Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244761

Individual and community-level benefits of PrEP in western Kenya and South Africa: Implications for population prioritization of PrEP provision

Edinah Mudimu 1,*, Kathryn Peebles 2,#, Zindoga Mukandavire 3,4,#, Emily Nightingale 5,#, Monisha Sharma 2,#, Graham F Medley 5,#, Daniel J Klein 6, Katharine Kripke 7,#, Anna Bershteyn 6,8,#
Editor: Douglas S Krakower9
PMCID: PMC7775042  PMID: 33382803

Abstract

Background

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective in preventing HIV and has the potential to significantly impact the HIV epidemic. Given limited resources for HIV prevention, identifying PrEP provision strategies that maximize impact is critical.

Methods

We used a stochastic individual-based network model to evaluate the direct (infections prevented among PrEP users) and indirect (infections prevented among non-PrEP users as a result of PrEP) benefits of PrEP, the person-years of PrEP required to prevent one HIV infection, and the community-level impact of providing PrEP to populations defined by gender and age in western Kenya and South Africa. We examined sensitivity of results to scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) by comparing two scenarios: maintaining current coverage (“status quo”) and rapid scale-up to meet programmatic targets (“fast-track”).

Results

The community-level impact of PrEP was greatest among women aged 15–24 due to high incidence, while PrEP use among men aged 15–24 yielded the highest proportion of indirect infections prevented in the community. These indirect infections prevented continue to increase over time (western Kenya: 0.4–5.5 (status quo); 0.4–4.9 (fast-track); South Africa: 0.5–1.8 (status quo); 0.5–3.0 (fast-track)) relative to direct infections prevented among PrEP users. The number of person-years of PrEP needed to prevent one HIV infection was lower (59 western Kenya and 69 in South Africa in the status quo scenario; 201 western Kenya and 87 in South Africa in the fast-track scenario) when PrEP was provided only to women compared with only to men over time horizons of up to 5 years, as the indirect benefits of providing PrEP to men accrue in later years.

Conclusions

Providing PrEP to women aged 15–24 prevents the greatest number of HIV infections per person-year of PrEP, but PrEP provision for young men also provides indirect benefits to women and to the community overall. This finding supports existing policies that prioritize PrEP use for young women, while also illuminating the community-level benefits of PrEP availability for men when resources permit.

Introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region most affected by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), accounting for more than 54% of the global population living with HIV [1]. Recent success in scaling up antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage in the region has led to substantial declines in HIV incidence [2]. However, despite these declines, HIV incidence remains high, with approximately 1.1 million new infections in sub-Saharan Africa in 2018 [3], suggesting that additional HIV prevention methods are required to achieve epidemic control goals.

Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising HIV prevention method, with efficacy greater than 90% when used with high adherence [4]. The success of PrEP demonstration projects [5,6] has led to national scale-up programs in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Kenya and South Africa. However, costing studies have found PrEP to be a high-cost form of HIV prevention [7,8]. Providing prevention interventions to people who are most likely to be infected increases efficiency, and young women, who experience the highest incidence, are likely to benefit the most. However, sexual networks play a key role in determining how sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV, propagate through communities [9,10]. Consequently, the degree of impact of a prevention intervention such as PrEP also depends on sexual network characteristics [11]. Providing prevention interventions to individuals with the highest network connectivity may prevent more total infections for a lower expenditure of resources [10].

We simulated PrEP provision scenarios using an individual-based network model to compare their impact, individual- and community-level benefits, and number of person-years of PrEP needed to avert one infection, using western Kenya and South Africa as case studies.

Methods

Model structure

We adapted an existing stochastic agent-based network model, Epidemiological MODeling software (EMOD) version 2.5, to simulate PrEP delivery for HIV prevention in western Kenya and South Africa. EMOD is an open-source model for transmission of several high-burden infectious diseases including HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria [12]. The HIV module, EMOD-HIV, is available online at https://github.com/Institute‌‌ForDiseaseModeling/EMOD alongside a detailed model description, parameter definitions, and usage instructions are available at https://idmod.org/docs/emod/hiv/hiv-model-overview.html. Briefly, the primary mode of HIV transmission in the model is through a network of relationships categorized into three types (marital, informal, or transitory) each with different characteristic durations and age/sex patterns [13]. The networks of relationships are generated by an algorithm that tunes formation rates by age and sex for each relationship type [14,15]. Transmission risk is applied on a per-coital-act basis. Mother-to-child transmission is also included and contributes to intergenerational transmission [16].

The model was configured to represent South Africa and western Kenya using setting-specific demography (fertility by age, mortality by age and sex) and parameters with high a priori uncertainty (e.g., condom usage patterns, rates of concurrent sexual partnerships) were calibrated to fit age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence and incidence. We began with previously published model calibrations for western Kenya [17] and South Africa [18,19] and updated the calibrations to make use of the most recent available HIV prevalence, incidence, and intervention coverage data. The updated calibration parameters are provided in S2 Appendix S5 Table for western Kenya and S4 Table for South Africa. The final model results for prevalence of concurrent relationships are similar to published estimates [20]. We calibrated the baseline and then simulated PrEP scenarios using 250 runs of the stochastic model per scenario.

PrEP parameterization

PrEP was implemented in EMOD-HIV as a reduction to the risk of HIV acquisition per coital act applicable to those who take up and adhere to PrEP, and time-limited to the period that these individuals are retained on PrEP [21]. In each model simulation, HIV-negative individuals in the selected population groups are eligible to enroll for PrEP. We assumed PrEP effectiveness to be 75% among adherent individuals based on estimates from oral PrEP studies [22]. PrEP continuation and re-engagement after discontinuation are not well studied. Studies available have reported high dropout rates [23,24], with many PrEP initiators discontinuing use after only 30 days [25]. In the United States, PrEP continuation has been reported to last an average of 14.5 months, with women and young adults (18 to 24 years of age) having the shortest continuation of approximately 6.9 and 8.6 months, respectively [24]. Based on these studies, we modelled duration of PrEP use with a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 180 days and a standard deviation of 30 days. We used an optimistic mean duration of 180 days on PrEP, assuming that future innovations to overcome barriers to PrEP uptake and continuation in implementation programs in Africa will favour longer durations of PrEP use [26] than currently observed [27]. Following PrEP discontinuation, we assumed individuals would not re-initiate PrEP for a minimum of six months. We assumed that PrEP in our model became available in 2016 for both western Kenya and South Africa, with 45% PrEP coverage among HIV-negative individuals in the corresponding age/sex category throughout the simulation period. This high coverage of PrEP provided more stable numbers of individuals on PrEP in our stochastic model, allowing us to evaluate community-level benefits of PrEP.

Model scenarios

We evaluated strategies providing PrEP to different populations defined by age (15–24 and 15–49) and sex (PrEP provided either to women or to men, but never to both). Each PrEP strategy was evaluated in the context of either a pessimistic (status quo) or optimistic (fast-track) baseline of ART and male circumcision scale-up (Table 1). The status quo baseline assumes continuation of current rates of uptake of HIV services (other than PrEP), while the fast-track baseline assumes achievement of programmatic targets. Specifically, in the fast-track baseline, ART coverage is assumed to reach UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets for 2030 [28]. Circumcision is assumed to reach South Africa 2017–2021 National Strategic Plan targets [29] and 100,000 cicumcisions yearly from 2022–2036 (to maintain 80% coverage [30]) and in western Kenya, to achieve 95% coverage among men ages 15–24 years by 2020.

Table 1. Status quo and Fast track scenarios and PrEP uptake assumptions.

Scenarios ART Circumcision
Kenya South Africa Kenya South Africa
Status quo 2016 ART uptakea 2015 ART uptakeb 2010–2017 coverage
Fast-track 95-95-95 targetsc 95-95-95 targetsc 95% coverage 2018: 650,000d
2019: 600,000
2020: 550,000
2021: 500,000
2022–2036: 100,000
PrEP uptake assumptions
Parameter Value Reference
Efficacy 0.75 Baeten JM et al. 2012 [23]
Coverage 0.45 Assumption
Duration on PrEP Gaussian(180,30) days Assumption
Re-engangement 6 months Assumption

a Kenya 2016 ART uptake guidelines [31].

b South Africa 2015 ART uptake guidelines [32].

c United Nations AIDS. Fast-Track: ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030 [28].

dSouth Africa 2017–2021 National Strategic Plan targets [29].

For each PrEP provision strategy, we evaluated the number of HIV infections averted directly and indirectly by PrEP over a 20-year time horizon. To disentangle the direct (infections prevented among PrEP users) and indirect (infections prevented among non-PrEP users as a result of PrEP) effects of PrEP, we calculated the ratio of indirect-to-direct infections averted, which provides an estimate of the number of indirect infections averted for every one direct infection averted. We calculated this quantity by first randomizing simulated persons to receive either placebo or active PrEP. The direct protective effect was then calculated as the difference between new infections among placebo recipients and active PrEP recipients. The indirect effect was calculated as the difference in total new infections between the counterfactual simulation (no PrEP in the community) and intervention scenarios, less infections averted by direct PrEP effects. We also calculated the number of person-years of PrEP required to avert one infection, regardless of whether the mechanism of protection is direct or indirect.

