ReviewCureus2026
Effectiveness of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in the Prevention of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials With Narrative Synthesis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention has advanced substantially, yet ending new transmissions by 2030 remains uncertain. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has high biological efficacy, but real-world effectiveness varies due to adherence, access, and delivery barriers. This review aims to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of PrEP in reducing HIV incidence and to discuss its implications for achieving the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 2030 targets. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidance, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published between January 2010 and January 2025 assessing PrEP efficacy in high-risk populations. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising more than 20,000 participants across multiple continents were included. Across oral tenofovir-based PrEP trials, risk reduction ranged from 49% to 86% in intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, with markedly higher efficacy in adherence-defined subgroups (e.g., up to 92-99% in trials with pharmacokinetic confirmation). Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) was superior to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) in two large RCTs, with relative risk reduction up to 89% and high observed adherence consistent with clinic-based dosing. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate (gastrointestinal symptoms, headache), with expected renal marker changes in some oral PrEP trials and injection-site reactions for CAB-LA; no consistent evidence of risk compensation was observed. PrEP is highly effective when taken as prescribed, but achieving population-level impact aligned with UNAIDS targets requires scale-up, improved access, and interventions that support persistence and adherence, including expanded delivery models and longer-acting options.
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.