Profile and care pathway of men who have sex with men on pre-exposure prophylaxis in Lomé, Togo, in 2025: a cross-sectional study (Key-PrEP Study)
This 2025 cross-sectional study of 2,433 men who have sex with men in Togo reveals a low PrEP follow-up rate of 15.5%, with higher attendance significantly associated with initiating a continuous regimen and starting care in Lomé rather than Aného.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the human body as a bustling city, and the virus known as HIV as a stealthy burglar trying to break into the most secure buildings. For decades, the main strategy to stop this burglar was to build a wall around the city after the attack happened, or to catch the burglar once they were already inside. But scientists realized that if you could give the city's guards a special, invisible shield before the burglar even showed up, you could stop the break-in entirely. This shield is called PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis). Think of it like a force field: if you take the right medicine every day (or at the right times), and the burglar tries to enter, the shield neutralizes them instantly, keeping the city safe.
However, a force field only works if the guards actually wear it. In the real world, keeping a shield on is hard. People get busy, they forget, they feel embarrassed, or they just stop believing they need it. This is where the story gets tricky. Scientists know the shield works in the lab, but they need to know if it works in the messy, complicated streets of real life. They need to know: Do people actually keep coming back to get their shield refilled? Do they stick with the plan? If they don't, the shield is useless, no matter how strong it is. This is the big question researchers are asking in many places around the world, trying to figure out how to turn a great idea into a real-life safety net.
Now, let's zoom in on a specific story from the city of Lomé in Togo, told by a team of researchers in 2025. They decided to look at the "care pathway" of men who have sex with men (MSM), a group that faces a much higher risk of encountering the HIV burglar. The researchers gathered the medical records of 2,433 men who had started using this PrEP shield. They wanted to see the profile of these men and, more importantly, track their journey: did they come back for their follow-up visits, or did they disappear into the crowd?
The results were a bit of a wake-up call. Out of the 2,433 men who started the PrEP journey, only 15.5% (that's about 376 people) actually returned for a follow-up visit. Imagine a group of 100 people signing up for a marathon; if only 15 of them show up for the next checkpoint, the organizers have a serious problem. The study found that the way the men started their treatment mattered. Those who took the medicine on a "continuous" schedule (taking it every single day) were more likely to come back for a check-up than those on an "intermittent" or "on-demand" schedule (taking it only around specific times). It's like the difference between a daily commute that becomes a habit versus a sporadic trip that's easy to forget.
Location also played a huge role. Men who started their PrEP in the big, busy city of Lomé were much more likely to return for a visit than those who started in the smaller, less urbanized city of Aného, which is about 50 kilometers away. The researchers calculated that men in Lomé were more than twice as likely to stick with the program. This suggests that the environment, perhaps the availability of clinics or the support systems in the city, acts like a magnet, pulling people back into care.
The paper doesn't claim to have solved the mystery of why so many people dropped out, but it clearly points out that the current system is leaking. It suggests that while the medicine itself is a powerful tool, the "real-world" version of the program is struggling to keep people engaged. The authors note that in research studies where people are closely watched and supported, retention rates are much higher (around 42.5%), but in the messy reality of everyday life without that extra hand-holding, the numbers drop drastically. They also caution that just because someone didn't show up for a visit doesn't mean they stopped taking the medicine; they might have gotten supplies elsewhere or paused because they felt safe at the time.
Ultimately, this study paints a picture of a promising shield that is currently slipping through the fingers of the people who need it most. It suggests that to fix this, health programs need to pay close attention to how the medicine is prescribed (daily vs. on-demand) and where it is offered. By understanding these patterns, the people in charge can try to build better bridges to keep the guards in the city safe, ensuring that the force field stays up and the burglar stays out.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.