Results

Averted HIV infections

In the status quo scenario in which ART and male circumcision coverage was maintained at present-day levels, PrEP use among women yielded the greatest number of total averted infections (Fig 1) in the initial years of the PrEP program. However, PrEP use among men averted more infections than PrEP use among women after eight years (in scenarios where PrEP provision is directed to those aged 15–24) or four years (PrEP to those aged 15–49). In fast-track scenarios, on the other hand, the greatest number of infections averted is highest when offered to women over all time horizons, with the exception of the broad age target of individuals aged 14–49 years in South Africa, where there was no difference by gender. In the status quo scenarios, infections averted by PrEP continue to increase over time, whereas with concurrent scale-up of ART and circumcision, the epidemic impact of PrEP is limited to the five-year period following rollout due to rapid declines in incidence driven by achievement of programmatic targets in ART and male circumcision coverage.

Fig 1. Direct prevention and total averted infections compared to status quo and fast-track baseline scenarios in South Africa and a status quo baseline scenario in Kenya.

Fig 1

Indirect-to-direct prevention ratio

The indirect-to-direct prevention ratio was highest when PrEP provision was directed to individuals aged 15–24 years of age in both western Kenya and South Africa over all time horizons (Fig 2). Indirect-to-direct ratios increased over time. Providing PrEP to men yielded the highest indirect-to-direct ratio (western Kenya: 0.4–5.5 (status quo); 0.4–4.9 (fast-track); range in South Africa: 0.5–1.8 (status quo); 0.5–3.0 (fast-track)); the first number in the given indirect-to-direct ratio intervals represent the beginning of the time horizon (2016) and the second number represent the end of the time horizon (2036). A similar pattern was observed in scenarios where PrEP was delivered concurrently with scale-up of ART and circumcision to meet fast-track targets, though the ratios were lower in the fast-track scenarios.

Fig 2. Indirect-to-direct ratio of infections averted in South Africa and Kenya.

Fig 2

Scenarios show results from PrEP provision by age and gender.

Number of person-years of PrEP needed to prevent one HIV infection

In status quo scenarios, 59 person-years of PrEP for women aged 15–24 in western Kenya and 69 person-years of PrEP for women aged 15–24 in South Africa were required to avert one HIV infection over a 5-year timeframe (Fig 3). Over the same time horizon, approximately 94 person-years of PrEP for men in western Kenya and 115 person-years of PrEP for men in South Africa are required to avert one infection. In western Kenya, the number of person-years of PrEP needed to avert one infection quadrapled in the fast-track scenario (from 59 to 209 for women and from 94 to 490 for men). In contrast, there was a smaller increase in the number of person-years of PrEP required to avert one infection in fast-track scenarios in South Africa (from 69 to 90 for women and from 115 to 120 for men). In both countries, over 5- and 10-year time horizons, giving PrEP to women aged 15–24 required the least resources to avert one infection. Over a 20-year time horizon in status quo scenarios, the secondary benefits of offering PrEP to men accrue sufficiently that a smaller number of person-years of PrEP are needed to avert one infection. In fast-track scenarios, offering PrEP to women required fewer person-years of PrEP to avert one infection across all time horizons in Kenya, and a similar number of person-years of PrEP given to men or women were required in South Africa to avert one infection (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Number of person-years of PrEP needed to prevent one HIV infection by country, baseline scenario, and PrEP provision strategy.

Fig 3

Discussion

We modeled the potential impact of PrEP provision strategies in combination with both status quo and fast-track scale-up of ART and male circumcision in two countries in sub-Saharan Africa with varying HIV epidemics. In status quo scenarios in both countries, providing PrEP to women resulted in the greatest number of HIV infections averted within a 4- to 8-year time horizon. Long-term impacts (after 8 years from the beginning of PrEP provision) are greater when providing PrEP to men. However, as countries scale up ART and male circumcision to meet UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets, our analyses suggest that offering PrEP to women will result in both the greatest number of infections averted and the lowest person-years of PrEP use per infection averted. In both status quo and fast-track scenarios, we observed that providing PrEP to men resulted in the highest indirect-to-direct prevention ratio. This is likely because, in our model, men have more sexual partners and greater partner concurrency resulting in higher network connectivity. However, the benefits of providing PrEP to men tended to accrue in later years, and preventing direct infections in women offered the greatest impact in the first five years in both status quo and fast-track scenarios. These results were similar in the distinct epidemiological settings of both Kenya and South Africa, supporting global recommendations that prioritize PrEP for young women.

We utilized a well-established network model and presented average model results across a set of 250 simulations per scenario. As the impact of PrEP on the HIV epidemic depends on the network characteristics of not just the PrEP recipients, but also their partners, and their partners’ partners, the use of a network-based model allows for realistic estimation of community-level health benefits. Previous mathematical modelling [33] demonstrated that earmarking prevention interventions to key population groups like female sex workers can significantly reduce HIV incidence, but large-scale impact in mature epidemics will require interventions for both key and non-key populations [34]. Indeed, our analyses showed the impact for a given set of resources may still be high when directed to a less connected, but more at-risk, population group, highlighting the importance of providing PrEP to general population groups at elevated risk.

