High HIV incidence in men who have sex with men attending for postexposure prophylaxis: a service evaluation

Post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV: new drugs, new approaches, and more questions

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV acquisition has been recommended for over three decades, but remains underutilised. Over the past decade, clinical trials have established the safety and tolerability of newer PEP regimens, particularly those containing integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) combined with a tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine backbone. Several of these regimens were better tolerated than historical controls. Studies in macaques found that shorter courses of PEP with INSTIs were effective, particularly if dosing occurred close to the time of retroviral exposure. Despite the increase in well tolerated options, PEP seems to be underused globally and links to other prevention services are suboptimal. Interventions to increase provider and community awareness of PEP are needed.

Trends in HIV post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure in Brazil (2011-2019)

We examined trends in the prevalence of post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure (PEPSE) per million population (2011-2019) and the proportion of repeated PEPSE within 365 days of the first PEPSE dispensing (2011-2018) in Brazil. We also compared the prevalence of repeated PEPSE according to patient and health services characteristics in 2018. The prevalence of PEPSE increased 55.5% from 2011 to 2019. Repeated PEPSE increased 11.8%, reaching 8.4% among people with their first dispensing in 2018. The prevalence of repeated PEPSE was higher in cis men or trans women (versus cisgender women); homosexuals (versus heterosexuals); and people aged 25-29 years (versus other age groups). We also observed greater prevalence of repeated PEPSE in HIV services in populous cities or services with elevated caseloads. Our findings highlight the need for strategies to reduce repeated PEPSE and promote other HIV-prevention technologies, particularly among young adults, cisgender men, transgender women, and homosexuals.

Immediate PrEP when accessing PEP: A service evaluation

OBJECTIVES

In January 2021, 56 Dean Street, a London sexual health clinic, changed clinic policy so that all those attending for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) were offered quick-start opt-out pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) following completion of the 28-day PEP course. We assessed the uptake of this quick-start PrEP in service users attending for PEP.

METHODS

We undertook a case note review of those who received PEP during the 2-week period from 17 February to 1 March 2021, assessing the data and comparing them to those from the same period in 2020 (15 February-28 February 2020) before quick-start opt-out PrEP was introduced.

RESULTS

The number of service users receiving PEP was 82 in 2020 and 42 in 2021, of which an unmet PrEP need was demonstrated in 81.7% (67/82) in 2020 and 78.6% (33/42) in 2021 (p = 0.8106). Of those with an unmet need, a higher proportion (97.0% [32/33]) were offered PrEP in 2021 following the introduction of opt-out PrEP compared with the 85.1% (57/67) in 2020 (p = 0.0953). Of those eligible for PrEP who were offered it during their PEP consultation, 53.1% (17/32) in 2021 were dispensed PrEP compared with 17.5% (10/57) in 2020 (p = 0.0007).

CONCLUSION

Since the introduction of quick-start opt-out PrEP, uptake in eligible candidates increased from 17.5% to 53.1%. This suggests that this strategy was acceptable to service users.

Does qualitative viral load testing shorten the window period for diagnosing HIV in individuals attending for post-exposure prophylaxis?

A fourth-generation HIV test is conventionally performed at baseline for individuals given HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). However, early HIV infection may be missed by fourth-generation tests especially in settings of high HIV incidence, meaning that recently infected individuals are potentially at risk of transmitting HIV. In 2013, HIV incidence in PEP recipients at the 56 Dean Street clinic was 7.6 per 100 person-years. We therefore wished to see if using a point-of-care PCR HIV test in such individuals would shorten the testing window period and pick up early infections that would be undiagnosed by conventional tests. We compared HIV detection in PEP recipients using the Cepheid GeneXpert® HIV-1 Qual viral load (Qual VL) assay with the standard HIV tests used in our clinical service. Between March 2017 and August 2018, a Qual VL assay was performed in addition to standard baseline HIV tests in consented PEP recipients. Of 494 consented PEP recipients, 476 had valid Qual VL assay results. Of these, 474 (99.6%) had a negative Qual VL result and were also negative on standard baseline HIV tests. Two (0.4%) tested positive for HIV on Qual VL. One of these patients was also HIV-positive on all baseline HIV tests. The other had discordant baseline point-of-care HIV test results. Although no additional HIV infections were diagnosed in PEP recipients using Qual VL, in one individual, it provided confirmation of new HIV infection more quickly than the standard HIV testing pathway.

Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Uptake Among Men Who Have Sex With Men Who Used nPEP: A Longitudinal Analysis of Attendees at a Large Sexual Health Clinic in Montréal (Canada)

BACKGROUND

Reducing HIV transmission using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) requires focussing on individuals at high acquisition risk, such as men who have sex with men with a history of nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP). This study aims to characterize longitudinal trends in PrEP uptake and its determinants among nPEP users in Montréal.

METHODS

Eligible attendees at Clinique médicale l'Actuel were recruited prospectively starting in October 2000 (nPEP) and January 2013 (PrEP). Linking these cohorts, we characterized the nPEP-to-PrEP cascade, examined the determinants of PrEP uptake after nPEP consultation using a Cox proportional-hazard model, and assessed whether PrEP persistence differed by nPEP history using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

As of August 2019, 31% of 2682 nPEP cohort participants had 2 or more nPEP consultations. Subsequent PrEP consultations occurred among 36% of nPEP users, of which 17% sought nPEP again afterward. Among 2718 PrEP cohort participants, 46% reported previous nPEP use. Among nPEP users, those aged 25-49 years [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1 to 1.7], with more nPEP episodes (HR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.5), who reported chemsex (HR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.7), with a sexually transmitted infection history (HR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.7), and who returned for their first nPEP follow-up visit (HR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.7 to 4.2) had higher rates of PrEP linkage. There was no difference in PrEP persistence between nPEP-to-PrEP and PrEP only participants.

CONCLUSION

Over one-third of nPEP users were subsequently prescribed PrEP. However, the large proportion of men who repeatedly use nPEP calls for more efficient PrEP-linkage services and, among those who use PrEP, improved persistence should be encouraged.

Data linkage to evaluate the long-term risk of HIV infection in individuals seeking post-exposure prophylaxis

Evidence on the long-term risk of HIV infection in individuals taking HIV post-exposure prophylaxis remains limited. In this retrospective data linkage study, we evaluate the occurrence of HIV infection in 975 individuals who sought post-exposure prophylaxis in a tertiary hospital between 2007 and 2013. Using privacy preserving probabilistic linkage, we link these 975 records with two observational databases providing data on HIV events (Zurich Primary HIV Infection study and the Swiss HIV Cohort Study). This enables us to identify 22 HIV infections and to obtain long-term follow-up data, which reveal a median of 4.1 years between consultation for post-exposure prophylaxis and HIV diagnosis. Even though men who have sex with men constitute only 35.8% of those seeking post-exposure prophylaxis, all 22 events occur in this subgroup. These findings should strongly encourage early consideration of pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men after a first episode of post-exposure prophylaxis.

Individuals seeking post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV may represent an important risk group for future HIV infection. Here the authors find HIV infections at long-term follow-up in 22 of 348 men who have sex with men, and 0 of 623 other PEP seekers.

HIV Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Global Data

HIV nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) has been prescribed to men who have sex with men (MSM) for decades, but the global situation of nPEP implementation among this population remains unclear. To understand nPEP awareness, uptake, and factors associated with uptake among MSM, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies reporting nPEP implementation among MSM published before May 19, 2019. We estimated pooled rates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of awareness, uptake using a random-effects model. We identified 74 studies: 3 studies (4.1%) from upper-middle-income regions and 71 (95.9%) from high-income regions. The pooled rate of nPEP awareness and uptake was 51.6% (95% CI 40.6-62.5%) and 6.0% (5.0-7.1%), respectively. Pooled uptake rate was higher in upper-middle-income regions [8.9% (7.8-10.0%)] than in high-income regions [5.8% (4.8-6.9%)]. Unprotected anal sex was the most common exposure (range: 55.0-98.6%, median: 62.9%). Pooled completion of nPEP was 86.9% (79.5-92.8%). Of 19,546 MSM prescribed nPEP, 500 HIV seroconversions (2.6%) were observed. Having risky sexual behaviors and history of sexually transmitted infections were associated with higher nPEP uptake, whereas insufficient knowledge, underestimated risk of exposure to HIV, lack of accessibility, and social stigma might hinder nPEP uptake. Awareness and uptake of nPEP among MSM worldwide are low. Further efforts are needed to combat barriers to access nPEP, including improving accessibility and reducing stigma. Seroconversions post-nPEP uptake suggest that joint prevention precautions aside from nPEP are needed for high-risk MSM. More evidence from low-income and middle-income regions is needed.

HIV Seroconversion in the Era of Pharmacologic Prevention: A Case-Control Study at a San Francisco STD Clinic

BACKGROUND

The comparative effectiveness of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) for men who have sex with men (MSM) is unclear.

SETTING

We conducted a case-control study of MSM who were initially HIV-uninfected during September 1, 2012-June 30, 2016 at San Francisco's only municipal sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) clinic.

METHODS

Each case was matched with up to 3 controls based on age, baseline visit date, and follow-up time. The primary dependent variable was HIV seroconversion; the primary independent variable was exposure to PrEP, PEP, or neither. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Of 638 MSM (161 cases and 477 controls), 137 reported ever taking PrEP, 98 reported taking PEP-only, and 403 took neither. PrEP takers had more non-HIV sexually transmitted diseases during the analysis (72.3% vs. 55.1% vs. 42.4% P < 0.01) and were more likely to report receptive anal sex in the past 3 months (86.5% vs. 80.4% vs. 73.0%; P < 0.01). In the adjusted model, PrEP was associated with lower odds of HIV seroconversion (odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.46) while PEP use had no effect on HIV acquisition compared with taking neither.

CONCLUSIONS

MSM who ever used PrEP demonstrated equal or higher sexual risk compared with those using neither PrEP nor PEP but had 76% lower odds of HIV seroconversion. MSM who used PEP but never PrEP were no less likely to seroconvert than those using neither. MSM should be offered PrEP. PEP users with ongoing risk of HIV infection should be connected to PrEP after PEP.

Post-exposure prophylaxis awareness and use among men who have sex with men in London who use geosocial-networking smartphone applications

The number of new HIV infections continues to be on the rise in many high-income countries, most notably among men who have sex with men (MSM). Despite recent attention to the use of antiretroviral medications as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among MSM, considerably less research has been devoted to examining the awareness and use of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Based on a convenience sample of 179 self-reported HIV-uninfected MSM using a geosocial-networking smartphone application, this study is among the first to examine the awareness and use of PEP and their demographic and behavioral correlates among MSM in London. Most respondents (88.3%) had heard of PEP, where 27.4% reported having used it. In multivariable models, the disclosure of one's sexual orientation to their general practitioner (Prevalence ratio [PR]: 3.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 10.70; p = .029) and reporting one's HIV status as negative (rather than unknown) (PR: 11.49; 95% CI: 1.68, 76.92; p = .013) were associated with having heard of PEP; while the recent use of club drugs (PR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.42, 6.43; p = .004) was associated with having ever used PEP. High awareness and use in this sample suggest that PEP is a valuable risk-reduction strategy that should be capitalized on, be it in addition to or in the absence of PrEP.