Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2018
The Effect of PrEP on HIV Incidence Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in the Context of Condom Use, Treatment as Prevention, and Seroadaptive Practices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
LeVasseur Michael T, Goldstein Neal D, Tabb Loni P, Olivieri-Mui Brianne L, Welles Seth L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective tool in preventing HIV infection among high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM). It is unknown how effective PrEP is in the context of other implemented HIV prevention strategies, including condom use, seroadaption, and treatment as prevention (TasP). We evaluate the impact of increasing uptake of PrEP in conjunction with established prevention strategies on HIV incidence in a high-risk population of MSM through simulation.
METHODS: Agent-based simulation models representing the sexual behavior of high-risk, urban MSM in the United States over the period of 1 year were used to evaluate the effect of PrEP on HIV infection rates. Simulations included data for 10,000 MSM and compared increasing rates of PrEP uptake under 8 prevention paradigms: no additional strategies, TasP, condom use, seroadaptive behavior, and combinations thereof.
RESULTS: We observed a mean of 103.2 infections per 10,000 MSM in the absence of any prevention method. PrEP uptake at 25% without any additional prevention strategies prevented 30.7% of infections. In the absence of PrEP, TasP, condom use, and seroadaptive behavior independently prevented 27.1%, 48.8%, and 37.7% of infections, respectively, and together prevented 72.2%. The addition of PrEP to the 3 aforementioned prevention methods, at 25% uptake, prevented an additional 5.0% of infections.
CONCLUSIONS: To achieve a 25% reduction in HIV infections by 2020, HIV prevention efforts should focus on significantly scaling up access to PrEP in addition to HIV testing, access to antiretroviral therapy, and promoting condom use.
METHODS: Agent-based simulation models representing the sexual behavior of high-risk, urban MSM in the United States over the period of 1 year were used to evaluate the effect of PrEP on HIV infection rates. Simulations included data for 10,000 MSM and compared increasing rates of PrEP uptake under 8 prevention paradigms: no additional strategies, TasP, condom use, seroadaptive behavior, and combinations thereof.
RESULTS: We observed a mean of 103.2 infections per 10,000 MSM in the absence of any prevention method. PrEP uptake at 25% without any additional prevention strategies prevented 30.7% of infections. In the absence of PrEP, TasP, condom use, and seroadaptive behavior independently prevented 27.1%, 48.8%, and 37.7% of infections, respectively, and together prevented 72.2%. The addition of PrEP to the 3 aforementioned prevention methods, at 25% uptake, prevented an additional 5.0% of infections.
CONCLUSIONS: To achieve a 25% reduction in HIV infections by 2020, HIV prevention efforts should focus on significantly scaling up access to PrEP in addition to HIV testing, access to antiretroviral therapy, and promoting condom use.