English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) targeting high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM) has been shown to be a cost-effective HIV control measure. However, the approach could be a challenge in low HIV incidence places with a low proportion of high-risk MSM. To examine the impact of PrEP in such setting in Asia, we developed an epidemic model and conducted cost-effectiveness analysis using empirical multicentre clinical and HIV sequence data from HIV-infected MSM in Hong Kong, in conjunction with behavioural data of local MSM. Without PrEP, the HIV incidence (per 100 person-years) would increase from 1.1 to 1.6 between 2011 and 2021. PrEP could avert 3–63% of total new infections in a five-year period (2017–2021), the variability of which depends on the implementation strategies and combination with test-and-treat. However, under current market drug price in 2016, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG) of PrEP (USD1583136/QALYG) is almost 3 times higher than test-and-treat intervention alone (USD396874/QALYG). Assuming 93% fall of PrEP drug price and in combination with test-and-treat, putting 30% of MSM on non-targeting PrEP would be more feasible, cost-effective (USD268915/QALYG), and could avert more new infections (40%). PrEP could contribute to HIV epidemic control in a low incidence place.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for MSM in low HIV incidence places: should high risk individuals be targeted?