Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection: healthcare providers' knowledge, perception, and willingness to adopt future implementation in the southern US

Putting PrEP into Practice: Lessons Learned from Early-Adopting U.S. Providers' Firsthand Experiences Providing HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Associated Care

Optimizing access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an evidence-based HIV prevention resource, requires expanding healthcare providers' adoption of PrEP into clinical practice. This qualitative study explored PrEP providers' firsthand experiences relative to six commonly-cited barriers to prescription-financial coverage, implementation logistics, eligibility determination, adherence concerns, side effects, and anticipated behavior change (risk compensation)-as well as their recommendations for training PrEP-inexperienced providers. U.S.-based PrEP providers were recruited via direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants (2014-2015). One-on-one interviews were conducted in person or by phone, transcribed, and analyzed. The sample (n = 18) primarily practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) U.S. Nearly all (94%) were medical doctors (MDs), most of whom self-identified as infectious disease specialists. Prior experience prescribing PrEP ranged from 2 to 325 patients. Overall, providers reported favorable experiences with PrEP implementation and indicated that commonly anticipated problems were minimal or manageable. PrEP was covered via insurance or other programs for most patients; however, pre-authorization requirements, laboratory/service provision costs, and high deductibles sometimes presented challenges. Various models of PrEP care and coordination with other providers were utilized, with several providers highlighting the value of clinical staff support. Eligibility was determined through joint decision-making with patients; CDC guidelines were commonly referenced but not considered absolute. Patient adherence was variable, with particularly strong adherence noted among patients who had actively sought PrEP (self-referred). Providers observed minimal adverse effects or increases in risk behavior. However, they identified several barriers with respect to accessing and engaging PrEP candidates. Providers offered a wide range of suggestions regarding content, strategy, and logistics surrounding PrEP training, highlighting sexual history-taking and sexual minority competence as areas to prioritize. These insights from early-adopting PrEP providers may facilitate adoption of PrEP into clinical practice by PrEP-inexperienced providers, thereby improving access for individuals at risk for HIV.

PrEP Awareness and Attitudes in a National Survey of Primary Care Clinicians in the United States, 2009-2015

Objectives

As trials were assessing the safety and efficacy of daily oral antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of HIV infection, there was a clear need to understand the evolution of knowledge of, and attitudes toward, PrEP among primary care clinicians.

Methods

Physicians and nurse practitioners were surveyed in 2009 (n = 1500), 2010 (n = 1504), 2012 (n = 1503), 2013 (n = 1507), 2014 (n = 1508) and 2015 (n = 1501) to assess their awareness of PrEP, willingness to prescribe PrEP, and whether they support use of public funds to pay for PrEP. Pharmacists (n = 251) were surveyed about PrEP in 2012 only. Descriptive statistics were computed for physician demographics and PrEP-related questions. Prevalence ratios for willingness to prescribe PrEP were computed using Poisson regression analysis.

Results

Awareness of PrEP was low among clinicians (2009: 24%, 2010: 29%) but increased after trials reported effectiveness (2012: 49%, 2013: 51%, 2014: 61%, 2015: 66%). Following a description of PrEP with an estimated effectiveness of 75%, across 6 of the study years 91% of clinicians indicated a willingness to prescribe PrEP to at least one group at high risk of HIV acquisition. A smaller majority of clinicians indicated support for public funding of PrEP in 2009: 59%, 2010: 53%, and 2013: 63%.

Conclusions

In surveys conducted before and after the release of PrEP trial results, primary care clinicians were largely unaware of PrEP. They indicated high levels of willingness to prescribe it for patients at high risk of HIV acquisition and expressed interest in education about how to deliver this new clinical HIV prevention method. It will be important to continue monitoring clinician knowledge, attitudes, and practices as the use of PrEP increases in the US.

Understanding HIV Care Provider Attitudes Regarding Intentions to Prescribe PrEP

INTRODUCTION

Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising approach to reducing HIV incidence. So, garnering the support of HIV providers, who are most familiar with antiretrovirals and likely to encounter patients in HIV serodiscordant relationships, to scale-up PrEP implementation is essential. We sought to determine whether certain subgroups of HIV providers were more likely to intend to prescribe PrEP.

