Dataset Information

Oral preexposure prophylaxis continuation, measurement and reporting.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this study was to appropriately plan for rollout and monitor impact of oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). It is important to understand PrEP continuation and come to a consensus on how best to measure PrEP continuation. This study reviews data on PrEP continuation to document how it is reported, and to compare continuation over time and across populations.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health and reviewed abstracts from HIV conferences from 2017 to 2018 for studies reporting primary data on PrEP continuation. Findings were summarized along a PrEP cascade and continuation was presented by population at months 1, 6 and 12, with random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Of 2578 articles and 596 abstracts identified, 41 studies were eligible covering 22 034 individuals. Continuation data were measured and reported inconsistently. Results showed high discontinuation at month 1 and persistent discontinuation at later time points in many studies. Pooled continuation estimates were 66% at month 1 [n = 5348; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 48-82], 63% at month 6 (n = 13 629; 95% CI: 48-77) and 71% at month 12 (n = 14 933; 95% CI: 60-81; higher estimate than previous timepoints due to inclusion of different studies). Adequate data were not available to reliably compare estimates across populations.

Conclusion

This review found that discontinuation at one month was high, suggesting PrEP initiations may be a poor measure of effectiveness. Continuation declined further over time in many studies, indicating existing cross-sectional indicators may not be adequate to understand PrEP use patterns. Studies do not measure continuation consistently, and consensus is needed.

SUBMITTER: Stankevitz K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8635251 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although nonhuman primate studies have shown that simian immunodeficiency virus/simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SIV/SHIV) exposure during preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with oral tenofovir can induce SIV immunity without productive infection, this has not been documented in humans. We evaluated cervicovaginal IgA in Partners PrEP Study participants using a subtype C primary isolate and found that women on PrEP had IgA with higher average human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-neutralizing magnitude than women on placebo (33% versus 7%; P = 0.008). Using a cutoff of ?90% HIV-1 neutralization, 19% of women on-PrEP had HIV-1-neutralizing IgA compared to 0% of women on placebo (P = 0.09). We also estimated HIV-1 exposure and found that the proportion of women with HIV-1-neutralizing IgA was associated with the level of HIV-1 exposure (P = 0.04). Taken together, our data suggest that PrEP and high levels of exposure to HIV may each enhance mucosal HIV-1-specific humoral immune responses in sexually exposed but HIV-1-uninfected individuals. IMPORTANCE:Although there is not yet an effective HIV-1 vaccine, PrEP for at-risk HIV-1-uninfected individuals is a highly efficacious intervention to prevent HIV-1 acquisition and is currently being recommended by the CDC and WHO for all individuals at high risk of HIV-1 acquisition. We previously demonstrated that PrEP use does not enhance peripheral blood HIV-1-specific T-cell responses in HIV-exposed individuals. Here, we evaluate for cervicovaginal HIV-neutralizing IgA responses in genital mucosal secretions of HIV-exposed women, which is likely a more relevant site than peripheral blood for observation of potentially protective immune events occurring in response to sexual HIV-1 exposure for various periods. Furthermore, we assess for host response in the context of longitudinal quantification of HIV-1 exposure. We report that HIV-neutralizing IgA is significantly correlated with higher HIV-1 exposure and, furthermore, that there are more women with HIV-1-neutralizing IgA in the on-PrEP group than in the placebo group.