Background: The syphilis–HIV co-epidemic in the United States is geographically uneven. We examined county-level associations between syphilis burden and HIV diagnosis rates using Bayesian hierarchical models that account for state-level clustering. Methods: We analyzed 2023 county-level data from AIDSVu and CDC STI Surveillance ( n = 2,009 counties; 50 states and Puerto Rico). A linear model with a state-level random intercept was extended to allow the syphilis coefficient to vary by state (random slope), and a negative binomial model with a population offset was fit separately ( n = 1,976; Puerto Rico excluded due to unavailable population estimates). Adjustment variables included poverty, insurance coverage, income, unemployment, and urbanicity. Residual spatial autocorrelation was assessed with Moran’s I on county adjacency. Results: A one standard deviation increase in county syphilis rate was associated with 1.79 additional HIV diagnoses per 100,000 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.28, 2.31) in the linear model, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.35 (95% CrI: 1.27, 1.44) in the negative binomial model. State random intercepts ranged from +14.3 (Mississippi) to − 5.6 (Puerto Rico). Random slopes showed detectable heterogeneity in the association itself ( τ̂ 2 = 7.45; 95% CrI: 3.57, 13.76), though without decisively improving predictive fit over a random-intercept-only model (LOO-CV ELPD difference = − 15.0, SE = 35.1). Residual spatial autocorrelation remained after accounting for state clustering (Moran’s I = 0.099, p < 0.001). Conclusions: County-level syphilis burden is associated with HIV diagnosis rates after accounting for state-level clustering. Evidence of both varying baseline burden and a modestly varying association across states, together with residual geographic dependence beyond state boundaries, suggests state random intercepts capture much but not all relevant spatial structure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Francisca Ofori (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: