Person:

Krakower, Douglas

Background: In 2010, the iPrEx trial demonstrated that oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduced the risk of HIV acquisition among high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM). The impact of iPrEx on PrEP knowledge and actual use among at-risk MSM is unknown. Online surveys were conducted to assess PrEP awareness, interest and experience among at-risk MSM before and after iPrEx, and to determine demographic and behavioral factors associated with these measures. Methods and Findings: Cross-sectional, national, internet-based surveys were administered to U.S. based members of the most popular American MSM social networking site 2 months before (n = 398) and 1 month after (n = 4 558) publication of iPrEx results. Comparisons were made between these samples with regards to PrEP knowledge, interest, and experience. Data were collected on demographics, sexual risk, and experience with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PrEP awareness, interest, and experience post-iPrEx. Most participants were white, educated, and indicated high-risk sexual behaviors. Awareness of PrEP was limited pre- and post-iPrEx (13% vs. 19%), whereas interest levels after being provided with a description of PrEP remained high (76% vs. 79%). PrEP use remained uncommon (0.7% vs. 0.9%). PrEP use was associated with PEP awareness (OR 7.46; CI 1.52–36.6) and PEP experience (OR 34.2; CI 13.3–88.4). PrEP interest was associated with older age (OR 1.01; CI 1.00–1.02), unprotected anal intercourse with ≥1 male partner in the prior 3 months (OR 1.40; CI 1.10–1.77), and perceiving oneself at increased risk for HIV acquisition (OR 1.20; CI 1.13–1.27). Conclusions: Among MSM engaged in online networking, awareness of PrEP was limited 1 month after the iPrEx data were released. Utilization was low, although some MSM who reported high-risk behaviors were interested in using PrEP. Studies are needed to understand barriers to PrEP utilization by at-risk MSM.

Background: Antiretroviral treatment for HIV-infection before immunologic decline (early ART) and pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP) can prevent HIV transmission, but routine adoption of these practices by clinicians has been limited. Methods: Between September and December 2013, healthcare practitioners affiliated with a regional AIDS Education and Training Center in New England were invited to complete online surveys assessing knowledge, beliefs and practices regarding early ART and PrEP. Multivariable models were utilized to determine characteristics associated with prescribing intentions and practices. Results: Surveys were completed by 184 practitioners. Respondent median age was 44 years, 58% were female, and 82% were white. Among ART-prescribing clinicians (61% of the entire sample), 64% were aware that HIV treatment guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services recommended early ART, and 69% indicated they would prescribe ART to all HIV-infected patients irrespective of immunologic status. However, 77% of ART-prescribing clinicians would defer ART for patients not ready to initiate treatment. Three-fourths of all respondents were aware of guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending PrEP provision, 19% had prescribed PrEP, and 58% of clinicians who had not prescribed PrEP anticipated future prescribing. Practitioners expressed theoretical concerns and perceived practical barriers to prescribing early ART and PrEP. Clinicians with higher percentages of HIV-infected patients (aOR 1.16 per 10% increase in proportion of patients with HIV-infection, 95% CI 1.01–1.34) and infectious diseases specialists (versus primary care physicians; aOR 3.32, 95% CI 0.98–11.2) were more likely to report intentions to prescribe early ART. Higher percentage of HIV-infected patients was also associated with having prescribed PrEP (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06–1.34), whereas female gender (aOR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10–0.71) was associated with having not prescribed PrEP. Conclusions: These findings suggest many clinicians have shifted towards routinely recommending early ART, but not PrEP, so interventions to facilitate PrEP provision are needed.

