There is an urgent need to measure the impacts of COVID-19 among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM). We conducted a cross-sectional survey with a global sample of gay men and other MSM (n = 2732) from April 16, 2020 to May 4, 2020, through a social networking app. We characterized the economic, mental health, HIV prevention and HIV treatment impacts of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 response, and examined whether subgroups of our study population are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Many gay men and other MSM not only reported economic and mental health consequences, but also interruptions to HIV prevention and testing, and HIV care and treatment services. These consequences were significantly greater among people living with HIV, racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, sex workers, and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. These findings highlight the urgent need to mitigate the negative impacts of COVID-19 among gay men and other MSM. Keywords COVID-19 • Economic impact • Mental health • HIV • AIDS • Gay • Men who have sex with men Resumen Existe una necesidad urgente para medir los impactos de COVID-19 entre hombres gay y otros hombres que tienen sexo con hombres (HSH). Hemos conducido una encuesta multifuncional con una prueba mundial de hombres gay y otros HSH (n = 2732) desde el 16 de Abril hasta el 4 de Mayo del 2020, a través de una aplicación de red social. Nosotros caracterizamos los impactos económicos, de salud mental, prevención del VIH y tratamiento del VIH e impactos a COVID-19 y la respuesta de COVID-19, y examinamos si subgrupos de nuestra población de estudio fueron impactados desproporcionadamente por COVID-19. Muchos hombres no tan solo reportaron consecuencias económicas y de salud mental, sino también interrupciones de prevención y de pruebas de VIH, y cuidado del VIH y servicios de tratamiento. Encontramos consecuencias más significantes entre personas viviendo con VIH, grupos raciales/etnicos, migrantes, sexo servidores, y groupos socioeconomicamente disfavorecidos. Los resultados subrayan la necesidad crucial de mitigar los impactos multifacéticos de COVID-19 entre los hombres homosexuales y otros HSH, especialmente para aquellos con vulnerabilidades entrelazadas.

There is an urgent need to measure the impacts of COVID-19 among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM). We conducted a cross-sectional survey with a global sample of gay men and other MSM (n= 2732) from April 16, 2020 to May 4, 2020, through a social networking app. We characterized the economic, mental health, HIV prevention and HIV treatment impacts of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 response, and examined whether subgroups of our study population are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Many men not only reported economic and mental health consequences, but also interruptions to HIV prevention and testing, and HIV care and treatment services. Consequences were significantly greater among people living with HIV, racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, sex workers, and socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Findings underscore the crucial need to mitigate the multifaceted impacts of COVID-19 among gay men and other MSM, especially for those with intersecting vulnerabilities.

Introduction In generalized epidemic settings, there is insufficient understanding of how the unmet HIV prevention and treatment needs of key populations (KPs), such as female sex workers (FSWs) and men who have sex with men (MSM), contribute to HIV transmission. In such settings, it is typically assumed that HIV transmission is driven by the general population. We estimated the contribution of commercial sex, sex between men, and other heterosexual partnerships to HIV transmission in South Africa (SA). Methods We developed the “Key‐Pop Model”; a dynamic transmission model of HIV among FSWs, their clients, MSM, and the broader population in SA. The model was parameterized and calibrated using demographic, behavioural and epidemiological data from national household surveys and KP surveys. We estimated the contribution of commercial sex, sex between men and sex among heterosexual partnerships of different sub‐groups to HIV transmission over 2010 to 2019. We also estimated the efficiency (HIV infections averted per person‐year of intervention) and prevented fraction (% IA) over 10‐years from scaling‐up ART (to 81% coverage) in different sub‐populations from 2020. Results Sex between FSWs and their paying clients, and between clients with their non‐paying partners contributed 6.9% (95% credibility interval 4.5% to 9.3%) and 41.9% (35.1% to 53.2%) of new HIV infections in SA over 2010 to 2019 respectively. Sex between low‐risk groups contributed 59.7% (47.6% to 68.5%), sex between men contributed 5.3% (2.3% to 14.1%) and sex between MSM and their female partners contributed 3.7% (1.6% to 9.8%). Going forward, the largest population‐level impact on HIV transmission can be achieved from scaling up ART to clients of FSWs (% IA = 18.2% (14.0% to 24.4%) or low‐risk individuals (% IA = 20.6% (14.7 to 27.5) over 2020 to 2030), with ART scale‐up among KPs being most efficient. Conclusions Clients of FSWs play a fundamental role in HIV transmission in SA. Addressing the HIV prevention and treatment needs of KPs in generalized HIV epidemics is central to a comprehensive HIV response.

doi: medRxiv preprint NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.

In 2019, the HIV pandemic is growing and soon over 40 million people will be living with HIV. Effective populationbased approaches to decrease HIV incidence are as relevant as ever given modest reductions observed over the past decade. Treatment as prevention is often heralded as the path to improve HIV outcomes and to reduce HIV incidence. Although treatment of an individual does eliminate onward transmission to serodifferent partners (unde tectable=untransmittable or U=U), population-level observational and experimental data have not shown a similar effect with scale-up of treatment on reducing HIV incidence. This disconnect might be the result of little attention given to heterogeneities of HIV acquisition and transmission risks that exist in people at risk for and living with HIV, even in the most broadly generalised epidemics. Available data suggest that HIV treatment is treatment, HIV prevention is prevention, and specificity of HIV treatment approaches towards people at highest risk of onward transmission drives the intersection between the two. All people living with HIV deserve HIV treatment, but both more accurately estimating and optimising the potential HIV prevention effects of universal treatment approaches necessitates understanding who is being supported with treatment rather than a focus on treatment targets such as 90-90-90 or 95-95-95.