Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2024 Jan 12;21(1):e1004325. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004325

The forecasted prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity in people with HIV in the United States through the year 2030: A modeling study

Keri N Althoff 1,*, Cameron Stewart 1, Elizabeth Humes 1, Lucas Gerace 1, Cynthia Boyd 1,2,3, Kelly Gebo 4, Amy C Justice 5,6, Emily P Hyle 7,8, Sally B Coburn 1, Raynell Lang 9, Michael J Silverberg 10,11, Michael A Horberg 12, Viviane D Lima 13, M John Gill 9, Maile Karris 14, Peter F Rebeiro 15, Jennifer Thorne 16, Ashleigh J Rich 17, Heidi Crane 18, Mari Kitahata 18, Anna Rubtsova 19, Cherise Wong 20, Sean Leng 2, Vincent C Marconi 21,22, Gypsyamber D’Souza 1, Hyang Nina Kim 18, Sonia Napravnik 23, Kathleen McGinnis 6, Gregory D Kirk 1,4, Timothy R Sterling 24,25, Richard D Moore 26, Parastu Kasaie 1
PMCID: PMC10833859  PMID: 38215160

Abstract

Background

Estimating the medical complexity of people aging with HIV can inform clinical programs and policy to meet future healthcare needs. The objective of our study was to forecast the prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity among people with HIV (PWH) using antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the United States (US) through 2030.

Methods and findings

Using the PEARL model—an agent-based simulation of PWH who have initiated ART in the US—the prevalence of anxiety, depression, stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease (CKD), dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, end-stage liver disease (ESLD), myocardial infarction (MI), and multimorbidity (≥2 mental or physical comorbidities, other than HIV) were forecasted through 2030. Simulations were informed by the US CDC HIV surveillance data of new HIV diagnosis and the longitudinal North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD) data on risk of comorbidities from 2009 to 2017. The simulated population represented 15 subgroups of PWH including Hispanic, non-Hispanic White (White), and non-Hispanic Black/African American (Black/AA) men who have sex with men (MSM), men and women with history of injection drug use and heterosexual men and women. Simulations were replicated for 200 runs and forecasted outcomes are presented as median values (95% uncertainty ranges are presented in the Supporting information).

In 2020, PEARL forecasted a median population of 670,000 individuals receiving ART in the US, of whom 9% men and 4% women with history of injection drug use, 60% MSM, 8% heterosexual men, and 19% heterosexual women. Additionally, 44% were Black/AA, 32% White, and 23% Hispanic. Along with a gradual rise in population size of PWH receiving ART—reaching 908,000 individuals by 2030—PEARL forecasted a surge in prevalence of most comorbidities to 2030. Depression and/or anxiety was high and increased from 60% in 2020 to 64% in 2030. Hypertension decreased while dyslipidemia, diabetes, CKD, and MI increased. There was little change in prevalence of cancer and ESLD. The forecasted multimorbidity among PWH receiving ART increased from 63% in 2020 to 70% in 2030. There was heterogeneity in trends across subgroups. Among Black women with history of injection drug use in 2030 (oldest demographic subgroup with median age of 66 year), dyslipidemia, CKD, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, and depression were most prevalent, with 92% experiencing multimorbidity. Among Black MSM in 2030 (youngest demographic subgroup with median age of 42 year), depression and CKD were highly prevalent, with 57% experiencing multimorbidity. These results are limited by the assumption that trends in new HIV diagnoses, mortality, and comorbidity risk observed in 2009 to 2017 will persist through 2030; influences occurring outside this period are not accounted for in the forecasts.

Conclusions

The PEARL forecasts suggest a continued rise in comorbidity and multimorbidity prevalence to 2030, marked by heterogeneities across race/ethnicity, gender, and HIV acquisition risk subgroups. HIV clinicians must stay current on the ever-changing comorbidities-specific guidelines to provide guideline-recommended care. HIV clinical directors should ensure linkages to subspecialty care within the clinic or by referral. HIV policy decision-makers must allocate resources and support extended clinical capacity to meet the healthcare needs of people aging with HIV.


In this modelling study, Keri N Althoff and colleagues employ an agent-based simulation model to forecast the burden of comorbidity and multimorbidity in individuals who have initiated ART in the US.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • Individuals with HIV are aging and are experiencing an increased risk of comorbidities and multimorbidity.

  • Anticipating the healthcare needs of an aging population with HIV is crucial for healthcare providers, policymakers, and public health officials to plan for medical and support services tailored to the unique needs of aging people with HIV.

  • In response to the increasing medical complexity among aging adults with HIV, we employed an agent-based simulation model to forecast the potential burden of comorbidity and multimorbidity in individuals who have initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the US.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • PEARL is an agent-based simulation of persons with HIV who have initiated ART in the US, utilizing data from the CDC HIV surveillance system and comorbidity risk functions derived from the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), the largest longitudinal cohort of people with HIV who have linked into care in the US.

  • Following a gradual increase in number of people with HIV receiving ART from 2020 to 2030, PEARL forecasted a population of 908,504 in the US in 2030, and an increase in multimorbidity burden from 63% in 2020 to 70% in 2030 among people with HIV.

  • Although mental health conditions had the highest burden, the mix of physical comorbidities of greatest burden was different by demographic and HIV acquisition risk subgroups.

What do these findings mean?

  • HIV clinicians can use these findings to identify the comorbidity-specific screening, diagnoses, and treatment guidelines and tools that will be necessary to care for their panel of patients.

  • HIV care program decision-makers can use these findings to predict the subspecialities that will be in highest demand by their clinical population and make the connections to subspecialists (bringing them into the HIV clinic or by referral) needed meet the healthcare needs of people with HIV.

  • HIV policy decision-makers can use these findings to guide expansion in subspecialty care capacity (particularly for mental health conditions) and the resources needed for expansion.

Introduction

People with HIV (PWH) survive to older ages with effective antiretroviral treatment but have fewer comorbidity-free life years compared to people without HIV [1]. Forecasting the magnitude of mental and physical comorbidity, and multimorbidity, is critical for preparing to meet the future healthcare needs of people aging with HIV.

Many risk factors for comorbidities in the general population have a higher prevalence among people with HIV, including tobacco and substance use, higher body mass index (BMI), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection [25]. The increased risk profile contributes to a higher prevalence of major depressive disorder (depression), generalized anxiety disorder (anxiety), hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes, liver disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people with (versus without) HIV [615]. Other factors contributing to the increased prevalence of comorbidities in people with HIV include: (1) HIV-induced chronic immune activation and inflammation [16,17]; (2) specific antiretroviral drugs and regimens [18,19]; and (3) social determinants of health (SDoH) [20,21]. Key SDoH include race, ethnicity, sex, and HIV acquisition risk group. The disproportionate prevalence of comorbidities and subsequent multimorbidity (i.e., ≥2 comorbidities not including HIV) pose persistent challenges in ensuring adequate healthcare for people with HIV [22,23]. Multimorbidity estimates among PWH in the US have ranged from 8.2% in 2000 to 65% in 2010 to 2011; the variability is in part due to modification to the definition of multimorbidity and the comorbidities included [2426].

Disparities persist in the comorbidity and multimorbidity prevalence among PWH in the United States (US). People of color with HIV have greater comorbidity prevalence, which is accentuated in women of color [27,28]. Age-stratified incidence rates and risk of hypertension, diabetes, CKD, myocardial infarction (MI), and certain cancers are particularly high among non-Hispanic Black/African American (Black/AA) PWH, as are risk factors common to many comorbidities, including smoking, obesity, and SDoH [11,14,29,30]. People with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor have the greatest prevalence of comorbidity and multimorbidity among PWH [31,32]. To address healthcare inequities among subgroups of PWH, clinical program and policy decision-makers need forecasts of future multimorbidity burden within PWH subgroups [33,34]. The objective of this study is to forecast the prevalence of future comorbidities and multimorbidity among PWH using antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the US through the year 2030, overall and within 15 demographic subgroups.

Methods

The ProjEcting Age, multimoRbidity, and poLypharmacy (PEARL) model is an agent-based computer simulation model of 15 subgroups of PWH who have initiated ART in the US, including those who disengage from HIV care (Fig 1A). The 15 subgroups are defined as: (1 and 2) men and women with history of injection drug use as an HIV acquisition risk factor, including those who have injection drug use and any additional HIV acquisition risk category specified (MWID and WWID, respectively); (3) men who have sex with men (MSM); and (4 and 5) heterosexual men and women. These 5 groups were further stratified into non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/AA, and Hispanic. Race and ethnicity defined subgroups that compose the PEARL simulation model due to the disproportionate prevalence of HIV by race and ethnicity in the US. Asian and American Indian/Alaskan Native participants are not included in this analysis due to limited input parameters and functions within the 5 HIV acquisition risk groups.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Schematic representation of (A) the PEARL model and (B) the risk factors and comorbidities with high prevalence in people with HIV using ART. (A) PEARL model simulating people with HIV using ART in the United States. Footnotes: HIV Surveillance data was sourced from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s HIV Surveillance Reports, available at https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html. The NA-ACCORD data was available after the collaboration approved our submitted concept sheet (https://naaccord.org/collaborate-with-us). (B) Schematic of the risk factors and comorbidities with high prevalence in people with HIV using ART. Footnotes: ART = antiretroviral therapy (HIV treatment). CD4 = CD4 T-lymphocyte cell count. Details on the mathematical functions represented by the arrows between the risk factors and mental and physical comorbidities can be found at PEARLHIVmodel.org.

Briefly, an initial population of agents with HIV using ART was constructed in 2009, and new agents are populated in their calendar year of ART initiation from 2010 to 2030; the characteristics of the agents reflect the observed characteristics of PWH initiating ART in the US informed by observed data from the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) HIV surveillance reports (Fig 1A) [35,36]. The agents are followed after ART initiation and observed to experience aging, disengagement, and re-engagement in care, changing CD4 counts, risk factors, comorbidities, and mortality via mathematical functions from the NA-ACCORD and CDC input parameters. The mathematical functions forecast the agents’ experience in the future after observed data end. All mathematical functions and parameters in PEARL are estimated separately for each of the 15 subgroups or collapsed if a priori specifications of minimum sample size or number of events were not met (collapsing race/ethnicity groups first, followed by sex and then HIV-acquisition risk until the minimum is met). Due to the structure of PEARL and the data sources, findings are generalizable to PWH using ART in the US who identify with the 15 subgroups included in PEARL. Further methodological details regarding the model structure, parameterizations, standards for collapsing subgroups to ensure adequate sample size, and estimated functions are available at https://pearlhivmodel.org/method_details.html [35,36]. The code for the PEARL model results presented here can be found at https://github.com/PearlHivModelingTeam/comorbidityPaper.

Comorbidities parameterization

First, we characterized the prevalence of clinical risk factors that are highly prevalent in PWH, linked to numerous comorbidities, and measured in the NA-ACCORD (namely smoking, obesity, and HCV coinfection) for the simulated population in 2009 and those starting ART over time. Smoking and HCV coinfection statuses were determined at ART initiation (i.e., the simulated person’s entry to the model) and were time-fixed. Obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) status was determined at ART initiation and at 24 months after ART initiation. Next, we estimated the prevalence (at ART initiation) and incidence (in the years after ART initiation) of highly prevalent comorbidities in PWH for simulated persons within the 15 subgroups via mathematical functions derived from observed NA-ACCORD data from 2009 to 2017; NA-ACCORD definitions for risk factors and comorbidities using electronic health record data are available in S1 Table. The prevalence of having depression, anxiety, stage ≥3 CKD, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cancer (all types), MI, and ESLD (at or prior to ART initiation) was estimated at the time the simulated person initiated ART (Fig 1A) [14,24,3739]. Incidence of each comorbidity was estimated as a function of age, CD4 at ART initiation (cells/μL), time since ART initiation, disengagement from care, change in BMI in the first 2 years after ART initiation, BMI 2 years after ART initiation, smoking, HCV coinfection, and the presence of the other comorbidities for simulated persons in the years after ART initiation (S2 Table). Finally, mortality was estimated for simulated persons as a function of individual-level attributes, existing risk factors, and present comorbidities, and was estimated separately for those (1) engaged and (2) disengaged from care (≥2 years without CD4 or HIV RNA measurement) and in each of the 15 subgroups using observed NA-ACCORD data from 2009 to 2017 (S3 Table).

Primary outcomes

While prior multimorbidity studies in PWH were restricted to physical comorbidities, we chose the following non-mutually exclusive definitions to produce findings comparable to prior studies and to expand the scope of multimorbidity to include the presence of mental health conditions:

  1. physical multimorbidity (≥2 physical comorbidities)

  2. depression and/or anxiety diagnosis (mental comorbidities)

  3. mental or physical multimorbidity (≥2 mental or physical comorbidities), and

  4. mental comorbidity and physical multimorbidity (≥1 mental health comorbidity and ≥2 physical comorbidities).

Given the association of age with comorbidities of interest and heterogeneities in forecasted age distributions by subgroup, we report the forecasted median age in 2020 and 2030 within the 15 subgroups, as well as the forecasted prevalence of each mental and physical comorbidity, overall and within subgroups. To navigate temporal trends, we also report the absolute percentage point change (ppc) in the prevalence of each mental and physical comorbidity from 2020 to 2030 within the 15 subgroups.

Simulations were replicated for 200 runs and forecasted outcomes are presented as median values and the 95% uncertainty range (calculated as the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile of simulated values) in the Supporting information.

Validation

We compared the estimated annual incidence of each comorbidity from the NA-ACCORD data with the forecasts from PEARL during the calibration period (where both observed NA-ACCORD estimates and PEARL forecasts were available, i.e., 2009 to 2017). Within each subgroup, we noted the comorbidities with <75% of PEARL forecasts falling within 5% of the NA-ACCORD observed incidence prevalence or within the NA-ACCORD observed 95% confidence (whichever interval was larger, S1 Fig). We repeated this validation approach for the annual prevalence of each comorbidity (S2 Fig).

Robustness of forecasted comorbidity incidence

In the PEARL model, forecasted multimorbidity is a function of the comorbidities that arise from estimated probabilities for the incidence of each comorbidity within each subgroup. To assess the influence of the estimated probabilities for the incidence of each comorbidity on forecasted physical multimorbidity, we increased and decreased the probabilities for the incidence of each comorbidity by 25% for each simulated person in the model (i.e., the increase and decrease scenarios). We estimated the relative difference in the forecasted physical multimorbidity in 2030 in each scenario compared to the baseline scenario (i.e., no change in the estimated probabilities for the incidence of each comorbidity). We chose physical multimorbidity as the outcome for the robustness checks to allow for comparability to other estimates of physical multimorbidity in PWH in the US [2426]. The robustness of the prevalence and mortality estimates were similar, and results can be found at PEARLHIVMODEL.org/method_details.html.

Ethics statement

The PEARL model was classified as “Exempt under 45 CRF 46.101(b), Category (4)” by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board.

Results

Using the PEARL model, we simulated a median population of 670,036 PWH using ART in 2020 in the US, of whom 52% were ≥50 years, 11% were age ≥65 years, 32% White, 44% Black/AA, 23% Hispanic, 60% MSM, 19% heterosexual women, 9% MWID, 8% heterosexual men, and 4% WWID, (Tables 1 and S4 for 95% UR). In 2020, the prevalence of anxiety and depression were 36% and 47%, respectively, with 23% of simulated agents having both diagnoses. Applying our non-mutually exclusive definitions of multimorbidity among ART users, 38% were physically multimorbid, 63% had mental or physical multimorbidity, and 25% had mental comorbidity and physical multimorbid. Of the physical conditions included in the model, dyslipidemia was the most prevalent (42%), followed by hypertension (37%), CKD (19%), diabetes (18%), and cancer (11%); MI and ESLD had a prevalence of <5%.

Table 1. Characteristics of the PEARL-simulated agents using ART in 2010, 2020, and 2030.

2010 2020 (Forecast) 2030 (Forecast)
PEARLa PEARLa PEARLa
Characteristics N = 395,062 N = 670,036 N = 908,504
n %b n %b n %b
Age (in years)
    <20 694 0% 708 0% 1,218 0%
    20–24 8,444 2% 11,520 2% 12,416 1%
    25–29 20,035 5% 40,475 6% 40,927 5%
    30–34 30,853 8% 66,704 10% 78,305 9%
    35–39 47,911 12% 62,720 9% 101,328 11%
    40–44 67,598 17% 60,845 9% 102,122 11%
    45–49 78,947 20% 79,388 12% 85,320 9%
    50–54 66,281 17% 97,822 15% 81,110 9%
    55–59 42,435 11% 100,416 15% 94,472 10%
    60–64 20,636 5% 76,357 11% 102,878 11%
    65–69 7,834 2% 44,442 7% 94,677 10%
    70–74 2,476 1% 19,669 3% 64,950 7%
    ≥75 911 0% 8,912 1% 48,378 5%
Male sex at birth 290,010 73% 515,560 77% 711,684 78%
Race
White 145,691 37% 216,936 32% 259,610 29%
    Black/AA 167,480 42% 296,512 44% 395,026 43%
    Hispanic 81,919 21% 156,835 23% 255,037 28%
Subgroups, n %
median age [IQR]
MSM 210,640 53% 404,087 60% 584,158 64%
45 [37, 51] 48 [35, 57] 47 [37, 61]
    White MSM 102,906 26% 156,068 23% 178,730 20%
47 [41, 53] 54 [44, 60] 59 [46, 67]
    Black/AA MSM 63,110 16% 143,910 21% 218,548 24%
42 [33, 49] 41 [32, 53] 42 [35, 56]
    Hispanic MSM 44,624 11% 104,138 16% 188,012 21%
41 [35, 47] 44 [34, 52] 43 [36, 56]
Men who injected drugs (MWID)c 49,868 13% 59,597 9% 66,022 7%
52 [47, 57] 58 [49, 64] 58 [39, 69]
    White MWID 17,532 4% 23,462 4% 28,978 3%
50 [44, 55] 56 [47, 62] 57 [40, 67]
    Black/AA MWID 20,544 5% 21,177 3% 18,184 2%
54 [50, 58] 61 [55, 66] 62 [33, 72]
    Hispanic MWID 11,784 3% 14,920 2% 18,526 2%
52 [45, 57] 57 [47, 64] 56 [41, 69]
Women who injected drugs (WWID) 25,822 7% 28,193 4% 31,962 4%
49 [43, 54] 57 [50, 63] 62 [51, 70]
    White WWID 7,463 2% 9,506 1% 13,274 1%
46 [39, 51] 53 [44, 59] 56 [46, 65]
    Black/AA WWID 14,569 4% 14,682 2% 13,661 2%
50 [45, 55] 59 [53, 64] 66 [58, 72]
    Hispanic WWID 3,791 1% 4,050 1% 5,088 1%
49 [44, 54] 58 [51, 63] 62 [52, 70]
Heterosexual men 29,507 7% 51,900 8% 60,984 7%
47 [40, 53] 53 [44, 60] 58 [47, 67]
    White heterosexual men 3,488 1% 6,839 1% 9,390 1%
49 [43, 55] 55 [46, 62] 61 [48, 69]
    Black/AA heterosexual men 19,169 5% 34,154 5% 39,292 4%
47 [41, 53] 53 [45, 60] 58 [46, 66]
    Hispanic heterosexual men 6,855 2% 11,009 2% 12,806 1%
44 [37, 52] 51 [43, 60] 57 [49, 67]
Heterosexual women 79,234 20% 126,139 19% 165,104 18%
44 [36, 51] 51 [42, 58] 56 [47, 65]
    White heterosexual women 14,296 4% 20,968 3% 28,974 3%
45 [38, 52] 52 [44, 59] 59 [50, 67]
    Black/AA heterosexual women 50,084 13% 82,536 12% 105,384 12%
43 [36, 51] 50 [42, 58] 56 [47, 65]
    Hispanic heterosexual women 14,863 4% 22,806 3% 31,550 3%
43 [36, 51] 50 [41, 59] 55 [42, 66]
Mental comorbidities
    Anxiety 94,982 24% 243,968 36% 425,498 47%
    Depression 157,566 40% 314,996 47% 442,003 49%
    Anxiety and/or depression 209,474 53% 402,042 60% 584,875 64%
Physical comorbidities
    Stage ≥3 CKD 40,336 10% 126,360 19% 273,896 30%
    Dyslipidemia 126,548 32% 283,674 42% 435,806 48%
    Diabetes 46,480 12% 119,172 18% 246,172 27%
    Hypertension 146,465 37% 246,736 37% 295,184 32%
    Cancer 37,634 10% 74,712 11% 101,700 11%
    ESLD 4,771 1% 8,950 1% 12,974 1%
    MI 6,217 2% 22,064 3% 73,666 8%
Physical multimorbidity
    No physical comorbidities 123,164 31% 203,713 30% 250,184 28%
    1 physical comorbidity 163,010 41% 210,150 31% 247,158 27%
    ≥2 physical comorbidities 108,880 28% 256,174 38% 410,940 45%
Mental and physical multimorbidity
    ≥2 mental or physical comorbidities 208,708 53% 421,313 63% 631,834 70%
    ≥1 mental and ≥2 physical comorbidities 58,656 15% 166,433 25% 283,828 31%
ART status
    PWH using ART 395,062 670,036 908,504
    ART initiators 25,116 33,054 33,334
    Disengaged from ART used 42,332 41,572 33,186

aValues represent the median for each simulated outcome across 200 random simulation replications (see Supporting information S4 Table for 2.5th and 97.5th percentile range presented as the 95% uncertainty range).

bPercentages in this table are calculated using the median numerator (n) and median denominator (N) from 200 replications of the PEARL model; for each characteristic, percentages will sum to 100%.

cMSM who also have MWID as their HIV acquisition risk factor were included in the MWID HIV acquisition risk group.

dPEARL forecasts of PWH using ART do not include 41,572 and 33,186 people who initiated ART but were disengaged from care and not using ART in 2020 and 2030 (respectively) and people of race and ethnicities other than non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/AA, and Hispanic.

AA, African American; ART, antiretroviral therapy for HIV treatment; IQR, interquartile range, estimated as the 25th and 75th percentile range of results from running the simulation 200 times; MSM, men who have sex with men; PEARL, Projecting Age, Multimorbidity, and Polypharmacy in Adults with HIV; PWH, people with HIV.