Optimizing access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an evidence-based HIV prevention resource, requires expanding healthcare providers’ adoption of PrEP into clinical practice. This qualitative study explored PrEP providers’ firsthand experiences relative to six commonly-cited barriers to prescription—financial coverage, implementation logistics, eligibility determination, adherence concerns, side effects, and anticipated behavior change (risk compensation)—as well as their recommendations for training PrEP-inexperienced providers. U.S.-based PrEP providers were recruited via direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants (2014–2015). One-on-one interviews were conducted in person or by phone, transcribed, and analyzed. The sample (n = 18) primarily practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) U.S. Nearly all (94%) were medical doctors (MDs), most of whom self-identified as infectious disease specialists. Prior experience prescribing PrEP ranged from 2 to 325 patients. Overall, providers reported favorable experiences with PrEP implementation and indicated that commonly anticipated problems were minimal or manageable. PrEP was covered via insurance or other programs for most patients; however, pre-authorization requirements, laboratory/service provision costs, and high deductibles sometimes presented challenges. Various models of PrEP care and coordination with other providers were utilized, with several providers highlighting the value of clinical staff support. Eligibility was determined through joint decision-making with patients; CDC guidelines were commonly referenced but not considered absolute. Patient adherence was variable, with particularly strong adherence noted among patients who had actively sought PrEP (self-referred). Providers observed minimal adverse effects or increases in risk behavior. However, they identified several barriers with respect to accessing and engaging PrEP candidates. Providers offered a wide range of suggestions regarding content, strategy, and logistics surrounding PrEP training, highlighting sexual history-taking and sexual minority competence as areas to prioritize. These insights from early-adopting PrEP providers may facilitate adoption of PrEP into clinical practice by PrEP-inexperienced providers, thereby improving access for individuals at risk for HIV.

Introduction: After the initial approval of the use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for anti-HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), uptake was initially limited, but more recent community surveys and expert opinion suggest wider acceptance in some key populations. Discussion Demonstration projects are underway to determine the best practices in the United States to identify at-risk individuals in primary care and sexually transmitted disease clinics who could benefit from PrEP. Studies of PrEP in combination with behavioural interventions are being evaluated. Studies to evaluate the use of PrEP by HIV-uninfected women in HIV-discordant couples interested in safe conception are also getting underway. The optimal deployment of PrEP as part of a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy in the United States has been limited by lack of knowledge among some at-risk people and by some medical providers indicating that they do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable and comfortable in prescribing PrEP. Studies are underway to determine how to assist busy clinicians to determine which of their patients could benefit from PrEP. Although most federal health insurance programmes will cover most of the costs associated with PrEP, underinsured patients in states that have not enacted health reform face additional challenges in paying for PrEP medication and appropriate clinical monitoring. Conclusions: PrEP implementation in the United States is a work in progress, with increasing awareness and uptake among some individuals in key populations.

Introduction: An estimated 1.2 million Americans have indications for using antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV acquisition. For many of these at-risk individuals, the best opportunity to learn about and receive PrEP will be during routine visits to their generalist primary care clinicians. However, few generalist clinicians have prescribed PrEP, primarily because of practical concerns about providing PrEP in primary care settings. The experiences of specialized primary care clinicians who have prescribed PrEP can inform the feasibility of PrEP provision by generalists. Methods: During January to February 2015, 35 primary care clinicians at a community health centre in Boston that specializes in the care of sexual and gender minorities completed anonymous surveys about their experiences and practices with PrEP provision. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results and discussion Thirty-two clinicians (response rate=91%) completed the surveys. Nearly all clinicians (97%) had prescribed PrEP (median 20 patients, interquartile range 11–33). Most clinicians reported testing and risk-reduction counselling practices concordant with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for PrEP. Clinicians indicated that patients using PrEP experienced medication toxicities infrequently and generally reported high adherence. However, some clinicians’ practices differed from guideline recommendations, and some clinicians observed patients with increased risk behaviours. Most clinicians (79%) rated PrEP provision as easy to accomplish, and 97% considered themselves likely to prescribe PrEP in the future. Conclusions: In a primary care clinic with specialized expertise in HIV prevention, clinicians perceived that PrEP provision to large numbers of patients was safe, feasible and potentially effective. Efforts to engage generalist primary care clinicians in PrEP provision could facilitate scale-up of this efficacious intervention.

