Clinical decisions. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention--polling results

US Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Practitioners' Recommendations Regarding Condomless Sex in the Era of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Treatment as Prevention

Background

We sought to characterize human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) practitioners’ recommendations to patients regarding treatment as prevention, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and condom use among persons with HIV (PWH) with viral suppression and individuals receiving PrEP.

Methods

A brief survey about counseling practices was distributed electronically to previous attendees of an International Antiviral Society–USA continuing medical education activity. Descriptive analyses were performed for all questions. Pearson χ² tests were used to identify potential differences in counseling practices based on sex, degree/license, years in practice, number of PWH cared for in the past year, and practice location.

Results

Of the 3238 persons surveyed, 478 (15%) responded. 65% were female, 47% were physicians, 78% had been in practice ≥6 years, and 52% had cared for >100 PWH in the last year. Of the respondents, 51% (95% confidence interval, 46.8%–56.0%) agreed that the evidence “supports, strongly supports or proves” that condomless sex with a PWH with viral suppression does not lead to HIV transmission, and 76% (72.2%–80.0%) commonly or always recommend condoms for such patients. Although 42% (95% confidence interval, 37.0%–46.0%) of respondents said the evidence “supports, strongly supports or proves” that condomless sex involving a person at risk for HIV infection receiving PrEP does not lead to HIV transmission, 81% (77.3%–84.5%) commonly or always recommend condom use for such patients. Responses differed significantly by practitioner experience, region, sex and degree.

Conclusions

Although many practitioners caring for individuals with and at risk for HIV infection acknowledge that successful treatment or PrEP prevents transmission, the majority of practitioners commonly or always recommend condom use.

Challenges and opportunities for oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in the prevention of HIV infection: where are we in Europe?

Following US Food and Drugs Administration approval in July 2012 of daily oral tenofovir and emtricitabine for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection in high-risk individuals in the USA, there has been much controversy about the implementation of this PrEP regimen in other countries throughout the world, and in Europe in particular. In this review, we focus on the challenges and opportunities of a daily oral PrEP regimen to curb the rising incidence of HIV infection in high-risk groups, and particularly in men who have sex with men. A number of issues would need to be addressed before PrEP could be implemented, including assessing the real effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of daily PrEP, the sustainability of daily adherence, the risk of selecting resistance, the long-term safety, and the risk of change in sexual behavior that might offset the benefit of PrEP. Alternatives to a daily oral PrEP regimen are being explored.

Emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a review of its use in HIV-1 pre-exposure prophylaxis

The fixed-dose combination of emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (Truvada(®)), administered orally once daily, is widely used as part of first-line regimens for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Recently, once-daily administration of FTC/TDF was approved in the USA for pre-exposure prophylaxis in conjunction with safer sex practices to reduce the risk of sexually acquired HIV-1 in high-risk adults who are not infected. To date, results of four large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials with FTC/TDF as pre-exposure prophylaxis have been published. Three studies showed statistically significant reductions in the number of individuals with emergent HIV-1 infection when FTC/TDF was compared with placebo over the ≈1- to 2-year study periods. Efficacy (i.e. risk reduction relative to placebo) was 44 % in the iPrEx trial in men who have sex with men, 75 % in the Partners PrEP study in heterosexual HIV-1-serodiscordant couples and 62 % in the TDF2 trial in heterosexual men and women. The fourth study (FEM-PrEP) in heterosexual women did not show a statistically significant difference between FTC/TDF and placebo, although low adherence rates reported in this trial may have been a factor. No unexpected adverse events were reported in the trials. However, since pre-exposure prophylaxis involves long-term administration of drugs to healthy individuals, it is important to monitor the long-term safety of FTC/TDF (e.g. renal function, bone mineral density) in this setting. Other notable considerations include adherence, cost and the potential for development of drug resistance. Interim guidelines are available for prescribing FTC/TDF as pre-exposure prophylaxis. If used appropriately in selected high-risk individuals, pre-exposure prophylaxis with FTC/TDF represents an important additional strategy to reduce the spread of HIV-1 infection, which continues to be a significant global concern.

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.