Growth in Proportion and Disparities of HIV PrEP Use Among Key Populations Identified in the United States National Goals: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Published Surveys.
Adolescent
Drug Users
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
HIV Infections
/ prevention & control
Homosexuality, Male
/ psychology
Humans
Male
Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis
/ statistics & numerical data
Safe Sex
/ statistics & numerical data
Sexual and Gender Minorities
/ statistics & numerical data
Substance Abuse, Intravenous
/ psychology
United States
Young Adult
Journal
Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)
ISSN: 1944-7884
Titre abrégé: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100892005
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2020
01 08 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
25
3
2020
medline:
17
2
2021
entrez:
25
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among populations most vulnerable to HIV as identified in the national HIV prevention goals is not fully known. This systematic review assessed trends of lifetime self-reported PrEP use and disparities among key populations. We used the CDC HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis cumulative database of electronic and manual searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2019 to identify English-language primary studies reporting PrEP use. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias with the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We estimated pooled proportions and crude/adjusted odds ratio. We identified 95 eligible studies including 95,854 US-based survey respondents. A few studies (6.3%) focused on persons who inject drugs. In 2015-2017, men who have sex with men (MSM) had highest proportion of individuals who used PrEP over their lifetime [13.9% (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 21.1), k (number of surveys) = 49] followed by Hispanic/Latinos [11.5 (7.1 to 18.1), 12], transgender women [11.2 (5.8 to 20.6), 5], and blacks [9.9 (8.3 to 11.8), 18]. Odds of PrEP use increased by 34%/year [odds ratio = 1.34/year (95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.64)] and significantly increased over time among MSM [1.53/year (1.21-1.93)] and blacks [1.44 (1.13-1.83)]. People in the Southern United States [9.9 (4.7-19.7), 8] and youth [7.3 (4.7-11.2), 8] had lower rates and did not demonstrate growth [0.94 (0.29-3.18); 0.82 (0.43-1.55)]. Odds of reporting lifetime PrEP use was twice [2.07 (1.27-3.38)] as great among MSM than non-MSM. Proportions of PrEP use in published surveys have been growing, but remain low for people in the Southern United States and youth, and understudied in persons who inject drugs. Limitations include few studies in certain years, whereas strengths include a large number of respondents. Culturally tailored approaches targeting vulnerable populations are essential in increasing PrEP use to reduce disparities in HIV acquisition.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among populations most vulnerable to HIV as identified in the national HIV prevention goals is not fully known. This systematic review assessed trends of lifetime self-reported PrEP use and disparities among key populations.
METHODS
We used the CDC HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis cumulative database of electronic and manual searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2019 to identify English-language primary studies reporting PrEP use. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias with the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We estimated pooled proportions and crude/adjusted odds ratio.
RESULTS
We identified 95 eligible studies including 95,854 US-based survey respondents. A few studies (6.3%) focused on persons who inject drugs. In 2015-2017, men who have sex with men (MSM) had highest proportion of individuals who used PrEP over their lifetime [13.9% (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 21.1), k (number of surveys) = 49] followed by Hispanic/Latinos [11.5 (7.1 to 18.1), 12], transgender women [11.2 (5.8 to 20.6), 5], and blacks [9.9 (8.3 to 11.8), 18]. Odds of PrEP use increased by 34%/year [odds ratio = 1.34/year (95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.64)] and significantly increased over time among MSM [1.53/year (1.21-1.93)] and blacks [1.44 (1.13-1.83)]. People in the Southern United States [9.9 (4.7-19.7), 8] and youth [7.3 (4.7-11.2), 8] had lower rates and did not demonstrate growth [0.94 (0.29-3.18); 0.82 (0.43-1.55)]. Odds of reporting lifetime PrEP use was twice [2.07 (1.27-3.38)] as great among MSM than non-MSM.
CONCLUSIONS
Proportions of PrEP use in published surveys have been growing, but remain low for people in the Southern United States and youth, and understudied in persons who inject drugs. Limitations include few studies in certain years, whereas strengths include a large number of respondents. Culturally tailored approaches targeting vulnerable populations are essential in increasing PrEP use to reduce disparities in HIV acquisition.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32205721
doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002345
pii: 00126334-202008010-00007
pmc: PMC8022293
mid: NIHMS1673359
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
379-386Subventions
Organisme : Intramural CDC HHS
ID : CC999999
Pays : United States
Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 15;61(10):1601-3
pubmed: 26334052
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 30;363(27):2587-99
pubmed: 21091279
AIDS Care. 2014 Apr;26(4):411-5
pubmed: 24033118
JAMA. 2015 Dec 8;314(22):2373-83
pubmed: 26647259
JAMA. 2016 Dec 6;316(21):2214-2236
pubmed: 27923088
Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 17;6(1):228
pubmed: 29149908
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Jan;176(1):75-84
pubmed: 26571482
Biomol Ther (Seoul). 2017 Jul 1;25(4):367-373
pubmed: 28208010
BMJ Open. 2019 May 24;9(5):e024212
pubmed: 31129574
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019 Apr 1;80(4):386-393
pubmed: 30570528
AIDS. 2018 Nov 13;32(17):2633-2635
pubmed: 30096073
Lancet. 2016 Jan 2;387(10013):53-60
pubmed: 26364263
Psychol Methods. 2006 Jun;11(2):193-206
pubmed: 16784338
J Evid Based Med. 2015 Feb;8(1):2-10
pubmed: 25594108
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120