Aaron J Siegler1, Farah Mouhanna2, Robertino Mera Giler3, Kevin Weiss4, Elizabeth Pembleton4, Jodie Guest4, Jeb Jones4, Amanda Castel5, Howa Yeung6, Michael Kramer4, Scott McCallister3, Patrick S Sullivan4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: asiegle@emory.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. 3. Pharmacovigilance & Epidemiology, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. 6. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The number of individuals who have started a regimen for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States is not well characterized but has been on the rise since 2012. This analysis assesses the distribution of PrEP use nationally and among subgroups. METHODS: A validated algorithm quantifying tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine for PrEP in the United States was applied to a national prescription database to determine the quarterly prevalence of PrEP use. HIV diagnoses from 2016 were used as an epidemiological proxy for PrEP need. The PrEP-to-need ratio (PnR) was defined as the number of PrEP users divided by new HIV diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 70,395 individuals used PrEP in the fourth quarter of 2017: 67,166 males and 3229 females. Nationally, prevalence of PrEP use was 26/100,000 (range across states per 100,000 [RAS/100k]: 4-73) and the PnR was 1.8 (RAS: 0.5-6.6). Prevalence of PrEP use among males and females, respectively, was 50/100,000 and 2/100,000 (RAS/100k: 7-143 and 0.3-7) and PnR was 2.1 and 0.4 (RAS: 0.6-7.1 and 0.1-4.0). Prevalence of PrEP use was lowest among individuals aged less than or equal to 24 and more than or equal to 55 years (15/100,000 and 6/100,000, RAS/100k: 1-45 and 0.4-14), with PnR 0.9 and 1.5 (RAS: 0.2-5.6 and 0.3-7.0). The Northeast had the highest PnR (3.3); the South had the lowest (1.0). States with Medicaid expansion had more than double the PnR than states without expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggest that females, individuals aged less than or equal to 24 years and residents of the South had lower levels of PrEP use relative to epidemic need. These results are ecological, and misclassification may attenuate results. PnR is useful for future assessments of HIV prevention strategy uptake.
PURPOSE: The number of individuals who have started a regimen for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States is not well characterized but has been on the rise since 2012. This analysis assesses the distribution of PrEP use nationally and among subgroups. METHODS: A validated algorithm quantifying tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine for PrEP in the United States was applied to a national prescription database to determine the quarterly prevalence of PrEP use. HIV diagnoses from 2016 were used as an epidemiological proxy for PrEP need. The PrEP-to-need ratio (PnR) was defined as the number of PrEP users divided by new HIV diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 70,395 individuals used PrEP in the fourth quarter of 2017: 67,166 males and 3229 females. Nationally, prevalence of PrEP use was 26/100,000 (range across states per 100,000 [RAS/100k]: 4-73) and the PnR was 1.8 (RAS: 0.5-6.6). Prevalence of PrEP use among males and females, respectively, was 50/100,000 and 2/100,000 (RAS/100k: 7-143 and 0.3-7) and PnR was 2.1 and 0.4 (RAS: 0.6-7.1 and 0.1-4.0). Prevalence of PrEP use was lowest among individuals aged less than or equal to 24 and more than or equal to 55 years (15/100,000 and 6/100,000, RAS/100k: 1-45 and 0.4-14), with PnR 0.9 and 1.5 (RAS: 0.2-5.6 and 0.3-7.0). The Northeast had the highest PnR (3.3); the South had the lowest (1.0). States with Medicaid expansion had more than double the PnR than states without expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggest that females, individuals aged less than or equal to 24 years and residents of the South had lower levels of PrEP use relative to epidemic need. These results are ecological, and misclassification may attenuate results. PnR is useful for future assessments of HIV prevention strategy uptake.
Authors: Robert M Grant; Javier R Lama; Peter L Anderson; Vanessa McMahan; Albert Y Liu; Lorena Vargas; Pedro Goicochea; Martín Casapía; Juan Vicente Guanira-Carranza; Maria E Ramirez-Cardich; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Telmo Fernández; Valdilea G Veloso; Susan P Buchbinder; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Kenneth H Mayer; Esper Georges Kallás; K Rivet Amico; Kathleen Mulligan; Lane R Bushman; Robert J Hance; Carmela Ganoza; Patricia Defechereux; Brian Postle; Furong Wang; J Jeff McConnell; Jia-Hua Zheng; Jeanny Lee; James F Rooney; Howard S Jaffe; Ana I Martinez; David N Burns; David V Glidden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Samuel M Jenness; Steven M Goodreau; Eli Rosenberg; Emily N Beylerian; Karen W Hoover; Dawn K Smith; Patrick Sullivan Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Julia L Marcus; Leo B Hurley; Charles Bradley Hare; Dong Phuong Nguyen; Tony Phengrasamy; Michael J Silverberg; Juliet E Stoltey; Jonathan E Volk Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Brett Hanscom; Holly E Janes; Peter D Guarino; Ying Huang; Elizabeth R Brown; Ying Qing Chen; Scott M Hammer; Peter B Gilbert; Deborah J Donnell Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jonathan E Volk; Julia L Marcus; Tony Phengrasamy; Derek Blechinger; Dong Phuong Nguyen; Stephen Follansbee; C Bradley Hare Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Dawn K Smith; Michelle Van Handel; Richard J Wolitski; Jo Ellen Stryker; H Irene Hall; Joseph Prejean; Linda J Koenig; Linda A Valleroy Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Emily A Arnold; Patrick Hazelton; Tim Lane; Katerina A Christopoulos; Gabriel R Galindo; Wayne T Steward; Stephen F Morin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sheena McCormack; David T Dunn; Monica Desai; David I Dolling; Mitzy Gafos; Richard Gilson; Ann K Sullivan; Amanda Clarke; Iain Reeves; Gabriel Schembri; Nicola Mackie; Christine Bowman; Charles J Lacey; Vanessa Apea; Michael Brady; Julie Fox; Stephen Taylor; Simone Antonucci; Saye H Khoo; James Rooney; Anthony Nardone; Martin Fisher; Alan McOwan; Andrew N Phillips; Anne M Johnson; Brian Gazzard; Owen N Gill Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Meredith E Clement; Barbara E Johnston; Cedar Eagle; Destry Taylor; Anna Lina Rosengren; Benjamin A Goldstein; Arlene C Seña Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Tiara C Willie; Jamila K Stockman; Danya E Keene; Sarah K Calabrese; Kamila A Alexander; Trace S Kershaw Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jeffrey A Kelly; Yuri A Amirkhanian; Jennifer L Walsh; Kevin D Brown; Katherine G Quinn; Andrew E Petroll; Broderick M Pearson; A Noel Rosado; Thom Ertl Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2020-03-13
Authors: Julie E Myers; Zoe R Edelstein; Demetre C Daskalakis; Anisha D Gandhi; Kavita Misra; Alexis V Rivera; Paul M Salcuni; Kathleen Scanlin; Chi-Chi Udeagu; Sarah L Braunstein Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Alyson L Singleton; Brandon D L Marshall; Xiao Zang; Amy S Nunn; William C Goedel Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 5.078