| |
PrEP for Individuals who Inject Drugs
|
| |
| |
https://www.natap.org/2022/HIV/051822_4.htm
---------------------------
Interestingly, we found that PrEP usage among IDUs in NYC may neither have as significant an impact nor provide the same value for resources expended as prioritization to the MSM population.......PrEP prioritized to IDUs alone results in 2% of new infections being averted over 20 years. The average annual cost is $610 million and the cost-per-infection averted is estimated to be more than $9 million. PrEP prioritized to only higher-risk heterosexuals, as defined earlier (Table 1) results in 5% of new infections averted with an average annual cost of $6500 million and a cost-per-infection averted estimated to be $43 million. Compared with PrEP for all at-risk persons, with a cost of $7600 million annually, these two strategies retain 8 and 21% of the maximal effect of PrEP at 8 and 85% of the annual cost, respectively." https://www.natap.org/2014/HIV/092914_01.htm
"Once-daily oral tenofovir decreased the risk of HIV infection by 48⋅9% in injecting drug users......We confirmed HIV infection in 52 participants (17 [33%] in the tenofovir group, 35 [67%] in the placebo group) indicating a 51⋅8% reduction in HIV incidence (95% CI 15⋅3-73⋅7; p=0⋅01) in the tenofovir group compared with the placebo group in the intention-to-treat analysis. https://www.natap.org/2013/HIV/061413_03.htm
We interviewed persons who inject drugs (PWID) to understand perceptions of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection. Knowledge of PrEP was poor. Patients felt that PrEP was for sexual intercourse rather than injection drug use, and PWID managed on medications for opioid use disorder felt that they had no need for PrEP. https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/1/ofab541/6424885?searchresult=1
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
