HIV incidence among men who have sex with men prescribed postexposure prophylaxis

HIV Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Global Data

HIV nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) has been prescribed to men who have sex with men (MSM) for decades, but the global situation of nPEP implementation among this population remains unclear. To understand nPEP awareness, uptake, and factors associated with uptake among MSM, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies reporting nPEP implementation among MSM published before May 19, 2019. We estimated pooled rates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of awareness, uptake using a random-effects model. We identified 74 studies: 3 studies (4.1%) from upper-middle-income regions and 71 (95.9%) from high-income regions. The pooled rate of nPEP awareness and uptake was 51.6% (95% CI 40.6-62.5%) and 6.0% (5.0-7.1%), respectively. Pooled uptake rate was higher in upper-middle-income regions [8.9% (7.8-10.0%)] than in high-income regions [5.8% (4.8-6.9%)]. Unprotected anal sex was the most common exposure (range: 55.0-98.6%, median: 62.9%). Pooled completion of nPEP was 86.9% (79.5-92.8%). Of 19,546 MSM prescribed nPEP, 500 HIV seroconversions (2.6%) were observed. Having risky sexual behaviors and history of sexually transmitted infections were associated with higher nPEP uptake, whereas insufficient knowledge, underestimated risk of exposure to HIV, lack of accessibility, and social stigma might hinder nPEP uptake. Awareness and uptake of nPEP among MSM worldwide are low. Further efforts are needed to combat barriers to access nPEP, including improving accessibility and reducing stigma. Seroconversions post-nPEP uptake suggest that joint prevention precautions aside from nPEP are needed for high-risk MSM. More evidence from low-income and middle-income regions is needed.

Predictive Factors for HIV Seroconversion Among Individuals Attending a Specialized Center After an HIV Risk Exposure: A Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

To better target our current prevention strategies, we assessed factors associated with HIV seroconversion in individuals attending a specialized center after a risk exposure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied individuals from an HIV Unit's contact risk cohort at a tertiary care hospital in Barcelona, Spain, between 2003 and 2013 and performed a retrospective matched case-control study. Cases were individuals who seroconverted to HIV after at least 3 months since first follow-up visit for a contracting risk. Controls were HIV-negative individuals from the same cohort. Demographics and behavior variables were studied and compared using a McNemar test assessing factors associated with seroconversion. Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression were performed to develop a model for predicting probability of HIV seroconversion. We also evaluated sensitivity and specificity of our model and an area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was estimated.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine (2.2%) individuals seroconverted after a median (interquartile range) of 24 (9-34) months since last follow-up. Seroconverters were predominantly male (96%) and men who have sex with men (MSM) (94%). No differences were observed regarding risk of exposure. Being MSM [odds ratio (OR) 5.2 (1.4-20.2), p = .01], having a known HIV-positive partner [OR 2.7 (1.2-6.2), p = .02], previous postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) [OR 3.9 (1.0-15.6), p = .05], and having previous sexually transmitted infections (STIs) [OR 4.6 (1.9-10.9), p = .001] were the factors independently associated with HIV seroconversion. The sensitivity and specificity of our model were 64.06% and 73.53%, respectively, and the area under ROC curve was 0.777.

DISCUSSION

HIV seroconversions were observed frequently between individuals attending a specialized center because of a risk exposure. Being MSM, having had previous PEP, an HIV-positive sexual partner, and previous STI were predictive factors for HIV seroconversion. Closer and longer follow-up and/or pre-exposure prophylaxis should be considered to prevent HIV infections in this high-risk population.

Prevention of human immunodeficiency virus and AIDS: postexposure prophylaxis (including health care workers)

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), which is designed to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection after an exposure, is one of several strategies for HIV prevention. PEP was first used after occupational HIV exposures in the late 1980s, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issuing the first set of guidelines that included considerations regarding the use of antiretroviral agents for PEP after occupational HIV exposures in 1990. Use of PEP has been extended to nonoccupational exposures, including after sexual contact or injection-drug use. This article provides a rationale for PEP, assessment of the need for PEP, and details of its implementation.

Attitude towards antiretroviral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) prescription among HIV specialists

BACKGROUND

To investigate perceptions and attitude to prescribe Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) among HIV specialists.

METHODS

A questionnaire developed through a Focus Group and literature review was administered to a convenience sample of HIV specialists during educational courses in two Regions and an online survey in February-May 2012. Participants were classified as having a positive or negative attitude according to their willingness to prescribe PrEP. Demographic and working information, experience with HIV-infected patients, information and provision of antiretrovirals to uninfected persons, self-reported knowledge, perceptions and concerns regarding PrEP were assessed. The association between a different attitude towards PrEP prescription and selected characteristics was assessed through univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 311 specialists, 70% would prescribe PrEP, mainly to serodiscordant partners (64%) but also to people at ongoing, high risk of HIV infection (56%); 66% advocated public support of costs. A negative attitude towards PrEP was significantly associated with lack of provision of information on, and prescription of, antiretroviral post-exposure prophylaxis; specialists with a negative attitude believed behavioural interventions to be more effective than PrEP and were more concerned about toxicity. Overall, 90% of specialists disagreed regarding a lack of time for engaging in prevention counselling and PrEP monitoring; 79% would welcome formal guidelines, while those with a negative attitude did not consider this advisable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although conflicting attitudes appear evident, most specialists seem to be willing, with guidance from normative bodies, to promote PrEP within multiple prevention strategies among vulnerable populations. More scientific evidence regarding effectiveness could overcome resistance.