Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Mar 15;17(3):e0265434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265434

Persistence on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among female sex workers in eThekwini, South Africa, 2016–2020

Amrita Rao 1,*, Hlengiwe Mhlophe 2, Carly Comins 1, Katherine Young 3, Mfezi Mcingana 3, Catherine Lesko 1, Ntambue Mulumba 2, Stefan Baral 1, Harry Hausler 3, Sheree Schwartz 1
Editor: Catherine E Oldenburg4
PMCID: PMC8923438  PMID: 35290421

Abstract

Background

Despite the established efficacy of PrEP to prevent HIV and the advantages of a user-controlled method, PrEP uptake and persistence by women in both trials and demonstration projects has been suboptimal. We utilized real-world data from an HIV service provider to describe persistence on oral PrEP among female sex workers (FSW) in eThekwini, South Africa.

Methods

We examined time from PrEP initiation to discontinuation among all FSW initiating PrEP at TB HIV Care in eThekwini between 2016–2020. We used a discrete time-to-event data setup and stacked cumulative incidence function plots, displaying the competing risks of 1) not returning for PrEP, 2) client discontinuation, and 3) provider discontinuation. We calculated hazard ratios using complementary log-log regression and sub-hazard ratios using competing risks regression.

Results

The number of initiations increased each year from 155 (9.3%, n = 155/1659) in 2016 to 1224 (27.5%, n = 1224/4446) in 2020. Persistence 1-month after initiation was 53% (95% CI: 51%-55%). Younger women were more likely to discontinue PrEP by not returning compared with those 25 years and older. Risk of discontinuation through non-return declined for those initiating in later years. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, a greater number of initiations and sustained persistence were observed in 2020.

Conclusions

Low levels of PrEP persistence were observed, consistent with data among underserved women elsewhere. Encouragingly, the proportion of women persisting increased over time, even as the number of women newly initiating PrEP and staff workload increased. Further research is needed to understand which implementation strategies the program may have enacted to facilitate these improvements and what further changes may be necessary.

Introduction

Nearly one million people are newly infected with HIV annually in South Africa, constituting about 15% of global incident infections [1]. Female sex workers (FSW) bear a disproportionate burden of disease in the country. Estimates suggest that 60% of cisgender FSW are living with HIV compared with 19% of other adults of reproductive age [14]. FSW experience high levels of violence from clients, non-paying partners, sex work managers, and others [5,6]. This coupled with arrest, economic necessity to accept unsafe work conditions, and other power imbalances often compromise their ability to negotiate consistent condom use [79]. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention (PrEP) is an efficacious and user-controlled option to prevent new HIV infections [10,11]. Daily oral PrEP can be used autonomously and discreetly, without the need of partner or client involvement, and presents an opportunity for women to protect themselves from HIV [12,13].

Despite the HIV protection conferred by PrEP, with some estimates suggesting that daily use reduces acquisition by 79–85% among women [10,11], PrEP persistence among FSW in trial settings and demonstration projects has been low [14,15]. Even if freely available, many factors influence a woman’s decision to initiate and continue taking PrEP, including knowledge, side-effects, and accessibility of PrEP, along with actual and perceived risk of HIV acquisition, and PrEP stigma and social influence [1619].

South Africa became the first country in Sub-Saharan Africa to implement PrEP as part of their national strategy for HIV prevention and began providing PrEP to FSW in 2016 [20]. PrEP has been primarily delivered through specific programs, which have existing HIV services in place and established rapport with community groups. The objective of this analysis was to describe PrEP persistence among cisgender FSW accessing PrEP in real-world conditions in eThekwini, KwaZulu-Natal from 2016 to 2020.

Methods

To describe PrEP persistence among FSW, we utilized data collected by TB HIV Care as part of routine service delivery. TB HIV Care is a South African non-profit organization that serves as the country’s largest PrEP provider for young women and FSW and began providing PrEP to FSW in 2016. They now operate at multiple sites across five provinces and offer services through mobile van health clinics and drop-in center wellness clinics.

The study population for this analysis includes cisgender FSW assigned female sex at birth who initiated PrEP through TB HIV Care in eThekwini between September 1st, 2016, and December 31st, 2020. Women would have been eligible to begin PrEP through TB HIV Care if they were already accessing prevention services (e.g. testing for pregnancy, STIs, or HIV; family planning) through the program serving FSW and were HIV-negative.

Data for this study come from a site-level register that is maintained to track PrEP uptake and persistence over time and manage patient follow-up and scheduling. This register has individual-level data on the date of first PrEP initiation and the outcomes of subsequent monthly visits, including whether or not individuals stopped and restarted PrEP. We followed women from PrEP initiation to discontinuation or administrative censoring at 12 months or December 2020, whichever came first. Discontinuation was defined as a composite outcome based on 1) not attending two consecutive visits (not returning for PrEP), 2) attending a monthly appointment and the client choosing to discontinue PrEP (client discontinuation), or 3) attending a monthly appointment and the clinician deciding to discontinue PrEP (provider discontinuation). Two consecutive missed visits was used to define discontinuation in alignment with TB HIV Care’s PEPFAR reporting definition for loss to follow-up. If a client misses one visit, but returns the next month, the program notes this client as not attending a visit but continuing on PrEP. If a client misses two consecutive visits and returns subsequently, the program defines her as a “restart.”

We examined time-to-PrEP discontinuation using a discrete time-to-event data setup, with person-periods defined for each month in which a woman was observed. We refer to the complement of PrEP discontinuation (i.e. ‘survival’ from discontinuation) as PrEP persistence. We plotted stacked cumulative incidence functions to show the differential risk of types of PrEP discontinuation (client discontinuation, provider discontinuation, not returning for PrEP) over time. We stratified analyses by age and era-of-initiation, defined as the year in which a woman initiated PrEP (2016–2020). We calculated overall, “cause-specific” hazard ratios (CHR) for discontinuation by age and year of initiation using a complementary log-log regression model. We calculated subdistribution-hazard ratios (SHR) for each specific type of PrEP discontinuation using Fine and Gray survival models [21]. Results were determined to be statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval around the hazard ratio did not overlap with the line of no difference, which is 1 in the case of ratio measures. All analyses were conducted using Stata 14.2 (StataCorp, College Park, Texas, USA).

Results

There were a total of 2776 FSW newly initiating PrEP at TB HIV Care in eThekwini between 2016 and 2020 and included in these analyses. Approximately 60% were women ages 25 years and older (1662/2762). The absolute number of PrEP initiations increased over time, and the percentage of PrEP initiations among those who were seen by the program and HIV-negative increased substantially in 2019 and 2020: 155/1659 (9.3%) in 2016, 211/3235 (6.5%) in 2017, 428/6042 (7.1%) in 2018, 756/5789 (13.1%) in 2019, and 1224/4446 (27.5%) in 2020 (Fig 1). Based on the Kaplan-Meier survival function, PrEP persistence was 53% (95% CI: 51%-55%) 1-month after initiation, 33% (95% CI: 31%-35%) 4-months after initiation, and 18% (95% CI: 16%-19%) 7-months after initiation. By 12-months, 9% (95% CI: 7%-10%) persisted on PrEP. Details of the Kaplan-Meier survivor function are provided in the S1 Appendix. Among those who discontinued (n = 2210), 13% restarted during the observation period (287/2210), with a median time from discontinuation to restart of 3 months (IQR: 3–5).

Fig 1. Number of PrEP eligible (HIV-negative and accessing services through TB HIV Care) and number and percentage of PrEP initiations each year among female sex workers in Durban, South Africa, 2016–2020.

Fig 1

At 1-month after initiation, 56% (95% CI: 54%-59%) of women ≥25 years old persisted on PrEP compared with 48% (95% CI: 45%-51%) of women <25 years old. The higher PrEP persistence seen in women ≥25 years was predominantly due to better attendance at follow-up visits compared with women <25 years (SHR for program-defined loss to follow-up: 0.82, 95% CI: [0.76, 0.88]). There were no significant differences by age in client-initiated or provider-initiated discontinuation (Table 1).

Table 1. Hazard of PrEP discontinuation and sub-hazard ratios of two consecutive missed visits, client-initiated discontinuation, and provider-initiated discontinuation among 2776 female sex workers initiating PrEP through TB HIV Care in Durban, South Africa 2016–2020.

UNIVARIABLE
Number of initiations Discontinuation (composite outcome) Two consecutive missed visits (n = 1986) Client-initiated discontinuation (n = 217) Provider-initiated discontinuation (n = 7)
Hazard ratio (95% CI) Sub-hazard ratio (95% CI)
Age 1
<25 years old 1102 ref ref ref ref
25+ years old 1662 0.80 (0.74, 0.86) 0.84 (0.79, 0.91) 0.97 (0.74, 1.26) 0.91 (0.20, 4.10)
Year 2
2016 155 ref ref ref ref
2017 211 0.99 (0.82, 1.19) 0.96 (0.80, 1.16) 0.89 (0.37, 2.14) 0.73 (0.05, 11.72)
2018 428 0.84 (0.71, 1.00) 0.86 (0.73, 1.01) 1.02 (0.48, 2.16) 1.41 (0.16, 12.56)
2019 756 0.88 (0.75, 1.03) 0.67 (0.57, 0.78) 3.41 (1.75, 6.63) 0.20 (0.01, 3.09)
2020 1224 0.82 (0.70, 0.96) 0.83 (0.71, 0.96) 0.35 (0.16, 0.77) Too few events
INCLUDING BOTH AGE AND YEAR IN THE SAME MODEL
Hazard ratio (95% CI) Sub-hazard ratio (95% CI)
Age 1
<25 years old 1102 ref ref ref ref
25+ years old 1662 0.80 (0.74, 0.86) 0.82 (0.76, 0.88) 1.10 (0.85, 1.43) 0.85 (0.18, 3.98)
Year 2
2016 155 Ref ref ref ref
2017 211 0.96 (0.80, 1.16) 0.94 (0.78, 1.12) 0.90 (0.38, 2.16) 0.72 (0.04, 11.67)
2018 428 0.83 (0.70,0.98) 0.84 (0.72, 0.99) 1.02 (0.48, 2.17) 1.40 (0.15, 13.10)
2019 756 0.85 (0.72,0.99) 0.64 (0.55, 0.75) 3.46 (1.78, 6.71) 0.19 (0.01, 3.47)
2020 1224 0.82 (0.70, 0.96) 0.82 (0.71, 0.95) 0.36 (0.16, 0.78) Too few events

1Age data missing for n = 12 (0.4%);

2Year of initiation data missing for n = 2 (0.07%).

PrEP persistence improved over the course of the program (Fig 2). In 2019, 62% of women persisted on PrEP 1-month after initiation (95% CI: 58%-65%). By comparison, in 2016, 52% of women persisted on PrEP 1-month after initiation (95% CI: 43%-59%). Women initiating PrEP in 2018 (SHR: 0.84, 95% CI: [0.72, 0.99]), 2019 (SHR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.55, 0.75]) and 2020 (SHR: 0.82, 95% CI: [0.71, 0.95]) were statistically significantly less likely to stop coming back for their PrEP compared to those initiating in 2016, when accounting for the competing risks of client-initiated and provider-initiated discontinuation. Interestingly, there was a statistically significantly greater risk of client-initiated discontinuation in 2019 compared with 2016, with 150 client-initiated discontinuations out of the 756 who initiated in 2019, or 19.8%, (SHR: 3.41, 95% CI: [1.75, 6.63]) (Table 1).

Fig 2. Stacked cumulative incidence functions plotting the competing risks of those who remained on PrEP, those who did not return (two consecutive missed visits), client-initiated discontinuation, and provider-initiated discontinuation among 2776 female sex workers initiating PrEP through TB HIV Care in eThekwini, South Africa 2016–2020.

Fig 2

Discussion

Among FSW accessing HIV prevention services from a real-world service provider in eThekwini, South Africa, the number of PrEP initiations increased each year from 2016 to 2020. PrEP persistence declined to 53% one month after initiation and to just 9% after one year. Younger women were more likely to discontinue PrEP due to missed visits compared with those 25 years and older. Risk of discontinuation due to missed visits declined for those initiating in 2018, 2019, and 2020, suggesting improvements over the life of the program in helping women to stay engaged. Despite the disruptions to the healthcare infrastructure created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the program reported more initiations, sustained improvements in persistence, and a lower risk of client-initiated stops among those initiating in 2020.

Poor PrEP persistence may challenge its real-world utility. The low levels of persistence seen in this study and the sharp decline at one-month are consistent with what has been reported in trials, including the FEM-PrEP study [22] and VOICE [23]. The TAPS demonstration study with FSW in South Africa also indicated that PrEP use declines to 50% one month after initiation and continues to decline after that [14]. The real-world data presented here reinforce the need for effective implementation strategies to improve PrEP persistence.

Losses were highest among those under 25 years, which is also the group of FSW at the highest risk of HIV acquisition. Nearly 30% of all new infections in South Africa are among young women and by age 25, 70% of FSW have been infected with HIV [24]. Younger women tend to have lower levels of HIV-related knowledge and lower risk perception [25]. Additionally, younger FSW may face specific challenges associated with their youth: less experience in the industry, less social support and fewer network ties, greater vulnerability to violence, lack of financial autonomy, and underdeveloped self-efficacy [26,27]. Strategies to promote PrEP persistence may need to be tailored to the specific challenges and needs of youth.

Over the life of the program, a number of changes have been implemented, both in terms of the goals of the program and the strategies implemented to try to achieve these goals. At the outset of the program, the primary goal was to try to promote PrEP uptake. As the program evolved, PrEP persistence grew to be a more central concern, with CDC/PEPFAR adding current users of PrEP as an official program target in 2019. The shifting priorities of the program may help explain the greater focus given to persistence and the observed improvements over time. Additionally, the program instituted several implementation strategies that aimed to address different barriers to PrEP persistence. The program added staff in June 2019 that included case managers and social workers. These additional staff meant more dedicated resources and greater flexibility to manage new PrEP users. The expanded use of the case management approach allowed for staff to call those who may have missed appointments. This closer follow-up may also help explain the reason for the increased risk of client-initiated discontinuation in 2019, as staff were actually able to ascertain and record that a woman no longer wanted to be on PrEP.