Our study has several limitations. Firstly, PrEP delivery at scale is a relatively recent addition to the HIV prevention toolkit, and data from real-world settings on key characteristics of PrEP use are limited. Consequently, we made several simplifying assumptions with respect to PrEP continuation, re-engagment in care (cycling on and off PrEP), and efficacy. PrEP efficacy was assumed to be equal between men and women and across age groups. This assumption has a direct effect on the community-level impact of allocating PrEP to different groups. For example, allocating PrEP to a group with low adherence would be less effective at the community-level, including indirect effects in later years. However, although the absolute health benefits of different PrEP strategies would change under different assumptions for PrEP efficacy, uptake and retention, the relative benefits of the strategies should remain the same, with PrEP for women yielding the greatest number of HIV infections averted. For this reason, we compared extreme scenarios (provision of PrEP to individuals of just a single age/sex group) to enable comparison of the impact of PrEP under each strategy, with the expectation that programs will provide PrEP to a mix of population groups informed by the impact in each group as well as the accessibility, adherence, and demand for PrEP in each group. Secondly, PrEP enrollment in the model does not depend on the risk profile of the individuals. In real-world settings, PrEP is recommended to those at substantial risk of acquiring HIV, which includes characteristics such as having a recent sexually transmitted infection; beliefs about a partner’s HIV status or viral suppression status; residing in a transmission hotspot; or other behavioral, biological, or demographic indicators of HIV risk. Future work in this area would benefit from detailed modeling of individual risk profiles to inform PrEP provision strategies at a micro-level. Identifying PrEP provisions strategies that maximise impact would improve the value proposition of PrEP.

Our analyses evaluated the number of person-years of PrEP required to prevent one HIV infection as a proxy for the efficiency of providing PrEP to different populations based on sex and age. Future analyses may extend this work with evaluations of offering PrEP to persons at substantial risk of HIV acquisiation, regardless of gender or age and evaluations of the economic impact and cost-effectiveness of distributing PrEP Primary cost data for exact costs of PrEP delivery, which may vary based on drug costs and delivery models, is limited [35], with even less data available on costs of PrEP ancillary services. However, our analysis provides insight into resource allocation by estimating the community-level impact of different PrEP provision strategies to identify the strategy with the highest health benefits.

Conclusions

Providing PrEP to women aged 15–24 prevents the greatest number of HIV infections for a given amount of resources over most time horizons due to women’s higher HIV risk, though the indirect benefits of providing PrEP to only men were highest across all time points due to their higher rate of transmission. This finding supports existing policies that prioritize PrEP provision for young women.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Model-fitting parameters western Kenya.

(XLSX)

