Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32888443›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2020

Use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in England: data from the AURAH2 prospective study.

Nadia Hanum, Valentina Cambiano, Janey Sewell, Andrew N Phillips, Alison J Rodger, Andrew Speakman, Nneka Nwokolo, David Asboe, Richard Gilson, Amanda Clarke and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nadia HanumInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: nadia.hanum.17@ucl.ac.uk.
Valentina CambianoInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Janey SewellInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew N PhillipsInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Alison J RodgerInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew SpeakmanInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nneka NwokoloChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David AsboeChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Richard GilsonInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK; Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Amanda ClarkeBrighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK; Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Ada R MiltzInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Simon CollinsHIV i-Base, London, UK.
Fiona C LampeInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
AURAH2 Study Group
University College London · GBChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince October, 2017 (and until October, 2020), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has only been available in England, UK, through the PrEP Impact Trial, by purchasing it from some genitourinary medicine clinics, or via online sources. Here we report changes from 2013 to 2018 in PrEP and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) awareness and use among HIV-negative gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and assess predictors of PrEP initiation.

methodsIn the prospective cohort study Attitudes to, and Understanding of Risk of Acquisition of HIV 2 (AURAH2), MSM were recruited from three sexual health clinics in England: two in London and one in Brighton, UK. Men were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older and HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status. Participants self-completed a baseline paper questionnaire at one of the three clinics between July 30, 2013, and April 30, 2016, and were subsequently able to complete 4-monthly and annual online questionnaires, which were available between March 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, and collected information on sociodemographics, health and wellbeing, HIV status, and sexual behaviours. PrEP and PEP use in the previous 12 months was obtained at baseline and in annual questionnaires. We assessed trends over calendar time in 3-month periods from first enrolment to the end of the study period (July-December, 2013, was counted as one period) in use of PrEP and PEP using generalised estimating equation logistic models. We used age-adjusted Poisson models to assess factors associated with PrEP initiation among participants who reported never having used PrEP at baseline.

findings1162 men completed a baseline questionnaire, among whom the mean age was 34 years (SD 10·4), and of those with available data, 942 (82%) of 1150 were white, 1076 (94%) of 1150 were gay, and 857 (74%) of 1159 were university educated. 622 (54%) of 1162 men completed at least one follow-up online questionnaire, of whom 483 (78%) completed at least one annual questionnaire. Overall, PrEP use in the past year increased from 0% (none of 28 respondents) in July to December, 2013, to 43% (23 of 53) in January to March, 2018. The corresponding increase in PrEP use among men who reported condomless sex with two or more partners was from 0% (none of 13 respondents) to 78% (21 of 27). PEP use peaked in April to June, 2016, at 28% (41 of 147 respondents), but decreased thereafter to 8% (four of 53) in January to March, 2018. Among 460 men who had never used PrEP at baseline, predictors of initiating PrEP included age 40-44 years (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 4·25, 95% CI 1·14-15·79) and 45 years and older (3·59, 1·08-11·97) versus younger than 25 years; and after adjustment for age, recent HIV test (5·17, 1·89-14·08), condomless sex (5·01, 2·16-11·63), condomless sex with two or more partners (5·43, 2·99-9·86), group sex (1·69, 1·01-2·84), and non-injection chemsex-related drugs use (2·86, 1·67-4·91) in the past 3 months, PEP use (4·69, 2·83-7·79) in the past 12 months, and calendar year (Jan 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018 vs July 30, 2013, to Dec 31, 2015: 21·19, 9·48-47·35). Non-employment (0·35, 0·14-0·91) and unstable or no housing (vs homeowner 0·13, 0·02-0·95) were associated with reduced rates of PrEP initiation after adjustment for age. About half of PrEP was obtained via the internet, even after the PrEP Impact trial had started (11 [48%] of 23 respondents in January to March, 2018).

interpretationPrEP awareness and use increased substantially from 2013 to 2018 among a cohort of MSM in England. Improving access to PrEP by routine commissioning by National Health Service England could increase PrEP use among all eligible MSM, but should include public health strategies to target socioeconomic and demographic disparities in knowledge and use of PrEP.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultEnglandHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPre-Exposure ProphylaxisProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32888443
PMCPMC7462627
OpenAlexW3082315098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.