METHODS

Surveys were administered to HIV providers in Miami, Florida and Washington, District of Columbia. Composite scores were developed to measure PrEP knowledge, experience, and likelihood of prescribing. Latent class analysis was used to stratify provider attitudes toward PrEP.

RESULTS

Among 142 HIV providers, 73.2% had cared for more than 20 HIV-infected patients in the previous 3 months; 17% had ever prescribed PrEP. Latent class analysis identified 2 classes of providers (entropy, 0.904); class 1 (n = 95) found PrEP less effective and perceived barriers to prescribing it; class 2 (n = 47) perceived PrEP as moderately effective and perceived fewer barriers to prescribing it. Compared with class 2, class 1 had significantly less experience with PrEP delivery (t(22.7) = 2.88, P = 0.009) and was significantly less likely to intend to prescribe to patients with multiple sex partners (20% vs. 43%, P = 0.04) and those with a drug use history (7% vs. 24%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most HIV providers found PrEP to be effective, those considering it less effective had limited knowledge and experience with PrEP and had lesser intentions to prescribe. Provider training regarding whom should receive PrEP and addressing potential barriers to PrEP provision are needed if this HIV prevention method is to be optimized.

The preexposure prophylaxis revolution: from clinical trials to routine practice: implementation view from the USA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article describes the use of tenofovir/emtricitabine (Truvada) as prevention for exposure to HIV [preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP)] infection in the USA. The use of PrEP and the challenges of implementation are very instructive as other countries adopt this intervention and it becomes a fundamental part of worldwide efforts for HIV prevention and much can be learned from the first 3 years in the USA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Randomized trials and demonstration projects have shown the benefits of PrEP for men and women who are at risk for HIV. Numerous studies have showed that the level of prevention is excellent when the drug is taken at least four times weekly, once adequate levels are obtained. However, adherence remains a critical issue as well as tailoring delivery models for specific populations. Six recent studies are discussed, that support excellent efficacy and significantly support PrEP as a means of prevention. These projects have shown high acceptance of PrEP with excellent adherence by individuals demonstrated by those at risk remaining free of HIV over extended periods of time.

SUMMARY

The USA faces three significant challenges in scaling up PrEP. The first challenge in implementation in the USA is to get individuals to recognize the actual risks that their behaviors represent and to engage with providers to address these issues. The second challenge is getting a population of providers to recognize the exact same issues and offer PrEP in a compassionate, nonjudgmental fashion. The third challenge is identifying the set of providers and locations to scale-up the response in a timely, cost-effective fashion.

The preexposure prophylaxis revolution; from clinical trials to programmatic implementation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An investment in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery must have public health impact in reducing HIV infections. Sustainable delivery of PrEP requires policy, integration of services, and synergy with other existing HIV prevention programs. This review discusses key policy and programmatic considerations for implementation and scale up of PrEP in Africa.

RECENT FINDINGS

PrEP delivery has been delayed by concerns about adherence and delivery in 'real world' settings. Demonstration projects and clinical service delivery models are providing evidence of PrEP effectiveness with an impact much higher than that found in randomized clinical trials. Data confirm that PrEP uptake, adherence, and retention has been high, more so by persons who perceive themselves at high risk for HIV infection, and PrEP is well tolerated. PrEP delivery is more than dispensation of a pill and programs should address other risk drivers, which differ by population. In Africa, barriers to PrEP uptake and adherence include stigma among MSM and low HIV risk perception among young women. Additional data have provided insight into optimal points of service delivery, provider training requirements and quality assurance needs. Of the 2 million new HIV infections in 2014, 70% were in Africa. PrEP use is not lifelong, and use limited to periods of risk may be both effective and cost-effective for the continent.

SUMMARY

HIV prevention programs should determine strategies to identify those at substantial risk for HIV infection, formulate and deliver PrEP in combination with interventions that target social drivers of HIV vulnerability specific to each population. Policy guidance for optimal combination of interventions and service delivery avenues, clinical protocols, health infrastructure requirements are required. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency data are essential for policy guidance to navigate ethical questions over use of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-negative individuals when treatment coverage has not been attained in many parts of Africa. Countries need to invest in purposeful advocacy at both local and global forums. Failure to implement PrEP will be a failure to protect future generations.