The data presented here show that the program was largely resilient to the interruptions caused by COVID-19, with a consistent increase in the number of initiations and improved persistence among those who began PrEP in 2020. Though empiric data on the impact of COVID-19 on HIV services in Sub-Saharan Africa are limited, most suggest that patient care was interrupted by pandemic restrictions due to lower supply of drugs and fewer patient visits [2830]. In a national survey in South Africa that recruited approximately 19,000 individuals via social media, it was found that 13.2% were unable to pick up their medications during the pandemic [29]. The implementation strategies started by the program coupled with the fact that HIV prevention and treatment services remained “essential” in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic may have made the program more resilient to the shocks of the pandemic.

There are three key limitations of this study. First, the primary outcome in this study is PrEP persistence rather than adherence, which may be better captured through pill counts, electronic monitoring, or pharmacological samples, and arguably is an important measure of whether a woman was protected from acquiring HIV. PrEP persistence is probably a highly specific but not perfectly sensitive measure of PrEP adherence. PrEP was not available from other sources in the study setting during the study period (not persisting on PrEP is a good marker of not adhering to PrEP). Contrariwise, it is unlikely that women would return to pick up PrEP if they did not intend to take it (PrEP persistence is not a guarantee of PrEP adherence, but it is probably a reasonable proxy). If anything, we have overestimated PrEP adherence and our central conclusion (PrEP adherence is too low) is unchanged. A second limitation is that the frequency of PrEP refill visits changed during the study period. At the start of the program, women were seen monthly to be given their PrEP. When the guidelines were updated to allow for multi-month dispensing, women were seen at 1-month and thereafter 3-monthly (e.g. 1-month, 4-months, 7-months, etc.) to be given their PrEP. In many instances, however, the program did see the client in the intervening months between PrEP refill visits and would document whether an individual was still taking PrEP. While in later years this might have limited our ability to detect PrEP discontinuation with the same speed (e.g., discontinuation that occurred at month 2 might not be detected until month 4,) we chose to retain the definition of two missed monthly visits for discontinuation both to ensure comparability across the years and because the program’s register still documents monthly contact with PrEP users. All discontinuations would still be detected within the outcome window (1 year) overall estimates of PrEP persistence at 4- and 7-months should not be affected. As a final limitation, because of limited data availability, demographic and/or behavioral risk data beyond age and year of PrEP initiation were not available to thoroughly assess predictors of persistence. Understanding who is at risk of discontinuation and reasons for discontinuation will be an important contribution to better tailoring strategies to promote PrEP persistence.

The need for PrEP, unlike treatment for HIV, depends heavily on individual risk-assessment and readiness. Some of the improved persistence over time could be explained by program staff better refining who they started on PrEP, that is, better identifying women who were in need of and who understood the benefit of taking PrEP or may in part be due to the role of diffusion of information (increasing PrEP awareness and awareness of the program) and greater acceptability among peers, partners, and others in the community. While this study describes how the program was able to make gradual improvements in PrEP persistence over time while reaching a larger number and proportion of FSW over time, further research on which implementation strategies may have spurred some of these incremental changes and the mechanism of action are critical to see the additional gains in persistence that are needed.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. PrEP eThekwini survival analysis appendix.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

This analysis leveraged program data that the research team does not have ownership over. Data are protected under the Protection Of Personal Information Act (POPI) in South Africa. De-identified data may be made available by request from TB HIV Care in accordance with national laws and organizational regulations. Requests for de-identified data can be sent to Anje Pretorius at Anje@tbhivcare.org.

