Search

Little is known about the experiences of people with HIV in the small island nation of Timor-Leste. This study explored the HIV-related stigma experiences of adults aged between 18 and 40 living with HIV in Dili, Timor-Leste. Participants were interviewed on topics related to living with HIV, both as key informants describing the experience of others with HIV known to them, and also with respect to their own personal experiences. Findings suggest that people with HIV in Timor-Leste face stigma and discrimination in various contexts. In this predominantly Catholic country, perceptions of HIV and attitudes towards people with HIV appear to be commonly shaped by religious beliefs. In families and communities, participants encountered gossip, social exclusion and threats of violence. In health settings, participants experienced discrimination from health providers in the form of failing to maintain confidentiality and inappropriate treatment. The impact of stigma was profoundly negative and influenced participants' decision to disclose their status to others. Participants attributed stigma to a lack of information about HIV among the general public. Unless stigma reduction interventions also address the Church's role in shaping perceptions of HIV, education campaigns are unlikely to be effective in reducing HIV-related stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In clinical research there is a tension between the role of a doctor, who must serve the best interests of the patient, and the role of the researcher, who must produce knowledge that may not have any immediate benefits for the research participant. This tension is exacerbated in HIV research in low and middle income countries, which frequently uncovers comorbidities other than the condition under study. Some bioethicists argue that as the goals of medicine and those of research are distinct, it is a mistake for researchers to assume therapeutic responsibilities while engaging in research. Others propose that there is a duty of care, but disagree as to how this is limited and specified. In this qualitative study, principal investigators from HIV prevention trials discuss their experience of providing medical benefits to participants within the context of conducting research into HIV biomedical prevention technologies. They describe the limitations imposed at times by funders and at times by infrastructure constraints, and canvass the importance of ancillary care provision and capacity building in trial communities. The views of the principal investigators are compatible with the perspective that there is a duty of care, limited by the nature of the research, the depth of the relationship between research and participant, and the capacity of the research site. The therapeutic orientation in HIV prevention trial appears to be indivisible from competent research practise by making concrete and appropriate benefits available to trial participants and their communities that support rather than compete with local infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BSTRACT This article examines the relationship between bioethics and the therapeutic standards in HIV prevention research in the developing world, focusing on the closure of the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trials in the early 2000s. I situate the PrEP trials in the historical context of the vertical transmission debates of the 1990s, where there was protracted debate over the use of placebos despite the existence of a proven intervention. I then discuss the dramatic improvement in the clinical management of HIV and the treatment access movement, and consider how these contexts have influenced research practice. I argue that as HIV prevention trials oblige researchers to observe the rate at which vulnerable people under their care acquire HIV, there is an obligation to provide antiretroviral treatment to seroconverters and other health care benefits that fall within the scope of researchers' entrustment, both to avoid exploitation and to enact reciprocal justice. I argue against propositions that the obligations to provide specific benefits are vague, fall only upon researchers and sponsors, and create injustices by privileging the few over the many. Finally, I contend that the realisation of a broader standard of care in HIV prevention research broadens the role of research from being a simple tool to produce knowledge to a complex intervention that can play a part in the reduction of health disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which discusses blood donor selection for preventing transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs). It focuses on the policy of deferral towards men with male sexual partners (MSM) to donate blood. The study on the sexual behavior of MSM, the risk for TTIs, and criteria for selecting MSM blood donors is also presented.

The article discusses medical ethics associated with Ebola disease. Topics discussed include decline in current outbreak of Ebola, World Health Organization (WHO) Advisory Panel report on the use of experimental therapy, preliminary report of preventative vaccine known as rVSV-ZEBOV, and difference between risk/benefit analysis for an experimental treatment.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ethical Rationale for the Ebola 'Ring Vaccination' Trial Design" by A. Rid and F.G. Miller which appears in a 2016 issue of the journal and addresses the Ebola ça Suffit vaccine trial and public health research practices.