In 2030, the forecasted population of PWH using ART increased by almost a quarter of a million people (36% increase from 2020), and the proportion ≥65 years more than doubled to 23%; race/ethnicity and HIV acquisition risk group distributions changed by <5 percentage points from 2020 to 2030 (Tables 1 and S4 for 95% UR). The prevalence of hypertension decreased by 5 percentage points from 2020 to 2030, the prevalence of CKD and diabetes increased by 11 percentage points, diabetes increased by 9 percentage points, dyslipidemia increased by 6 percentage points, and MI increased by 5 percentage points; and the prevalence of cancer and ESLD remained constant.

The age distributions from NA-ACCORD participants and PEARL estimates were similar within subgroups from 2010 to 2017 (S5 Table and S3 Fig). Validity of the mental and physical comorbidity forecasts was confirmed by comparing the observed comorbidity incidence and prevalence of PWH using ART from 2010 to 2017 in NA-ACCORD with the simulated outcomes, suggesting no pattern of bias in forecasts from the model among 15 subgroups over time (S1 and S2 Figs).

Forecasts of multimorbidity

Overall, the prevalence of physical multimorbidity increased from 2020 to 2030 (Fig 2A) and in each subgroup (Fig 2B). The number of Black/AA MWID and WWID using ART decreased by 14% and 7% from 2020 and 2030 (respectively), and the physical multimorbidity prevalence was high and increased throughout the decade (Tables 1 and S4 for 95% UR, S6 Table). Black/AA MSM and Black/AA heterosexual women had a 31% and 52% increase in the number of ART users from 2020 to 2030 (respectively). Physical comorbidity prevalence increased from 2020 to 2030 similarly to in Black/AA and White MSM, and the increase was greater in Black/AA compared with White or Hispanic heterosexual women.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Forecasteda number of PWH using ART in the US and forecasted prevalence of mental and physical comorbidities and multimorbidity among PWH using ART in the US (A) overall and (B) by subgroupb (A) Overall. (B) By subgroupb Footnotes: ≥1 Ment. = anxiety and/or depression (i.e., ≥1 of the mental comorbidities included) ≥2 Phys. = physical multimorbidity, defined as ≥2 physical comorbidities ≥2 Any = mental or physical multimorbidity, defined as ≥2 physical or mental comorbidities ≥1 Ment. and 2 Phys. = mental comorbidity and physical multimorbidity, defined as ≥1 mental comorbidity and ≥2 physical comorbidities. aAlthough these estimates are all PEARL forecasts, 2010 was during the calibration period (where observed NA-ACCORD data were available to inform the estimates) and 2020 and 2030 were forecast periods (without observed NA-ACCORD data). bNote that the y axes are different across the subgroups to allow visualization of the number of comorbidities within each year. ART, antiretroviral therapy; Black/AA, Black/African American; NA-ACCORD, North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design; PWH, people with HIV; US, United States.

Overall, the prevalence of depression and/or anxiety was higher than any physical comorbidity in 2020 (60%) and in 2030 (64%, Fig 2A and S7 Table for 95% UR). The prevalence with depression and/or anxiety in 2030 was greatest in Hispanic MWID (87%) and Hispanic heterosexual women (86%). The increase in physical multimorbidity burden from 2020 to 2030 was greatest in Hispanic heterosexual men (19 ppc) and White heterosexual men (18 ppc). The proportion of PWH using ART with physical or mental multimorbidity was 63% in 2020 and 70% in 2030 (Fig 2A and S4 Table for 95% UR). The prevalence with mental comorbidities and physical multimorbidity increased from 25% in 2020 to 31% in 2030 (Fig 2A and S4 Table for 95% UR). To demonstrate the influence of risk factors—other than age alone—on forecasted multimorbidity, the multimorbidity prevalence by decade of age is shown in S4 Fig, which depicts an increase in multimorbidity prevalence in all age groups ≥50 years.

Forecasts of each comorbidity

Among all PWH using ART from 2020 to 2030 forecasted by the PEARL model, depression had the highest prevalence over the 10-year period (49% in 2030), and anxiety increased from 36% in 2020 to 47% in 2030 (Fig 3A and S7 Table for 95% UR). From 2020 to 2030, hypertension prevalence declined slightly (<5 ppc), and dyslipidemia, diabetes, and CKD increased (>5 ppc); in 2030, prevalence for these 4 physical comorbidities ranged from 27% for diabetes to 48% for dyslipidemia in 2030. Cancer and ESLD had little change in prevalence; however, cancer had a higher prevalence in 2030 (11%) than ESLD (1%). In comparison, MI was forecasted to increase from 3% in 2020 to 8% in 2030.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Forecasted prevalence (and shaded 95% uncertainty ranges) of individual comorbidities among PWH using ART (A) overall, (B) among the 15 subgroups, (C) among the subgroup with the oldest median age in 2030, and (C) among the subgroup with the youngest median age in 2030. (A) Forecasted prevalence (and shaded 95% uncertainty ranges) of comorbidities among all PWH to the year 2030. (B) Forecasted prevalence (and shaded 95% uncertainty ranges) of individual comorbidities, within the 15 subgroups. Footnotes: CKD, stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease; ESLD, end-stage renal disease; MI, myocardial infarction. The 95% credibility interval is estimated as the 2.5% and 97.5% range of results from running the simulation 200 times.

There were differences in the forecasted change in comorbidity burdens from 2020 to 2030 across the 15 subgroups (Fig 3B). The subgroup with the oldest median age (66 years) in 2030 was Black/AA WWID, and Black MSM had the youngest median age in 2030 (42 years, Table 1 and Fig 2B). Among Black/AA WWID, dyslipidemia, CKD, anxiety, hypertension, depression, and diabetes were the most prevalent comorbidities in 2030, and MI had lower but increasing prevalence from 2020 to 2030 (Figs 2B and S3H). Cancer and ESLD had little change in prevalence and declined slightly from 2020 to 2030. Among Black MSM, depression had the highest prevalence in 2030 followed by CKD (which increased rapidly from 2020 to 2030) and hypertension (which decreased from 2020 to 2030, Figs 2B and S3B). Dyslipidemia, diabetes, and anxiety had a prevalence >20% in 2030 all increased from 2020 to 2030; cancer and ESLD prevalence was low (<10%) and did not change. MI prevalence increased but was <5% in 2030. Larger depictions of comorbidity prevalence estimates in each subgroup are available in S5 Figs.

The ppc from 2020 to 2030 in the prevalence of each physical and mental comorbidity is shown in Fig 4, stratified by the 15 subgroups of PWH using ART. Overall, the prevalence of CKD, anxiety, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and MI increased by 11 ppc, 10 ppc, 9 ppc, 6 ppc, and 5 ppc (respectively). Dyslipidemia increased in all but 5 subgroups and by 6 ppc overall while hypertension decreased in all but 4 subgroups and by 4 ppc overall. There was <2 ppc change for depression, cancer, and ESLD.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Forecasted absolute percentage point change (blue = decrease, red = increase) in the prevalence of individual comorbidities from 2020 to 2030, by subgroup. Footnotes: bThe y axes are different across the subgroups to allow visualization of the number of comorbidities within each year.

Robustness of each forecasted comorbidity incidence

The relative differences from analyzing the effect of decreasing or increasing the comorbidity incidence probability (versus baseline scenario) showed a <5% relative difference in the forecasted prevalence of physical multimorbidity, demonstrating the robustness of the forecasted multimorbidity to the variability in the estimated incidence of each comorbidity (Fig 5).

Fig 5. The relative difference of the proportion with physical multimorbidity in 2030 [outcome] comparing scenarios in which comorbidity incidence was decreased by 25% (down arrow scenario) and increased by 25% (up arrow scenario) to assess the influence of estimated probabilities on prevalence estimates.

Fig 5

Relative difference when probability of the incidence of a comorbidity was decreased by 25% and increased by 25%, compared to the baseline scenario (no modification to the probability of the incidence of a comorbidity). Footnotes: ↑relative difference = (% with physical multimorbidity increase scenario—% with physical multimorbidity baseline scenario) % with physical multimorbidity baseline scenario ↓relative difference = (% with physical multimorbidity decrease scenario—% with physical multimorbidity baseline scenario) % with physical multimorbidity baseline scenario Physical multimorbidity = ≥2 physical comorbidities.

Discussion

We forecast an increasing prevalence of multimorbidity in PWH using ART in the US through the year 2030, with different compositions of contributing comorbidities within race/ethnicity, gender, and HIV acquisition risk subgroups. Among the comorbidities included in the PEARL model, the forecasts suggest that 2 of the greatest contributors to multimorbidity are common mental health diagnoses that occur throughout the lifespan: depression and anxiety. The prevalence of anxiety was forecasted to increase in all the subgroups by the year 2030 and by 10 ppc overall. In 2030, the prevalence of mental or physical multimorbidity is forecasted to be 70% and nearly 1 in 3 (31%) PWH using ART will have mental comorbidity and physical multimorbidity by 2030; these estimates are conservative due to the inclusion of only 2 mental and 7 physical comorbidities when forecasting multimorbidity. Our findings show the most prevalent comorbidities in the next decade will differ by gender, HIV acquisition risk group, race, and ethnicity, suggesting the clinical population composition is important when preparing to meet the future care needs of people with HIV. HIV clinicians must be up-to-date on comorbidity-specific screening, diagnoses, and treatment guidelines and clinical decision-making tools that will be in highest demand by the subgroups represented in their panel of patients with HIV. HIV clinical directors must select comorbidities-specific refresher courses for their clinical staff and establish subspecialty care access within their clinics or by referral. HIV policy decision-makers must identify care models with capacity and ensure adequate payor resources (e.g., the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funding) to meet the growing healthcare needs, in particular the mental healthcare needs, of PWH using ART.

Our findings underscore the role of mental health comorbidities in PWH. PWH are 3 times more likely to currently be experiencing a major depressive episode as compared to people without HIV [40]. Not only has depression been linked to missed HIV clinical care visits, virologic failure, and all-cause mortality in PWH, but depression has also been linked to similar mechanisms of immune suppression and inflammation [41,42]. With the forecasted rise in anxiety prevalence among people with HIV, clinicians should consult the US Preventive Services Task Force’s recommendation to screen for anxiety symptoms in those age <64 years (HIV-specific recommendations are not available), and be mindful of comorbidity medications that have been linked to symptoms of anxiety when caring for PWH [43]. Mental health services are allowable costs for PWH eligible for the federally allocated Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program support; funding mental health services within HIV clinics or by referral and ensuring adequate staffing will be necessary to meet the forecasted prevalence of mental health comorbidity.

Our findings corroborate estimates of increasing multimorbidity among PWH in the US and provide the opportunity to forecast future multimorbidity and comorbidity. A study comparing multimorbidity prevalence in PWH ages 45 to 89 years old attending 1 visit at a Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program clinic in 2016 versus 2006 observed an increase in multimorbidity prevalence among those of similar age and an increase in women (versus men) [44]. The PEARL-forecasted age-specific multimorbidity prevalence increased from 2020 to 2030 among those age 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and ≥70 years suggesting the contribution of risk factors—in addition to age itself—is resulting in an increased risk of comorbidities among older adults with HIV. A study of physical multimorbidity in the NA-ACCORD noted the common comorbidity composition included hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and CKD in 2009 [24]. The prevalence of these metabolic and vascular diseases shown in the NA-ACCORD data influence the PEARL-forecasted increases in dyslipidemia, CKD, diabetes, and MIs. With the recent findings from the REPRIEVE Phase 3 clinical trial demonstrating a protective effect of pitavastatin on cardiovascular events, clinicians will need to stay informed on guideline changes for statins in people with HIV and recognize the gap between people with HIV-prescribed statins and those eligible for statins [45,46]. To forecast the potential impact of interventions to reduce the risk of future comorbidities, modules where a prominent risk factor is reduced by a specified amount are being added to the PEARL model.

Within each subgroup, the PEARL-estimated comorbidity combinations were influenced by the age distribution, physical and behavioral risk factors, and key SDoH that defined the subgroups (namely, race and ethnicity, gender, and HIV acquisition risk). Subgroup stratification is essential due to the heterogeneity of PWH in the US. For example, Black/AA WWID are forecasted to have the oldest age distribution in 2030 (median age = 66 years), which is a driven by trends in new HIV diagnosis (e.g., concentration of HIV diagnosis among middle ages over during 2009 to 2010 period, significant reduction in the number of new HIV diagnoses in all age groups over time) and HIV deaths (e.g., reduction in age-specific mortality rates among all age groups, concentration of deaths among older age groups), as shown in the CDC’s HIV surveillance data from 2008 to 2021 [47]. Comparatively, the median age of White WWID is forecasted to reach 56 years by 2030, which is driven by the larger number of new HIV diagnoses (concentrated in young 25 to 44 years age groups) and a greater proportion of deaths at younger (35 to 54 years) ages [47]. A check of model calibration (for years 2010, 2013, and 2017) found the age distribution estimated by PEARL reflected the distribution observe in the NA-ACCORD within subgroups (S3 Fig) and the difference in these age distributions demonstrates the importance of stratification by subgroup. In addition to age differences, higher food insecurity, space for physical activity, and access to healthcare (influenced by structural racism and healthcare provider implicit bias/racism) can lead to higher rates of diabetes (forecasted to be 32% in Black/AA WWID in 2020) and hypertension (forecasted to be 62% prevalence in Black/AA WWID in 2020) which subsequently increases the risk of progression to renal failure, which is more prevalent in Black/AA (versus White) individuals in the US [4850]. We forecasted CKD prevalence increased from 50% in 2020 to 65% in 2030 among Black/AA WWID. Through shared pathways of inflammatory mediators, reactive oxygen species (ROS), oxidative stress, and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) components, the 14 ppc increase in anxiety is also influencing the forecasted increase in CKD [51]. These comorbidities also influence the 14 ppc increase in MI among Black/AA WWID from 2020 to 2030. Implementing clinical program interventions that address the accessibility Black/AA women and focused on prevention and management of diabetes, hypertension, and anxiety may prove beneficial in slowing future multimorbidity growth among Black/AA WWID.

Our study has limitations. PEARL includes 9 highly prevalent comorbidities that necessitate clinical management, but it does not include arthritis, stroke, fractures, which were found to be among the top comorbidities noted in a recent UK analysis of 304 physical and mental health conditions in PWH; the PEARL-forecasted multimorbidity prevalence is likely an underestimate [52]. PEARL models clinically diagnosed conditions, which is beneficial for forecasting the needed clinical care resources but does not include undiagnosed conditions. PEARL model forecasts are currently at the national-level, and we are examining the availability of data to forecast at the state-level. We did not compare the comorbidities and multimorbidity forecasts to similar people without HIV. Although this comparison would be useful, our goal was to provide future morbidity predictions to inform clinical planning and direct HIV policy decision-making. PEARL includes 15 subgroups defined by sex, HIV acquisition risk groups and race/ethnicity; however, it does not represent individuals who are multiracial or those with overlapping acquisition risks. ART regimen class is not explicitly contained in the PEARL model, but the impact of various ART regimen classes on comorbidity incidence is implicitly contained in the mathematical functions from observed NA-ACCORD data, which is reflective of exposures to ART in PWH in the US; future expansion of the PEARL model to include ART regimen class is possible. The PEARL model does not include HIV transmission. The forecasted annual number of new ART initiators relies on CDC’s reported HIV diagnoses and linkage to care during the calibration period and (currently) does not consider changes in HIV transmission dynamics after the calibration period, including changes due to HIV prevention efforts (e.g., pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP) or during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., 2020 to 2021). Similarly, the calibration of mathematical functions in PEARL is based on NA-ACCORD data available during the calibration period. The PEARL model assumes that the trends observed during the calibration period will continue and does not account for influences occurring outside the calibration period (e.g., the impact of emerging care technologies like long-acting ART or the impact of COVID-19 on mortality); such factors influencing comorbidities incidence can be incorporated into PEARL by extending the calibration period when there are more current data available within the 15 subgroups.

As with all agent-based simulation models, the accuracy of the output is dependent upon the quality of the mathematical functions that compose the model. We utilized observed data from the NA-ACCORD to estimate the mathematical functions as it is the largest collaboration of PWH in the US and Canada and has similar demographics to all persons living with HIV in the US (according to the CDC’s HIV surveillance data) [53]. Agent-based simulation models (such as PEARL) are recommended for chronic disease forecasting because they capture the complex interactions among individual-level risk factors that determine the risk of comorbidities and mortality as well as feedback loops needed for disengagement and re-engagement in care [54].

Multimorbidity is common in PWH using ART in the US and is likely to increase in prevalence over the next decade. Robust, sustainable, multidisciplinary care models (with appropriate funding) are urgently needed to meet the medically complex healthcare needs of PWH using ART in the US, in particular, access to affordable mental healthcare should be a priority. Predominant comorbidities differ by subgroups of PWH, which must be considered when planning for necessary resources and adapting care models. HIV clinicians must consider a host of comorbidity-specific guidelines to care for the increasing prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity among people with HIV. HIV clinical program and policy decision-makers must act now to identify effective multidisciplinary care models and resources to prevent and manage comorbidities and multimorbidity among the growing population of PWH using ART in the US.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Comorbidity incidence validation plots, by subgroup.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Comorbidity prevalence validation plots, by subgroup.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Comparing the age distributions of ART users in PEARL to the observed data from NA-ACCORD, 2010, 2013, and 2017.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig

Trends in multimorbidity distribution by age groups, overall and within the 15 subgroups of people with HIV, (a) overall; (b) White, (c) Black/African American, and (d) Hispanic men who have sex with men; (e) White, (f) Black/African American, and (g) Hispanic men with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (h) White, (i) Black/African American, and (j) Hispanic women with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (k) White, (l) Black/African American, and (m) Hispanic heterosexual men; (n) White, (o) Black/African American, and (p) Hispanic heterosexual women.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig

Forecasted prevalence (and shaded 95% credibility intervals) of individual comorbidities within the 15 subgroups of people with HIV: (a) White, (b) Black/African American, and (c) Hispanic men who have sex with men; (d) White, (e) Black/African American, and (f) Hispanic men with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (g) White, (h) Black/African American, and (i) Hispanic women with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (j) White, (k) Black/African American, and (l) Hispanic heterosexual men; (m) White, (n) Black/African American, and (o) Hispanic heterosexual women.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig

Ranges used to generate the number of new diagnoses, by HIV acquisition risk groups and race and ethnicity: (a) heterosexual women; (b) heterosexual men; (c) women who injected drugs; (d) men who injected drugs; (e) men who have sex with men.

(DOCX)

S7 Fig

Forecasted percentage of people linking to HIV care by HIV acquisition risk groups and race and ethnicity: (a) heterosexual females; (b) heterosexual males; (c) women who injected drugs; (d) men who injected drugs; (e) men who have sex with men.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Definitions of highly prevalent risk factors and comorbidities measured in the NA-ACCORD and included in the PEARL model.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Prevalence and incidence functions applied to PEARL agents who have initiated ART for (a) anxiety prevalence, (b) anxiety incidence, (c) depression prevalence, (d) depression incidence, (e) stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease prevalence, (f) stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease incidence, (g) dyslipidemia prevalence, (h) dyslipidemia incidence, (i) diabetes prevalence, (j) diabetes incidence, (k) hypertension prevalence, (l) hypertension incidence, (m) cancer prevalence, (n) cancer incidence, (o) end-stage liver disease prevalence, (p) end-stage liver disease incidence, (q) myocardial infarction prevalence, and (r) myocardial infarction incidence.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. PEARL (a) in-care and (b) dis-engaged from care mortality functions that include comorbidity presence.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Characteristics of the PEARL-simulated agents using ART, 2020 and 2030.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Comparing the age distributions of ART users in PEARL to the observed data from NA-ACCORD, from 2010 to 2017 (simulation validation “out-of-sample” approach).

Values represent the difference in the age distribution in each subgroup [NA-ACCORD estimate—PEARL estimate]. A threshold of 5 percentage points (>5% or <-5%) is used to detect significant differences (highlighted in blue).

(DOCX)

S6 Table. PEARL-forecasted multimorbidity prevalence, by yeara and within each subgroup of PWH using ART in the US.

(DOCX)

S7 Table. PEARL-forecasted comorbidity and multimorbidity prevalence [95% uncertainty range], by subgroup, in 2010, 2020, and 2030.

(DOCX)

S8 Table. Number of new HIV diagnoses by year and subgroup.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The mathematical functions upon which the PEARL model is built were estimated using observed data from the NA-ACCORD. The NA-ACCORD is supported by National Institutes of Health grants U01AI069918, F31AI124794, F31DA037788, G12MD007583, K01AI093197, K01AI131895, K23EY013707, K24AI065298, K24AI118591, K24DA000432, KL2TR000421, N01CP01004, N02CP055504, N02CP91027, P30AI027757, P30AI027763, P30AI027767, P30AI036219, P30AI050409, P30AI050410, P30AI094189, P30AI110527, P30MH62246, R01AA016893, R01DA011602, R01DA012568, R01AG053100, R24AI067039, R34DA045592, U01AA013566, U01AA020790, U01AI038855, U01AI038858, U01AI068634, U01AI068636, U01AI069432, U01AI069434, U01DA036297, U01DA036935, U10EY008057, U10EY008052, U10EY008067, U01HL146192, U01HL146193, U01HL146194, U01HL146201, U01HL146202, U01HL146203, U01HL146204, U01HL146205, U01HL146208, U01HL146240, U01HL146241, U01HL146242, U01HL146245, U01HL146333, U24AA020794, U54GM133807, UL1RR024131, UL1TR000004, UL1TR000083, UL1TR002378, Z01CP010214, and Z01CP010176; contracts CDC-200-2006-18797 and CDC-200-2015-63931 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA; contract 90047713 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, USA; contract 90051652 from the Health Resources and Services Administration, USA; the Grady Health System; grants CBR-86906, CBR-94036, HCP-97105 and TGF-96118 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada; Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, and the Government of Alberta, Canada. Additional support was provided by the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD), National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institute On Aging (NIA), National Institute Of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), National Institute Of Neurological Disorders And Stroke (NINDS), National Institute Of Nursing Research (NINR), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Validated cancer data were collected by cancer registries participating in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, or the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, or Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

NA-ACCORD Collaborating Cohorts and Representatives.

