Moving HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis into clinical settings: lessons from buprenorphine

Preferences for implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): Results from a survey of primary care providers

•

PrEP implementation in primary care has been slow.

•

Primary care providers equally favor training all vs. having a PrEP specialist.

•

Efforts to promote knowledge of clinical guidelines may enhance PrEP implementation.

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are critical for promoting HIV prevention by prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Yet, there are limited data regarding PCP’s preferred approaches for PrEP implementation. In 2015, we conducted an online survey of PCPs’ PrEP prescribing and implementation. Participants were general internists recruited from a national professional organization. We examined provider and practice characteristics and perceived implementation barriers and facilitators associated with preferred models for PrEP implementation. Among 240 participants, the majority (85%) favored integrating PrEP into primary care, either by training all providers (“all trained”) (42%) or having an onsite PrEP specialist (“on-site specialist”) (43%). Only 15% preferred referring patients out of the practice to a specialist (“refer out”). Compared to those who preferred to “refer out,” participants who preferred the “all trained” model were more likely to spend most of their time delivering direct patient care and to practice in the Northeast. Compared to participants who preferred the “refer out” or on-site specialist” models, PCPs preferring the all trained model were less likely to perceive lack of clinic PrEP guidelines/protocols as a barrier to PrEP. Most PCPs favored integrating PrEP into primary care by either training all providers or having an on-site specialist. Time devoted to clinical care and geography may influence preferences for PrEP implementation. Establishing clinic-specific PrEP protocols may promote on-site PrEP implementation. Future studies should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of different PrEP implementation models on PrEP delivery.

A Brief Screening Tool to Assess the Risk of Contracting HIV Infection Among Active Injection Drug Users

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate preexposure prophylaxis and other biomedical or intensive behavioral interventions into the care of injection drug users (IDUs), health care providers need validated, rapid, risk screening tools for identifying persons at highest risk of incident HIV infection.

METHODS

To develop and validate a brief screening tool for assessing the risk of contracting HIV (ARCH), we included behavioral and HIV test data from 1904 initially HIV-uninfected men and women enrolled and followed in the AIDS Linked to the Intravenous Experience prospective cohort study between 1988 and 2008. Using logistic regression analyses with generalized estimating equations, we identified significant predictors of incident HIV infection, then rescaled and summed their regression coefficients to create a risk score.

RESULTS

The final logistic regression model included age, engagement in a methadone maintenance program, and a composite injection risk score obtained by counting the number of the following 5 behaviors reported during the past 6 months: injection of heroin, injection of cocaine, sharing a cooker, sharing needles, or visiting a shooting gallery. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.720; possible scores on the index ranged from 0 to 100 and a score 46 or greater had a sensitivity of 86.2% and a specificity of 42.5%, appropriate for a screening tool.

DISCUSSION

We developed an easy to administer 7-question screening tool with a cutoff that is predictive of incident HIV infection in a large prospective cohort of IDUs in Baltimore. The ARCH-IDUs screening tool can be used to prioritize persons who are injecting illicit drugs for consideration of preexposure prophylaxis and other intensive HIV prevention efforts.

HIV providers' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis in care settings: a qualitative study

Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can reduce HIV incidence among at-risk persons. However, for PrEP to have an impact in decreasing HIV incidence, clinicians will need to be willing to prescribe PrEP. HIV specialists are experienced in using antiretroviral medications, and could readily provide PrEP, but may not care for HIV-uninfected patients. Six focus groups with 39 Boston area HIV care providers were conducted (May-June 2012) to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to prescribing PrEP. Participants articulated logistical and theoretical barriers, such as concerns about PrEP effectiveness in real-world settings, potential unintended consequences (e.g., risk disinhibition and medication toxicity), and a belief that PrEP provision would be more feasible in primary care clinics. They identified several facilitators to prescribing PrEP, including patient motivation and normative guidelines. Overall, participants reported limited prescribing intentions. Without interventions to address HIV providers' concerns, implementation of PrEP in HIV clinics may be limited.

Update to Interim Guidance for Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for the Prevention of HIV Infection: PrEP for injecting drug users

On June 12, 2013, the Thailand Ministry of Health and CDC published results from a randomized controlled trial of a daily oral dose of 300 mg of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) that showed efficacy in reducing the acquisition of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among injecting drug users (IDUs) (1). Based on these findings, CDC recommends that preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) be considered as one of several prevention options for persons at very high risk for HIV acquisition through the injection of illicit drugs.