Comparison of Two HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Regimens Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Amsterdam: Adverse Effects Do Not Influence Compliance

Psychosocial Health Factors Among Men Reporting Recent Sexual Assault

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe psychosocial health factors in a community sample of men who sought care for sexual assault in the previous 3 months and who were recruited using Internet-based methods.

METHODS

The cross-sectional survey assessed factors related to HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake and adherence postsexual assault: HIV risk perception, HIV PEP self-efficacy, mental health symptoms, social responses to sexual assault disclosure, PEP costs, negative health habits, and social support.

RESULTS

There were 69 men in the sample. Participants reported high levels of perceived social support. A high proportion reported symptoms of depression ( n = 44, 64%) and posttraumatic stress disorder ( n = 48, 70%) consistent with cutoffs for clinical diagnoses. Just over a quarter of participants reported past 30-day illicit substance use ( n = 20, 29%), and 45 people (65%) reported weekly binge drinking (six or more drinks on one occasion).

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS WORK ON HEALTH EQUITY AND FORENSIC NURSING

Men are underrepresented in sexual assault research and clinical care. We highlight similarities and differences between our sample and prior clinical samples and also outline needs for future research and interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Men in our sample were highly fearful of acquiring HIV, initiated HIV PEP, and completed or were actively taking HIV PEP at the time of data collection despite high rates of mental health symptoms and physical side effects. These findings suggest that forensic nurses need not only to be prepared to provide comprehensive counseling and care to patients about HIV risk and prevention options but also to address the unique follow-up needs of this population.

The Use of HIV Pre- and Postexposure Prophylaxis Among a Web-Based Sample of HIV-Negative and Unknown Status Cisgender and Transgender Sexual Minority Men: Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

HIV disproportionately affects sexual minority men (SMM) in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine past HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) use and current and prior pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among a web-based sample of cisgender and transgender men who have sex with men.

METHODS

In 2019, HIV-negative and unknown status SMM (n=63,015) were recruited via geosocial networking apps, social media, and other web-based venues to participate in a brief eligibility screening survey. Individuals were asked about past PEP use and current and prior PrEP use. We examined associations of demographics, socioeconomic indicators, and recent club drug use with PEP and PrEP use, as well as the association between past PEP use and current and prior PrEP use using generalized linear models and multinomial logistic regression. Statistical significance was considered at P<.001, given the large sample size; 99.9% CIs are reported.

RESULTS

Prior PEP use was reported by 11.28% (7108/63,015) of the participants, with current or prior PrEP use reported by 21.95% (13,832/63,015) and 8.12% (5118/63,015), respectively. Nearly half (3268/7108, 46%) of the past PEP users were current PrEP users, and another 39.9% (2836/7108) of the participants who reported past PEP use also reported prior PrEP use. In multivariable analysis, past PEP use was associated with current (relative risk ratio [RRR] 23.53, 99.9% CI 14.03-39.46) and prior PrEP use (RRR 52.14, 99.9% CI 29.39-92.50). Compared with White men, Black men had higher prevalence of past PEP use and current PrEP use, Latino men had higher prevalence of PEP use but no significant difference in PrEP use, and those identifying as another race or ethnicity reported higher prevalence of past PEP use and lower current PrEP use. Past PEP use and current PrEP use were highest in the Northeast, with participants in the Midwest and South reporting significantly lower PEP and PrEP use. A significant interaction of Black race by past PEP use with current PrEP use was found (RRR 0.57, 99.9% CI 0.37-0.87), indicating that Black men who previously used PEP were less likely to report current PrEP use. Participants who reported recent club drug use were significantly more likely to report past PEP use and current or prior PrEP use than those without recent club drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

PrEP use continues to be the predominant HIV prevention strategy for SMM compared with PEP use. Higher rates of past PEP use and current PrEP use among Black SMM are noteworthy, given the disproportionate burden of HIV. Nonetheless, understanding why Black men who previously used PEP are less likely to report current PrEP use is an important avenue for future research.