AIDS Clinical Trials Group Longitudinal Linked Randomized Trials: Constance A. Benson and Ronald J. Bosch AIDS Link to the IntraVenous Experience: Gregory D. Kirk Emory-Grady HIV Clinical Cohort: Vincent Marconi and Jonathan Colasanti Fenway Health HIV Cohort: Kenneth H. Mayer and Chris Grasso HAART Observational Medical Evaluation and Research: Robert S. Hogg, Viviane Lima, Zabrina Brumme, Julio SG Montaner, Paul Sereda, Jason Trigg, and Kate Salters HIV Outpatient Study: Kate Buchacz and Jun Li HIV Research Network: Kelly A. Gebo and Richard D. Moore Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort: Richard D. MooreJohn T. Carey Special Immunology Unit Patient Care and Research Database, Case Western Reserve University: Jeffrey Jacobson Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States: Michael A. Horberg Kaiser Permanente Northern California: Michael J. Silverberg Longitudinal Study of Ocular Complications of AIDS: Jennifer E. Thorne MACS/WIHS Combined Cohort Study: Todd Brown, Phyllis Tien, and Gypsyamber D’Souza Maple Leaf Medical Clinic: Graham Smith, Mona Loutfy, and Meenakshi Gupta The McGill University Health Centre, Chronic Viral Illness Service Cohort: Marina B. Klein Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort Study–II: Charles Rabkin Ontario HIV Treatment Network Cohort Study: Abigail Kroch, Ann Burchell, Adrian Betts, and Joanne LindsayParkland UT Southwestern Cohort: Ank Nijhawan Retrovirus Research Center, Universidad Central del Caribe, Bayamon Puerto Rico: Angel M. Mayor Southern Alberta Clinic Cohort: M. John Gill and Raynell Lang Study of the Consequences of the Protease Inhibitor Era: Jeffrey N. Martin Study to Understand the Natural History of HIV/AIDS in the Era of Effective Therapy: Jun Li and John T. Brooks University of Alabama at Birmingham 1917 Clinic Cohort: Michael S. Saag, Michael J. Mugavero, and Greer Burkholder University of California at San Diego: Laura Bamford and Maile Karris University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill HIV Clinic Cohort: Joseph J. Eron and Sonia Napravnik University of Washington HIV Cohort: Mari M. Kitahata and Heidi M. Crane Vanderbilt Comprehensive Care Clinic HIV Cohort: Timothy R. Sterling, David Haas, Peter Rebeiro, and Megan Turner Veterans Aging Cohort Study: Kathleen McGinnis and Amy Justice.

NA-ACCORD Study Administration: Executive Committee: Richard D. Moore, Keri N. Althoff, Stephen J. Gange, Mari M. Kitahata, Jennifer S. Lee, Michael S. Saag, Michael A. Horberg, Marina B. Klein, Rosemary G. McKaig, and Aimee M. Freeman Administrative Core: Richard D. Moore, Keri N. Althoff, and Aimee M. Freeman Data Management Core: Mari M. Kitahata, Stephen E. Van Rompaey, Heidi M. Crane, Liz Morton, Justin McReynolds, and William B. Lober Epidemiology and Biostatistics Core: Stephen J. Gange, Jennifer S. Lee, Brenna Hogan, Elizabeth Humes, Sally Coburn, Lucas Gerace.

Abbreviations

ART

antiretroviral therapy

Black/AA

Black/African American

BMI

body mass index

CKD

chronic kidney disease

CVD

cardiovascular disease

ESLD

end-stage liver disease

HCV

hepatitis C virus

MI

myocardial infarction

MSM

men who have sex with men

MWID

men who injected drugs

NA-ACCORD

North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design

ppc

percentage point change

PWH

people with HIV

RAS

renin-angiotensin system

ROS

reactive oxygen species

SDoH

social determinants of health

US

United States

WWID

women who injected drugs

Data Availability

HIV Surveillance data was sourced from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s HIV Surveillance Reports, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html NA-ACCORD data is available following approval from the collaboration, available at: https://naaccord.org/collaborate-with-us Methodological details regarding the model structure, parameterizations, standards for collapsing subgroups to ensure adequate sample size, and estimated functions are available at: https://pearlhivmodel.org/method_details.html The code for the PEARL model results presented here can be found at: https://github.com/PearlHivModelingTeam/comorbidityPaper.

Funding Statement

The presented research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 AG053100 to KNA; U01AI069918 to KNA and RDM; K01AI138853 to PK; R01AG069575 to EPH) and the Jerome and Celia Reich Endowed Scholar Award (to EPH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Marcus JL, Leyden WA, Alexeeff SE, Anderson AN, Hechter RC, Hu H, et al. Comparison of overall and comorbidity-free life expectancy between insured adults with and without HIV infection, 2000–2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e207954. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.7954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mdodo R, Frazier EL, Dube SR, Mattson CL, Sutton MY, Brooks JT, et al. Cigarette smoking prevalence among adults with HIV compared with the general adult population in the United States: Cross-sectional surveys. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:335–344. doi: 10.7326/M14-0954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Koethe JR, Jenkins CA, Lau B, Shepherd BE, Justice AC, Tate JP, et al. Rising obesity prevalence and weight gain among adults starting antiretroviral therapy in the United States and Canada. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2016;32:50–58. doi: 10.1089/aid.2015.0147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bailin SS, Gabriel CL, Wanjalla CN, Koethe JR. Obesity and weight gain in persons with HIV. Curr HIVAIDS Rep. 2020;17:138–150. doi: 10.1007/s11904-020-00483-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rosenberg ES, Rosenthal EM, Hall EW, Barker L, Hofmeister MG, Sullivan PS, et al. Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in US States and the District of Columbia, 2013 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e186371. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ronel J, Dinkel A, Wolf E, Marten-Mittag B, Mueck B, Mayr C, et al. Anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life in aging people living with HIV compared to diabetes patients and patients with minor health conditions: a longitudinal study. Psychol Health Med. 2018;23:823–830. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2018.1437276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brandt C, Zvolensky MJ, Woods SPD, Gonzalez A, Safren SA, O’Cleirigh CM. Anxiety symptoms and disorders among adults living with HIV and AIDS: A critical review and integrative synthesis of the empirical literature. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;51:164–184. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.11.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bigna JJ, Tankeu AT, Kaze AD, Noubiap JJ, Nansseu JR. Prevalence and incidence of hypertension in the global HIV-infected population: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e016531. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Park J, Zuñiga JA. Chronic kidney disease in persons living with HIV: A systematic review. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2018;29:655–666. doi: 10.1016/j.jana.2018.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pinato DJ, Pria AD, Sharma R, Bower M. Hepatocellular carcinoma: An evolving challenge in viral hepatitis and HIV coinfection. AIDS. 2017;31:603–611. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Robbins HA, Pfeiffer RM, Shiels MS, Li J, Hall HI, Engels EA. Excess cancers among HIV-infected people in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:dju503. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brown TT. Antiretroviral therapy and the prevalence and incidence of diabetes mellitus in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1179–1184. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.10.1179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shah ASV, Stelzle D, Lee KK, Beck EJ, Alam S, Clifford S, et al. Global burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in people living with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2018;138:1100–1112. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Drozd DR, Kitahata MM, Althoff KN, Zhang J, Gange SJ, Napravnik S, et al. Increased risk of myocardial infarction in HIV-infected individuals in North America compared with the general population. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;75:568–576. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Önen N, Overton ET, Seyfried W, Stumm ER, Snell M, Mondy K, et al. Aging and HIV infection: A comparison between older HIV-infected persons and the general population. HIV Clin Trials. 2010;11:100–109. doi: 10.1310/hct1102-100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wada NI, Jacobson LP, Margolick JB, Breen EC, Macatangay B, Penugonda S, et al. The effect of HAART-induced HIV suppression on circulating markers of inflammation and immune activation. AIDS. 2015;29:463–471. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hsue PY, Deeks SG, Hunt PW. Immunologic basis of cardiovascular disease in HIV-infected adults. J Infect Dis. 2012;205:S375–82. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Carr A, Samaras K, Burton S, Law M, Freund J, Chisholm DJ, et al. A syndrome of peripheral lipodystrophy, hyperlipidaemia and insulin resistance in patients receiving HIV protease inhibitors. AIDS. 1998;12:F51–F58. doi: 10.1097/00002030-199807000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Friis-Møller N, Weber R, Reiss P, Thiébaut R, Kirk O, d’Arminio Monforte A, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk factors in HIV patients–association with antiretroviral therapy: Results from the D:A:D study. AIDS. 2003;17:1179–1193. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000060358.78202.c1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Social determinants of health among adults with diagnosed HIV infection, 2018. HIV Surveill Suppl Rep. 2020. p. Published November 2020. Cited 2022 Dec 27. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nydegger LA, Hill MJ. Examining COVID-19 and HIV: The impact of intersectional stigma on short-and long-term health outcomes among African Americans. Int Soc Work. 2020;63:655–659. doi: 10.1177/0020872820940017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lerner AMA, Eisinger RRW, Fauci AS, Fauchi A. Comorbidites in persons with HIV: The lingering challenge. JAMA. 2020;323:19–20. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.19775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Deeks SG, Lewin SR, Havlir DV. The end of AIDS: HIV infection as a chronic disease. Lancet. 2013;382:1525–1533. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61809-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wong C, Gange SJ, Moore RD, Justice AC, Buchacz K, Abraham AG, et al. Multimorbidity among persons living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:1230–1238. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kim DJ, Westfall AO, Chamot E, Willig AL, Mugavero MJ, Ritchie C, et al. Multimorbidity patterns in HIV-infected patients: The role of obesity in chronic disease clustering. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;61:600–605. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31827303d5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Goulet JL, Fultz SL, Rimland D, Butt A, Gibert C, Rodriguez-Barradas M, et al. Do patterns of comorbidity vary by HIV status, age, and HIV severity? Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:1593–1601. doi: 10.1086/523577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Collins LF, Sheth AN, Mehta CC, Naggie S, Golub ET, Anastos K, et al. The prevalence and burden of non-AIDS comorbidities among women living with or at risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72:1301–1311. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Palella F, Hart R, Armon C, Tedaldi E, Yangco B, Novak R, et al. Non-AIDS comorbidity burden differs by sex, race, and insurance type in aging adults in HIV care. AIDS. 2019;33:2327–35. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wong C, Gange SJ, Buchacz K, Moore RD, Justice AC, Horberg MA, et al. First occurrence of diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension among north American HIV-infected adults, 2000–2013. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64:45–67. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Buchacz K, Baker RK, Palella FJ, Shaw L, Patel P, Lichtenstein KA, et al. Disparities in prevalence of key chronic diseases by gender and race/ethnicity among antiretroviral treated HIV-infected adults in the US. Antivir Ther. 2013;18:65–75. doi: 10.3851/IMP2450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Salter ML, Lau B, Go VF, Mehta SH, Kirk GD. HIV infection, immune suppression, and uncontrolled viremia are associated with increased multimorbidity among aging injection drug users. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:1256–64. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lesko CR, Moore RD, Tong W, Lau B. Association of injection drug use with incidence of HIV-associated non-AIDS-related morbidity by age, 1995–2014. AIDS. 2016;30:1447–1455. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Burch JB, Augustine AD, Frieden LA, Hadley E, Howcroft TK, Johnson R, et al. Advances in geroscience: Impact on healthspan and chronic disease. J Gerontol—Ser Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014;69:S1–3. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glu041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Damarell RA, Morgan DD, Tieman JJ. General practitioner strategies for managing patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:131. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01197-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kasaie P, Stewart C, Humes E, Gerace L, Zhang J, Silverberg MJ, et al. Projecting the age-distribution of men who have sex with men receiving HIV treatment in the United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2022;65:46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.08.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Althoff KN, Stewart CN, Humes E, Zhang J, Gerace L, Boyd CM, et al. The shifting age distribution of people with HIV using antiretroviral therapy in the United States. AIDS. 2022;36:459–471. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Silverberg MJMJ, Lau B, Achenbach CJCJ, Jing Y, Althoff KNKN, D’Souza G, et al. Cumulative incidence of cancer among persons With HIV in North America: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:507–518. doi: 10.7326/M14-2768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Klein MB, Althoff KN, Jing Y, Lau B, Kitahata M, Lo Re V, et al. Risk of end-stage liver disease in HIV-viral hepatitis coinfected persons in North America from the early to modern antiretroviral therapy eras. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63:1160–1167. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lang R, Hogan B, Zhu J, McArthur K, Lee J, Zandi P, et al. The prevalence of mental health disorders in people with HIV and the effects on the HIV Care Continuum. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2023;37:259–269. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Do AN, Rosenberg ES, Sullivan PS, Beer L, Strine TW, Schulden JD, et al. Excess burden of depression among HIV-infected persons receiving medical care in the United States: Data from the medical monitoring project and the behavioral risk factor surveillance system. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e92842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092842 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pence BW, Mills JC, Bengtson AM, Gaynes BN, Breger TL, Cook RL, et al. Association of increased chronicity of depression with HIV appointment attendance, treatment failure, and mortality among HIV-infected adults in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75:379–385. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Havlik RJ, Brennan M, Karpiak SE. Comorbidities and depression in older adults with HIV. Sex Health. 2011;8:551–559. doi: 10.1071/SH11017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Anxiety Disorders in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2023;329:2163–2170. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.9301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Arant EC, Harding C, Geba M, Targonski PV, McManus KA. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Aging: Multimorbidity in Older People With HIV in One Nonurban Southeastern Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Clinic. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8:ofaa584. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Grinspoon SK, Fitch KV, Zanni MV, Fichtenbaum CJ, Umbleja T, Aberg JA, et al. Pitavastatin to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease in HIV Infection. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:687–699. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2304146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Freiberg MS. HIV and Cardiovascular Disease—An Ounce of Prevention. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:760–761. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2306782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHHSTP AtlasPlus. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 11]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/index.htm.
  • 48.Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Navas-Acien A, et al. Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review. Diabetes Care. 2020;44:258–279. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Commodore-Mensah Y, Turkson-Ocran R-A, Foti K, Cooper LA, Himmelfarb CD. Associations Between Social Determinants and Hypertension, Stage 2 Hypertension, and Controlled Blood Pressure Among Men and Women in the United States. Am J Hypertens. 2021;34:707–717. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpab011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic Kidney Disease Surveillance System website. [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 19]. Available from: https://nccd.cdc.gov/CKD.
  • 51.Simões e Silva AC, Miranda AS, Rocha NP, Teixeira AL. Neuropsychiatric Disorders in Chronic Kidney Disease. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:932. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Morales DR, Moreno-Martos D, Matin N, McGettigan P. Health conditions in adults with HIV compared with the general population: A population-based cross-sectional analysis. eClinicalMedicine. 2022;47:101392. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Althoff KNKN, Buchacz K, Irene Hall H, Zhang J, Hanna B, Rebeiro P, et al. U.S. Trends in Antiretroviral Therapy Use, HIV RNA Plasma Viral Loads, and CD4 T-Lymphocyte Cell Counts Among HIV-Infected Persons, 2000 to 2008. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:325–35. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Li Y, Lawley M, Siscovick D, Zhang D, Pagan J. Agent-based modeling of chronic diseases: A narrative review and future research directions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:150561. doi: 10.5888/pcd13.150561 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Philippa C Dodd