Intimacy motivations and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adoption intentions among HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) in romantic relationships

BACKGROUND

In the USA, men who have sex with men (MSM) in primary partnerships are at elevated risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a new biomedical prevention strategy, has potential to reduce HIV transmission. This study examined predictors of PrEP adoption intentions among HIV-negative MSM in primary partnerships.

METHODS

The sample included HIV-negative MSM (n = 164) who participated in an ongoing cross-sectional study with an in-person interview examining PrEP adoption intentions.

RESULTS

Higher HIV risk perception, intimacy motivations for condomless sex, recent condomless anal sex with outside partners, education, and age were each independently associated with PrEP adoption intentions. In a multivariate model, only age, education, and intimacy motivations for condomless sex were significantly associated with PrEP adoption intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

Intimacy motivations may play a central role in PrEP adoption for MSM couples. Incorporating relationship dynamics into biomedical strategies is a promising avenue for research and intervention.

How Stigma Surrounding the Use of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Undermines Prevention and Pleasure: A Call to Destigmatize "Truvada Whores"

Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP; emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [Truvada]) prevents HIV without penalizing sexual pleasure, and may even enhance pleasure (e.g., by reducing HIV-related anxiety). However, concern about sexual risk behavior increasing with PrEP use (risk compensation) and corresponding stereotypes of promiscuity may undermine PrEP's preventive potential. In this commentary, we review literature on sexual behavior change accompanying PrEP use, discuss risk compensation concerns and the "Truvada whore" stereotype as PrEP barriers, question the appropriateness of restricting PrEP access because of risk compensation, and consider sexual pleasure as a benefit of PrEP, an acceptable motive for seeking PrEP, and a core element of health. It is essential for science to trump stereotypes and sex-negative messaging in guiding decision-making affecting PrEP access and uptake.

Exploratory survey of Florida pharmacists' experience, knowledge, and perception of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To assess Florida pharmacists' experience, knowledge, and perception of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and to identify areas for pharmacist training.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Florida in March through July 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Florida pharmacists.

INTERVENTION

In-person and online anonymous survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Florida pharmacists' experience, knowledge, and perceptions of PrEP.

RESULTS

225 completed surveys were analyzed. Survey respondents were predominantly community pharmacists with mean age of 45.7 years and less than 20 years of experience. Only 22% of respondents reported dispensing PrEP to patients. Although 75% had completed HIV-related continuing education in the last 2 years, 63% were unaware of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PrEP guidelines and 71% answered that they did not have sufficient knowledge to counsel patients with PrEP prescriptions. Importantly, 47% of respondents answered they were uncomfortable counseling patients about PrEP. By self-report, most pharmacists agreed PrEP leads to risky behavior (68%) and increased rates of sexually transmitted infections (65%), and is too costly to promote patient access (92%).

CONCLUSION

Surveyed Florida pharmacists reported limited understanding of PrEP. As a widely accessible health care counseling resource, pharmacists are positioned to improve patient understanding, promote medication adherence, and enhance PrEP efficacy. Especially during PrEP implementation, when patients may receive PrEP prescriptions from non-HIV specialist prescribers, improving pharmacists' PrEP education presents a salient opportunity.

Healthcare providers' knowledge of, attitudes to and practice of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection

OBJECTIVES

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has proven biological efficacy in reducing the risk of sexual acquisition of HIV. Healthcare providers' (HCPs) knowledge of and attitudes to PrEP will be key to successful implementation. In England, PrEP is only available to men who have sex with men (MSM) through the open-label randomized PROUD pilot study of immediate or deferred use.

METHODS

In September 2013, a cross-sectional survey of UK HCPs distributed through sexual health clinics (219) and professional societies' email lists (2599) and at a conference (80) asked about knowledge of, attitudes to and practice of PrEP.

RESULTS

Overall, 328 of 2898 (11%) completed the survey, of whom 160 of 328 (49%) were doctors, 51 (16%) sexual health advisers (SHAs), 44 (14%) nurses and 73 (22%) unspecified. Over a quarter (83 of 311; 27%) were involved in PROUD. Most respondents (260 of 326; 80%) rated their knowledge of PrEP as medium or high. Over half of respondents (166 of 307; 54%) thought PrEP should be available outside of a clinical trial. The main barriers to supporting PrEP availability outside a clinical trial were concerns about current evidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.13), lack of UK-specific guidance (OR 0.35), concerns about adherence (OR 0.38) and risk of sexual or physical coercion for patients to have condomless or higher risk sex (OR 0.42 in multivariate regression). Just over half (147 of 277; 53%) had been asked about PrEP by patients in the past year, including almost half of those working in a clinic not involved in the PROUD study (86 of 202; 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is support for PrEP availability outside a clinical trial, but HCPs have residual concerns about its effectiveness and negative consequences, and the absence of UK-specific implementation guidance.