Funding Statement

AR;F31MH124458-01A1; National Institute of Mental Health; https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nimh.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Carao24%40jhu.edu%7C0cbfd826678f462fe52c08d9fd5835b4%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637819378360948543%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=bSqCkfzuVvwGj6rZRK7UpKgxm36Y0yAQtxglzRzj9yc%3D&reserved=0 SB; R01NR016650-05; National Institute of Nursing Research; https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninr.nih.gov%2F&data=04%7C01%7Carao24%40jhu.edu%7C0cbfd826678f462fe52c08d9fd5835b4%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637819378360948543%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=oEII3UGmZQXCae%2Bc5EG%2BxfliVhoIpVdx%2F6feO1iBNhw%3D&reserved=0 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.UNAIDS South Africa.: UNAIDS, 2021.
  • 2.Konstant TL, Rangasami J, Stacey MJ, Stewart ML, Nogoduka C. Estimating the number of sex workers in South Africa: rapid population size estimation. AIDS Behav 2015; 19 Suppl 1: S3–15. doi: 10.1007/s10461-014-0981-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schwartz S, Lambert A, Phaswana-Mafuya N, et al. Engagement in the HIV care cascade and barriers to antiretroviral therapy uptake among female sex workers in Port Elizabeth, South Africa: findings from a respondent-driven sampling study. Sex Transm Infect 2017; 93(4): 290–6. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2016-052773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Grasso MA, Manyuchi AE, Sibanyoni M, et al. Estimating the Population Size of Female Sex Workers in Three South African Cities: Results and Recommendations From the 2013–2014 South Africa Health Monitoring Survey and Stakeholder Consensus. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2018; 4(3): e10188. doi: 10.2196/10188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Baral S, Beyrer C, Muessig K, et al. Burden of HIV among female sex workers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12(7): 538–49. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70066-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Beyrer C, Crago AL, Bekker LG, et al. An action agenda for HIV and sex workers. Lancet 2015; 385(9964): 287–301. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60933-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wirtz AL, Schwartz S, Ketende S, et al. Sexual violence, condom negotiation, and condom use in the context of sex work: results from two west african countries. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015; 68 Suppl 2: S171–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Becker ML, Bhattacharjee P, Blanchard JF, et al. Vulnerabilities at First Sex and Their Association With Lifetime Gender-Based Violence and HIV Prevalence Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women Engaged in Sex Work, Transactional Sex, and Casual Sex in Kenya. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2018; 79(3): 296–304. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jewkes RK, Dunkle K, Nduna M, Shai N. Intimate partner violence, relationship power inequity, and incidence of HIV infection in young women in South Africa: a cohort study. Lancet 2010; 376(9734): 41–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60548-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Thomson KA, Baeten JM, Mugo NR, Bekker LG, Celum CL, Heffron R. Tenofovir-based oral preexposure prophylaxis prevents HIV infection among women. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2016; 11(1): 18–26. doi: 10.1097/COH.0000000000000207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363(27): 2587–99. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Buchbinder SP. Maximizing the Benefits of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis. Top Antivir Med 2018; 25(4): 138–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Braksmajer A, Senn TE, McMahon J. The Potential of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for Women in Violent Relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2016; 30(6): 274–81. doi: 10.1089/apc.2016.0098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Eakle R, Gomez GB, Naicker N, et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and early antiretroviral treatment among female sex workers in South Africa: Results from a prospective observational demonstration project. PLoS Med 2017; 14(11): e1002444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gill K, Pidwell T, Dietrich J, et al. A Demonstration Open Label Study to Assess the Acceptability, Safety and Use of Truvada Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in Healthy, HIV-Uninfected Adolescents, 15–19 Years of Age. Conference of the International AIDS Society. Paris, France; 2017.
  • 16.Pinto RM, Berringer KR, Melendez R, Mmeje O. Improving PrEP Implementation Through Multilevel Interventions: A Synthesis of the Literature. AIDS Behav 2018; 22(11): 3681–91. doi: 10.1007/s10461-018-2184-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Eakle R, Bourne A, Jarrett C, Stadler J, Larson H. Motivations and barriers to uptake and use of female-initiated, biomedical HIV prevention products in sub-Saharan Africa: an adapted meta-ethnography. BMC Public Health 2017; 17(1): 968. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4959-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mack N, Odhiambo J, Wong CM, Agot K. Barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) eligibility screening and ongoing HIV testing among target populations in Bondo and Rarieda, Kenya: results of a consultation with community stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 231. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Goparaju L, Experton LS, Praschan NC, Warren-Jeanpiere L, Young MA, Kassaye S. Women want Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis but are Advised Against it by Their HIV-positive Counterparts. J AIDS Clin Res 2015; 6(11): 1–10. doi: 10.4172/2155-6113.1000522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bhavaraju N, Uribe D. PrEP Watch: Early Lessons from South Africa’s Rollout of Oral PrEP to Sex Workers. https://www.prepwatch.org/early-lessons-south-africa-rollout/.
  • 21.Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1997; 94(446): 496–509. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(5): 411–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, et al. Tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med 2015; 372(6): 509–18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rucinski KB, Schwartz SR, Mishra S, et al. High HIV Prevalence and Low HIV-Service Engagement Among Young Women Who Sell Sex: A Pooled Analysis Across 9 Sub-Saharan African Countries. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2020; 85(2): 148–55. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002432 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yang F, Li Z, Subramanian SV, Lu C. Assessment of Knowledge of HIV/AIDS and Association With Socioeconomic Disparities Among Young Women in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, 2003 to 2018. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4(1): e2035000. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Napierala S, Chabata ST, Fearon E, et al. Engagement in HIV Care Among Young Female Sex Workers in Zimbabwe. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2018; 79(3): 358–66. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bowring AL, Ketende S, Rao A, et al. Characterising unmet HIV prevention and treatment needs among young female sex workers and young men who have sex with men in Cameroon: a cross-sectional analysis. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2019; 3(7): 482–91. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30123-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nachega JB, Kapata N, Sam-Agudu NA, et al. Minimizing the impact of the triple burden of COVID-19, tuberculosis and HIV on health services in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Infect Dis 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jewell BL, Mudimu E, Stover J, et al. Potential effects of disruption to HIV programmes in sub-Saharan Africa caused by COVID-19: results from multiple mathematical models. Lancet HIV 2020; 7(9): e629–e40. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(20)30211-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shiau S, Krause KD, Valera P, Swaminathan S, Halkitis PN. The Burden of COVID-19 in People Living with HIV: A Syndemic Perspective. AIDS Behav 2020; 24(8): 2244–9. doi: 10.1007/s10461-020-02871-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Deborah Donnell

