ArticleSexually transmitted infections2025
Foundations for progress: insights from the PrEP Impact Trial supporting change to PrEP delivery and implementation in England.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) Impact Trial demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of PrEP in England, providing critical evidence to inform national commissioning. Using trial data, we assess regional variation in delivery and examine how service provision differences impacted outcomes across the PrEP Prevention Care Continuum (PPCC) (ie, those at risk of HIV acquisition, those eligible for PrEP, PrEP uptake and coverage).
methodsWe assessed PPCC outcomes among HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) attending trial sexual health services (SHS) from October 2017 to February 2020. Outcomes were stratified by SHS region (London, Outside London) and MSM throughput, defined as the mean annual number of MSM attendees, to approximate differences in service structure and provision based on attendee composition. HIV incidence per 100 person-years was calculated for SHS in and outside of London, restricted to those with ≥2 visits during the study period.
resultsAcross 157 trial SHS, 165 270 MSM attended during the study period, of whom 20 349 were enrolled in the trial. HIV incidence was calculated among 102 842 MSM, including 17 770 trial participants. PrEP uptake ranged from 42% to 92%, and coverage from 16% to 31%, varying by MSM throughput strata and consistently higher among London SHS. HIV incidence was significantly lower in trial participants (London: 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.14); Outside London: 0.22 (0.13 to 0.36)) versus non-trial attendees (London: 0.98 (0.88 to 1.10); Outside London: 0.93 (0.82 to 1.04)).
conclusionsThis analysis supports ongoing enhancements to PrEP delivery across England. Findings highlight the success of varied service models, including those not traditionally focused on MSM populations. High HIV seroconversions among individuals without clear markers of risk for HIV acquisition support the need for broader, less restrictive PrEP access, aligned with recent updates to national guidance. To evaluate the long-term impact of PrEP on HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence, consistent, high-quality data reporting to national surveillance remains essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.