Tailored HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Intervention Needs from a Latent Class Analysis Among U.S. Healthcare Providers

Interventions are needed to expand HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescribing practices among healthcare providers, but research classifying providers to determine tailored intervention needs is lacking. Providers reported demographics, factors related to HIV treatment and prevention experience, and PrEP-related factors such as knowledge and community protection beliefs via online survey. Latent class analysis grouped providers with similar patterns of HIV prevention- and treatment-related care and tested for associations with demographics and PrEP-related factors. Three distinct classes of providers emerged: (1) PrEP naïve, (2) PrEP aware, and (3) PrEP prescribers. Providers with lower community protection beliefs and staff capacity were more likely to be classified as PrEP naïve compared to aware (ps < 0.05). Providers with concerns about PrEP-related tasks and staff capacity were more likely to be classified as PrEP aware compared to prescribers (ps < 0.05). PrEP-naïve providers could benefit from continuing education, whereas PrEP-aware providers might benefit from capacity building and prescribing optimization interventions.

HIV Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) Awareness and Non-Occupational PEP (nPEP) Prescribing History Among U.S. Healthcare Providers

Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) has been clinically recommended since 2005. HIV providers and non-HIV providers (n = 480) practicing within above-average HIV prevalence ZIP codes of the 10 U.S. cities with greatest overall HIV prevalence participated in a cross-sectional survey between July 2014 and May 2015. Providers were asked about their awareness of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and nPEP prescribing experience for patients with potential sexual exposures to HIV, which we coded into a PEP prescribing cascade with three categories: (1) PEP unaware, (2) PEP aware, no nPEP prescribing experience, and (3) nPEP prescribing experience. Overall, 12.5% were unaware of PEP, 43.5% were aware but hadn't prescribed nPEP, and 44.0% had prescribed nPEP for potential sexual exposures to HIV. Fewer providers practicing in the U.S. South had ever prescribed nPEP compared to providers in other regions (χ2= 39.91, p < 0.001). HIV providers, compared to non-HIV providers, were more likely to be classified in the nPEP prescription group compared to the PEP aware without nPEP prescription group (RRR = 2.96, p < 0.001). PrEP prescribers, compared to those PrEP unaware, were more likely to be classified in the nPEP prescription group compared to PEP aware without nPEP prescription group (RRR = 12.49, p < 0.001).

Nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV after sexual intercourse among women in Brazil: Risk profiles and predictors of loss to follow-up

Access to antiretroviral-based HIV prevention has been marked by sex asymmetries, and its effectiveness has been compromised by low clinical follow-up rates. We investigated risk profiles of women who received nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP), as well as the rates and predictive factors of loss to follow-up after nPEP initiation.Retrospective study evaluating 501 women who received nPEP between 2014 and 2015 at 5 HIV centers (testing centers-VCT, outpatient clinics, and infectious diseases hospital). Risk profiles were drawn based on the characteristics of the women and their sexual partners, and then stratified by sociodemographic indicators and previous use of HIV prevention services. Loss to follow-up (LTFU) was defined as not presenting for follow-up visits or for HIV testing after nPEP initiation. Predictors of LTFU were analyzed by calculating adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs).Approximately 90% of women had sexual encounters that met the criteria established in the Brazilian guidelines for nPEP. Those who declared to be sex workers (26.5%) or drug users (19.2%) had the highest social vulnerability indicators. In contrast, women who had intercourse with casual partners of unknown HIV risk (42.7%) had higher education and less experience with previous HIV testing (89.3%) or nPEP use (98.6%). Of the women who received nPEP after sexual intercourse with stable partners, 75.8% had HIV-infected partners. LTFU rate was 72.8% and predictors included being Black (aPR = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.30), using drugs/alcohol (aPR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.32) and having received nPEP at an HIV outpatient clinic (aPR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.20-1.51) or at an infectious diseases hospital (aPR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.11-1.69) compared with a VCT. The risk of LTFU declined as age increased (aPR 41-59 years = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.96).Most women who used nPEP had higher socioeconomic status and were not part of populations most affected by HIV. In contrast, factors that contribute to loss to follow-up were: having increased social vulnerability; increased vulnerability to HIV infection; and seeking nPEP at HIV treatment services as opposed to at a VCT.

Expert consensus statement on the science of HIV in the context of criminal law

INTRODUCTION

Globally, prosecutions for non-disclosure, exposure or transmission of HIV frequently relate to sexual activity, biting, or spitting. This includes instances in which no harm was intended, HIV transmission did not occur, and HIV transmission was extremely unlikely or not possible. This suggests prosecutions are not always guided by the best available scientific and medical evidence.

DISCUSSION

Twenty scientists from regions across the world developed this Expert Consensus Statement to address the use of HIV science by the criminal justice system. A detailed analysis of the best available scientific and medical research data on HIV transmission, treatment effectiveness and forensic phylogenetic evidence was performed and described so it may be better understood in criminal law contexts. Description of the possibility of HIV transmission was limited to acts most often at issue in criminal cases. The possibility of HIV transmission during a single, specific act was positioned along a continuum of risk, noting that the possibility of HIV transmission varies according to a range of intersecting factors including viral load, condom use, and other risk reduction practices. Current evidence suggests the possibility of HIV transmission during a single episode of sex, biting or spitting ranges from no possibility to low possibility. Further research considered the positive health impact of modern antiretroviral therapies that have improved the life expectancy of most people living with HIV to a point similar to their HIV-negative counterparts, transforming HIV infection into a chronic, manageable health condition. Lastly, consideration of the use of scientific evidence in court found that phylogenetic analysis alone cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that one person infected another although it can be used to exonerate a defendant.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of up-to-date scientific evidence in criminal cases has the potential to limit unjust prosecutions and convictions. The authors recommend that caution be exercised when considering prosecution, and encourage governments and those working in legal and judicial systems to pay close attention to the significant advances in HIV science that have occurred over the last three decades to ensure current scientific knowledge informs application of the law in cases related to HIV.

Technologies for HIV prevention and care: challenges for health services

This article aims to consider some relevant challenges to the provision of "new prevention technologies" in health services in a scenario where the "advances" in the global response to AIDS control are visible. We take as material for analysis the information currently available on the HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), treatment as prevention (TASP) and over the counter. The methodology consisted of the survey and analysis of the Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS: MEDLINE, LILACS, WHOLIS, PAHO, SciELO) articles that addressed the issue of HIV prevention and care in the context of so-called new prevention technologies. The results of the studies show that there is assistance on the ground of clinics for the treatment of disease responses, but there are several challenges related to the sphere of prevention. The articles list some challenges regarding to management, organization of services and the attention given by health professionals to users. The current context shows evidence of the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy in reducing the risk of HIV transmission, but the challenges for the provision of preventive technologies in health services permeate health professionals and users in their individual dimensions and health services in organizational and structural dimension. Interventions should be made available in a context of community mobilization; there should be no pressure on people to make HIV testing, antiretroviral treatment or for prevention. In the management is responsible for the training of health professionals to inform, clarify and make available to users, partners and family information about the new antiretroviral use strategies.

Choice of antiretroviral drugs for postexposure prophylaxis for adults and adolescents: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The choice of preferred regimens for human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has evolved over the last 2 decades as more data have become available regarding the safety and tolerability of newer antiretroviral drugs. We undertook a systematic review to assess the safety and efficacy of antiretroviral options for PEP to inform the World Health Organization guideline revision process.

METHODS

Four databases were searched up to 1 June 2014 for studies reporting outcomes associated with specific PEP regimens. Data on PEP completion and discontinuation due to adverse events was extracted and pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (1830 PEP initiations) provided evaluable information on 2-drug regimens (zidovudine [ZDV]- or tenofovir [TDF]-based regimens), and 10 studies (1755 initiations) provided evaluable information on the third drug, which was usually a protease inhibitor. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as very low. For the 2-drug regimen, PEP completion rates were 78.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1%-90.7%) for people receiving a TDF-based regimen and 58.8% (95% CI, 47.2%-70.4%) for a ZDV-based regimen; the rate of PEP discontinuation due to an adverse event was lower among people taking TDF-based PEP (0.3%; 95% CI, 0%-1.1%) vs a ZDV-based regimen (3.2%; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.9%). For the 3-drug comparison, PEP completion rates were highest for the TDF-based regimens (TDF+emtricitabine [FTC]+lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r], 71.1%; 95% CI, 43.6%-98.6%; TDF+FTC+raltegravir [RAL], 74.7%; 95% CI, 41.4%-100%; TDF+FTC+ boosted darunavir [DRV/r], 93.9%; 95% CI, 90.2%-97.7%) and lowest for ZDV+ lamivudine [3TC]+LPV/r (59.1%; 95% CI, 36.2%-82.0%). Discontinuations due to adverse drug reactions were lowest for TDF+FTC+RAL (1.9%; 95% CI, 0%-3.8%) and highest for ZDV+3TC+boosted atazanavir (21.2%; 95% CI, 13.5%-30.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review provide evidence supporting the use of coformulated TDF and 3TC/FTC as preferred backbone drugs for PEP. Choice of third drug will depend on setting; for resource-limited settings, LPV/r is a reasonable choice, pending the improved availability of better-tolerated drugs with less potential for drug-drug interactions.

Starter packs versus full prescription of antiretroviral drugs for postexposure prophylaxis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The provision of starter packs for human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is practiced in many settings to facilitate rapid initiation by nonexperts and encourage adherence. However, the impact of starter packs on PEP completion rates has not been systematically assessed. We systematically reviewed the evidence on outcomes associated with starter packs for PEP compared to full prescriptions.

METHODS

Four databases and 2 conference abstract sites were searched up to December 2013; this search was updated in 1 database in June 2014. PEP completion rates, stratified by prescribing practice, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies provided data on 11 714 PEP initiations. Thirty-seven studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 34 observational cohorts, provided information on starter packs (although none of the RCTs specifically assessed starter packs), and 17 studies, including 2 RCTs and 15 observational cohorts, provided information on full prescriptions. Overall, outcomes were better when participants were offered a full 28-day course of PEP at initial presentation to healthcare, with fewer refusals (11.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.3%-17.5%] vs 22% [95% CI, 16.7%-28.1%]) and higher completion rates (70% [95% CI, 56.7%-77.3%] vs 53.2% [95% CI, 44.4%-62.2%]). More than a quarter (28% [95% CI, 21.4%-34.5%]) of individuals provided with a PEP starter pack failed to return for their subsequent appointment and therefore defaulted prior to receiving a full course of PEP. The quality of the evidence overall was rated as very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review suggest that starter packs do not improve adherence to PEP and may result in lower adherence and completion rates.

Adherence to post-exposure prophylaxis for non-forcible sexual exposure to HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To characterize adherence to post-exposure prophylaxis after non-forcible sexual exposure to HIV, we conducted a review of the literature and meta-analysis. Articles were considered if they contained primary adherence data following non-forcible sexual exposure. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to create pooled point estimates for adherence. Of 1,257 abstracts identified through our search algorithm, 17 were eligible for inclusion in this review, representing 3,634 patients enrolled in 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 9 prospective and 5 retrospective observational studies. Pooled adherence, primarily assessed by self-report, was 77 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 68-87] in prospective observational studies, 81 % (95 % CI 65-96) in retrospective studies, 78 % (95 % CI 65-91) in RCTs, and 78 % (95 % CI 72-85) overall. Overall adherence was moderately high, with high variability between studies. Assessment of adherence could be enhanced by the use of objective measurements.

[Consensus Statement by GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat on antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2013)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) guidelines for HIV-1 infected adult patients.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel composed of members of the GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat (Grupo de Estudio de Sida and the Secretaría del Plan Nacional sobre el Sida) reviewed the efficacy and safety advances in clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals (PubMed and Embase) or presented in medical scientific meetings. The strength of the recommendations and the evidence which support them are based on a modification of the criteria of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

cART is recommended in patients with symptoms of HIV infection, in pregnant women, in serodiscordant couples with high risk of transmission, in hepatitisB co-infection requiring treatment, and in HIV nephropathy. cART is recommended in asymptomatic patients if CD4 is <500cells/μl. If CD4 are >500cells/μl cART should be considered in the case of chronic hepatitisC, cirrhosis, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >100.000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, neurocognitive deficits, and in people aged >55years. The objective of cART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. The first cART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI) nucleoside analogs and a third drug (a non-analog RTI, a ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected some drug combinations, for the first cART and specific criteria for cART in acute HIV infection, in tuberculosis and other HIV related opportunistic infections, for the women and in pregnancy, in hepatitisB or C co-infection, in HIV-2 infection, and in post-exposure prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines update previous recommendations related to first cART (when to begin and what drugs should be used), how to monitor, and what to do in case of viral failure or adverse drug reactions. cART specific criteria in comorbid patients and special situations are similarly updated.

Rapid HIV self-testing: long in coming but opportunities beckon

The recent approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration of a rapid HIV self-test marks a significant milestone in the evolution of HIV testing approaches. With nearly one in five people living with HIV in the United States still undiagnosed and an even higher proportion unaware of their infection globally, this decision reflects a new willingness to offer diverse options to get tested for HIV. Rapid self-testing offers several distinct opportunities to improve testing among those with undiagnosed HIV: to encourage testing among those who might not otherwise be tested, to increase the frequency of testing among persons at highest risk for new infection, and to facilitate mutual HIV testing with sex partners. To date, the path to regulatory approval has been long but instructive. The studies and clinical trials required for regulatory approval in the United States provide insight into the performance and potential implications of HIV self-tests as they become available for sale directly to consumers. Although some persistent reservations about self-testing for HIV remain, including the 'window period' of the current test kit, its cost, and its effectiveness for facilitating entry to medical care, others have been dispelled. Self-testing in resource-constrained settings is also promising, including self-testing of health professionals. At present, although the impact has yet to be determined, availability of this new option might offer potential opportunities to improve HIV diagnosis and facilitate both treatment and prevention.

High-risk Sexual Behavior is Associated with Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Non-adherence among Men who have Sex with Men Enrolled in a Combination Prevention Intervention

Methamphetamine use among men who have sex with men (MSM) is associated with increased HIV prevalence, due to increased engagement in high-risk sexual behavior. Fifty-three HIV-negative, methamphetamine-using MSM were enrolled in a biobehavioral combination prevention intervention in Los Angeles, CA, to assess the feasibility of administering postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) in combination with contingency management (CM) to prevent HIV seroconversion. The study combined a CM behavioral intervention targeting reductions in methamphetamine use with a PEP biomedical intervention for HIV prevention. Those who reported recent exposure to HIV were initiated on tenofovir/emtricitabine- (Truvada)-based PEP (n=35). This secondary analysis sought to determine whether recent and/or lifetime sexual risk taking was associated with PEP adherence. Regression analyses controlling for participant sociodemographics demonstrated that, at baseline, increased number of lifetime sexually transmitted diseases (STDs; Coef.=-0.07; 95% CI=(-0.12) - (-0.01)) and recent episodes of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI; Coef.=-0.01; 95% CI= (-.01) - (-0.002)) were each associated with reductions in medication adherence. Given these associations between baseline sexual risk and PEP adherence, providers working with high-risk MSM may look to target reductions in sexual risk taking; this will reduce direct risk of HIV infection and may work to optimize medication adherence in the case of PEP initiation. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00856323.

A novel combination HIV prevention strategy: post-exposure prophylaxis with contingency management for substance abuse treatment among methamphetamine-using men who have sex with men

Methamphetamine use has been associated with HIV transmission among men who have sex with men (MSM). However, providers have been hesitant to utilize post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in populations of stimulant users. This single-arm, open label pilot study sought to demonstrate the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of PEP combined with the drug abstinence intervention of contingency management (CM) in methamphetamine-using MSM. HIV-uninfected MSM reporting recent methamphetamine use were recruited to a CM intervention. Those who reported a recent high-risk sexual or injection drug exposure to an HIV-infected or serostatus unknown source were initiated on tenofovir/emtricitabine (Truvada)-based PEP. Participants were followed over 3 months for infectious/biologic, behavioral, and drug use outcomes. Fifty-three participants enrolled in the study; 35 participants (66%) initiated PEP after a high-risk exposure. The median time from exposure to medication administration was 37.8 h (range 12.5-68.0 h). Twenty-five (71.4%) PEP initiators successfully completed the treatment course. Median medication adherence was 96% (IQR 57-100%), and medication was generally well tolerated. Methamphetamine abstinence during CM treatment increased PEP adherence (2% [95% CI +1-+3%]) per clean urine toxicology sample provided), and increased the odds of PEP course completion (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31). One incident of HIV seroconversion was observed in a participant who did not complete PEP treatment, and reported multiple subsequent exposures. Findings demonstrate that PEP, when combined with CM, is safe, feasible, and acceptable as an HIV prevention strategy in methamphetamine-using MSM.

[Consensus document of Gesida and Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) regarding combined antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (January 2012)]

This consensus document has been prepared by a panel consisting of members of the AIDS Study Group (Gesida) and the Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) after reviewing the efficacy and safety results of clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals, or presented in medical scientific meetings. Gesida has prepared an objective and structured method to prioritise combined antiretroviral treatment (cART) in naïve patients. Recommendations strength (A, B, C) and the evidence which supports them (I, II, III) are based on a modification of the Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria. The current antiretroviral treatment (ART) of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs. ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection, in pregnancy, in serodiscordant couples with high transmission risk, hepatitis B fulfilling treatment criteria, and HIV nephropathy. Guidelines on ART treatment in patients with concurrent diagnosis of HIV infection and an opportunistic type C infection are included. In asymptomatic patients ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts <350 cells/μL; 2) when CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/μL, therapy will be recommended and only delayed if patient is reluctant to take it, the CD4 are stabilised, and the plasma viral load is low; 3) therapy could be deferred when CD4 counts are above 500 cells/μL, but should be considered in cases of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >10(5) copies/mL, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, and in people aged >55 years. ART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors nucleoside analogues and a third drug (non-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor, ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor or integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected and given priority to using the Gesida score for some drug combinations, some of them co-formulated. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures, but an undetectable viral load may be possible nowadays. Adverse events are a fading problem of ART. Guidelines in acute HIV infection, in women, in pregnancy, and to prevent mother-to-child transmission and pre- and post-exposition prophylaxis are commented upon. Management of hepatitis B or C co-infection, other co-morbidities, and the characteristics of ART in HIV-2 infection are included.

High HIV incidence among MSM prescribed postexposure prophylaxis, 2000-2009: indications for ongoing sexual risk behaviour

OBJECTIVE

To determine (trends in) HIV incidence among MSM\ who have recently had postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) prescribed in Amsterdam, compared with MSM participating in the Amsterdam Cohort Studies (ACS).

DESIGN AND METHODS

We used data from MSM who were prescribed PEP in Amsterdam between 2000 and 2009, who were HIV-negative at the time of PEP prescription and had follow-up HIV testing 3 and/or 6 months after PEP prescription (n = 395). For comparison, cohort data from MSM participating in the ACS in the same period were used (n = 782). Poisson log-linear regression analyses were performed to model trends in HIV incidence and identify differences in HIV incidence between both cohorts at different time points.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2009, among MSM who were prescribed PEP, an overall HIV incidence of 6.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4-11.2] per 100 person-years was found, compared with an HIV incidence of 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-2.1) per 100 person-years among MSM participating in the ACS (P < 0.01). In both cohorts, an increasing trend in HIV incidence over time was observed [incidence rate ratio (IRR(per calendar year)) 1.3 (95% CI 0.9-1.7) and 1.1 (95% CI 1.0-1.2) among MSM prescribed PEP and MSM of the ACS, respectively]. The difference in HIV incidence between both cohorts was most evident in more recent years [IRR(PEP versus ACS in 2009) 4.8 (95% CI 2.0-11.5)].

CONCLUSION

Particularly in more recent years, MSM recently prescribed PEP had a higher HIV incidence compared with MSM participating in the ACS, indicating ongoing sexual risk behaviour.

A randomized noninferiority trial of standard versus enhanced risk reduction and adherence counseling for individuals receiving post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposures to HIV

BACKGROUND

The National HIV/AIDS Strategy proposes to scale-up post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Intensive risk reduction and adherence counseling appear to be effective but are resource intensive. Identifying simpler interventions that maximize the HIV prevention potential of PEP is critical.

METHODS

A randomized noninferiority study comparing 2 (standard) or 5 (enhanced) risk reduction counseling sessions was performed. Adherence counseling was provided in the enhanced arm. We measured changes in unprotected sexual intercourse acts at 12 months, compared with baseline; HIV acquisition; and PEP adherence. Outcomes were stratified by degree of baseline risk.

RESULTS

We enrolled 457 individuals reporting unprotected intercourse within 72 h with an HIV-infected or at-risk partner. Participants were 96% male and 71% white. There were 1.8 and 2.3 fewer unprotected sex acts in the standard and enhanced groups. The maximum potential risk difference, reflected by the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, was 3.9 acts. The difference in the riskier subset may have been as many as 19.6 acts. The incidence of HIV seroconversion was 2.9% and 2.6% among persons randomized to standard and enhanced counseling, respectively, with a maximum potential difference of 3.4%. The absolute and maximal HIV seroconversion incidence was 9.9% and 20.4% greater in the riskier group randomized to standard, compared with enhanced, counseling. Adherence outcomes were similar, with noninferiority in the lower risk group and concerning differences among the higher-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk assessment is critical at PEP initiation. Standard counseling is only noninferior for individuals with lower baseline risk; thus, enhanced counseling should be targeted to individuals at higher risk.