Cost-effectiveness of HIV nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis in Australia

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.

Examining potential effects of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) on sexual behaviors of Chinese men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

In China, non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) is not a conventional service yet and nPEP related studies are very few. Recently, China's 13th Five Year Action Plan for HIV/AIDS Containment and Prevention examines the feasibility of including nPEP as one of the national strategies for HIV prevention. However, there is a concern that nPEP use might exacerbate high-risk sexual activities. In order to facilitate a research-based policy making of routinizing nPEP services, the current study examined potential effects of nPEP use on condom use and number of sexual partners among Chinese men who have sex with men (MSM) .

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in two cities of China in November and December 2018. Descriptive analyses of participants' sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics were conducted using SPSS 24.0. Mplus 7.4 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.

RESULTS

The sample included 419 Chinese MSM with a mean age of 28.04 (SD = 9.71). Participants reported more positive anticipation of their own behaviors than other MSM's behaviors regarding condom use and number of sexual partners if nPEP were to be routinized in China. About 60% of participants reported discrepancies between anticipated individual and population behaviors as a potential result of routinization of nPEP services. Anticipated individual behavioral change was positively related to age and duration of residence in the current city, and negatively related to education. Anticipated population behavioral change was positively related to age. Anticipated behavioral discrepancy was positively related to being ethnic minority and never married.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings identify a high-risk subgroup of MSM, who reported they would use condoms less and/or have more sexual partners when nPEP becomes available. This subgroup of MSM might benefit from targeted health interventions. Moreover, there is a clear discrepancy between anticipated individual and population behavioral changes regarding future routinization of nPEP services, suggesting incorporating nPEP services as a means of community development for MSM.

Characteristics, sexual practices and sexually transmissible infections diagnoses of men who have sex with men and use non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis in Victoria, Australia

Background Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (NPEP) is available to people with a potential risk for HIV exposure within the preceding 72h. We sought to determine if men who have sex with men (MSM) and receive NPEP had a significantly different risk profile (before the preceding 72h) from MSM not receiving NPEP. If this is the case, NPEP consultations may act as a cue for also discussing pre-exposure prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the demographic characteristics, sexual practices and clinical diagnoses of MSM who were NPEP users and those who were non-NPEP users attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre from January 2008 to December 2014. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the association between NPEP use and risk practices. Generalised estimating equations were used to adjust for within-individual correlations related to multiple visits of the same individual.

RESULTS

Of the 40395 MSM consultations included in the study, 1776 consultations (4%) were related to NPEP prescription. NPEP prescribing was associated with ever having injected drugs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-2.3), sex with males only (AOR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.6-2.3), more than three male partners in the past 3 months (AOR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4-1.7) and inconsistent condom use with these partners within the past 3 months (AOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.9-2.4). Sex workers (AOR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9), and men reporting sex overseas within the past 12 months (AOR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.8) were less likely to receive NPEP. MSM who used NPEP were more likely to test positive for any sexually transmissible infection (AOR 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

MSM receiving NPEP generally had a higher risk profile than MSM not requesting NPEP, indicating that NPEP was used by MSM at higher risk for HIV. Therefore, consultations for NPEP may be an opportune time for also discussing pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.

To prescribe, or not to prescribe: decision making in HIV-1 post-exposure prophylaxis

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the trend in usage of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) after HIV-1 risk exposure and evaluated PEP prescription decision making of physicians according to guidelines.

METHODS

All PEP consultations from January 2014 to December 2016 in patients presenting at the University Hospital of Cologne (Germany) were retrospectively analysed. HIV risk contacts included sexual and occupational exposure. The European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) Guidelines for HIV PEP (version 9.0, 2017) were used for assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 649 patients presented at the emergency department (ED) or the clinic for infectious diseases (IDC) for PEP consultations. A continuous increase in the number of PEP requests was recorded: 189 in 2014, 208 in 2015 and 252 in 2016. PEP consultations in men who have sex with men (MSM) showed a remarkable increase in 2016 (2014, n = 96; 2015, n = 101; 2016, n = 152). Decisions taken by physicians with a specialization in infectious diseases (n = 547) included 61 (11%) guideline-discordant prescriptions [2014: 14% (n = 22); 2015: 9% (n = 16); 2016: 11% (n = 23)]. Among these, sexual exposure accounted for 45 (74%) cases, including 15 cases of nonconsensual sex, while occupational exposure accounted for 14 (23%) cases and other exposure two cases (3%). The main reason for guideline-discordant PEP prescriptions was emotional stress of the patient (n = 37/61).

CONCLUSIONS

PEP prescriptions are increasing and decision making is influenced by patients' emotional stress, but PEP prescriptions should be strictly administered according to risk assessment.

Experiences of HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) among highly exposed men who have sex with men (MSM)

OBJECTIVES

HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is indicated after sexual exposure with high risk of transmission. Men who have sex with men (MSM) are the main target of PEP. The aim of our study was to investigate the experience and shortcomings of PEP among people with a high risk of HIV exposure.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects with ongoing follow-up for HIV infection and PEP history were selected for the qualitative study. Semistructured interviews were conducted at the patients' homes. They were audio-recorded, transcribed and deidentified before data analysis, double coding and thematic analysis with an inductive approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were eligible for the qualitative study. Thirteen interviews were carried out. All patients were 20-60-year-old MSM. The median time between PEP and HIV diagnosis was 3.3 years (interquartile range (IQR)_25-75=0.9-4.9). Many participants reported negative PEP experiences: awkward access to the PEP clinic, uneasiness and shame in the hospital setting, unpleasant interaction and moral disapprobation from the medical staff, treatment intolerance and prevention messages that were 'inconsistent with real life' CONCLUSION: Our data highlight PEP management failures among its target population that may have compromised any subsequent attempts to seek out PEP. Practitioners should be more aware of MSM sexual contexts and practices. PEP consultations should provide the opportunity to discuss prevention strategies with highly exposed HIV-negative subjects, which may include pre-exposure prophylaxis.

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.

Practical guidance for nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection: an editorial review

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with antiretroviral medication has been used as an HIV-prevention strategy for nearly 20 years. The fact that approximately 50 000 new HIV infections occur in the United States each year reflects marked underutilization of nonoccupational PEP (NPEP). There have been several advances in NPEP in the past 10 years. Clinical trials from different countries have demonstrated better tolerability, completion rates, and fewer drug-drug interactions with newer antiretroviral agents. Notably, there has been a shift from zidovudine-based to tenofovir-based regimens. Three-drug therapy is now favored for all potential HIV exposures. More recently, the US Public Health Service and the New York State Department of Health recommended tenofovir/emtricitabine and raltegravir as the first-line regimen universally for PEP. Advances in HIV testing technology may also allow shorter duration of follow-up HIV testing after a high-risk exposure. This review will discuss challenges with previously recommended regimens, newer potential candidate agents and the rationale for using them, intervals for laboratory monitoring, and cost considerations for NPEP. NPEP can be viewed as an educable moment and a potential bridge to preexposure prophylaxis, as part of a combination prevention package, for those who are likely to have recurrent higher-risk exposures. Thus, risk-reduction counseling should be an integral aspect of NPEP.

HIV seroconversions among male non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis service users: a data linkage study

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread prescription of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (NPEP) in Victoria, little is known about subsequent HIV acquisition among NPEP users. We linked the Victorian NPEP Service (VNPEPS) database and the Victorian HIV Surveillance Registry to determine the number, incidence rate and predictive factors of HIV seroconversions among users of the VNPEPS.

METHODS

Records from male patients that received NPEP in the VNPEPS database (n = 1420) between January 2001 and February 2008 were linked with all entries in the Victorian HIV Surveillance Registry up to May 2008.

RESULTS

Sixty-one men who presented to the VNPEPS were identified as HIV seropositive; 16 of these were diagnosed at initial presentation for NPEP. The incidence of HIV seroconversion in males who were HIV seronegative at first presentation for NPEP was 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.95-1.70) per 100 person-years. There was no association between HIV seroconversion and number of NPEP presentations or age. The median age of seroconversion was 34.6 years.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of HIV infection among men presenting to the VNPEPS is slightly lower than the HIV incidence in NPEP users in a recent Australian cohort study of men who have sex with men, but higher than HIV incidence in general gay male populations. Frequency of NPEP use was not associated with risk of HIV seroconversion. Examination of risk behaviour before and after NPEP use in this population is required to further assess the impact of NPEP availability and use on HIV incidence rates and risk behaviour in Australia.

Postexposure prophylaxis, preexposure prophylaxis or universal test and treat: the strategic use of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV acquisition and transmission

This review considers the use of antiretroviral drugs specifically to prevent HIV transmission. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) can be implemented for the protection of uninfected individuals both before (preexposure prophylaxis) and after (postexposure prophylaxis) exposure to HIV infection. Preexposure prophylaxis may be used coitally dependently when individuals are intermittently exposed or by continuous daily dosing for those constantly exposed; postexposure prophylaxis is used in 28-day courses. Alternatively, ART can be used strategically to reduce the viral load and consequent infectiousness of an HIV-infected individual, thereby limiting the risk of onward viral transmission. A policy of universal HIV testing to enhance the identification of all HIV-positive individuals followed by immediate treatment of all HIV-positive individuals, irrespective of their CD4 cell counts (universal test and treat), has been postulated as a potential tool capable of reducing HIV incidence at a population level. This concept represents a paradigm shift in the use of ART, targeting infectious individuals for prevention rather than protecting uninfected exposed populations. This strategy could have the advantage of preventing transmission and reducing HIV incidence at a population level, as well as delivering universal access to therapy for all people living with HIV and AIDS, potentially eliminating mother-to-child HIV transmission and limiting concomitant diseases such as tuberculosis. This review critically examines the scientific basis of ART for HIV prevention, summarizing the risks and opportunities of the potential expansion of ART for prevention. Specifically, we consider the evidences for and against targeting HIV-uninfected individuals compared with enhanced HIV testing and treatment of HIV-infected individuals in terms of impact on viral transmission.

