PREFERENCES FOR LONG-ACTING PREP ADMINISTRATION AMONG MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN IN THE UNITED STATES
Author(s)
John F. Bridges, PhD1, Nicola B. Campoamor, BA1, Anne L. Schuster, PhD1, Iaah L. Lucas, MPH2, Jennifer L. Glick, PhD3, Leigh Ragone, MS4, Supriya Sarkar, BS, MPH, PhD4, Kimberley Brown, PharmD4, Vani Vannappagari, PharmD4, Travis H. Sanchez, DVM2;
1The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 2Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 3Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4ViiV Healthcare, Durham, NC, USA
1The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 2Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 3Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4ViiV Healthcare, Durham, NC, USA
OBJECTIVES: Long-acting injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis (LA-PrEP) effectively prevents HIV acquisition, yet limited evidence exists on preferences for its administration. We sought to quantify preferences for LA-PrEP administration among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States (US).
METHODS: We fielded a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) in which participants evaluated paired LA-PrEP profiles. The D-efficient experimental design included 30 choice tasks organized into three blocks. The DCE included five attributes: administrator (clinician, pharmacist, self-administered), route (subcutaneously via abdomen, intramuscularly via buttocks, intramuscularly via thigh), number of injections (1 or 2), side effect risk (20%, 40%, 60% risk), and frequency of administration (every 2 months, 4 months, 6 months). We recruited adult cisgender MSM from the 2023-2024 American Men’s Internet Survey who expressed interest in LA-PrEP to complete the DCE. We analyzed preferences using conditional logistic regression and quantified preference strength using maximum acceptable risk (MAR), with side effect risk as the reference point.
RESULTS: There were 504 MSM who completed the survey. Of these, 63% were currently using PrEP, 81% have considered taking LA-PrEP, and 6% had prior experience with LA-PrEP. They varied in age (37% between the ages of 15 and 39 years), race/ethnicity (28% identified as Black, Hispanic, or other race/ethnicity), and insurance status (68% were privately insured). Frequency of administration of LA-PrEP was most important; the MAR was 16% for changing frequency from every 2 months to every 6 months. Clinician-administered PrEP injections were preferred over self-administration (MAR=6%). Fewer injections and administration intramuscularly via the thigh were also preferred over subcutaneous administration via the abdomen (the MAR was 5% and 4% respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: MSM in the US are willing to make trade-offs to obtain their preferred method of LA-PrEP administration. Providers should consider these preferences when discussing LA-PrEP options with current and prospective recipients to support patient-centered care.
METHODS: We fielded a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) in which participants evaluated paired LA-PrEP profiles. The D-efficient experimental design included 30 choice tasks organized into three blocks. The DCE included five attributes: administrator (clinician, pharmacist, self-administered), route (subcutaneously via abdomen, intramuscularly via buttocks, intramuscularly via thigh), number of injections (1 or 2), side effect risk (20%, 40%, 60% risk), and frequency of administration (every 2 months, 4 months, 6 months). We recruited adult cisgender MSM from the 2023-2024 American Men’s Internet Survey who expressed interest in LA-PrEP to complete the DCE. We analyzed preferences using conditional logistic regression and quantified preference strength using maximum acceptable risk (MAR), with side effect risk as the reference point.
RESULTS: There were 504 MSM who completed the survey. Of these, 63% were currently using PrEP, 81% have considered taking LA-PrEP, and 6% had prior experience with LA-PrEP. They varied in age (37% between the ages of 15 and 39 years), race/ethnicity (28% identified as Black, Hispanic, or other race/ethnicity), and insurance status (68% were privately insured). Frequency of administration of LA-PrEP was most important; the MAR was 16% for changing frequency from every 2 months to every 6 months. Clinician-administered PrEP injections were preferred over self-administration (MAR=6%). Fewer injections and administration intramuscularly via the thigh were also preferred over subcutaneous administration via the abdomen (the MAR was 5% and 4% respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: MSM in the US are willing to make trade-offs to obtain their preferred method of LA-PrEP administration. Providers should consider these preferences when discussing LA-PrEP options with current and prospective recipients to support patient-centered care.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
PCR6
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Infectious Disease (non-vaccine), SDC: Reproductive & Sexual Health