12 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-28140Persistence on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among female sex workers in eThekwini, South Africa, 2016-2020PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rao,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Deborah Donnell, Ph. D.

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. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain as separate "supporting information" files.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Both reviewers comment on the need for additional details in the methods and results that are necessary to ensure readers have enough context to place the findings of the manuscript alongside findings of others. Please provide the requested details.

Reviewer 1 points out the different definitions of persistence used in the literature and reporting of PrEP uptae. Please ensure the resubmission addresses this, either through revised definitions or through discussion of comparison with other results.

I note that the data will not be available becuase of legal constraints based on the source of the data. I have requested that a PLOS Editor make a determination of that exception.

[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: No

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: INTRO:

1) PrEP persistence instead of persistence on PrEP sounds better and less clumsy

2) Police arrest seems redundant

3) Reference 20 seems to be the wrong reference for line 115. Also the roll out happened with sex workers first - https://www.prepwatch.org/early-lessons-south-africa-rollout/

METHODS:

4) When you looked at PrEP initiation were these all new initiations or did some people stop and then initiate again? Please clarify in the methods how your cohort is defined. Results indicate that some were restarts.

5) There are different ways to define PrEP persistence – you could reference how other people have defined this and why you chose your definition. Please also explain why people had to miss 2 consecutive visits to be defined as “discontinued” It seems to be a more generous definition of persistence and may explain why your persistence is higher than other studies

6) Did you bring your participants back for monthly visits in your program? This is not comparable to most standard of care that would see PrEP clients after a month and then 3 monthly. Please describe the program in the methods and justify why this is “real world implementation” (line 118). Please also discuss how many FSW accessed the program in total year on year and how many of the non infected FSW refused to take PrEP. It is important to have context to be able to understand what the results mean.

7) Some results are reported as “significant” please define in the methods what you mean by this

RESULTS:

8) General comment on the results is that there are no denominators so it is very difficult to interpret your % results.

9) PrEP initiations increased year on year – please include denominators to understand if the project was scaling up or if you were seeing the same numbers of people and more were taking up PrEP. So something like of the xxx FSW eligible to receive PrEP yyy initiated PrEP per year.

10) Please give the n/N for the PrEP persistence figures – need to see the denominators to be able to interpret your results.

11) PrEP persistence was 53% (95% CI: 51%-55%) 1 month after initiation, 33% (95% CI: 31%-35%) 4-months after initiation, and 18% (95% CI: 7-months after initiation. Is this overall? (line 162)

12) Please clarify how you know your results are significant? What statistical test did you use?

DISCUSSION:

13) No limitations mentioned

FIGURES AND LEGENDS

14) Figure 1 legend is incomplete

Reviewer #2: This is a well written and well done study on PrEP persistence in South Africa. While some of the descriptions of persistence and conclusions about age are not new, the study makes a valuable contribution to the literature with interesting findings related to persistence over time and during the pandemic. I enjoyed reading this paper and think it is important.

• Can you describe more about the study population? It is stated that they were already accessing other care at TB HIV care or took part in a PrEP initiation campaign. Would you expect this population of FSW to be representative of FSW more broadly?

• Given the use of register data, please describe more about how you dealt with missing data and measurement error.

• Were reasons for discontinuation captured? This might be interesting to describe by years. For example, was it related to moving, change in behavior or something else.

• Given the way the categories are defined it seems as though there would be differential loss to follow up by group for other reasons unrelated to PrEP discontinuation ( e.g going to a new provider for PrEP) Can you describe how this may have impacted results?

• The authors mention the role of partners and social influence but mostly focus on changes in clinic implementation to explain increases in persistence over time. What about the role of diffusion of information and social norms?

********** 

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: No

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos1reviewSep2021final.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 15;17(3):e0265434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265434.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Dec 2021

We thank the reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive comments. We have responded to your feedback, point-by-point, below.

