Self-start HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEPSE), to reduce time to first dose and increase efficacy

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness of HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEPSE) correlates with speed of uptake following HIV exposure. Time to first dose has not improved in the UK for over 10 years. On-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown that people can self-start medication for HIV prevention.We hypothesised that advanced provision of PEPSE (HOME PEPSE) for men who have sex with men (MSM) to self- initiate would reduce time to first dose following HIV exposure.

METHODS

Phase IV, randomised, prospective, 48-week, open-label study was carried out. MSM at medium risk of acquiring HIV were randomised (1:1) to immediate or deferred standard of care (SOC) HOME PEPSE. Every 12 weeks, participants self-completed mental health/risk behaviour surveys and had HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing.HOME PEPSE comprised a 5-day pack of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/maraviroc 600 mg once daily initiated following potential exposure to HIV. If taken, participants completed a risk survey; PEPSE continuation was physician directed. Primary outcome was time from potential exposure to HIV to first PEPSE dose.

FINDINGS

139 participants randomised 1:1; 69 to immediate HOME PEPSE and 70 to deferred HOME PEPSE. Median age 30 years (IQR 26-39), 75% white, 55% UK born and 72% university educated. 31 in HOME PEPSE and 15 in SOC arm initiated PEPSE. Uptake of HOME PEPSE was appropriate in 27/31 cases (87%, 95% CI: 71% to 95%). Median time from exposure to first dose was 7.3 hours (3.0, 20.9) for HOME PEPSE and 28.5 hours (17.3, 34.0) for SOC (p<0.01). HOME PEPSE was well tolerated with no discontinuations.No significant differences in missed opportunities for PEPSE uptake, sexual behaviour or bacterial STI infections between treatment arms.

INTERPRETATION

HOME PEPSE reduced the time from exposure to first-dose PEPSE by 21+ hours, with no impact on safety. This significantly improves the efficacy of PEPSE and provides an option for people declining PrEP.

UK guideline for the use of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis 2021

We present the updated British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to HIV following sexual exposures, occupational exposures and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. This serves as an update to the 2015 BASHH guideline on PEP following sexual exposures and the 2008 Expert Advisory Group on AIDS guidelines on HIV PEP. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on best clinical practice in the provision, monitoring and support of PEP for the prevention of HIV acquisition following sexual, occupational and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. The guideline covers when to prescribe PEP, what antiretroviral agents to use and how to manage PEP. This includes (i) evidence of PEP efficacy; (ii) evidence relating to individual-level efficacy of antiretroviral therapy to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV; (iii) data on the detectable (transmissible) prevalence of HIV in specific populations; (iv) risk of HIV transmission following different types of sexual and occupational exposure; (v) baseline risk assessment; (vi) drug regimens and dosing schedules; (vii) monitoring PEP; (viii) baseline and follow-up blood-borne virus testing; (ix) the role of PEP within broader HIV prevention strategies, for example, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The guideline also covers special scenarios such as PEP in pregnancy, breastfeeding and chronic hepatitis B virus infection, and when PEP should be considered in people using HIV PrEP. The guidelines are aimed at clinical professionals directly involved in PEP provision and other stakeholders in the field. A proforma to assist PEP consultations is included. A public consultation process was undertaken prior to finalizing the recommendations.

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.

Post-exposure prophylaxis: an underutilized biomedical HIV prevention method among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in China

Despite abundant evidence on its safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) has not been officially approved for non-occupational use in China. This study aims to assess awareness of, willingness to use, and actual experience with PEP in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) in China and to explore potential associations between demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial factors and PEP-related outcomes. We recruited a convenience sample through community venue-based strategies, peer referrals, and online advertisement in four cities of China in 2018. We used bivariable and multivariable logistic regression to test associations between potential predictors and PEP outcomes. Over 60% of men reported having heard of PEP prior to the survey, 70% would be willing to use it if exposed to HIV, and 6% reported having used PEP. Awareness of PEP was associated with higher education, more frequent HIV testing, knowing someone who seroconverted in the past two years, having sex with only men in the past six months, and lower perceived risk of HIV infection. PEP willingness was associated with more frequent HIV testing, being worried about becoming HIV infected, prior awareness and favorable attitudes towards PEP among friends. Findings suggest PEP is an underutilized diomedical HIV prevention intervention among GBM in China. Clinical guidance on non-occupational PEP use, as well as communication campaigns targeting social networks of GBM are needed to address barriers to PEP awareness and uptake.

Post-exposure prophylaxis awareness and use among men who have sex with men in London who use geosocial-networking smartphone applications

The number of new HIV infections continues to be on the rise in many high-income countries, most notably among men who have sex with men (MSM). Despite recent attention to the use of antiretroviral medications as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among MSM, considerably less research has been devoted to examining the awareness and use of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Based on a convenience sample of 179 self-reported HIV-uninfected MSM using a geosocial-networking smartphone application, this study is among the first to examine the awareness and use of PEP and their demographic and behavioral correlates among MSM in London. Most respondents (88.3%) had heard of PEP, where 27.4% reported having used it. In multivariable models, the disclosure of one's sexual orientation to their general practitioner (Prevalence ratio [PR]: 3.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 10.70; p = .029) and reporting one's HIV status as negative (rather than unknown) (PR: 11.49; 95% CI: 1.68, 76.92; p = .013) were associated with having heard of PEP; while the recent use of club drugs (PR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.42, 6.43; p = .004) was associated with having ever used PEP. High awareness and use in this sample suggest that PEP is a valuable risk-reduction strategy that should be capitalized on, be it in addition to or in the absence of PrEP.

UK guideline for the use of HIV Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Following Sexual Exposure, 2015

We present the updated British Association for Sexual Health and HIV guidelines for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure (PEPSE). This document includes a review of the current data to support the use of PEPSE, considers how to calculate the risks of infection after a potential exposure, and provides recommendations on when PEPSE should and should not be considered. We also review which medications to use for PEPSE, provide a checklist for initial assessment, and make recommendations for monitoring individuals receiving PEPSE. Special scenarios, cost-effectiveness of PEPSE, and issues relating to service provision are also discussed. Throughout the document, the place of PEPSE within the broader context of other HIV prevention strategies is considered.

Current perspectives in HIV post-exposure prophylaxis

The incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection continues to rise among core groups and efforts to reduce the numbers of new infections are being redoubled. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is the use of short-term antiretroviral therapy (ART) to reduce the risk of acquisition of HIV infection following exposure. Current guidelines recommend a 28-day course of ART within 36-72 hours of exposure to HIV. As long as individuals continue to be exposed to HIV there will be a role for PEP in the foreseeable future. Nonoccupational PEP, the vast majority of which is for sexual exposure (PEPSE), has a significant role to play in HIV prevention efforts. Awareness of PEP and its availability for both clinicians and those who are eligible to receive it are crucial to ensure that PEP is used to its full potential in any HIV prevention strategy. In this review, we provide current evidence for the use of PEPSE, assessment of the risk of HIV transmission, indications for PEP, drug regimens, and management of patients started on PEP. We summarize national and international guidelines for the use of PEPSE. We explore the place of PEP within the wider strategy of reducing HIV incidence rates in the era of treatment as prevention and pre-exposure prophylaxis. We also consider the implications of recent data from interventional and observational studies demonstrating significant reductions in the risk of HIV transmission within a serodiscordant relationship if the HIV-positive partner is taking effective ART upon PEP guidelines.

Access to post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure for men who have sex with men in an Irish healthcare setting

Men who have sex with men experience disproportionate rates of HIV acquisition. Post-exposure prophylaxis following unprotected sexual exposure reduces HIV transmission. Our aim was to assess access to post-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men in Irish emergency departments. We contacted all national 24-hour adult emergency departments describing two scenarios; a seronegative man who has sex with men receiving unprotected insertive anal intercourse from a seropositive partner and secondly a woman sustaining a needle-stick injury from an unknown source. We recorded and compared responses regarding post-exposure prophylaxis advice in each situation. High proportions of emergency departments offered post-exposure prophylaxis for both situations despite minimal evidence to support use in needle-stick injury. Men who have sex with men were less likely to be asked to attend emergency departments for post-exposure prophylaxis administration than a person experiencing needle-stick injury. Men who have sex with men were less likely to be offered baseline serological testing for blood borne infections. Men who have sex with men were as likely as needle-stick injury to receive advice from healthcare workers in emergency departments and consultation durations were similar. This study identifies a need to educate healthcare workers in emergency departments on appropriate use of post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure for men who have sex with men. Health care workers must appreciate the importance of post-exposure prophylaxis presentations as opportunities for intervention and HIV screening.

An exploratory review of HIV prevention mass media campaigns targeting men who have sex with men

Background

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk of HIV infection in both high- and low-income settings. Mass media campaigns have been used as a means of communicating HIV health promotion messages to large audiences of MSM. There is no consensus on which designs are most appropriate to evaluate the process and outcomes of such interventions.

Methods

An exploratory review was conducted to assess research examining awareness, acceptability, effects on HIV testing, disclosure and sexual risk, and cost-effectiveness of HIV mass media campaigns targeting MSM. We searched for quantitative and qualitative studies published between 1990 and May 2011 via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych Info, ISI Web of Science, OpenGrey and COPAC, and contacting experts. No exclusions were made on the basis of study design or methods because our primary aim was to map evidence. We appraised study quality and present a narrative synthesis of findings.

Results

Sixteen reports from 12 studies were included. All were from high-income countries and most examined multi-media interventions. Half of the studies were single cross-sectional surveys. Three repeat cross-sectional studies collected data pre and post the campaign launch. The remaining three studies monitored routine data. Three studies included a nested qualitative component. Campaign coverage was the most commonly reported outcome (9 studies). Imagery, tone of language, content and relevance were identified in the qualitative research as factors influencing campaign acceptability. HIV testing rates (or intention to test) were reported by five studies. Two studies reported that testing rates were higher among men who had seen the campaigns compared to men who had not, but this may reflect confounding. Findings were less consistent regarding reductions in sexual risk behaviours (4 studies). None of the studies examined cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Campaigns aim to provide MSM with information to help prevent transmission of HIV and to address increasing motivation and changing norms towards precautionary behaviours. However, the limitations of mass media in imparting skills in effecting behaviour change should be recognised, and campaigns supplemented by additional components may be better-suited to achieving these goals.

Overviewing a Nurse-Led, Community-Based HIV PEP Program: Applying the Extant Literature in Frontline Practice

This clinical concept paper overviews a program to facilitate access to postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. The project, which was a collaborative initiative involving the local School of Nursing, public health unit, AIDS service organization, hospital-based HIV clinic, and an outpatient pharmacy, was implemented to circumvent common barriers to care identified in the literature. In this project, persons who present to one of the two participating clinics after having come, or likely having come, into contact with HIV within the previous 72 hr, are offered rapid HIV testing, also known as point-of-care (POC) testing, to rule out existing HIV infection, and provided with a follow-up appointment booked at the HIV clinic. Clients are also offered comprehensive STI testing, and HIV prevention counseling. The implementation of this collaborative community-based access-to-PEP project demonstrates the application of research to a real-world health care setting, and it is hoped that others will adapt this model to their local setting, enabling ease of access to PEP for members of groups that are disproportionately affected by HIV.

Improved awareness and appropriate use of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for HIV prevention following a multi-modal communication strategy

BACKGROUND

In May 2005, the Western Australian Department of Health (WA Health) developed a communication strategy to improve the awareness and appropriate use of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) in WA. The communication strategy included the development of an nPEP information pamphlet, the establishment of a 24 hour nPEP phone line and the distribution of the WA Health nPEP guidelines to health professionals. The communication strategy was aimed at gay men, people in sero-discordant relationships, people living with HIV, injecting drug users and health care providers with patients from these populations. This evaluation aimed to assess the awareness and appropriate use of nPEP in WA before and after the commencement of the nPEP communication strategy.

METHODS

A program logic method was used to identify the immediate (short-term) and ultimate (long-term) outcomes of the communication strategy. The achievement of these outcomes was evaluated using data from website statistics, a survey of 'sexuality sensitive' doctors, statistics published in Perth Gay Community Periodic Surveys (PGCPS) and data from the WA nPEP database. A χ(2) test for trend was conducted to identify any significant changes in the ultimate outcome indicators pre- and post-strategy.

RESULTS

nPEP awareness among gay men in the PGCPS initially increased from 17.2% in 2002 to 54.9% in 2008, then decreased to 39.9% in 2010. After the commencement of the communication strategy, the proportion of nPEP prescriptions meeting the eligibility criteria for nPEP significantly increased (61.2% in 2002-2005 to 90.0% in 2008-2010 (p < .001)). The proportion of nPEP recipients who completed the prescribed course of nPEP (46.6% in 2002-2005 to 66.9% in 2008-2010 (p = .003)) and the proportion who received a post-nPEP HIV test three to four months after the first visit for nPEP (38.8% in 2002-2005 to 51.9% in 2008-2010 (p = .023)) also increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the introduction of the nPEP communication strategy, the delivery and appropriate use of nPEP have significantly improved in WA. In the 2008-2010 period, an improvement in HIV testing of nPEP recipients at three month follow-up was reported for the first time in WA. However, there is a need for ongoing activities to raise nPEP awareness among gay men.

Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis in Victoria, Australia: responding to high rates of re-presentation and low rates of follow-up

In Australia, the non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis service in Victoria (VNPEPS) maintains a database of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (NPEP) use throughout the state. Through the database the service can monitor and respond to patterns of NPEP presentation, re-presentation and follow-up as well as those who test positive for HIV. We describe a cohort of NPEP individuals from the commencement of the service to 31 December 2009. During this time, 1864 individuals presented for NPEP on 2396 occasions. The majority (85%) were men who have sex with men (MSM) presenting after receptive anal intercourse (56.1%). Repeat NPEP presentations were high (17.5%) and follow-up testing at week 12 post-NPEP was low (34%). Twenty-two patients (1.2%) tested positive for HIV at baseline presentation and six patients seroconverted to HIV during follow-up. The VNPEPS has initiated strategies to encourage behaviour change for those who re-present for NPEP, and to improve rates of week 12 follow-up.

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.

The awareness of postexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection following sexual exposure in emergency departments in a regional HIV network

The introduction of UK clinical guidelines in 2006 set clear standards for the provision of postexposure prophylaxis for HIV following sexual exposure (PEPSE) to patients who present to health-care settings. However, some patients have reported wide inequities in provision of PEPSE. We used a questionnaire to evaluate staff awareness and provision of PEPSE in various clinical situations in three major emergency departments (EDs) in the Wessex region of the UK. Thirty-three doctors and 50 nurses completed the questionnaire. There was a general lack of awareness regarding local protocols, availability of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) packs and whom to contact for advice. Knowledge about PEP provision varied according to clinical scenario but was better among senior medical staff. The deficits in awareness and knowledge of PEPSE among ED staff highlighted in this study raises concerns about patients' access to this intervention. We plan to implement local training to address these issues and raise awareness of the local genitourinary medicine/HIV services as a source of advice.