Search

Introduction: This research aims to characterize disparities in mpox- and vaccine-related knowledge in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in the U.S., Methods: The authors conducted a study using the American Men's Internet Survey, which includes 823 cisgender (defined as their gender identity matching their sex assigned at birth) males aged ≥15 years from August 5 to 15, 2022. The authors evaluated sociodemographic and behavioral factors associated with mpox knowledge, including race/ethnicity, region, age group, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use using chi-square tests., Results: The authors identified knowledge gaps, with many participants unsure about whether individuals need 2 doses of the vaccine (34.4%) and whether the vaccine confers immediate protection (27.2%). The authors observed racial and regional disparities ( p <0.01), with 24.4% of non-Hispanic Black men and 18.1% of men living in the South reporting little to no mpox awareness. Among the 707 self-reported HIV-negative participants, people who used pre-exposure prophylaxis within the past year were more likely to exhibit high awareness about mpox than people who did not use pre-exposure prophylaxis., Conclusions: Findings suggest the potential to leverage existing networks (i.e., sexually transmitted infection or general health care services with pre-exposure prophylaxis use) for future targeted health service programming or education campaigns for mpox vaccination among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Travis Sanchez reports institutional support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that partly fund the American Men’s Interview Survey, though not specifically the monkeypox survey, and honoraria for serving as Editor in Chief of JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. Christine Agnew-Brune received support for attending the Harm Reduction Conference, through a speaker discount. Thomas Carpino reports institutional support from the NIH, National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a predoctoral NIH T32 Grant on HIV Prevention and Implementation Science, and an unpaid position as co-president of the Epidemiological Student Organization at Johns Hopkins University. Patrick Sullivan reports institutional support from Gilead Sciences, Viiv, and Merck, and personal payments from Gilead Sciences and Merck. O. Winslow Edwards reports NIH support for the present manuscript. Stefan Baral reports NIH support from NINR and NIMH; travel support to a meeting focused on HIV among gay men internationally from the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and support for participation on an NIH Data Safety Monitoring Board for a study focused on younger gay men and suicidality. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, older U.S. adults have been at increased risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness and death (1). On December 14, 2020, the United States began a nationwide vaccination campaign after the Food and Drug Administration's Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended prioritizing health care personnel and residents of long-term care facilities, followed by essential workers and persons at risk for severe illness, including adults aged ≥65 years, in the early phases of the vaccination program (2). By May 1, 2021, 82%, 63%, and 42% of persons aged ≥65, 50-64, and 18-49 years, respectively, had received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. CDC calculated the rates of COVID-19 cases, emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and deaths by age group during November 29-December 12, 2020 (prevaccine) and April 18-May 1, 2021. The rate ratios comparing the oldest age groups (≥70 years for hospital admissions; ≥65 years for other measures) with adults aged 18-49 years were 40%, 59%, 65%, and 66% lower, respectively, in the latter period. These differential declines are likely due, in part, to higher COVID-19 vaccination coverage among older adults, highlighting the potential benefits of rapidly increasing vaccination coverage., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

CDC's 2006 recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing state that all persons aged 13-64 years should be screened for HIV at least once, and that persons at higher risk for HIV infection, including sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), should be rescreened at least annually (1). Authors of reports published since 2006, including CDC (2), suggested that MSM, a group that is at highest risk for HIV infection, might benefit from being screened more frequently than once each year. In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to specify an HIV rescreening interval but recommended annual screening for MSM as a reasonable approach (3). However, some HIV providers have begun to offer more frequent screening, such as once every 3 or 6 months, to some MSM. A CDC work group conducted a systematic literature review and held four expert consultations to review programmatic experience to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to change the 2006 CDC recommendation (i.e., at least annual HIV screening of MSM in clinical settings). The CDC work group concluded that the evidence remains insufficient to recommend screening more frequently than at least once each year. CDC continues to recommend that clinicians screen asymptomatic sexually active MSM at least annually. Each clinician can consider the benefits of offering more frequent screening (e.g., once every 3 or 6 months) to individual MSM at increased risk for acquiring HIV infection, weighing their patients' individual risk factors, local HIV epidemiology, and local testing policies.