30 Dec 2022

Dear Dr Althoff,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "The projected prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity in people with HIV in the United States through the year 2030" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Jan 03 2023 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Philippa C Dodd

30 May 2023

Dear Dr. Althoff,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The projected prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity in people with HIV in the United States through the year 2030" (PMEDICINE-D-22-03963R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Jun 20 2023 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

GENERAL

Please respond to all editor and reviewer comments detailed below, in full.

Please include line and page numbers in your revised version.

COMMENTS FROM THE ACADEMIC EDITOR

I agree that this is potentially an interesting paper, for the US readers and policy-makers. It projects the potential burden of multimorbidity in people on ART by ethnic, sex and risk group, in the USA.

However, what I think is missing is the information that a clinician would like to have (rather than a policy/programme person) in understanding whether there is a greater or lesser likelihood that the person with HIV on ART under his/her care will develop multimorbidities, and which ones. With that knowledge some preventive action may be possible. Would it be possible to use the output from the model to give an example of what change there would be from 2020 to 2030 for such a clinician? The projected prevalences of multimorbidities are not that high, and although this is important to know about a population-level, it is not entirely clear for the clinician.

Also, the age distribution in PEARL 2020 and projected PEARL 2030 is somewhat different. How much of the increase is associated with changes in the projected age distribution of people on ART?

The model allows for age, but is it possible to clarify whether some (or all) of the projected multimorbidity increase is related to increases in particular age groups (as opposed to a general increase overall)? Would there be changes in the distribution of multi-morbidity by age in 2030, compared to 2020? What drives this increase?

Further, why is there no allowance for ART regimen? And ART history? Both regimen and previous history could bear on prevalence/incidence of morbidity. This is something that should at least be discussed, and if the data are not available then it should be noted under limitations.

It is not clear to me how specific to the PEARL model and available data this model is - can it be generalised across the USA (assuming not all HIV infected people start ART and likelihood of starting may change over time). This discussion could be informed by providing some understanding of what drives the increases in multimorbidity.

I agree with the insightful and pertinent comments from the reviewers, and consider all to indicate a major revision.

COMMENTS FROM THE EDITORS

COMPETING INTERESTS

For those authors without competing interests for the purpose of brevity please list initials as opposed to full names.

FUNDING STATEMENT

Please remove the funding statement from page 2 and include only in the manuscript submission form. It will be compiled as metadata in the event of publication.

NA-ACCORD COLLABORATING COHORTS AND REPRESENTATIVES

Please move these details to an acknowledgement section at the end of the main manuscript

KEY POINTS

Please remove this subsection from the manuscript

TITLE

Please revise your title according to PLOS Medicine's style. Your title must be nondeclarative and not a question. It should begin with main concept if possible. "Effect of" should be used only if causality can be inferred, i.e., for an RCT. Please place the study design ("A randomized controlled trial," "A retrospective study," "A modelling study," etc.) in the subtitle (ie, after a colon).

ABSTRACT

Please structure your abstract using the PLOS Medicine headings (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions).

Please combine the Methods and Findings sections into one section, “Methods and findings”.

Abstract Background: Provide the context of why the study is important. The final sentence should clearly state the study question.

Abstract Methods and Findings:

Please ensure that all numbers presented in the abstract are present and identical to numbers presented in the main manuscript text.

Please include the study design, population (including brief details of baseline demographics) and setting, number of participants, years during which the study took place, length of follow up, and main outcome measures in this section of the abstract.

Please quantify the main results with 95% CIs (or URs in this case) and p values. When reporting 95% CIs please separate upper and lower bounds with commas as opposed to hyphens which can be confused with reporting of negative values. When reporting p values please report as p<0.001 and when higher as p=0.002, for example. If not reporting p values then for the purpose of transparent data reporting please clearly state the reasons why not.

Please include any important dependent variables that are adjusted for in the analyses.

In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe the main limitation(s) of the study's methodology.

Abstract Conclusions:

Please address the study implications without overreaching what can be concluded from the data; the phrase "In this study, we observed ..." may be useful.

Please interpret the study based on the results presented in the abstract, emphasizing what is new without overstating your conclusions.

Please avoid vague statements such as "these results have major implications for policy/clinical care". Mention only specific implications substantiated by the results.

Please avoid assertions of primacy ("We report for the first time....")

AUTHOR SUMMARY

At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The authors summary should consist of 2-3 succinct bullet points under each of the following headings:

• Why Was This Study Done? Authors should reflect on what was known about the topic before the research was published and why the research was needed.

• What Did the Researchers Do and Find? Authors should briefly describe the study design that was used and the study’s major findings. Do include the headline numbers from the study, such as the sample size and key findings.

• What Do These Findings Mean? Authors should reflect on the new knowledge generated by the research and the implications for practice, research, policy, or public health. Authors should also consider how the interpretation of the study’s findings may be affected by the study limitations. In the final bullet point of ‘What Do These Findings Mean?’, please describe the main limitations of the study in non-technical language.

The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

INTRODUCTION

Please address past research and explain the need for and potential importance of your study. Indicate whether your study is novel and how you determined that. If there has been a systematic review of the evidence related to your study (or you have conducted one), please refer to and reference that review and indicate whether it supports the need for your study.

METHODS and RESULTS

Please justify/clarify your decision to model predictions no later than 2030 and please consider extending your modelled predictions to a later time point i.e. why 10 year projections from 2020-2030 and not 15 year?

I could not find your ethics statement in your methods section, please include and please provide the name(s) of the institutional review board(s) that provided ethical approval.

Results paragraph 1 – please separate upper and lower bounds of URs with commas as opposed to hyphens to prevent confusion with reporting of negative values.

Please ensure that percentages are quantified with numerators and denominators.

Please ensure that ‘ppc’ is defined at first use, I may have missed it apologies if so.

MODELLING STUDIES

Of all authors of modelling studies, we ask that the authors include the following items derived from Geoffrey P Garnett, Simon Cousens, Timothy B Hallett, Richard Steketee, Neff Walker. Mathematical models in the evaluation of health programmes. (2011) Lancet DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61505-X. We think you have included everything but please review the list below and amend as necessary:

• Please provide a diagram that shows the model structure, including how the disease natural history is represented, the process and determinants of disease acquisition, and how the putative intervention could affect the system.

• Please provide a complete list of model parameters, including clear and precise descriptions of [the meaning of each parameter, together with the values or ranges for each, with justification or the primary source cited, and important caveats about the use of these values noted].

• Please provide a clear statement about how the model was fitted to the data [including goodness-of-fit measure, the numerical algorithm used, which parameter varied, constraints imposed on parameter values, and starting conditions].

• For uncertainty analyses, please state the sources of uncertainties quantified and not quantified [can include parameter, data, and model structure].

• Please provide sensitivity analyses to identify which parameter values are most important in the model. Uncertainty estimates seek to derive a range of credible results on the basis of an exploration of the range of reasonable parameter values. The choice of method should be presented and justified.

