Introduction

Setting and monitoring progress towards targets for HIV control is critical in ensuring responsive programmes. Here, we explore how to apply targets for reduction in HIV incidence to local settings and which indicators give the strongest signal of a change in incidence in the population and are therefore most important to monitor.
Methods

We use location‐specific HIV transmission models, tailored to the epidemics in the counties and major cities in Kenya, to project a wide range of plausible future epidemic trajectories through varying behaviours, treatment coverage and prevention interventions. We look at the change in incidence across modelled scenarios in each location between 2015 and 2030 to inform local target setting. We also simulate the measurement of a library of potential indicators and assess which are most strongly associated with a change in incidence.
Results

Considerable variation was observed in the trajectory of the local epidemics under the plausible scenarios defined (only 10 of 48 locations saw a median reduction in incidence of greater than or equal to an 80% target by 2030). Indicators that provide strong signals in certain epidemic types may not perform consistently well in settings with different epidemiological features. Predicting changes in incidence is more challenging in advanced generalized epidemics compared to concentrated epidemics where changes in high‐risk sub‐populations track more closely to the population as a whole. Many indicators demonstrate only limited association with incidence (such as “condom use” or “pre‐exposure prophylaxis coverage”). This is because many other factors (low effectiveness, impact of other interventions, countervailing changes in risk behaviours, etc.) can confound the relationship between interventions and their ultimate long‐term impact, especially for an intervention with low expected coverage. The population prevalence of viral suppression shows the most consistent associations with long‐term changes in incidence even in the largest generalized epidemics.
Conclusions

Target setting should be appropriate for the local epidemic and what can feasibly be achieved. There is no one universally reliable indicator to predict future HIV incidence across settings. Thus, the signature of epidemic control must contain indications of success across a wide range of interventions and outcomes.