Knowledge, Beliefs and Practices Regarding Antiretroviral Medications for HIV Prevention: Results from a Survey of Healthcare Providers in New England

Background

Antiretroviral treatment for HIV-infection before immunologic decline (early ART) and pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP) can prevent HIV transmission, but routine adoption of these practices by clinicians has been limited.

Methods

Between September and December 2013, healthcare practitioners affiliated with a regional AIDS Education and Training Center in New England were invited to complete online surveys assessing knowledge, beliefs and practices regarding early ART and PrEP. Multivariable models were utilized to determine characteristics associated with prescribing intentions and practices.

Results

Surveys were completed by 184 practitioners. Respondent median age was 44 years, 58% were female, and 82% were white. Among ART-prescribing clinicians (61% of the entire sample), 64% were aware that HIV treatment guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services recommended early ART, and 69% indicated they would prescribe ART to all HIV-infected patients irrespective of immunologic status. However, 77% of ART-prescribing clinicians would defer ART for patients not ready to initiate treatment. Three-fourths of all respondents were aware of guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending PrEP provision, 19% had prescribed PrEP, and 58% of clinicians who had not prescribed PrEP anticipated future prescribing. Practitioners expressed theoretical concerns and perceived practical barriers to prescribing early ART and PrEP. Clinicians with higher percentages of HIV-infected patients (aOR 1.16 per 10% increase in proportion of patients with HIV-infection, 95% CI 1.01–1.34) and infectious diseases specialists (versus primary care physicians; aOR 3.32, 95% CI 0.98–11.2) were more likely to report intentions to prescribe early ART. Higher percentage of HIV-infected patients was also associated with having prescribed PrEP (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06–1.34), whereas female gender (aOR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10–0.71) was associated with having not prescribed PrEP.

Conclusions

These findings suggest many clinicians have shifted towards routinely recommending early ART, but not PrEP, so interventions to facilitate PrEP provision are needed.

Planning ahead for implementation of long-acting HIV prevention: challenges and opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Broad-based access, uptake, and dissemination of daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) have been slow, despite strong evidence for efficacy. Effective and efficient implementation of long-acting HIV prevention products will require both analysis of the dynamics and determinants of daily oral PrEP implementation and identification of the distinct challenges and opportunities inherent in emerging technologies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence suggests the importance of addressing implementation issues at three levels: patient, provider, and system. Patient-level factors include targeted education and messaging, tailored supports to enhance acceptability and uptake, and effective strategies for promoting adherence/persistence and retention in care. Provider-level factors include engaging a broad mix of providers, while ensuring adequate training and support for patient assessment, counseling, and follow-up. Systems-level factors include optimal delivery modalities, resource allocation, and ensuring access to populations most in need of new prevention options.

SUMMARY

Formative social/behavioral research must be undertaken proactively to prepare for and address future implementation challenges and reduce the gap between proving efficacy in clinical trials and assuring real-world effectiveness. Conceptualizing new HIV prevention technologies as behavioral interventions at the level of the patient, provider, and system will be paramount to effective and efficient implementation.

Preparing for pre-exposure prophylaxis: perceptions and readiness of Canadian pharmacists for the implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV transmission but has the potential to cause harm if not used properly. Pharmacists are well-positioned to foster PrEP's efficacy but little is known whether they would endorse it as an HIV prevention tool. The objective of the study was to determine Canadian HIV pharmacists' support for PrEP and to identify current barriers to promoting PrEP. Canadian pharmacists with experience in HIV care were invited to complete an online survey about their experiences, opinions, and learning needs regarding PrEP from December 2012 to January 2013. Among the 59 surveys received, 48 met criteria for final analysis. Overall, 33 (69%) respondents would provide education positively supporting the use of PrEP and 26 (54%) believed Health Canada should approve PrEP for use in Canada. Familiarity with the concept of PrEP and practice characteristics examined did not appear to be significantly associated with support for PrEP in univariable analyses. The principal barriers to promoting PrEP included inadequate drug coverage and insufficient knowledge to educate others. Many Canadian HIV pharmacists would endorse PrEP for high-risk patients; however, wider dissemination of information and lower drug costs may be needed to make PrEP more widely promoted.

Knowledge is Power! Increased Provider Knowledge Scores Regarding Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) are Associated with Higher Rates of PrEP Prescription and Future Intent to Prescribe PrEP

The FDA approval of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in 2012 has raised questions about the delivery of PrEP in a real-world setting. iPad-based questionnaires were given to providers at conferences in California and New York to assess knowledge, experience and attitudes regarding PrEP in HIV and non-HIV providers. HIV provider status was defined either by self-identification or by having greater than 5 years of HIV care experience. Knowledge scores were the sum of correct answers from five PrEP knowledge questions. Univariate analyses used t-test to compare knowledge scores and Fisher's exact test for past or future PrEP prescription between HIV and non-HIV providers. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with the outcomes. Of 233 respondents, the mean age was 40 years, 59 % were White, 59 % were physicians and 52 % were HIV providers. In univariate analysis, mean PrEP knowledge scores (max 5) were significantly higher for HIV providers (2.8 versus 2.2; p < 0.001), age > 41 (mean 2.8 versus 2.3; p = 0.004), White race (2.7 versus 2.2; p = 0.026) and participants in the New York region (3.0 versus 2.3; p < 0.001). In a multivariable model of knowledge scores, all but age remained significant. Among 201 potential prescribers, the rate of prior PrEP prescription was higher among HIV providers than non-HIV providers (34 versus 9 %; p < 0.001) and by knowledge score, but the association with provider status was no longer significant in multivariable analysis that controlled for knowledge. Intent to prescribe PrEP in the future was high for all provider types (64 %) and was associated with knowledge scores in multivariable analysis. The most common concerns about PrEP (>40 % of providers) were drug toxicities, development of resistance and patient adherence to follow-up; 32 % identified risk compensation as a concern. HIV providers had significantly greater PrEP knowledge than non-HIV providers, but differences by provider type in past PrEP prescription were largely dependent on knowledge. Future PrEP prescription was also associated with knowledge, though all providers expressed greater future use. Education of potential PrEP providers will be a key component of successful PrEP implementation.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis for sexually-acquired HIV risk management: a review

Despite significant efforts, the rate of new HIV infections worldwide remains unacceptably high, highlighting the need for new HIV prevention strategies. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a new approach that involves the ongoing use of antiretroviral medications by HIV-negative individuals to reduce the risk of HIV infection. The use of daily tenofovir/emtricitabine as oral PrEP was found to be effective in multiple placebo-controlled clinical trials and approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States and the World Health Organization have both released guidelines recommending the offer of oral PrEP to high-risk populations. The scale-up of PrEP is underway, but several implementation questions remain unanswered. Demonstration projects and open-label extensions of placebo-controlled trials are ongoing and hope to contribute to our understanding of PrEP use and delivery outside the randomized controlled trial setting. Evidence is beginning to emerge from these open-label studies and will be critical for guiding PrEP scale-up. Outside of such studies, PrEP uptake has been slow and several client- and provider-related barriers are limiting uptake. Maximizing the public health impact of PrEP will require rollout to be combined with interventions to promote uptake, support adherence, and prevent increases in risk behavior. Additional PrEP strategies are currently under investigation in placebo-controlled clinical trials and may be available in the future.

High interest in preexposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men at risk for HIV infection: baseline data from the US PrEP demonstration project

BACKGROUND

Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is the first biomedical intervention with proven efficacy to reduce HIV acquisition in men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women. Little is known about levels of interest and characteristics of individuals who elect to take PrEP in real-world clinical settings.

METHODS

The US PrEP Demonstration Project is a prospective open-label cohort study assessing PrEP delivery in municipal sexually transmitted disease clinics in San Francisco and Miami and a community health center in Washington, DC. HIV-uninfected MSM and transgender women seeking sexual health services at participating clinics were assessed for eligibility and offered up to 48 weeks of emtricitabine/tenofovir for PrEP. Predictors of enrollment were assessed using a multivariable Poisson regression model, and characteristics of enrolled participants are described.

RESULTS

Of 1069 clients assessed for participation, 921 were potentially eligible and 557 (60.5%) enrolled. In multivariable analyses, participants from Miami (adjusted Relative Risk [aRR]: 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33 to 1.75) or DC (aRR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.47), those who were self-referred (aRR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.32 to 1.66), those with previous PrEP awareness (aRR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.33), and those reporting >1 episode of anal sex with an HIV-infected partner in the last 12 months (aRR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.33) were more likely to enroll. Almost all (98%) enrolled participants were MSM, and at baseline, 63.5% reported condomless receptive anal sex in the previous 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Interest in PrEP is high among a diverse population of MSM at risk for HIV infection when offered in sexually transmitted disease and community health clinics.

Clinical Treatment Options Infectious Diseases: Update on PrEP Implementation, Adherence, and Advances in Delivery

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective and evidence-based HIV-prevention option and is recommended for individuals with substantial risk for HIV infection [1]. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that daily oral PrEP dramatically reduces the risk of HIV infection when it is taken as directed. Concerns regarding widespread emergence of antiretroviral resistance attributable to PrEP and behavioral disinhibition have to date not been observed in clinical trials and open-label demonstration projects. PrEP has great potential as part of an HIV risk reduction strategy and barriers to wider implementation including community education, prescriber availability, and elimination of financial barriers should be aggressively pursued. Adherence is critical to PrEP efficacy and has varied across study populations; developing and refining ways of measuring and supporting adherence is essential to the success of PrEP. Evaluation of long-acting medications and alternative formulations for PrEP is underway and may lead to the wider implementation and impact of PrEP.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus: the past, present, and future

This article presents an overview of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. The authors describe the past animal and human research that has been conducted that informs our current understanding of PrEP; summarize ongoing research in the area, including describing new regimens and delivery mechanisms being studied for PrEP; and highlight key issues that must be addressed in order to implement and optimize the use of this HIV prevention tool.

Preparing for PrEP: perceptions and readiness of canadian physicians for the implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis

Recent evidence has demonstrated the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention, but concerns persist around its use. Little is known about Canadian physicians' knowledge of and willingness to prescribe PrEP. We disseminated an online survey to Canadian family, infectious disease, internal medicine, and public health physicians between September 2012-June 2013 to determine willingness to prescribe PrEP. Criteria for analysis were met by 86 surveys. 45.9% of participants felt "very familiar" with PrEP, 49.4% felt that PrEP should be approved by Health Canada, and 45.4% of respondents were willing to prescribe PrEP. Self-identifying as an HIV expert (odds ratio, OR = 4.1, 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.6-10.2), familiarity with PrEP (OR = 5.0, 95%CI = 1.3-19.0) and having been asked by patients about PrEP (OR = 4.0, 95%CI = 1.5-10.5) were positively associated with willingness to prescribe PrEP on univariable analysis. The latter two were the strongest predictors on multivariate analysis. Participants cited cost and efficacy as major concerns. 75.3% did not feel that information had been adequately disseminated among physicians. In summary, Canadian physicians demonstrate varying levels of support for PrEP and express concerns about its implementation. Further research on real-world effectiveness, continuing medical education, and clinical support is needed to prepare physicians for this prevention strategy.

The impact of patient race on clinical decisions related to prescribing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): assumptions about sexual risk compensation and implications for access

Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has received increasing recognition as a viable prescription-based intervention for people at risk for HIV acquisition. However, little is known about racial biases affecting healthcare providers' willingness to prescribe PrEP. This investigation sought to explore medical students' stereotypes about sexual risk compensation among Black versus White men who have sex with men seeking PrEP, and the impact of such stereotypes on willingness to prescribe PrEP. An online survey presented participants (n = 102) with a clinical vignette of a PrEP-seeking, HIV-negative man with an HIV-positive male partner. Patient race was systematically manipulated. Participants reported predictions about patient sexual risk compensation, willingness to prescribe PrEP, and other clinical judgments. Bootstrapping analyses revealed that the Black patient was rated as more likely than the White patient to engage in increased unprotected sex if prescribed PrEP, which, in turn, was associated with reduced willingness to prescribe PrEP to the patient.

Incorporating couples-based approaches into HIV prevention for gay and bisexual men: opportunities and challenges

Thirty years after the beginning of the HIV epidemic, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (collectively called MSM) bear a disproportionate burden of HIV in the United States and continue to acquire a distressingly high number and proportion of new infections. Historically, HIV prevention for MSM has been focused on individual-level behavior change, rarely intervening with MSM as part of a couple. Yet, an estimated 33–67% of HIV infections among MSM are acquired from primary sexual partners, suggesting that work with MSM as couples could be an important contributor to prevention. Given the emergence of high impact combination HIV prevention, it is timely to consider how work with the broad variety of male couples can improve both personal and community health. Couples HIV testing and counseling for MSM is an important advance for identifying men who are unaware that they are HIV-positive, identifying HIV-discordant couples, and supporting men who want to learn their HIV status with their partner. Once men know their HIV status, new advances in biomedical prevention, which can dramatically reduce risk of HIV transmission or acquisition, allow men to make prevention decisions that can protect themselves and their partners. This paper highlights the present-day challenges and benefits of using a couples-based approach with MSM in the era of combination prevention to increase knowledge of HIV status, increase identification of HIV discordant couples to improve targeting prevention services,and support mutual disclosure of HIV status.

Are we prepped for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP)? Provider opinions on the real-world use of PrEP in the United States and Canada

BACKGROUND

 Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (Truvada) has demonstrated efficacy in placebo-controlled clinical trials involving men who have sex with men, high-risk heterosexuals, serodiscordant couples, and intravenous drug users. To assist in the real-world provision of PrEP, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released guidance documents for PrEP use.

METHODS

 Adult infectious disease physicians were surveyed about their opinions and current practices of PrEP through the Emerging Infections Network (EIN). Geographic information systems analysis was used to map out provider responses across the United States.

RESULTS

 Of 1175 EIN members across the country, 573 (48.8%) responded to the survey. A majority of clinicians supported PrEP but only 9% had actually provided it. Despite CDC guidance, PrEP practices were variable and clinicians reported many barriers to its real-world provision.

CONCLUSIONS

 The majority of adult infectious disease physicians across the United States and Canada support PrEP but have vast differences of opinion and practice, despite the existence of CDC guidance documents. The success of real-world PrEP will likely require multifaceted programs addressing barriers to its provision and will be assisted with the development of comprehensive guidelines for real-world PrEP.

Perceptions and attitudes about preexposure prophylaxis among seronegative partners and the potential of sexual disinhibition

OBJECTIVES

Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising strategy to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, especially among high-risk individuals such as seronegative partners; however, many caveats such as the potential risk of sexual disinhibition and noncompliance need to be considered. We explored the sociodemographic and behavioral factors associated with the adoption of PrEP among HIV seronegative men who have sex with men and heterosexual partners.

METHODS

A prepiloted self-administered survey was conducted among seronegative partners in a Ryan White HIV/AIDS Clinic in South Carolina from 2010 to 2011. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to explore the data.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 89 seronegative partners. The median age was 42 years (interquartile range 32-50) and a majority was men (56%), black (70%), and heterosexual (74%). A majority (94%) was willing to use PrEP if available; however, 26% of subjects suggested that they would be more likely to have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive partner while using PrEP, and 27% suggested that it would be difficult to take a daily dose of PrEP and consistently use condoms. The multivariable results suggest that the belief that a condom is no longer needed while taking PrEP was more likely among those who did not use a condom during their last sexual intercourse (adjusted odds ratio 7.45; 95% confidence interval 1.57-35.45) and among those with a higher HIV knowledge score (adjusted odds ratio 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these results suggest high acceptability of PrEP among seronegative partners to lower the risk of HIV transmission; however, there is a substantial risk of sexual disinhibition and noncompliance while using PrEP that may be reduced by ongoing education.

