Constructions of HIV Risk Among a Diverse Sample of HIV-Negative Young Men Who Have Sex With Men Who Are Repeat Testers

Routine, Opt-Out, Emergency Department Syphilis Testing Increases HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Uptake

BACKGROUND

Many people vulnerable to HIV do not perceive themselves at risk or consider preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). This study hypothesizes that syphilis diagnosis through universal, emergency department (ED) screening would increase PrEP uptake.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study enrolled patients tested for syphilis through ED screening between July 2019 and July 2021. Participants completed a survey about behaviors, HIV and PrEP knowledge, and opinions at the time of enrollment. All were offered PrEP if they met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for PrEP use. Information about PrEP use and HIV status was collected 6 months later. Bivariate analysis was used to compare outcomes between groups testing positive versus negative for syphilis.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 97 participants, 49 with syphilis and 48 testing negative. Overall, 11 (11.3%) started PrEP, all in the syphilis group, despite 28 (58.3%) in the negative group having indications for PrEP. Participants with syphilis less frequently reported low perceived HIV risk than syphilis-negative participants who reported HIV transmission behaviors (83.7% vs. 92.9%). Participants reporting moderate to high HIV risk perception were significantly more likely to start PrEP (odds ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-78.1; P = 0.02). At 6 months, 3 participants remained on PrEP (follow-up data available for 63.5% of PrEP-eligible participants).

CONCLUSIONS

Syphilis diagnosis was associated with increased perception of HIV risk and increased PrEP initiation. Individuals who otherwise might not seek testing for syphilis because of perceived low risk may be identified through routine screening, thus providing an important opportunity to link more people to HIV prevention and PrEP services.

Eligibility criteria vs. need for pre-exposure prophylaxis: a reappraisal among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

To reappraise pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) eligibility criteria towards the men who have sex with men (MSM) with highest HIV-risk, we assessed PrEP need (i.e. HIV-risk) using Amsterdam Cohort Studies data from 2011-2017 for all non-PrEP using MSM. Outcomes were incident HIV-infection and newly-diagnosed anal STI. Determinants were current PrEP eligibility criteria (anal STI and condomless sex (CAS)) and additional determinants (age, education, group sex, alcohol use during sex and chemsex). We used targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of determinants on outcomes, and calculated population attributable fractions (PAFs) with 95% CI using RRs from TMLE. Among 810 included MSM, 22 HIV-infections and 436 anal STIs (n = 229) were diagnosed during follow-up. Chemsex (RR = 5.8 (95% CI 2.0-17.0); PAF = 55.3% (95% CI 43.3-83.4)), CAS with a casual partner (RR = 3.3 (95% CI 1.3-8.7); PAF = 38.0% (95% CI 18.3-93.6)) and anal STI (RR = 5.3 (95% CI 1.7-16.7); PAF = 22.0 (95% CI -16.8 to 100.0)) were significantly (P < 0.05) associated with and had highest attributable risk fractions for HIV. Chemsex (RR = 2.0 (95% CI 1.6-2.4); PAF = 19.5 (95% CI 10.6-30.6)) and CAS with a casual partner (RR = 2.5 (95% CI 2.0-3.0); PAF = 28.0 (95% CI 21.0-36.4)) were also significantly associated with anal STI, as was younger age (16-34/≥35; RR = 1.7 (95% CI 1.4-2.1); PAF = 15.5 (95% CI 6.4-27.6)) and group sex (RR = 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6); PAF = 9.0 (95% CI -2.3 to 23.7)). Chemsex should be an additional PrEP eligibility criterion.

"I Think That I Have a Good Understanding of How to Protect Myself": A Qualitative Study About HIV Risk Perceptions Among Men and Gender Diverse Individuals Who Have Sex With Men

This qualitative study aimed to determine how men and gender diverse individuals who have sex with men describe their perceived risk of HIV and what factors influence this risk assessment. We conducted in-depth, virtual interviews with 18 HIV-negative individuals from Philadelphia, eligible for or taking PrEP. The interviews assessed the participants' understanding of their HIV risk, using thematic analysis to deductively code and extract themes. Three themes emerged: (1) participants expressed both deliberative and affective risk perception before and after sexual encounters; (2) participants linked HIV knowledge to risk perception and stigma; (3) participants connected intrinsic and extrinsic factors to risk perception differently. Participants endorsed low overall risk perception, while also describing moments of high affective risk perception after sexual encounters in which they were not able to implement their preferred prevention strategies. Future research should explore helping individuals transform affective risk perception into empowerment around sexual health.