PREFERENCES FOR LONG-ACTING PREP SIDE EFFECTS AMONG MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN IN THE UNITED STATES
Author(s)
Anne L. Schuster, PhD1, Nicola B. Campoamor, BA1, Iaah L. Lucas, MPH2, Jennifer L. Glick, PhD3, Leigh Ragone, MS4, Supriya Sarkar, BS, MPH, PhD4, Kimberley Brown, PharmD4, Vani Vannappagari, PhD4, Travis H. Sanchez, DVM2, John F. Bridges, PhD1;
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) is highly effective in preventing HIV acquisition. There is limited evidence regarding preferences for LA-PrEP based on various side effect profiles. This study evaluated the importance of side effects in decisions across LA-PrEP options among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States (US).
METHODS: Preferences were assessed using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) comparing two LA-PrEP options that varied across five attributes: risk of injection site pain, visibility of injection site lump, risk of visible skin changes, side effect duration, and administration frequency. Adult MSM from the 2023-2024 American Men’s Internet Survey who previously expressed interest in LA-PrEP were invited to complete the DCE in August 2025. A conditional logit model was used to estimate aggregate preferences; heterogeneity was modeled using latent class analysis (LCA). Results are reported as relative attribute importance; values sum to 100%.
RESULTS: We had 493 MSM complete the survey, of which 63% were currently taking PrEP. Aggregate results indicate that shorter side effect duration (39%) and reduced administration frequency (24%) were most important, followed by reduced risk of injection site pain (18%), no injection site lump (17%), and reduced risk of visible skin changes (2%). LCA identified two classes; a “future consequences” class (52.5%) prioritized shorter side effect duration (52%) and reduced risk of visible skin changes (18%) while an “immediate consequences” class (47.5%), emphasized reduced risk of injection site pain (31%), no injection site lump (29%), and reduced administration frequency (26%).
CONCLUSIONS: Side effect profiles, and potentially other factors not assessed in this DCE, influence decisions on LA-PrEP among MSM in the US. Providers should discuss whether people are more concerned about the future or immediate consequences of LA-PrEP. This research highlights the variability in individual preferences and provides an evidence base to guide tailored conversations about LA-PrEP options.
METHODS: Preferences were assessed using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) comparing two LA-PrEP options that varied across five attributes: risk of injection site pain, visibility of injection site lump, risk of visible skin changes, side effect duration, and administration frequency. Adult MSM from the 2023-2024 American Men’s Internet Survey who previously expressed interest in LA-PrEP were invited to complete the DCE in August 2025. A conditional logit model was used to estimate aggregate preferences; heterogeneity was modeled using latent class analysis (LCA). Results are reported as relative attribute importance; values sum to 100%.
RESULTS: We had 493 MSM complete the survey, of which 63% were currently taking PrEP. Aggregate results indicate that shorter side effect duration (39%) and reduced administration frequency (24%) were most important, followed by reduced risk of injection site pain (18%), no injection site lump (17%), and reduced risk of visible skin changes (2%). LCA identified two classes; a “future consequences” class (52.5%) prioritized shorter side effect duration (52%) and reduced risk of visible skin changes (18%) while an “immediate consequences” class (47.5%), emphasized reduced risk of injection site pain (31%), no injection site lump (29%), and reduced administration frequency (26%).
CONCLUSIONS: Side effect profiles, and potentially other factors not assessed in this DCE, influence decisions on LA-PrEP among MSM in the US. Providers should discuss whether people are more concerned about the future or immediate consequences of LA-PrEP. This research highlights the variability in individual preferences and provides an evidence base to guide tailored conversations about LA-PrEP options.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
PCR48
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Infectious Disease (non-vaccine), SDC: Reproductive & Sexual Health