# Testing different models of pharmacy-based HIV pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis initiation and management in Kenya: protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

## TL;DR

This study tests whether private pharmacies in Kenya can effectively deliver HIV prevention services like PrEP and PEP compared to the current clinic-based approach.

## Contribution

The study introduces and evaluates multiple pharmacy-based models for delivering HIV prevention services in a real-world setting.

## Key findings

- Private pharmacies may increase uptake and continuation of PrEP and PEP services.
- Different financial and support models for pharmacies will be compared for effectiveness.
- The study will assess the feasibility and acceptability of pharmacy-delivered HIV prevention services.

## Abstract

In Kenya, as in many African countries, private pharmacies are ubiquitous, frequently accessed, and underutilized for the delivery of HIV prevention services. Whether enabling private pharmacies to initiate and manage clients on HIV pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) leads to greater uptake and continuation than the current standard–pharmacy referral to clinic-based PrEP/PEP–is unknown. To address this gap and inform how private pharmacies might partner with the public sector, we are testing several models of pharmacy-delivered PrEP/PEP in comparison to the current standard.

The Pharm PrEP cRCT is a 60-pharmacy, four-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial ongoing in Central and Western Kenya (first enrollment: 26 June 2023). Eligible pharmacies were licensed by the government, had a private room, and were willing to complete research activities (including a three-day provider training). Study pharmacies were randomized 1:1:1:1 to: 1) client-sustained delivery, in which clients pay pharmacies 250 KES (~$2 USD) per PrEP/PEP visit, 2) implementor-sustained delivery, in which clients pay nothing and implementors pay pharmacies 250 KES per PrEP/PEP visit, 3) implementor-sustained + counselor-supported delivery, in which clients pay nothing, delivery is supported by an HIV testing services (HTS) counselor, and implementors pay pharmacies 100 KES (~$1 USD) per PrEP/PEP visit, or 4) referral (control), in which clients pay nothing and implementors pay pharmacies 100 KES per referral to clinic-based PrEP/PEP. Pharmacies delivering PrEP/PEP receive supporting commodities free from government stock. Primary outcomes are PrEP initiation and continuation (any refilling) reported by clients 60 days post-enrollment; secondary outcomes include PEP initiation, PEP-to-PrEP transition, repeat PEP use, PrEP/PEP initiation, and PrEP/PEP continuation at 60 and 270 days post-enrollment. Primary analyses will compare each intervention arm to the control; secondary analyses will compare intervention arms to one another. We will additionally assess implementation outcomes (e.g., acceptability, feasibility, cost) from client and provider perspectives.

This trial will generate evidence on the potential benefits of leveraging private pharmacies for delivery of PrEP and PEP and the relative effectiveness of pharmacy delivery when subsidized by clients, implementors, and/or supported by HTS counselors. The findings may inform enabling policy and approaches for scale-up.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05842122