Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized, controlled trial involving women in South Africa and Uganda, twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir was superior to daily oral emtricitabine–tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in preventing HIV infection.

Twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir has been shown to be efficacious for prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in cisgender women. The efficacy of lenacapavir for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in cisgender men, transgender women, transgender men, and gender-nonbinary persons is unclear. In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned participants in a 2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous lenacapavir every 26 weeks or daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF). The primary efficacy analysis compared the incidence of HIV infection in the lenacapavir group with the background HIV incidence in the screened population. The secondary efficacy analysis compared the incidence of HIV infection in the lenacapavir group with that in the F/TDF group. Among 3265 participants who were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, HIV infections occurred in 2 participants in the lenacapavir group (0.10 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 0.37) and in 9 participants in the F/TDF group (0.93 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.77). The background HIV incidence in the screened population (4634 participants) was 2.37 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.65 to 3.42). The incidence of HIV infection in the lenacapavir group was significantly lower than both the background incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.18; P<0.001) and the incidence in the F/TDF group (incidence rate ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.51; P = 0.002). No safety concerns were identified. A total of 26 of 2183 participants (1.2%) in the lenacapavir group and 3 of 1088 (0.3%) in the F/TDF group discontinued the trial regimen because of injection-site reactions. The HIV incidence with twice-yearly lenacapavir was significantly lower than the background incidence and the incidence with F/TDF. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PURPOSE 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04925752.).

Reductions in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) incidence with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for men who have sex with men (MSM) will require significant coverage of those at risk. We propose a simplified framework, similar to the HIV care continuum, to achieve protection with PrEP as follows: 1. At-risk MSM; 2. Awareness of and willingness to take PrEP; 3. Access to healthcare; 4. Receiving a prescription; and 5. Adhering to effective PrEP. We evaluated the PrEP care continuum on an Atlanta cohort of MSM and projected how many MSM might achieve protection from HIV. Even with optimistic estimates, few Atlanta MSM (15%) are projected to achieve protection from HIV with PrEP given the significant barriers described. Each continuum step represents an important point for intervention that could substantially increase the overall effectiveness of PrEP. In addition, novel strategies for PrEP delivery are needed to achieve the necessary effectiveness for Atlanta MSM at risk of HIV.

Referrals for and initiation of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection increased dramatically in a large clinical practice setting since 2012. Despite high rates of sexually transmitted infections among PrEP users and reported decreases in condom use in a subset, there were no new HIV infections in this population.

Following recommendations by the World Health Organization in 2015, and key clinical trials, countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the highest burden of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), developed policies that incorporate pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) into national HIV-prevention strategies. By the end of 2019, more than one third of people receiving PrEP globally were in Africa. Crucial understandings gained from early rollout among at-risk populations, such as HIV-serodiscordant couples, adolescent girls and young women, female sex workers, and men who have sex with men, include the importance of strategies for maintaining persistent adherence to PrEP and novel approaches to making PrEP services accessible, simplified and efficient. This Perspective will discuss the current status of these programs and how to further widen their implementation. PrEP is being incorporated into national HIV-prevention strategies in African countries, with key at-risk populations being prioritized. Expansion of these programs will require better access to and communication about these therapies.

Background. Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective for preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, but risk compensation (RC) in men who have sex with men (MSM) raises concerns about increased sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) PrEP guidelines recommend biannual STI screening, which may reduce incidence by treating STIs that would otherwise remain undiagnosed. We investigated these two counteracting phenomena. Methods. With a network-based mathematical model of HIV, Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) transmission dynamics among MSM in the United States, we simulated PrEP uptake following the prescription indications and HIV/STI screening recommendations in the CDC guidelines. Scenarios varied PrEP coverage (the proportion of MSM indicated for PrEP who received it), RC (a reduction in the per-act probability of condom use), and the STI screening interval. Results. In our reference scenario (40% coverage, 40% RC), 42% of NG and 40% of CT infections would be averted over the next decade. A doubling of RC would still result in net STI prevention relative to no PrEP. STIs declined because PrEP-related STI screening resulted in a 17% and 16% absolute increase in the treatment of asymptomatic and rectal STIs, respectively. Screening and timely treatment at quarterly vs biannual intervals would reduce STI incidence an additional 50%. Conclusions. Implementation of the CDC PrEP guidelines while scaling up PrEP coverage could result in a significant decline in STI incidence among MSM. Our study highlights the design of PrEP not only as antiretroviral medication but as combination HIV/STI prevention incorporating STI screening.

Introduction Stigma and disclosure concerns have been key barriers to oral pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence for African adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in efficacy trials. We aimed to understand the impact of these factors among African AGYW in an open‐label PrEP study. Methods HPTN 082 was an open‐label PrEP study among AGYW (ages 16 to 24) in Harare, Zimbabwe, and Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa from 2016 to 2018. Women starting PrEP were randomized to standard adherence support (counselling, two‐way SMS, monthly adherence clubs) or standard support plus drug‐level feedback. Serial in‐depth interviews were conducted among 67 AGYW after 13‐week and 26‐week study visits to explore experiences of stigma, disclosure and PrEP adherence. We analysed data by coding transcripts and memo‐writing and diagramming to summarize themes. Results AGYW described stigma related to sexual activity (e.g. “people say I'm a prostitute”) and being perceived to be living with HIV because of taking antiretrovirals (e.g. “my husband's friends say I'm HIV infected”). Participants who anticipated stigma were reluctant to disclose PrEP use and reported adherence challenges. Disclosure also resulted in stigmatizing experiences. Across all sites, negative descriptions of stigma and disclosure challenges were more common in the first interview. In the second interview, participants often described disclosure as an “empowering” way to combat community‐level PrEP stigma; many said that they proactively discussed PrEP in their communities (e.g. became a “community PrEP ambassador”), which improved their ability to take PrEP and encourage others to use PrEP. These empowering disclosure experiences were facilitated by ongoing HPTN 082 study activities (e.g. counselling sessions, adherence clubs) in which they could discuss PrEP‐related stigma, disclosure and PrEP adherence issues. Conclusions Stigma and disclosure challenges were initial concerns for African AGYW newly initiating PrEP but many were empowered to disclose PrEP use over their first six months of PrEP use, which helped them cope with stigma and feel more able to take PrEP regularly. PrEP programmes can foster disclosure through community and clinic‐based discussion, adherence clubs and activities normalizing sexual behaviour and PrEP use, which can reduce stigma and improve PrEP adherence and thus effectiveness.

Randomised placebo-controlled trials have shown that daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir–emtricitabine reduces the risk of HIV infection. However, this benefit could be counteracted by risk compensation in users of PrEP. We did the PROUD study to assess this effect. PROUD is an open-label randomised trial done at 13 sexual health clinics in England. We enrolled HIV-negative gay and other men who have sex with men who had had anal intercourse without a condom in the previous 90 days. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (245 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg) either immediately or after a deferral period of 1 year. Randomisation was done via web-based access to a central computer-generated list with variable block sizes (stratified by clinical site). Follow-up was quarterly. The primary outcomes for the pilot phase were time to accrue 500 participants and retention; secondary outcomes included incident HIV infection during the deferral period, safety, adherence, and risk compensation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN94465371) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02065986). We enrolled 544 participants (275 in the immediate group, 269 in the deferred group) between Nov 29, 2012, and April 30, 2014. Based on early evidence of effectiveness, the trial steering committee recommended on Oct 13, 2014, that all deferred participants be offered PrEP. Follow-up for HIV incidence was complete for 243 (94%) of 259 patient-years in the immediate group versus 222 (90%) of 245 patient-years in the deferred group. Three HIV infections occurred in the immediate group (1·2/100 person-years) versus 20 in the deferred group (9·0/100 person-years) despite 174 prescriptions of post-exposure prophylaxis in the deferred group (relative reduction 86%, 90% CI 64–96, p=0·0001; absolute difference 7·8/100 person-years, 90% CI 4·3–11·3). 13 men (90% CI 9–23) in a similar population would need access to 1 year of PrEP to avert one HIV infection. We recorded no serious adverse drug reactions; 28 adverse events, most commonly nausea, headache, and arthralgia, resulted in interruption of PrEp. We detected no difference in the occurrence of sexually transmitted infections, including rectal gonorrhoea and chlamydia, between groups, despite a suggestion of risk compensation among some PrEP recipients. In this high incidence population, daily tenofovir–emtricitabine conferred even higher protection against HIV than in placebo-controlled trials, refuting concerns that effectiveness would be less in a real-world setting. There was no evidence of an increase in other sexually transmitted infections. Our findings strongly support the addition of PrEP to the standard of prevention for men who have sex with men at risk of HIV infection. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Public Health England, and Gilead Sciences.

Few studies have sought to understand factors influencing uptake and continuation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among young adults in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of population-based delivery of open-label PrEP. To address this gap, this qualitative study was implemented within the SEARCH study (NCT#01864603) in Kenya and Uganda, which achieved near-universal HIV testing, and offered PrEP in 16 intervention communities beginning in 2016–2017. Focus group discussions (8 groups, n = 88 participants) and in-depth interviews (n = 23) with young adults who initiated or declined PrEP were conducted in five communities, to explore PrEP-related beliefs and attitudes, HIV risk perceptions, motivations for uptake and continuation, and experiences. Grounded theoretical methods were used to analyze data. Young people felt personally vulnerable to HIV, but perceived the severity of HIV to be low, due to the success of antiretroviral therapy (ART): daily pill-taking was more threatening than the disease itself. Motivations for PrEP were highly gendered: young men viewed PrEP as a vehicle for safely pursuing multiple partners, while young women saw PrEP as a means to control risks in the context of engagement in transactional sex and limited agency to negotiate condom use and partner testing. Rumors, HIV/ART-related stigma, and desire for “proof” of efficacy militated against uptake, and many women required partners’ permission to take PrEP. Uptake was motivated by high perceived HIV risk, and beliefs that PrEP use supported life goals. PrEP was often discontinued due to dissolution of partnerships/changing risk, unsupportive partners/peers, or early side effects/pill burden. Despite high perceived risks and interest, PrEP was received with moral ambivalence because of its associations with HIV/ART and stigmatized behaviors. Delivery models that promote youth access, frame messaging on wellness and goals, and foster partner and peer support, may facilitate uptake among young people.

Daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is the use of antiretroviral drugs by HIV-negative people to prevent HIV infection. WHO released new guidelines in 2015 recommending PrEP for all populations at substantial risk of HIV infection. To prepare these guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of values and preferences among populations that might benefit from PrEP, women, heterosexual men, young women and adolescent girls, female sex workers, serodiscordant couples, transgender people and people who inject drugs, and among healthcare providers who may prescribe PrEP. A comprehensive search strategy reviewed three electronic databases of articles and HIV-related conference abstracts (January 1990–April 2015). Data abstraction used standardised forms to categorise by population groups and relevant themes. Of 3068 citations screened, 76 peer-reviewed articles and 28 conference abstracts were included. Geographic coverage was global. Most studies (N = 78) evaluated hypothetical use of PrEP, while 26 studies included individuals who actually took PrEP or placebo. Awareness of PrEP was low, but once participants were presented with information about PrEP, the majority said they would consider using it. Concerns about safety, side effects, cost and effectiveness were the most frequently cited barriers to use. There was little indication of risk compensation. Healthcare providers would consider prescribing PrEP, but need more information before doing so. Findings from a rapidly expanding evidence base suggest that the majority of populations most likely to benefit from PrEP feel positively towards it. These same populations would benefit from overcoming current implementation challenges with the shortest possible delay.