• Please discuss the scientific rationale for this choice of model structure and identify points where this choice could influence conclusions drawn. Please also describe the strength of the scientific basis underlying the key model assumptions.

FIGURES

Throughout, please consider avoiding the use of green and/or red to make your figures more accessible to those with colour blindness.

Throughout, please indicate whether your analyses are adjusted or unadjusted and where adjusted analyses are presented please detail the factors which are adjusted for in an appropriate caption/footnote and, to help facilitate transparent data reporting, please provide the unadjusted analyses for comparison.

Figure 1 – please see reviewer comments below which we agree with, please revise you figure accordingly.

Figure 2 – mental and physical are abbreviated to ‘ment.’ and ‘phys.’ Do they need to be? Suggest revising to include the complete words.

In part a) you present percentages and in part b) you present total numbers of affected individuals – is there a reason for this difference, please clarify. We prefer the latter for both parts for improved clarity and consistency in reporting.

In part b) what does ‘Med’ mean at the top of each graph? Please clarify and define for reader in the footnote.

Figure 3 – is there a reason why the same colour scheme is used to define different comorbid illnesses? It is very difficult to discern which line is representative of what, especially in the smaller graphs in part b), please revise.

In the figure caption you refer to part c) but I was unable to locate a part c) at least in my version. Please clarify/revise.

Figure 5 – there is an unchecked tracked comment here, please remove. In a caption or footnote please clearly define the meaning of the dots and lines for the reader.

DISCUSSION

Please ensure that you present and organize the Discussion as follows: a short, clear summary of the article's findings; what the study adds to existing research and where and why the results may differ from previous research; strengths and limitations of the study; implications and next steps for research, clinical practice, and/or public policy; one-paragraph conclusion.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Table S1 – first column, final row – End-stage renal disease doesn’t seem to match appropriately to the abbreviation ‘(ESLD)’ should it read End-stage liver disease? Please clarify/revise accordingly.

Table S2 – please define the units of measurement for the prevalence data reported from the NA ACCORD.

Table S3 – is very small and rather inaccessible to the reader, please revise

Table S5 - Please present numerators and denominators for percentages

Figure S1 – suggest changing the angle of the labels on the axis ‘2010’ and ‘2015’ to a diagonal position to improve reader accessibility

Figure S3a-o) – as for the main manuscript – please revise the choice of colour scheme to improve clarity for the reader.

REFERENCES

For in-text reference callouts please place citations in square brackets and preceding punctuation for example [1,2,3-6]. Please check and amend throughout including the supporting information where relevant.

In the bibliography, please ensure that web references detail an access date.

Journal name abbreviations should be those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases.

Please ensure that up to but no more than 6 author names are detailed followed by et al.

Please see our website for other reference guidelines https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: Thanks for sharing your manuscript entitled: "The projected prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity in people with HIV in the United States through the year 2030". I really enjoy reading your work, I think this kind of modeling efforts are very important to define the potential burden of diseases in a population, and to plan the care and needs of HIV people further than their HIV traditional care, even more if they are focused on groups of specific and different risk.

I have only minor comments related to the description of the model. I couldn´t understand in the manuscript, how new people incorporates in the follow-up, and neither I could open the link which authors mention that details are (Please double-check the link is really working). I would like to see some lines into the manuscript to understand how is the entrance in the model by group of risk year by year. If this is explained in previous papers, I think readers interested could be informed. I would also like to know why ART regimen was not incorporated in some of the comorbidities´ incidence estimations? Is not a current potential association of ART with some of the variables involved, such as changes in BMI? Each risk group has their own probabilities of ART disengagement and re-engagement?

Additionally, I´m curious about if this model could be used to predict the comorbidities by group by US state, Is this possible? Or the model calibration and other details to program it don´t allow it? I think this kind a state stratification could be useful for local policy makers and that other social factors associated with local resources, education level or income could be incorporated in the estimations. Is this an issue that authors could comment/discuss into their work? New potential policies to have a better care for some of the populations: those avoiding racism in black and Hispanic population, or those addressed on drug users, could have any impact on your estimations? How big could be this impact?

I think authors could also mention some advantages of the agent-based models compared to other type of models in the discussion.

Reviewer #2: This very interesting study aims to predict the rates of co-morbidities in different groups of US PLHIV.

Abstract and title are confusing because they do not indicate that this is a modeling study.

The Introduction discusses the criticality of SDoH, but as-written, it is not clear which SDoH are included in the model. Please incorporate these into Figure 1. For broader introduction, please also define SDoH and list which are the most important determinants for the populations modeled.

The last sentence of paragraph 2 of the Intro is difficult to parse: "Multimorbidity is a function of the comorbidities included in the definition and estimates among PWH in the US have a wide range." There seem to be two different points being made here. Make them separately and in sufficient detail, i.e., one sentence explaining the definition of multimorbidity, and the other stating the ranges on multimorbidity estimates from prior studies.

Is it necessary to subdivide factors correlated with but not caused by HIV (such as smoking an injecting drugs), versus ones caused by HIV (cancer and diseases associated with chronic immune activation)?

The model appears to really be fifteen different models for each of 5 HIV transmission group (MSM, MWID, WWID, heterosexual men, heterosexual women) X 3 racial groups (white, black/AA, Hispanic). It does not consider that individuals can be multiracial or have overlapping risks. Does it include transmission between racial groups an risk groups? It is important to clarify these limitations and think about whether the results are still valid subject to these limitations.

The model appears to only include people from the time they first initiate ART. How is the rate of people newly initiating ART (i.e., new individuals entering the model) determined? Presumably this depends on future ART coverage as well as future rates of new HIV infections which give rise to people never before on ART - and HIV infections in turn depend on the populations with unsuppressed HIV viral load participating in different forms of behavioral risk - how is all of this handled?

Drug use and risk of drug overdose is a large driver of morbidity and mortality, in PWID, constituting six of the fifteen populations being modeled. How can the model accurately capture life expectancy without accounting for drug use morbidities and risk of overdose?

The calibration plots in Supplementary Appendix are an excellent component of this study and very well-presented. There don't appear to be any incidence plots where the model fails to match the data, but there are a number of prevalence plots where the model fails to match the data. How can this be? Is it a problem with the initial conditions?

The model estimates the incidence of comorbidities (e.g., depression) as a function of calendar year, age, CD4 count at ART initiation, and time since ART initiation. These are shown as betas from a regression. Does that assume that incidence of comorbidities must always be a linear function of age? Many comorbidities have an age of maximum or minimum incidence (hump-shaped of bowl-shaped function of age) and many others have low incidence until older age (aging-related conditions like HTN, diabetes…) How are these common age patterns taken into account?

Why did Black WWID have the oldest median age in 2030? One would think their life expectancy would be shorter than heterosexual women due to many health risks and comorbidities. Could this possibly be an error in the model? If so, this could explain why WWID are predicted to have so many co-morbidities compared to other groups (they are simply older and risks of many chronic health conditions grow with age).

Could the authors provide calibration graphs showing how their modeled population age structure compares to observed age structure of the 15 groups in different years? I wonder if discrepancies there are contributing to the unintuitive median age findings in the model outputs.

As a benchmark, could the authors show what co-morbidities the model would predict in HIV-negative people, and whether the model does a reasonable job of those predictions? This could help validate the comorbidity predictions in a broader population and troubleshoot issues like linear relationships with age.

Overall, a very interesting study, but the model may require further debugging and validation to ensure the reported predictions are accurate.

Reviewer #3: See attachment

Michael Dewey

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Attachment

Submitted filename: althoff.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Philippa C Dodd

15 Sep 2023

Dear Dr. Althoff,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The forecasted prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity in people with HIV in the United States through the year 2030: A modeling study" (PMEDICINE-D-22-03963R2) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Oct 06 2023 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS FROM THE EDITORS

GENERAL

The reviewer and the academic editor both raise serious concerns about the validity of your model which we agree with. Please see below. The reviewer has concerns that your response to previous comments is incomplete and we agree that the unexpected results should be investigated further. We cannot progress your manuscript without the aforementioned.

For this reason, we have invited a further major revision of the manuscript.

Please address the comments detailed below in full.

FIGURES

Please consider avoiding the use of red and or green to improve accessibility of your figures to those with colour blindness.

Figure 5 - you clearly define the meaning of the dots and the lines for the reader in the caption.

DISCUSSION

Please remove the sub-heading ‘conclusion’ such that it reads as continuous prose.

REFERENCES

In the bibliography please list up to but no more than 6 author names followed by et al in the event than more than 6 authors contribute to an individual study.

Please ensure all web references include an ‘Accessed [date]’

Please see our website for other reference guidelines https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In the published article, supporting information files are accessed only through a hyperlink attached to the captions. For this reason, you must list captions at the end of your manuscript file. You may include a caption within the supporting information file itself, as long as that caption is also provided in the manuscript file. Do not submit a separate caption file.

Supplementary table 6 – in the footnote, please revised CDK to read CKD

COMMENTS FROM THE ACADEMIC EDITOR

I am a little unsure about this paper - the model is becoming more complex but the value of the paper for the readership of PLoS Med has become more, rather than less. And I do not see what is new knowledge?

I continue to struggle with who this paper is for - given the various caveats noted by the authors in their responses to the previous comments. I remain unclear as to how much of the increase in multimorbidity is due to the ageing of the HIV cohort in the USA, and whether there is any much change in the incidence/prevalence of multimorbidity by age forecast over the period to 2030.

Reviewer 2 has a point regarding the age of the black women with injecting drug use - but that may be because there is ageing of the USA cohort with younger cohorts having a different HIV acquisition factor compared to older cohorts. And also, in their population, injecting drug use only account for a small percentage of all acquisition risk.

To me, this paper does not show an understanding of HIV itself, and how HIV would interact with ageing. Further, the point about not being able to, or not seeing the need, to include ART regimen as a factor in the forecast model is not a satisfactory response. There may not be much data for individual ART regimen, but it should be possible to divide ART regimen in classes, on the basis of how they work, what they address and what side effects there may be. Surely, an HIV clinical expert would know this. To me this is an important point as there are changes in ART regimen and if those would be associated with changes in specific multimorbidity patterns than that is something policymakers and programme leaders should be aware of.

The conclusion of the abstract states:

Conclusion and relevance: The distribution of multimorbidity will continue to differ by race/ethnicity, gender, and HIV acquisition risk subgroups, and be influenced by age and risk factor distributions that reflect the impact of social disparities of the health on women, people of color, and people who use drugs. HIV clinical care models and funding are urgently required to meet the healthcare needs of people with HIV in the next decade.

But no specifics are provided and this leaves the reader wondering what then the paper contributes to knowledge useful for clinical care?

COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWERS:

Reviewer #2: The authors have been responsive to most of the suggestions from this reviewer, except for two crucial ones:

- Longer LE in Black WWID: The authors postulate that Black women who inject drugs may have longer life expectancy due to gender differences in life expectancy, a survivor bias effect, or national reductions in HIV incidence among PWID. To me, none of these putative mechanisms make sense as a plausible driver of the model results - and some explanations simply do not make sense in the context of this model. I urge the authors to think deeply and investigate thoroughly, i.e., use their data and model to interrogate the underlying causes of this unexpected result. Spurious results are often useful "leads' that help to diagnose bugs in the model. Better to find out now than have this lead to a retraction of the article in the future.

- Fitting: The reviewer requested that the authors graph the age distributions from their modeled population vs. the observed population. Instead, the reviewer provided 8 pages of tables listing % differences between model and data in different strata. The requested graph would show the actual population by age group, graphed as a distribution, and overlaying these for model vs. data on the same graph. This visualization approach will be much more interpretable and revealing of the model's validity, versus the 8-page table.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed my points.

Michael Dewey

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Philippa C Dodd

7 Nov 2023

Dear Dr. Althoff,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "The forecasted prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity in people with HIV in the United States through the year 2030: A modeling study" (PMEDICINE-D-22-03963R3) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by one of the reviewers. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Nov 14 2023 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

pdodd@plos.org

------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS FROM THE ACADEMIC EDITOR

The authors have done a good job in taking on board the comments from the reviewer and myself. I would be happy with your decision to proceed.

This paper is still a modelling paper but the authors now highlight where the results can be used in clinical care. They also note that they would be happy in further work to explore the impact of ART regimen on multimorbidity - which would lead to informing understanding as what is happening (rather than describing what is happening which is what the current paper does).

COMMENTS FROM THE EDITORS

Thank you for your detailed responses to previous reviewer and academic editor comments.

We did note that some of the previous editorial requests have yet to be incorporated into your revision, such as amendments to the abstract, for example. I have detailed these and other editorial requests below.

Please also include a response (as for the reviewers) detailing your response and signposting to where the amendments can be located in the manuscript.

Please respond to all comments in full these are a requirement for publication.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

In the manuscript submission form, please revise your statement to include all URLs pertaining to your data sources and model as detailed in your main manuscript. Suggest the following:

HIV Surveillance data was sourced from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s HIV Surveillance Reports, available at https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html.

NA-ACCORD data is available following approval from the collaboration https://naaccord.org/collaborate-with-us.

Methodological details regarding the model structure, parameterizations, standards for collapsing subgroups to ensure adequate sample size, and estimated functions are available at https://pearlhivmodel.org/method_details.html.

The code for the PEARL model results presented here can be found at https://github.com/PearlHivModelingTeam/comorbidityPaper.

COMPETING INTERESTS

Please remove the competing interest statement from the main manuscript and include only in the manuscript submission form. It will be compiled as metadata at the time of publication.

FUNDING STATEMENT

Please remove the funding statement from page 2 and include only in the manuscript submission form. It will be compiled as metadata at the time of publication.

KEY POINTS

Please remove this subsection from the manuscript

ABSTRACT

Please structure your abstract using the PLOS Medicine headings (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions).

Please combine the Methods and Findings sections into one section, “Methods and findings”.

Abstract Background: Provide the context of why the study is important. The final sentence should clearly state the study question.

Abstract Methods and Findings:

Please ensure that all numbers presented in the abstract are present and identical to numbers presented in the main manuscript text.

Please give further (brief) details of the database upon which you based your simulations – NA-ACCROD and CDC.

As in the current version, please include the study design, population (including brief details of baseline demographics) and setting, number of participants, years during which the study took place, length of follow up, and main outcome measures in this section of the abstract.

Please quantify the main results with 95% CIs (or URs in this case) and p values. When reporting 95% CIs please separate upper and lower bounds with commas as opposed to hyphens which can be confused with reporting of negative values. When reporting p values please report as p<0.001 and when higher as p=0.002, for example. If not reporting p values then for the purpose of transparent data reporting please clearly state the reasons why not.

Please include any important dependent variables that are adjusted for in the analyses.

In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe the main limitation(s) of the study's methodology.

Abstract Conclusions:

Please address the study implications without overreaching what can be concluded from the data; the phrase "In this study, we observed ..." may be useful.

Please interpret the study based on the results presented in the abstract, emphasizing what is new without overstating your conclusions.

Please avoid vague statements such as "these results have major implications for policy/clinical care". Mention only specific implications substantiated by the results.

Please avoid assertions of primacy ("We report for the first time....")

AUTHOR SUMMARY

At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The authors summary should consist of 2-3 succinct bullet points under each of the following headings:

• Why Was This Study Done? Authors should reflect on what was known about the topic before the research was published and why the research was needed.

• What Did the Researchers Do and Find? Authors should briefly describe the study design that was used and the study’s major findings. Do include the headline numbers from the study, such as the sample size and key findings.

• What Do These Findings Mean? Authors should reflect on the new knowledge generated by the research and the implications for practice, research, policy, or public health. Authors should also consider how the interpretation of the study’s findings may be affected by the study limitations. In the final bullet point of ‘What Do These Findings Mean?’, please describe the main limitations of the study in non-technical language.

The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

FIGURES

Figure 5 – there is an unchecked tracked comment here, please remove.

DISCUSSION

We agree with the reviewer (please see below) that the 2030 projection showing black women who inject drugs being older than any other group in the model is an unusual finding that warrants further discussion. Please include.

REFERENCES

For in-text reference callouts please place citations in square brackets and preceding punctuation for example [1,3-6]. Please check and amend throughout including the supporting information where relevant.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Please ensure reference formatting follows the same guidance as for the main manuscript. For reference these are as detailed below:

In the bibliography, please ensure that web references detail an access date.

Journal name abbreviations should be those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases.

Please ensure that up to but no more than 6 author names are detailed followed by et al.

Please see our website for other reference guidelines https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

In the published article, supporting information files are accessed only through a hyperlink attached to the captions. For this reason, you must list captions at the end of your manuscript file. You may include a caption within the supporting information file itself, as long as that caption is also provided in the manuscript file. Do not submit a separate caption file.

I could only see supplementary file labels (e.g. Table S1) included – please also include a title and caption for each as outlined above (these were present in the previous version but perhaps not updated following revision).

SOCIAL MEDIA

To help us extend the reach of your research, please detail any X (formerly Twitter) handles you wish to be included when we tweet this paper (including your own, your co-authors’, your institution, funder, or lab) in the manuscript submission form when you re-submit the manuscript.

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the authors' efforts to show their modeled age distributions in 2010, 2013, and 2017 as compared to in-care cohort data. It fits very well! I am still struggling to understand why the 2030 projection shows black women who inject drugs becoming an entire decade older than white women who inject drugs - and indeed older than any other group in the model. When I scan down the columns of 2010, 2013, and 2017 in Figure S3, the curves look similar by racial group for women who inject drugs, e.g., a 2017 peak of 50 years old. With the greyscale graph of deaths, the authors revealed in their response that deaths among Black women who inject drugs shifted to older age groups, suggesting this isn't a survival bias where the younger women have died and left only the older women alive, as the authors insinuated earlier. In summary, while I personally still struggle to get my head around the 2030 result, it is reassuring that the 2010's age distributions fit well to data. Thank you for the additional model validation efforts.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 4

Philippa C Dodd

22 Nov 2023

Dear Dr Althoff, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Professor Marie-Louise Newell, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "The forecasted prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity in people with HIV in the United States through the year 2030: A modeling study" (PMEDICINE-D-22-03963R4) in PLOS Medicine.

Prior to publication please ensure you address the following:

1) Please cite and label your figures (and tables) in the main manuscript as outlined here https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures#loc-how-to-submit-figures-and-captions

2) Please cite and label your supporting information as outlined here

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/supporting-information

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Best wishes,

Pippa 

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Comorbidity incidence validation plots, by subgroup.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Comorbidity prevalence validation plots, by subgroup.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Comparing the age distributions of ART users in PEARL to the observed data from NA-ACCORD, 2010, 2013, and 2017.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig

    Trends in multimorbidity distribution by age groups, overall and within the 15 subgroups of people with HIV, (a) overall; (b) White, (c) Black/African American, and (d) Hispanic men who have sex with men; (e) White, (f) Black/African American, and (g) Hispanic men with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (h) White, (i) Black/African American, and (j) Hispanic women with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (k) White, (l) Black/African American, and (m) Hispanic heterosexual men; (n) White, (o) Black/African American, and (p) Hispanic heterosexual women.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig

    Forecasted prevalence (and shaded 95% credibility intervals) of individual comorbidities within the 15 subgroups of people with HIV: (a) White, (b) Black/African American, and (c) Hispanic men who have sex with men; (d) White, (e) Black/African American, and (f) Hispanic men with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (g) White, (h) Black/African American, and (i) Hispanic women with injection drug use as their HIV acquisition risk factor; (j) White, (k) Black/African American, and (l) Hispanic heterosexual men; (m) White, (n) Black/African American, and (o) Hispanic heterosexual women.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig

    Ranges used to generate the number of new diagnoses, by HIV acquisition risk groups and race and ethnicity: (a) heterosexual women; (b) heterosexual men; (c) women who injected drugs; (d) men who injected drugs; (e) men who have sex with men.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Fig

    Forecasted percentage of people linking to HIV care by HIV acquisition risk groups and race and ethnicity: (a) heterosexual females; (b) heterosexual males; (c) women who injected drugs; (d) men who injected drugs; (e) men who have sex with men.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Definitions of highly prevalent risk factors and comorbidities measured in the NA-ACCORD and included in the PEARL model.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Prevalence and incidence functions applied to PEARL agents who have initiated ART for (a) anxiety prevalence, (b) anxiety incidence, (c) depression prevalence, (d) depression incidence, (e) stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease prevalence, (f) stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease incidence, (g) dyslipidemia prevalence, (h) dyslipidemia incidence, (i) diabetes prevalence, (j) diabetes incidence, (k) hypertension prevalence, (l) hypertension incidence, (m) cancer prevalence, (n) cancer incidence, (o) end-stage liver disease prevalence, (p) end-stage liver disease incidence, (q) myocardial infarction prevalence, and (r) myocardial infarction incidence.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. PEARL (a) in-care and (b) dis-engaged from care mortality functions that include comorbidity presence.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Characteristics of the PEARL-simulated agents using ART, 2020 and 2030.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Comparing the age distributions of ART users in PEARL to the observed data from NA-ACCORD, from 2010 to 2017 (simulation validation “out-of-sample” approach).

    Values represent the difference in the age distribution in each subgroup [NA-ACCORD estimate—PEARL estimate]. A threshold of 5 percentage points (>5% or <-5%) is used to detect significant differences (highlighted in blue).

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. PEARL-forecasted multimorbidity prevalence, by yeara and within each subgroup of PWH using ART in the US.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. PEARL-forecasted comorbidity and multimorbidity prevalence [95% uncertainty range], by subgroup, in 2010, 2020, and 2030.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Table. Number of new HIV diagnoses by year and subgroup.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: althoff.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2023_0822 response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2023_1027 response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2023_1118 response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    HIV Surveillance data was sourced from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s HIV Surveillance Reports, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html NA-ACCORD data is available following approval from the collaboration, available at: https://naaccord.org/collaborate-with-us Methodological details regarding the model structure, parameterizations, standards for collapsing subgroups to ensure adequate sample size, and estimated functions are available at: https://pearlhivmodel.org/method_details.html The code for the PEARL model results presented here can be found at: https://github.com/PearlHivModelingTeam/comorbidityPaper.


    Articles from PLOS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES