| Literature DB >> 32221469 |
William C Goedel1, Matthew J Mimiaga2,3, Maximilian R F King1, Steven A Safren3,4, Kenneth H Mayer3,5,6, Philip A Chan7, Brandon D L Marshall8, Katie B Biello1,2,3.
Abstract
Little is known about the potential population-level impact of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among cisgender male sex workers (MSWs), a high-risk subset of cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM). Using an agent-based model, we simulated HIV transmission among cisgender MSM in Rhode Island to determine the impacts of PrEP implementation where cisgender MSWs were equally ("standard expansion") or five times as likely ("focused expansion") to initiate PrEP compared to other cisgender MSM. Without PrEP, the model predicted 920 new HIV infections over a decade, or an average incidence of 0.39 per 100 person-years. In a focused expansion scenario where 15% of at-risk cisgender MSM used PrEP, the total number of new HIV infections was reduced by 58.1% at a cost of $57,180 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Focused expansion of PrEP use among cisgender MSWs may be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for reducing HIV incidence in the broader population of cisgender MSM.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32221469 PMCID: PMC7101419 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62694-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Trends in the prevalence of HIV infections from January 2015 to December 2024 among (a) all gay, bisexual, and other cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM); (b) cisgender male sex workers; (c) clients of cisgender male sex workers; and (d) all other cisgender MSM in a scenario with no PrEP implementation.
Figure 2Number of incident HIV infections between January 2015 and December 2024 among (A) all gay, bisexual, and other cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM); (B) cisgender male sex workers; (C) cisgender clients of male sex workers; and (D) all other cisgender MSM by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) coverage level (15%, 20%, and 25%) and targeting scenario (standard and focused expansion).
Figure 3Person-years of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use per averted HIV infection among gay, bisexual, and other cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) in Rhode Island by coverage level (15%, 20%, or 25%) and targeting scenario (standard uptake and focused expansion).
Figure 4Incremental cost of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation (x-axis) and the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (y-axis) for each expansion scenario. Note: The dashed line represents the values for cost of PrEP implementation and the number of QALYs gained associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $100,000 per QALY gained. Scenarios above the line are deemed cost-effective based on this threshold.