S2 Appendix. Model-fitting parameters South Africa.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the developers of the EMOD disease modeling framework and its associated scripts and calibration capabilities, especially Daniel Bridenbecker and Clark Kirkman IV.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Funding support was provided by the OPTIONS consortium. The OPTIONS consortium was made possible by the generous assistance from the American people through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in partnership with PEPFAR. Financial assistance was provided by USAID to Avenir Health under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A-15-00035. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for author [KK], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.United Nations AIDS. UNAIDS Data 2019 Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 2019. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2019-UNAIDS-data_en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tanser F, Bärnighausen T, Grapsa E, Zaidi J, Newell, ML. High coverage of ART associated with decline in risk of HIV acquisition in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Science 2013;339(6122):966–971. 10.1126/science.1228160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.United Nations AIDS DATA. UNAIDS data 2018 reference. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 26 July 2018. 370 p. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/unaids-data-2018_en.pdf. (accessed 23 November 2019).
  • 4.Baeten J, Heffron R, Kidoguchi L, Mugo N, Katabira E, Bukusi E, et al. Near Elimination of HIV Transmission in a Demonstration Project of PrEP and ART Conference on Retrovirsuses and Opportunistic Infections 2015;Abstract 24 Seattle, Washington: Available from: http://www.croiconference.org/sessions/near-elimination-hiv-transmission-demonstration-project-prep-and-art. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bekker LG, Roux S, Sebastien E, Yola N, Amico KR, Hughes JP, et al. Daily and non-daily pre-exposure prophylaxis in African women (HPTN 067/ADAPT Cape Town Trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet HIV 2018; 5(2):e68–e78 10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30156-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Baeten J, Heffron R, Kidoguchi L, Celum C. Near elimination of HIV transmission in a demonstration project of PrEP and ART. CROI; Seattle, Washington, 2015. Available from https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/near-elimination-hiv-transmission-demonstration-project-prep-and-art/. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Irungu EM, Sharma M, Maronga C, Mugo N, Ngure K, Celum C, et al. The Incremental Cost of Delivering PrEP as a Bridge to ART for HIV Serodiscordant Couples in Public HIV Care Clinics in Kenya. AIDS Research and Treatment vol 2019; Article ID 4170615 10.1155/2019/4170615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Roberts DA, Barnabas RV, Abuna F, Lagat H, Kinuthia J, Pintye J, et al. The role of costing in the introduction and scale-up of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: evidence from integrating PrEP into routine maternal and child health and family planning clinics in western Kenya. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019; 10.1002/jia2.25296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rothenberg R. How a Net Works: Implications of Network Structure for the Persistence and Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseasea and HIV. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2001; 28(2): 63–68. 10.1097/00007435-200102000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Liljeros F, Edling CR, Nunes Amaral LA. Sexual networks: implications for the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. Microbes Infect. 2003. February;5(2):189–96. 10.1016/s1286-4579(02)00058-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhong L, Zhang Q, Li X. Modeling the Intervention of HIV Transmission across Intertwined Key Populations. Scientific Reports 2018;8:2432 10.1038/s41598-018-20864-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bershteyn A, Gerardin J, Bridenbecker D, Lorton CW, Bloedow J, Baker RS, et al. Implementation and applications of EMOD, an individual-based multi-disease modeling platform. Pathogens and disease 2018;76(5). 10.1093/femspd/fty059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bershteyn A, Klein DJ, Eckhoff PA. Age-dependent partnering and the HIV transmission chain: A microsimulation analysis. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 2013;10(88), 20130613 10.1098/rsif.2013.0613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bershteyn A, Klein DJ, Wenger E, Eckhoff PA. Description of the EMOD-HIV model v0. 7. arXiv Quantitative Biology Quantitative Methods 2012;eprint arXiv:1206.3720. Available from https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3720. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Klein DJ. Relationship formation and flow control algorithms for generating age-structured networks in HIV modeling 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Maui, HI, 2012, pp. 1041–1046, 10.1109/CDC.2012.6426573 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bershteyn A, Klein DJ, Eckhoff PA. Age-targeted HIV treatment and primary prevention as a ‘ring fence’ to efficiently interrupt the age patterns of transmission in generalized epidemic settings in South Africa. International Health 2016;8(4), 277e285 10.1093/inthealth/ihw010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bershteyn A, Mutai KK, Akullian AN, Klein DJ, Jewell BL, Mwalili SM. The influence of mobility among high-risk populations on HIV transmission in Western Kenya. Infectious Disease Modelling 2018;3:97–106. 10.1016/j.idm.2018.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Selinger C, Bershteyn A, Dimitrov DT, Adamcon BJS, Revill P, Hallett TB, et al. Targeting and vaccine durability are key for population-level impact and cost-effectiveness of a pox-protein HIV vaccine regimen in South Africa. Vaccine 2019; 37 (16):2258–2267. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.02.073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Selinger C, Dimitrov DT, Welkhoff PA, Bershteyn A. The future of a partially effective HIV vaccine: assessing limitations at the population level. International Journal of Public Health 2019; 64:957–964. 10.1007/s00038-019-01234-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pettifor AE, Rees HV, Kleinschmidt I, Steffenson AE, MacPail C, Hlongwa-Madikizela L, et al. Young people's sexual health in South Africa: HIV prevalence and sexual behaviors from a nationally representative household survey. AIDS 2005;19(14):1525–34. 10.1097/01.aids.0000183129.16830.06 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bershteyn A, Sharma M, Akullian AN, Peebles K, Sarkar S, Braithwaite RS, et al. Impact along the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis “cascade of prevention” in western Kenya: a mathematical modelling study. J Int AIDS Soc 2020;23(S3):e25527 10.1002/jia2.25527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med 2012;367(5):399–410. 10.1056/NEJMoa1108524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Coy KC, Hazen RJ, Kirkham HS, Delpino A, Siegler AJ. Persistence on HIV preexposure prophylaxis medication over a 2‐year period among a national sample of 7148 PrEP users, United States, 2015 to 2017. J Int AIDS Soc 2019;22(2): e25252 10.1002/jia2.25252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huang YA, Tao G, Smith DK, Hoover KW. Persistence with HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis in the United States, 2012–2016 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections: 2019; Abstract 106, March 4–7 Seattle Washington: Available from https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/persistence-hiv-preexposure-prophylaxis-united-states-2012-2016/. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mugo N. PrEP Implementation–Key Issues and Controversies: PrEP for Adolescent Girls and Young Women. HIVR4P 2018;Madrid, Spain: HIVR4P; Available from http://webcasts.hivr4p.org/p/2018hivr4p/SA16.03. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mayer CM, Owaraganise A, Kabami J, Kwarisiima D, Koss CA, Charlebois ED, et al. Distance to clinic is a barrier to PrEP uptake and visit attendance in a community in rural Uganda. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2019;22(4):e25276 10.1002/jia2.25276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Digolo L., Ochieng C., Ngunjiri A., et al. Uptake of and Retention on HIV Pre Exposure Prophylaxis among adolescent girls and young women in Kenya. 8th International Workshop on Women and HIV, Boston, March 2–3 2018. Available from: http://regist2.virology-education.com/2018/8Women/06_Digolo.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.United Nations AIDS. Fast-Track: ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 18 November 2014. 36 p. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2686_WAD2014report_en.pdf.
  • 29.South African National AIDS Council. Let our actions cont: Aouth Africa’s National Strategic Plan for HIV, TB and STIs 2017–2022. South Africa: SANAC; 2017. Available from: https://sanac.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NSP_FullDocument_FINAL.pdf (accessed 3 November 2019).
  • 30.World Health Organisation. Male circumcision for HIV prevention-implementing the 2017–2021 framework for voluntary medical male circumcision. World Health Organisation 27 February-1 March 2017 meeting report. Available from: https://www.malecircumcision.org/sites/default/files/document_library/WHO_VMMC_framework_meeting_report_2017.pdf.
  • 31.Ministry of Health, National AIDS & STI Control Programme. Guidelines on Use of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treating and Preventing HIV Infection in Kenya 2016. Nairobi, Kenya:NASCOP, July 2016. Available from: https://aidsfree.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/kenya_art_2016.pdf.
  • 32.South Africa National Department of Health. National consolidated guidelines for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) and the management of HIV in children, adolescents and adults. Department of Health April 2015. Available from: https://sahivsoc.org/Files/ART%20Guidelines%2015052015.pdf.
  • 33.Boily MC, Lowndes C, Alary M. The impact of HIV epidemic phases on the effectiveness of core group interventions: insights from mathematical models. Sex Transm Infect 2002;Suppl 1: i78–90. 10.1136/sti.78.suppl_1.i78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pretorius C, Schnure M, Dent J, Galubius R, Mahiane G, Hamilton M, et al. Modelling impact and cost-effectivenss of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in 13 low-resource countries. J Int AIDS Soc 2020;23(2): e25451 10.1002/jia2.25451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Meyer-Rath G, van Rensburg C, Chiu C, Leuner R, Jamieson L, Cohen S. The perpatient costs of HIV services in South Africa: Systematic review and application in the South African HIV Investment Case. PloS ONE 2019;14(2): PLoS ONE 14(2): e0210497 10.1371/journal.pone.0210497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Douglas S Krakower