Reviewer #1: INTRO:

1) PrEP persistence instead of persistence on PrEP sounds better and less clumsy

Thank you for this suggestion. We have replaced instances of “persistence on PrEP” with “PrEP persistence.”

2) Police arrest seems redundant

We have revised this simply to state “arrest,” to avoid the redundancy.

3) Reference 20 seems to be the wrong reference for line 115. Also the roll out happened with sex workers first - https://www.prepwatch.org/early-lessons-south-africa-rollout/

Thank you very much for this point of clarification. This was an incorrect statement. We have revised it and referenced PrEP Watch instead.

METHODS:

4) When you looked at PrEP initiation were these all new initiations or did some people stop and then initiate again? Please clarify in the methods how your cohort is defined. Results indicate that some were restarts.

This is an important question; thank you for bringing this to our attention. Our study population is made up of unique individuals who initiated PrEP for the first time. Restarts were documented as events occurring during follow-up of these unique individuals in the program’s PrEP register. We have added language to clarify this in the Methods section.

5) There are different ways to define PrEP persistence – you could reference how other people have defined this and why you chose your definition. Please also explain why people had to miss 2 consecutive visits to be defined as “discontinued” It seems to be a more generous definition of persistence and may explain why your persistence is higher than other studies

Thank you for this point of clarification. Two consecutive missed months rather than one missed visit was used to define discontinuation, as this is the definition used by the program to define loss to follow-up. If a client misses one visit, but returns the next month, the program notes this client as not attending a visit but continuing on PrEP. If a client misses two consecutive visits and returns subsequently, the program defines her as a “restart.” We have added clarification of this to the Methods section (lines 159-164). Of additional note, this definition is in alignment with the PEPFAR definition used by the Monitoring and Evaluation team and across the PEPFAR funded program in South Africa.

6) Did you bring your participants back for monthly visits in your program? This is not comparable to most standard of care that would see PrEP clients after a month and then 3 monthly. Please describe the program in the methods and justify why this is “real world implementation” (line 118). Please also discuss how many FSW accessed the program in total year on year and how many of the non infected FSW refused to take PrEP. It is important to have context to be able to understand what the results mean.

Thank you for this question. We agree that further information is needed here to clarify how frequently clients were seen by the program. When the program first began delivering PrEP, clients would be seen on a monthly basis to be given their PrEP. When the guidelines were updated to allow for multi-month dispensing and for women to been seen at 1 month and then again 3-monthly (e.g. 4, 7, 10 months, etc.), the program also updated their procedures accordingly. In many instances, however, the program did see the client in the intervening months between PrEP refill visits and could document whether she was still taking PrEP.

This could partially explain why for the later years of the program, you see steeper numbers discontinuing at the formal intervals (e.g. 4 months and 7 months) compared with intervening months (e.g. 2 and 3 months), but it is still possible that women may discontinue at intervening months in the later years.

While this change in frequency of visits is a limitation, we chose to retain the definition of two missed monthly visits for discontinuation both to ensure comparability across the years and because the program’s register still documents monthly contact with PrEP users.

We have now added detailed reference to this in the Limitations section of the Discussion (lines 317-326).

With regard to the second portion of your question on how many FSW accessed the program, please see the below response to comment # 9; we have added the number of FSW eligible for PrEP (accessing services and HIV-negative) each year as a denominator for the number taking up PrEP.

7) Some results are reported as “significant” please define in the methods what you mean by this

Results were determined to be statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval around the hazard ratios did not overlap with the line of no difference (which is 1 in the case of ratio measures). We have added a line describing this in the Methods.

RESULTS:

8) General comment on the results is that there are no denominators so it is very difficult to interpret your % results.

Thank you for this. We have provided a table in the Appendix that details the number at risk at the start of each time period, the number who experienced the outcome of discontinuation, the net lost, and the corresponding survivor function. The percentage retained at each monthly interval are based on a Kaplan-Meier survivor function (conditional probability), which accounts for more complex survival data (e.g. adequately accounting for those individuals who were administratively censored: those who initiated in the last few months of the program and did not have enough follow-up months to determine their outcome). We feel that providing denominators would not adequately convey this, and so instead have provided the table to give further detail of the risk sets for each month.

9) PrEP initiations increased year on year – please include denominators to understand if the project was scaling up or if you were seeing the same numbers of people and more were taking up PrEP. So something like of the xxx FSW eligible to receive PrEP yyy initiated PrEP per year.

We agree with your feedback and have now added into the results the number who were eligible each year for PrEP and the percentage taking up PrEP (lines 194-198). We have also added a new figure (new Figure 1) to visually depict the increase in percentage of FSW initiating PrEP over time.

10) Please give the n/N for the PrEP persistence figures – need to see the denominators to be able to interpret your results.

Please see our above response to comment # 8.

11) PrEP persistence was 53% (95% CI: 51%-55%) 1 month after initiation, 33% (95% CI: 31%-35%) 4-months after initiation, and 18% (95% CI: 7-months after initiation. Is this overall? (line 162)

Thank you for this clarifying question. Yes – these results were for overall across all those initiating PrEP.

12) Please clarify how you know your results are significant? What statistical test did you use?

Thank you for this. As we noted above in response to comment # 7, groups were considered to be significantly different from one another if the 95% confidence intervals surrounding the hazard ratio did not overlap with 1. Where we do note “significance” in the results, we have now revised this to state “statistically significant” for added clarity.

DISCUSSION:

13) No limitations mentioned

We have now added a limitations paragraph to the Discussion section with the three main limitations of this study (lines 312-330).

FIGURES AND LEGENDS

14) Figure 1 legend is incomplete

Thank you for your careful review here. We have now corrected this, so the legend for Figure 1 is complete.

Reviewer #2: This is a well written and well done study on PrEP persistence in South Africa. While some of the descriptions of persistence and conclusions about age are not new, the study makes a valuable contribution to the literature with interesting findings related to persistence over time and during the pandemic. I enjoyed reading this paper and think it is important.

We thank you for your careful review and consideration. Please find responses to your points below.

• Can you describe more about the study population? It is stated that they were already accessing other care at TB HIV care or took part in a PrEP initiation campaign. Would you expect this population of FSW to be representative of FSW more broadly?

This is a really important point. Our study population is made up of those accessing services through or engaged with TB HIV Care in some way (from regularly testing for HIV, to picking up contraceptives, to operating out of a venue where TB HIV Care staff are familiar). This population may not be representative of all FSW (those missed may include those working in isolated environments, who are not otherwise interacting with the larger sex work community) but is certainly representative of those who may be reached with outreach services.

• Given the use of register data, please describe more about how you dealt with missing data and measurement error.

Thank you for this question. Data were complete for our primary independent variables (age and year of initiation). One component of our composite outcome was defined as not attending two consecutive visits, and individuals who missed two consecutive visits were classified as not returning for PrEP. Because of the structure of our outcome, we also did not have missing outcome data.

• Were reasons for discontinuation captured? This might be interesting to describe by years. For example, was it related to moving, change in behavior or something else.

We agree with your feedback that it would have been informative to present reasons for discontinuation, but unfortunately, the PrEP register we have access to does not capture this information. This is something we are hoping to explore further in future work (there is some ongoing qualitative work in the same population to look at exactly this).

Additionally, we have now noted in the Limitations section: “As a final limitation, because of limited data availability, demographic and/or behavioral risk data beyond age and year of PrEP initiation were not available to thoroughly assess predictors of persistence. Understanding who is at risk of discontinuation and reasons for discontinuation will be an important contribution to better tailoring strategies to promote PrEP persistence.”

• Given the way the categories are defined it seems as though there would be differential loss to follow up by group for other reasons unrelated to PrEP discontinuation ( e.g going to a new provider for PrEP) Can you describe how this may have impacted results?

During the study period, TB HIV Care was the sole provider of PrEP to this population, and so it is unlikely that women would have been able to continue their PrEP elsewhere. In this analysis, we have captured three different reasons for PrEP discontinuation: not returning for visits, client-initiated discontinuation, and provider-initiated discontinuation.

• The authors mention the role of partners and social influence but mostly focus on changes in clinic implementation to explain increases in persistence over time. What about the role of diffusion of information and social norms?

Thank you for this point. We have now made note in the Discussion section that changes in persistence over time may in part be due to the role of diffusion of information (PrEP awareness and awareness of the program) and greater acceptability among peers, partners, and others in the community.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos1reviewSep2021final_18Nov2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Catherine E Oldenburg

2 Mar 2022

Persistence on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among female sex workers in eThekwini, South Africa, 2016-2020

PONE-D-21-28140R1

Dear Dr. Rao,

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,

Catherine E Oldenburg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: All comments have been addressed

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my comments. I have no additional comments for the authors and agree that it should be accepted.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Catherine E Oldenburg

7 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-28140R1

Persistence on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among female sex workers in eThekwini, South Africa, 2016-2020

Dear Dr. Rao:

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. Catherine E Oldenburg

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. PrEP eThekwini survival analysis appendix.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos1reviewSep2021final.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos1reviewSep2021final_18Nov2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    This analysis leveraged program data that the research team does not have ownership over. Data are protected under the Protection Of Personal Information Act (POPI) in South Africa. De-identified data may be made available by request from TB HIV Care in accordance with national laws and organizational regulations. Requests for de-identified data can be sent to Anje Pretorius at Anje@tbhivcare.org.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES