4.1 Article

Preparing for PrEP: estimating the size of the population eligible for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in England

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 95, 期 7, 页码 484-487

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2019-054009

关键词

gay men; HIV; surveillance; policy; public health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The size of the population of men who have sex with men (MSM) who may be eligible for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (HIV-PrEP) in England remains unknown. To plan for a national PrEP implementation trial, we estimated the number of MSM attending sexual health clinics (SHCs) that may be eligible for HIV-PrEP in England. Methods Sexually transmitted infection (STI) surveillance data from 2010 to 2015 from the GUMCAD surveillance system were used to estimate the annual number of HIV-negative MSM who may be eligible for HIV-PrEP in England. Based on national eligibility criteria, we identified HIV-negative MSM attending SHCs with a HIV-negative test in the past year and used diagnosed bacterial STI (past year) in this group as a proxy for condomless sex and eligibility for HIV-PrEP. We estimated HIV incidence per 100 person-years (py) in these groups in 2014. Results During 2010-2015, the number of HIV-negative MSM attending SHCs with a HIV-negative test in the past year doubled from 14 643 to 29 023, and HIV incidence in this group was 1.9 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.2) per 100 py in 2014. In the same period, the subgroup with a bacterial STI diagnosis (past year), and therefore considered potentially eligible for HIV-PrEP in this analysis, increased from 4365 (30%) to 10 276 (35%). HIV incidence in this subgroup was 3.3 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0) per 100 py in 2014. Conclusions In 2015, approximately 10 000 HIV-negative MSM were considered potentially eligible for HIV-PrEP based on clinic history in GUMCAD. These data were used to inform the initial recruitment target for the PrEP Impact Trial and will inform future evaluations at a population level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据