Continued attendance in a PrEP program despite low adherence and non-protective drug levels among adolescent girls and young women in Kenya: Results from a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) ages 15 to 24 years represent <10% of the population yet account for 1 in 5 new HIV infections. Although oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) can be highly effective, low persistence in PrEP programs and poor adherence have limited its ability to reduce HIV incidence among women. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 336 AGYW participating in the PEPFAR-funded DREAMS PrEP program in western Kenya were enrolled into a study of PrEP use conducted between 6/2019 to 1/2020. AGYW, who used daily oral TDF/FTC, completed interviews and provided dried blood spots (DBS) for measurement of tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations at enrollment and 3 months later, and 176/302 (58.3%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI 52.3 to 63.8]) met our definition of PrEP persistence: having expressed intention to use PrEP and attended both the second interview and an interim refill visit. Among AGYW with DBS taken at the second interview, only 9/197 (4.6%, [95% CI 1.6 to 7.5]) had protective TFV-DP levels (≥700 fmol/punch) and 163/197 (82.7%, [95% CI 77.5 to 88]) had levels consistent with no recent PrEP use (<10 fmol/punch). Perception of being at moderate-to-high risk for HIV if not taking PrEP was associated with persistence (adjusted odds ratio, 10.17 [95% CI 5.14 to 20.13], p < 0.001) in a model accounting for county of residence and variables that had p-value <0.1 in unadjusted analysis (age, being in school, initiated PrEP 2 to 3 months before the first interview, still active in DREAMS, having children, having multiple sex partners, partner aware of PrEP use, partner very supportive of PrEP use, partner has other partners, AGYW believes that a partner puts her at risk, male condom use, injectable contraceptive use, and implant contraceptive use). Among AGYW who reported continuing PrEP, >90% indicated they were using PrEP to prevent HIV, although almost all had non-protective TFV-DP levels. Limitations included short study duration and inclusion of only DREAMS participants. CONCLUSIONS: Many AGYW persisted in the PrEP program without taking PrEP frequently enough to receive benefit. Notably, AGYW who persisted had a higher self-perceived risk of HIV infection. These AGYW may be optimal candidates for long-acting PrEP.

Unit costs of a community-based girl-centered HIV prevention program: a case study of Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-Free, Mentored, and Safe program.

OBJECTIVE: We compare the unit costs of providing Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-Free, Mentored, and Safe (DREAMS) interventions to adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) reached across two sites, an urban (Nyalenda A Ward) and peri-urban (Kolwa East Ward) setting, in Kisumu County of Kenya. DESIGN: Micro-costing, using the average cost concept during project initiation and early implementation. METHODS: Adopting the implementer's (provider's) perspective, we computed and classified costs in the following categories for each sub-implementing partner: medical and professional staff, administrative and support staff, materials and supplies, building space and utilities, equipment, establishment, and miscellaneous. These costs were summed across sub-implementing partners in a site to obtain the site-level total costs. These are then divided by the total number of AGYW reached in each site to obtain the unit costs. Data were collected from July to September 2017. RESULTS: The unit costs in the peri-urban area were about 1.9 times of those in the urban area. It cost about US$67 [or 170 International Dollars] to deliver the DREAMS intervention package to each AGYW reached in the urban area as compared with approximately US$129 (or 327 International Dollars) in the peri-urban area. CONCLUSION: First, it was generally more expensive to deliver DREAMS interventions in the peri-urban setting as compared with the urban setting. Second, the difference in unit costs was mainly driven by the building space and utilities. Strategies to lower intervention costs are needed in the peri-urban setting, such as using existing infrastructure (either governmental or nongovernmental) or other innovative ways to deliver the services.