Kevin M Maloney1,2, David Benkeser3, Patrick S Sullivan1, Colleen Kelley4, Travis Sanchez1, Samuel M Jenness1. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 4. Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population-level estimates of sexual network mixing for parameterizing prediction models of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) effectiveness are needed to inform prevention of HIV transmission among men who have sex with men (MSM). Estimates obtained by egocentric sampling are vulnerable to information bias due to incomplete respondent knowledge. METHODS: We estimated patterns of serosorting and PrEP sorting among MSM in the United States using data from a 2017-2019 egocentric sexual network study. Respondents served as proxies to report the HIV status and PrEP use of recent sexual partners. We contrasted results from a complete-case analysis (unknown HIV and PrEP excluded) versus a bias analysis with respondent-reported data stochastically reclassified to simulate unobserved self-reported data from sexual partners. RESULTS: We found strong evidence of preferential partnering across analytical approaches. The bias analysis showed concordance between sexual partners of HIV diagnosis and PrEP use statuses for MSM with diagnosed HIV (39%; 95% simulation interval: 31, 46), MSM who used PrEP (32%; 21, 37), and MSM who did not use PrEP (83%; 79, 87). The fraction of partners with diagnosed HIV was higher among MSM who used PrEP (11%; 9, 14) compared with MSM who did not use PrEP (4%; 3, 5). Comparatively, across all strata of respondents, the complete-case analysis overestimated the fractions of partners with diagnosed HIV or PrEP use. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence consistent with HIV and PrEP sorting among MSM, which may decrease the population-level effectiveness of PrEP. Bias analyses can improve mixing estimates for parameterization of transmission models.
BACKGROUND: Population-level estimates of sexual network mixing for parameterizing prediction models of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) effectiveness are needed to inform prevention of HIV transmission among men who have sex with men (MSM). Estimates obtained by egocentric sampling are vulnerable to information bias due to incomplete respondent knowledge. METHODS: We estimated patterns of serosorting and PrEP sorting among MSM in the United States using data from a 2017-2019 egocentric sexual network study. Respondents served as proxies to report the HIV status and PrEP use of recent sexual partners. We contrasted results from a complete-case analysis (unknown HIV and PrEP excluded) versus a bias analysis with respondent-reported data stochastically reclassified to simulate unobserved self-reported data from sexual partners. RESULTS: We found strong evidence of preferential partnering across analytical approaches. The bias analysis showed concordance between sexual partners of HIV diagnosis and PrEP use statuses for MSM with diagnosed HIV (39%; 95% simulation interval: 31, 46), MSM who used PrEP (32%; 21, 37), and MSM who did not use PrEP (83%; 79, 87). The fraction of partners with diagnosed HIV was higher among MSM who used PrEP (11%; 9, 14) compared with MSM who did not use PrEP (4%; 3, 5). Comparatively, across all strata of respondents, the complete-case analysis overestimated the fractions of partners with diagnosed HIV or PrEP use. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence consistent with HIV and PrEP sorting among MSM, which may decrease the population-level effectiveness of PrEP. Bias analyses can improve mixing estimates for parameterization of transmission models.
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: 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: Samuel M Jenness; Kevin M Maloney; Dawn K Smith; Karen W Hoover; Steven M Goodreau; Eli S Rosenberg; Kevin M Weiss; Albert Y Liu; Darcy W Rao; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Peter L Anderson; David V Glidden; Albert Liu; Susan Buchbinder; Javier R Lama; Juan Vicente Guanira; Vanessa McMahan; Lane R Bushman; Martín Casapía; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Valdilea G Veloso; Kenneth H Mayer; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Esper Georges Kallás; Robert M Grant Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Michelle Shardell; Eleanor M Simonsick; Gregory E Hicks; Barbara Resnick; Luigi Ferrucci; Jay Magaziner Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Michael E Newcomb; Melissa C Mongrella; Benjamin Weis; Samuel J McMillen; Brian Mustanski Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Caitlin E Kennedy; Laura J Bernard; Kathryn E Muessig; Kelika A Konda; Elie A Akl; Ying-Ru Lo; Antonio Gerbase; Kevin R O'Reilly Journal: J Sex Transm Dis Date: 2013-04-14
Authors: Linwei Wang; Nasheed Moqueet; Gilles Lambert; Daniel Grace; Ricky Rodrigues; Joseph Cox; Nathan J Lachowsky; Syed W Noor; Heather L Armstrong; Darrell H S Tan; Ann N Burchell; Huiting Ma; Herak Apelian; Jesse Knight; Marc Messier-Peet; Jody Jollimore; Stefan Baral; Trevor A Hart; David M Moore; Sharmistha Mishra Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 4.897