Suboptimal awareness and comprehension of published preexposure prophylaxis efficacy results among physicians in Massachusetts

In 2010, the centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA)004 and iPrEx trials (microbicide gel containing tenofovir and oral pill containing tenofovir-emtricitabine, respectively) demonstrated that antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduced the risk of HIV acquisition among high-risk individuals. To determine the facilitators and barriers to PrEP provision by health-care providers, we conducted an online, quantitative survey of Massachusetts-area physicians following the publication of the CAPRISA and iPrEx results. We assessed awareness and comprehension of efficacy data, prescribing experience, and anticipated provision of oral and topical PrEP among physicians, as well as demographic and behavioral factors associated with PrEP awareness and prescribing intentions. The majority of HIV specialists and generalist physicians were aware of data from these PrEP trials and able to correctly interpret the results, however, correct interpretation of findings tended to vary according to specialty (i.e., HIV specialists had greater awareness than generalists). In addition, provider concerns regarding PrEP efficacy and safety, as well its ability to divert funds from other HIV prevention resources, were associated with decreased intentions to prescribe both oral and topical PrEP. Findings suggest that a substantial proportion of physicians who may have contact with at-risk individuals may benefit from interventions that provide accurate data on the risks and benefits of PrEP in order to facilitate effective PrEP discussions with their patients. Future studies to develop and test interventions aimed at health-care providers should be prioritized to optimize implementation of PrEP in clinical settings.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV infection: results of a survey of HIV healthcare providers evaluating their knowledge, attitudes, and prescribing practices

Antiretroviral medications can be taken by HIV-negative persons to prevent HIV infection, also known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). PrEP was first shown to be effective during the iPrEX study. We conducted a survey involving HIV healthcare providers to document their attitudes and prescribing practices about PrEP in response to this study. An online survey was completed by 189 members and credentialees of the American Academy of HIV Medicine between April 2011 and September 2011. Ninety percent of respondents were familiar with the results of the iPrEx study, and most (78%) were familiar with CDC's interim guidance regarding the use of PrEP in MSM. Only 19% of respondents had prescribed PrEP. The majority of PrEP prescribers were compliant with CDC interim guidance; however, only 61% screened for hepatitis B. Of PrEP prescribers, 78% prescribed to MSM, 31% to MSW, and 28% to WSM. Greatest concerns about prescribing PrEP included development of antiretroviral resistance (32%), potential increase in high-risk behavior, (22%) and poor medication adherence (21%). Fifty-eight percent stated that HIV serodiscordance within a relationship most influenced their decision to prescribe PrEP to the HIV-seronegative partner. This study demonstrates that, despite awareness of the efficacy of PrEP, its use is limited. Survey participants used PrEP most commonly in MSM; however, a significant percentage also prescribed PrEP to women. The best candidate for PrEP is felt to be individuals in an HIV-serodiscordant relationship. Limitations to our study included a low response rate, changes in the evidence base, and the novelty of PrEP.

Knowledge of and opinions on HIV preexposure prophylaxis among front-line service providers at Canadian AIDS service organizations

Oral daily tenofovir/emtricitabine (Truvada) is approved in the United States for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) but has generated controversy in the media and within HIV-affected communities. We conducted an online survey about PrEP-related knowledge, experience, opinions, and learning needs, and received 160 responses from service providers at Canadian AIDS Service Organizations. Respondents were cautiously optimistic about PrEP and 48.8% believed that PrEP warranted Health Canada approval. In multivariable logistic regression, support for PrEP approval was associated with more years working in HIV (odds ratio=1.89 per decade, 95% CI=1.10, 3.25), low baseline familiarity with PrEP (OR=3.24, 95% CI=1.01, 14.41), and knowing someone who had used PrEP (OR=4.39, 95% CI=1.28,15.08). Participants major concerns about PrEP were similar to those highlighted in other publications, and some issues specific to certain target populations were raised. Several participants (26.2%) had been asked about PrEP in the past year and 10.6% knew of one or more Canadian who had used PrEP. Despite clients' interest, most participants thought that they (60.6%) or their organization (63.1%) did not have enough current knowledge about PrEP, highlighting the need for further education on this novel HIV prevention strategy.

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.

Antiretroviral prophylaxis for sexual and injection drug use acquisition of HIV

During the past few years, much has been learned about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of HIV from studies conducted in the U.S. and elsewhere. A review and summary was conducted of articles and reports published through August 2012 on the safety and efficacy of PrEP in humans; U.S.-based studies assessing PrEP knowledge, attitudes, and use among at-risk populations and healthcare providers; and models of the cost effectiveness of PrEP. PrEP is generally safe and effective and may be cost effective in a targeted population. Awareness and interest in PrEP are increasing. PrEP is an important new addition to HIV prevention services, but continued study is warranted.