Background: In Australia, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is targeted to individuals at high risk for HIV infection. We describe the HIV risk profile and characteristics of PRELUDE participants, and evaluate the population validity of the sample in representing high-risk gay and bisexual men (GBM) eligible for PrEP. Methods: PRELUDE is an on-going, open-label, single-arm observational study. Participants were identified in clinics and screened for eligibility using a paper-based risk assessment tool which followed the New South Wales (NSW) PrEP guidelines. Selection was validated using an independent online behavioural survey, completed by study participants upon enrolment. Demographic information was analysed using descriptive statistics, and kappa tests were used to determine agreement between reporting of high-risk practices in the risk assessment and behavioural survey. Results: During 2014–15, 471 individuals were targeted for enrolment; 341 were assessed for PrEP eligibility and 313 were enrolled. Of these, 303 (97%) identified as GBM. Overall, 85% of GBM met at least one high-risk criterion; 68% reported receptive intercourse with an HIV-positive or unknown status casual male partner, and 37% reported methamphetamine use in the three months preceding enrolment. The remaining 15% were enrolled based on medium-risk behaviours, or at the clinicians’ discretion. We found an 82% total agreement between self-reported high-risk behaviour and clinicians’ categorisation of GBM as being at high risk for HIV based on PrEP eligibility criteria. Conclusions: Behavioural eligibility criteria used by clinicians successfully identified individuals at high risk for HIV infection. This targeted approach ensures that the greatest public health and HIV prevention benefits can be derived in a setting without universal access to PrEP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of gay and bisexual men (GBM) taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV has rapidly increased since 2010, but limited information about barriers and facilitators to adherence has been reported outside of formal trial settings. We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 24 Australian cis- and transgender GBM with a history of PrEP use to gather data on adherence to PrEP. The majority of participants were able to access PrEP at no cost through implementation studies. Three key domains were explored—how individuals took PrEP, factors that aided PrEP adherence, and barriers to PrEP use. All participants recognized the importance of regular dosing to ensure protection from HIV, with some participants taking the initiative to pre-empt possible adherence obstacles and plan around these. Multiple strategies were used to aid adherence, including using tools such as a phone alarm and support and tips from other PrEP users, friends, or clinicians. Barriers to PrEP adherence included stigma, concerns about side effects, and difficulties in accessing PrEP. Although most participants encountered at least one barrier to PrEP use, they were resourceful and utilized a variety of approaches to ensure good adherence to PrEP was maintained. These narratives highlight a commitment to finding ways to make PrEP work in the daily lives of this cohort of Australian GBM, demonstrated by their active investigation of different routines to determine the most suitable dosing strategy, and creation of contingency plans if they were unable to access PrEP in their usual or preferred manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) use alkyl nitrites ('poppers') at higher rates than other populations to functionally enhance sexual experiences. Their use has been associated with HIV sexual risk behaviours including receptive anal sex. We investigate the prevalence, frequency, and motivations for poppers use and their relationship with HIV risk. We also discuss the implications of the recent scheduling changes to poppers by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration.Methods: Data were drawn from the Following Lives Undergoing Change (Flux) study, a prospective observational study of licit and illicit drug use among GBM. Between 2014 and 2018, 3273 GBM enrolled in the study. In 2018, 1745 GBM provided data relating to frequency of and motivations for poppers use and were included in this analysis.Results: Median age was 33 years (IQR 25-46) and 801 GBM (45.9%) had used poppers in the previous six months ('recent use'). Among these men, 195 (24.3%) had used them weekly or more frequently. Most recent users (77.4%) reported using poppers for a 'buzz' during sex or to facilitate receptive anal intercourse (60.8%). The majority (57.7%) of HIV-negative men reporting recent poppers use were concurrently taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Recent poppers use was independently associated with receptive anal intercourse with casual partners (aOR 1.71; 95%CI 1.35-2.16) and chemsex (aOR 4.32; 95%CI 3.15-5.94). Poppers use was not associated with anxiety, depression, or drug-related harms. Only 15.4% of current users indicated they would stop using poppers if they were criminalised; 65.0% said they would 'find other ways' to obtain them.Conclusions: Poppers are commonly used by Australian GBM to functionally enhance sexual experiences, particularly to facilitate receptive anal intercourse. Few men experienced drug-related harms from poppers use. Regulatory changes must ensure potential harms from popper use are minimised without increasing barriers to access or perpetuating stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]