in understanding place effects on health. Am. J. Epidemiol. 168(1), 1–8 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.M. Baeten, D. Donnell, P. Ndase, N.R. Mugo, J.D. Campbell, J. Wangisi, J.W. Tappero, E. A. Bukusi, C.R. Cohen, E. Katabira et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N. Engl. J. Med. 367(5), 399–410 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.E. Bellan, J. Dushoff, A.P. Galvani, L.A. Meyers, Reassessment of HIV-1 acute phase infectivity: accounting for heterogeneity and study design with simulated cohorts. PLoS Med. 12(3), e1001801 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Blank, K. Gallagher, K. Washburn, M. Rogers, Reaching out to boys at bars: utilizing community partnerships to employ a wellness strategy for syphilis control among men who have sex with men in New York City. Sex. Transm. Dis. 32, S65–S72 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O. Diekmann, J.A.P. Heesterbeek, Mathematical Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases: Model Building, Analysis and Interpretation. Mathematical and Computational Biology, vol. 5 (Wiley, New York, 2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Donnell, J.M. Baeten, J. Kiarie, K.K. Thomas, W. Stevens, C.R. Cohen, J. McIntyre, J.R. Lingappa, C. Celum, Partners in Prevention HSV/HIV Transmission Study Team et al., Heterosexual HIV-1 transmission after initiation of antiretroviral therapy: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet 375(9731), 2092–2098 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Gábor, J.R. Banga, Robust and efficient parameter estimation in dynamic models of biological systems. BMC Syst. Biol. 9(1), 74 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Gromov, I. Bulla, O.S. Serea, E.O. Romero-Severson, Numerical optimal control for HIV prevention with dynamic budget allocation. Math. Med. Biol. J. IMA dqx015 (2017).
  10. 10.
    W.M. Haddad, V. Chellaboina, Stability and dissipativity theory for nonnegative dynamical systems: a unified analysis framework for biological and physiological systems. Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 6(1), 35–65 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.A. Jacquez, C.P. Simon, Qualitative theory of compartmental systems. SIAM Rev. 35(1), 43–79 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.D. Moore, R.E. Chaisson, Natural history of HIV infection in the era of combination antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 13(14), 1933–1942 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.E. Nichols, C.A.B. Boucher, M. van der Valk, B.J.A. Rijnders, D.A.M.C. van de Vijver, Cost-effectiveness analysis of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention in the Netherlands: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 16(12), 1423–1429 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.V. Rao, A survey of numerical methods for optimal control. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. 135(1), 497–528 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E.O. Romero-Severson, E. Volz, J.S. Koopman, T. Leitner, E.L. Ionides, Dynamic variation in sexual contact rates in a cohort of HIV-negative gay men. Am. J. Epidemiol. 182(3), 255–262 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E.S. Rosenberg, G.A. Millett, P.S. Sullivan, C. Del Rio, J.W. Curran, Modeling disparities in HIV infection between black and white men who have sex with men in the United States using the HIV care continuum. Lancet HIV 1(3), e112–e118 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Smith, I. Miles, B. Le, T. Finlayson, A. Oster, E. DiNenno, Prevalence and awareness of HIV infection among men who have sex with men – 21 Cities, US 2008. Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 59(37), 1201–1227 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dmitry Gromov
    • 1
  • Ingo Bulla
    • 2
  • Ethan O. Romero-Severson
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Applied Mathematics and Control ProcessesSt. Petersburg State UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Institut für Mathematik und InformatikUniversität GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  3. 3.Theoretical Biology and Biophysics GroupLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA

Personalised recommendations