Postexposure prophylaxis for HIV following sexual exposure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has become an important part of combined approaches to the prevention of onward HIV transmission. As PEP becomes more widely available after sexual as well as occupational exposure, there are ongoing debates about cost-effectiveness and utility. Different regions have adopted different PEP strategies and the availability of new antiretroviral drugs and classes means that options for PEP regimens are increasing. This review is timely and of importance as it summarizes the evidence supporting current PEP usage and discusses potential future strategies for PEP prescribing.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review covers the biology and risk of HIV transmission and evidence supporting the use of PEP. It gives a summary of current guidelines including which agents to use, the potential for drug-drug interactions, possible alternative and potential novel PEP regimens, cost-effectiveness and research on effects of PEP on sexual behaviour.

SUMMARY

While reinforcing current practice around PEP prescribing, this review discusses possible future developments including the use of new antiretroviral drugs, new classes of antiretroviral drugs or novel strategies for PEP which are likely to be areas of research in the near future.

[AIDS Study Group/Spanish AIDS Plan consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection (updated January 2010)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of antiretroviral therapy recommendations for adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel made up of members of the Grupo de Estudio de Sida (Gesida, AIDS Study Group) and the Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS, Spanish AIDS Plan) reviewed the advances in the current understanding of the pathophysiology of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the efficacy and safety of clinical trials, and cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in biomedical journals or presented at scientific meetings. Three levels of evidence were defined according to the data source: randomized studies (level A), cohort or case-control studies (level B), and expert opinion (level C). The decision to recommend, consider or not to recommend ART was established in each situation.

RESULTS

Currently, the treatment of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs of two different classes, including 2 nucleosides or nucleotide analogs (NRTI) plus 1 non-nucleoside (NNRTI) or 1 boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r), but other combinations are possible. Initiation of ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection. In asymptomatic patients, initiation of ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts below 350 cells/microl; 2) When CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/microl, therapy should be started in case of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, HIV nephropathy, HIV viral load above 100,000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells under 14%, and in people aged over 55; 3) Therapy should be deferred when CD4 are above 500 cells/microl, but could be considered if any of previous considerations concurs. Treatment should be initiated in case of hepatitis B requiring treatment and should be considered for reduce sexual transmission. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures but undetectable viral loads maybe possible with the new drugs even in highly drug experienced patients. Genotype studies are useful in these situations. Drug toxicity of ART therapy is losing importance as benefits exceed adverse effects. Criteria for antiretroviral treatment in acute infection, pregnancy and post-exposure prophylaxis are mentioned as well as the management of HIV co-infection with hepatitis B or C.

CONCLUSIONS

CD4 cells counts, viral load and patient co-morbidities are the most important reference factors to consider when initiating ART in asymptomatic patients. The large number of available drugs, the increased sensitivity of tests to monitor viral load, and the ability to determine viral resistance is leading to a more individualized therapy approach in order to achieve undetectable viral load under any circumstances.

Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis, subsequent risk behaviour and HIV incidence in a cohort of Australian homosexual men

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (NPEP) use and future HIV risk behaviours and HIV infection in a cohort of HIV-negative homosexual men in Sydney, Australia.

DESIGN

Prospective analysis of NPEP use in a community cohort from 2001 to 2007.

METHODS

In the Health in Men study cohort, men were annually questioned about NPEP use and tested for HIV. Every 6 months, detailed quantitative data on unprotected anal intercourse were collected. Cox regression models examined risk factors for incident NPEP use, HIV seroconversion and time trends in NPEP use. The change in the number of unprotected anal intercourse acts with nonseroconcordant partners before and after NPEP was examined using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred and twenty-seven participants were enrolled. At baseline, 78.5% of participants had heard of NPEP, which increased to 97.4% by the fifth annual interview. NPEP use increased significantly from 2.9 per 100 person-years in 2002 to 7.1 per 100 person-years in 2007 (P = 0.007). Unprotected anal intercourse was a strong predictor of incident NPEP use. Use of NPEP was not associated with changes in HIV risk behaviour. Men who received NPEP had a significantly higher rate of subsequent HIV seroconversion (hazard ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 1.40-5.08, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Awareness of the availability of NPEP in this cohort was nearly universal. Use was common and increased rapidly over the study period. NPEP was targeted mostly towards high-risk behaviours. Use of NPEP was not associated with reductions in risk behaviour, and men who received NPEP continued to be at high risk of subsequent HIV infection.