23 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24256

Individual and community-level benefits of PrEP in western Kenya and South Africa: implications for population prioritization of PrEP Provision

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mudimu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address all of the reviewers' comments in your revision. It will be particularly important to address the comments about describing your methods in greater detail and about reporting more granular results (e.g., in tables).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 07 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Douglas S. Krakower, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Avenir Health.

2.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper presents an agent-based network model of HIV transmission among heterosexuals in Western Kenya and South Africa. The study compares the impact of introducing PrEP to either men or women, with variable scenarios based on age group provision and exogenous processes (i.e., increased ART and male circumcision) across varying time periods. The authors found that PrEP provision to women had the greatest immediate impact and was also the most efficient allocation of resources.

Overall, the study is well-designed and relies on a network model which has been used in other studies. The model complexity is appropriate for this type of study. I appreciate that the authors present a number of counterfactual scenarios which could be helpful for policy makers. The manuscript is timely, as resources for public health may be limited (i.e., due to coronavirus) so policy makes may need to be strategic about allocating resources for other priorities. However, the overall presentation of the methods and results should be improved before the manuscript is ready for publication.

Major points:

1. The methods section does not provide sufficient information for a model of this complexity. The authors point to some references, but it was not immediately obvious which references were most relevant. I suggest the authors rework the methods section to provide greater detail about the overall structure of the model and some key parameters which are relevant to the research question. If word count is a problem, it is common for models of this complexity to have a technical appendix. One of the references (13) was helpful to answer some of my questions, but this was published in 2012 so it is not clear what, if anything, has changed about the model and code since then. It may also be helpful to remove the references to your group’s other studies (refs 11 and 12) using this model and just point the readers to the reference that is clearly describing the model design. If the other references are relevant to piece together changes to the model since 2012, then I think it would be most appropriate to compile a single document (i.e., technical appendix) which clearly describes the current model. Reference 10 is too general to provide much relevant information for the present study.

2. The sexual network characteristics seems to be the most important information that was left out, since this is the underlying mechanism driving the model results. Summary information about concurrency and assortativity should be provided so that readers can better understand differences between men and women (i.e., degree, concurrency and anything else that is relevant) and how this is generating the model results. I don’t think it is necessary to have all parameters summarized in the main text of the manuscript, as this would obviously be too much information. I know that some of this information is listed in the excel files provided, which I appreciate, but these are summarizing the calibration so it is unclear to me what the final numbers were and whether there is a single calibrated parameter for each that is consistent across counterfactual scenarios. It would be really helpful to summarize specific numbers as well as words in the manuscript.

3. The results section was challenging to follow. There are many counterfactual scenarios presented and it was difficult to keep track of each. Additionally, the authors present the results qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, for some sections. I suggest the authors add outcome measures throughout; ideally, some kind of a point estimate, such as a median, as well as an interval, such as a 95% simulation interval.