Abstract HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly efficacious at preventing HIV acquisition. This review discusses ways to identify candidates for PrEP, recommended PrEP regimens, baseline and follow-up evaluations, applications of PrEP for HIV-serodiscordant couples, resources to address financial barriers, investigational strategies for PrEP, and educational resources for clinicians and patients.

Abstract Background: The reasons why bacterial sexually transmitted infections (BSTIs) are increasing in US men who have sex with men (MSM) have not been fully characterized. Methods: An open cohort of MSM accessing medical care at a Boston community health center was used to assess secular trends in BSTI diagnoses. Frequency of infection and the estimated population size were used to calculate diagnosis rates. Poisson models were fit for multivariable analyses. Results: Between 2005 and 2015, 19 232 men had at least 1 clinic visit. Most (72.4%) were white; 6.0% were black, and 6.1% were Latino. Almost half had documented self-report of identifying as gay (42.6%) or bisexual (3.2%). Most had private health insurance (61.7%); 5.4% had Medicare, 4.6% had Medicaid, and 8.4% reported no insurance. Between 2005 and 2015, BSTI diagnoses increased more than 8-fold. In 2015, of 1319 men who were diagnosed with at least 1 BSTI; 291 were diagnosed with syphilis, 554 with gonorrhea (51.4% rectal, 31.0% urogenital), and 679 with chlamydia (69.1% rectal, 34.3% urogenital). In 2015, 22.7% of BSTIs were diagnosed among HIV-infected patients (15.4% of the clinic population), and 32.8% of BSTIs were diagnosed among HIV-uninfected patients using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP; 10.1% of all men in care). In multivariable analyses, age 18 to 24 years, being HIV-infected, using PrEP, being nonwhite, or reporting Medicaid or not reporting having private insurance or Medicare were independently associated with being diagnosed with a new BSTI. Conclusions: Over the past decade, BSTI diagnosis rates increased in HIV-infected and uninfected MSM, with disproportionate increases in PrEP users, racial and ethnic minority MSM, those aged 25 to 34 years, and those without stable health insurance, warranting focused education, screening, and accessible services for these key subpopulations.

Abstract Introduction: Despite healthcare providers’ growing awareness of pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), prescription rates remain low. PrEP is an efficacious HIV prevention strategy recommended for use with condoms but still protective in their absence. Concern about the impact of PrEP on condom use and other risk behaviour is, nonetheless, among the barriers to prescription commonly reported. To understand the implications of this concern for PrEP access, we examined how medical students’ willingness to prescribe PrEP varied by patients’ condom use and partnering practices. We also assessed the perceived acceptability of various reasons for condom discontinuation with PrEP. Methods: An online survey was distributed to 854 medical students in the Northeastern US in 2015. Participants (n = 111) were surveyed about their willingness to prescribe PrEP for each of six male patients who systematically differed in their reported condom use (sustained use, sustained nonuse, or discontinuation with PrEP) and partnering practices (single male partner with untreated HIV or multiple male partners of unknown HIV status). Participants also reported perceived acceptability of four reasons for condom discontinuation: pleasure, sexual functioning, intimacy, and conception. Results: Willingness to prescribe PrEP was inconsistent with patient risk: When the patient used condoms and planned to sustain condom use, most participants were willing to prescribe PrEP – 93% if the patient had a single partner and 86% if the patient had multiple partners. Fewer were willing to prescribe if the patient did not use condoms and planned to sustain nonuse (53% and 45%, respectively) or used condoms but planned to discontinue use (27% and 28%). Significantly fewer participants were willing to prescribe for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported sustained condom use or sustained condom nonuse. The number of participants who were willing to prescribe was similarly low for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported that he planned to discontinue condom use. More participants accepted a patient discontinuing condoms for conception (69%) than for intimacy (23%), pleasure (14%), or sexual functioning (13%). Conclusion: Medical students’ clinical judgments were misaligned with patient risk and suggest misconceptions or personal values may undermine provision of optimal HIV prevention services.