4. There are no tables presenting results of any kind, which I was surprised to see. This would be helpful to summarize the results, but also could serve as a way to guide readers through the various counterfactual comparisons that are presented and how the outcomes increase/decrease across varying conditions.

Minor issues:

Abstract:

1. The Results section presents no quantitative results of any kind, so there is little difference in what is written in the Results section vs. Conclusions. Also consider re-writing this section so that it is clearer what the counterfactual contrasts are which are producing the results. (I know abstracts are short and appreciate that this is challenging).

2. Line 40: I’m a little confused by the last sentence in this section, as my interpretation of the results is that total infections averted varied based on time (prioritizing immediate results) and assumptions about fast-track vs status quo.

3. The Conclusions (e.g., first sentence, line 43) are clearer than what is written in the Results section, although both are saying essentially the same thing.

Introduction:

4. Line 50: The 54% number is ambiguous as written. Does this refer to 54% of new infections? Overall prevalence?

5. Line 52: I certainly don't disagree that incidence is unacceptably high, however this implies that there is some threshold for which ongoing transmission would be acceptable. Perhaps remove the word “unacceptably”?

6. Lines 63-64: Some references for the sentence “However, sexual networks play…” would be helpful since not all readers will be familiar with network science and models. Two suggestions (though there are others that would be appropriate): Rothenberg "How a net works", STD, 2001; and Liljeros "Sexual networks: implications for the transmission of sexually transmitted infections" Microbes and Infection, 2003.

7. Line 66-67: Again, a reference here would be helpful. The two above may be relevant. Also, Morris has some relevant references (e.g., "Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV," AIDS, 1997).

Methods:

8. Line 76: I’m glad to see a link to the github repository. However, is there a specific repository for the code used for the present study?

9. Line 77: The idmod.org link is broken. I found this page https://idmod.org/docs/emod/hiv/hiv-model-overview.html which I think is relevant and helpful, but doesn’t provide sufficient information for how this specific study was implemented.

10. Line 78: What is the age structure of the model? When do individuals enter the model? Do they leave at age 49? Or is that just the cutoff for PrEP eligibility?

11. Line 79: How is transmission operationalized? Condoms are not mentioned in the manuscript at all. How does ART impact transmission probabilities?

12. PrEP Parameterization: Were any other aspects of the PrEP clinical protocol modeled? What was the frequency of HIV screening? Was this the same as individuals not using PrEP? Does knowledge of HIV infection (via screening and diagnosis) change behavior (e.g., condom use) in the model? What about initiation of PrEP or ART?

13. Line 91: It seems PrEP effectiveness was the same for all individuals using PrEP. Was there any heterogeneity in how this was parameterized (e.g., operationalized via varying adherence)? Is adherence known to vary between men and women (or by age?) in this population? This seems like an important limitation that should be either addressed in the model or discussed.

14. Line 92: Why is long-acting PrEP mentioned? Is this just to say that the model was limited to oral PrEP?

15. Line 106: Does 45% coverage refer to 45% of all women in scenarios targeting PrEP to women? Or is this 45% among the women of a specific age group? (Same questions for men).

16. Line 130: The time ranges are listed as 10 or 20 year horizons, but the results refer to 4 year, 8 year (possibly other) timelines. My suspicion is that the authors ran models for 10 or 20 years, but looked at results across other ranges, which is fine technically, but is confusing for how the results are presented. It would be helpful to provide clarity.

17. Line 136: The description for how indirect effects were calculated is a little confusing as written. Does infections averted by direct protection refer to the quantity calculated for direct effects?

18. Line 137: I believe this is the first time that the reference scenario (no PrEP) has been mentioned. It would be helpful to mention this earlier and describe how the reference scenario is used.

19. Line 139: For person-years required to prevent one infection, is this total effects? Only direct effects?

Results:

20. Figures: Are there figure legends? I also noticed in Figure 3 that the scale on the y-axis is not the same across all plots, so the figure is misleading if the reader doesn’t look closely. The image quality is poor, so it was difficult to view the figures; this may be on the way the PDF is generated by Plos One, but make sure the image quality is sufficient.

21. Line 145: By changing the age range that is targeted, does this imply more individuals are using PrEP? I.e., if it was 45% in men 15-24 and then 45% in men 15-49 (and similarly for women). Or is it the same number using PrEP but spread across a wider age range?

22. Line 159: Are these 95% simulation intervals? It would be helpful to have a median value here since the interval seems wide and ratios less than 1 have a different interpretation than ratios above 1.

Discussion

23. Line 206: “Good-fitting parameter sets” is jargon that isn’t previously defined. If this is relevant for the Discussion, I suggest using plain language so readers without modeling experience can understand what this means.

24. Line 212: This conclusion seems misleading, since PrEP was not targeted based on degree or concurrency specifically, but allocated based on sex and age. These variables may correlate with degree and concurrency, but within groups PrEP was allocated equally.

Reviewer #2: This interesting manuscript addresses an important question – prioritization of offer of PrEP to different populations in western Kenya and South Africa in order to maximize impact in reducing new HIV infections. Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides important data to guide policy. I have several questions and suggestions for the authors to consider to strengthen the manuscript.

Major comments:

1) Because some national guidelines (e.g. in Kenya) now allow for offer of PrEP to persons at substantial risk of HIV acquisition, regardless of gender, it would be helpful to include an analysis in which PrEP is offered to both men and women at substantial risk. The current analyses in which PrEP is offered only to women or only to men are interesting exercises but are limited in terms of applicability to current programs. Although young women should understandably be prioritized for PrEP based on high incidence, men should also be prioritized for PrEP (as the authors note) to reduce incidence among women/their communities and, as many would argue, for their own health. Thus, the manuscript would be greatly strengthened by including an analysis in which PrEP is offered to both men and women at substantial risk.

2) Could the authors please provide additional information on expected ART and VMMC coverage within the manuscript text and in Table 1 under different scenarios? E.g. when assuming status quo, do the guidelines referenced recommend ART treatment for all or based on CD4 thresholds, and what levels of ART coverage could that result in? How is ART coverage expected to differ by sex? This would help to contextualize the results.

3) In the methods would be helpful to define “PrEP coverage” – is the denominator persons at substantial risk? All HIV-noninfected persons? If the latter, would be helpful to clarify this before Discussion.

4) Community-level and population-level impact seem to be used at different times – could the authors kindly define these terms and if they are intended to be the same or different?

5) Given that the sexual network parameters impact the results significantly, it would be helpful to provide more information on network assumptions in the methods section

Minor comments:

1) Could the authors also please provide more background on HIV prevalence and incidence in western Kenya and South Africa for readers with less knowledge of these regions?

2) Introduction notes that PrEP is a relatively high-cost intervention but discussion notes that costing data are limited – could the authors clarify what data are cited to indicate high cost of PrEP (noting that this may vary based on drug costs, personnel, etc)?

3) Methods – based on recent data (e.g. from AIDS2020) many individuals cycle on and off PrEP frequently. Could the authors comment on the impact of cycling back on PrEP in a shorter time than 6 months?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Kevin Maloney

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244761.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Oct 2020

We have substantially revised the methods and provide additional clarity on what EMOD is, the transmission modalities in the EMOD-HIV model and the procedures and parameters used to calibrate the model to the two settings in our analysis. A reference that describes the technical implementation of the sexual network in the EMOD-HIV model has been added. Detailed feedback is included in the Reponses to reviewers comments letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Douglas S Krakower

17 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-24256R1

Individual and community-level benefits of PrEP in western Kenya and South Africa: implications for population prioritization of PrEP Provision

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mudimu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please attend the these minor revisions, which will be required and sufficient for publication in PLOS One. Thank you for your careful attention to these details.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Douglas S. Krakower, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have greatly improved the overall readability of the manuscript and clarity of the methods. My major concerns have been addressed and I only have a few minor comments at this stage. In addition, the manuscript would benefit from a careful edit for spelling and typos, as there are some minor mistakes throughout and I don’t think Plos One provides copy editing.

1. The authors provided additional clarity about how PrEP effectiveness is operationalized in their model (i.e., 75% on average), which I appreciate. However, it remains unresolved that effectiveness is assumed to be equal between men and women, and between age groups. This is an important limitation, given that the primary study question is evaluating the population impact of allocating PrEP to different groups. For example, if adherence is lower among men (and thus the average effectiveness of PrEP is lower) then allocating PrEP to men may be far less effective on a population level, including indirect effects in later years, than projected. The authors need to spend more time discussing this limitation.

2. Minor comment: Line 175 – I may have missed it, but it is still unclear what this interval represents. I appreciate the explanation in the response to my original question, but that’s not how I read it in the manuscript. On line 174, it says the ratios increase overtime, but it’s not clearly explained that the first number in the interval represents the beginning of the time horizon and the second number represents the end of the time horizon.

3. Minor comment: Line 223 – this says 250 simulations, but line 100 in the methods indicates 300 simulations.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Kevin Maloney

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Douglas S Krakower

16 Dec 2020

Individual and community-level benefits of PrEP in western Kenya and South Africa: implications for population prioritization of PrEP Provision

PONE-D-20-24256R2

Dear Dr. Mudimu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Douglas S. Krakower, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Douglas S Krakower

22 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-24256R2

Individual and community-level benefits of PrEP in western Kenya and South Africa: implications for population prioritization of PrEP provision

Dear Dr. Mudimu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Douglas S. Krakower

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Model-fitting parameters western Kenya.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Appendix. Model-fitting parameters South Africa.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES