Search

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 devastation caused by the Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa has brought to the fore a number of important ethical debates about how best to respond to a health crisis. These debates include issues related to prevention and containment, management of the health care workforce, clinical care, and research design, all of which are situated within the overarching moral problem of severe transnational disadvantage, which has very real and specific impacts upon the ability of citizens of EVD-affected countries to respond to a disease outbreak. Ethical issues related to prevention and containment include the appropriateness and scope of quarantine and isolation within and outside affected countries. The possibility of infection in health care workers impelled consideration of whether there is an obligation to provide health services where personal protection equipment is inadequate, alongside the issue of whether the health care workforce should have special access to experimental treatment and care interventions under development. In clinical care, ethical issues include the standards of care owed to people who comply with quarantine and isolation restrictions. Ethical issues in research include appropriate study design related to experimental vaccines and treatment interventions, and the sharing of data and biospecimens between research groups. The compassionate use of experimental drugs intersects both with research ethics and clinical care. The role of developed countries also came under scrutiny, and we concluded that developed countries have an obligation to contribute to the containment of EVD infection by contributing to the strengthening of local health care systems and infrastructure in an effort to provide fair benefits to communities engaged in research, ensuring that affected countries have ready and affordable access to any therapeutic or preventative interventions developed, and supporting affected countries on their way to recovery from the impact of EVD on their social and economic lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite high levels of efficacy, the implementation of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as a strategy to prevent new HIV infection has been slow. Studies show that PrEP works so long as it is taken, making adherence one of the great challenges of effective PrEP implementation alongside issues of access and uptake. Given that effective PrEP use requires ongoing self-administration of pills by people at high risk of HIV acquisition, it is a strategy best understood not as simply biomedical, but as biobehavioral or biopsychosocial, meaning that that social, psychological, cultural, and structural factors all contribute to the success or failure of the intervention. The willingness of people at risk of HIV to take up and adhere to PrEP depends greatly upon social understandings - whether it is seen as effective, as a healthy option, and a socially acceptable strategy for preventing HIV. Stigma - unfavorable associations - can negatively influence the implementation of PrEP. Because it is associated with high-risk sexual activity, PrEP risks multiple stigmas that can differ according to specific cultural conditions. This includes the stigma of being related to HIV (which may also relate to other stigmas, such as homosexuality, sex work, and/or drug use) and the stigma of PrEP being an alternative to condoms (as condom use is associated with responsible sexual activity). PrEP-related stigma has emerged as a significant social harm that can arise from PrEP research participation, reported by trial participants from a range of different trial sites, different trial populations, and spanning different continents. Social marketing needs to redress PrEP-related stigmas through health promotion campaigns aimed at clinicians, HIV-affected communities, and people at high risk of HIV who might benefit from PrEP access. PrEP access needs to be reframed as a positive and responsible option to help people remain HIV-negative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The effectiveness of daily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is well established. However, there has been increasing interest in non-daily dosing schedules among gay and bisexual men (GBM). This paper explores preferences for PrEP dosing schedules among GBM at baseline in the PRELUDE demonstration project., Materials and Methods: Individuals at high-risk of HIV were enrolled in a free PrEP demonstration project in New South Wales, Australia, between November 2014 and April 2016. At baseline, they completed an online survey containing detailed behavioural, demographic, and attitudinal questions, including their ideal way to take PrEP: daily (one pill taken every day), event-driven (pills taken only around specific risk events), or periodic (daily dosing during periods of increased risk)., Results: Overall, 315 GBM (98% of study sample) provided a preferred PrEP dosing schedule at baseline. One-third of GBM expressed a preference for non-daily PrEP dosing: 20% for event-driven PrEP, and 14% for periodic PrEP. Individuals with a trade/vocational qualification were more likely to prefer periodic to daily PrEP [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 4.58, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): (1.68, 12.49)], compared to individuals whose highest level of education was high school. Having an HIV-positive main regular partner was associated with strong preference for daily, compared to event-driven PrEP [aOR = 0.20, 95% CI: (0.04, 0.87)]. Participants who rated themselves better at taking medications were more likely to prefer daily over periodic PrEP [aOR = 0.39, 95% CI: (0.20, 0.76)]., Discussion: Individuals' preferences for PrEP schedules are associated with demographic and behavioural factors that may impact on their ability to access health services and information about PrEP and patterns of HIV risk. At the time of data collection, there were limited data available about the efficacy of non-daily PrEP schedules, and clinicians only recommended daily PrEP to study participants. Further research investigating how behaviours and PrEP preferences change correspondingly over time is needed., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02206555. Registered 28 July 2014.

Despite high levels of efficacy, the implementation of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as a strategy to prevent new HIV infection has been slow. Studies show that PrEP works so long as it is taken, making adherence one of the great challenges of effective PrEP implementation alongside issues of access and uptake. Given that effective PrEP use requires ongoing self-administration of pills by people at high risk of HIV acquisition, it is a strategy best understood not as simply biomedical, but as biobehavioral or biopsychosocial, meaning that that social, psychological, cultural, and structural factors all contribute to the success or failure of the intervention. The willingness of people at risk of HIV to take up and adhere to PrEP depends greatly upon social understandings - whether it is seen as effective, as a healthy option, and a socially acceptable strategy for preventing HIV. Stigma - unfavorable associations - can negatively influence the implementation of PrEP. Because it is associated with high-risk sexual activity, PrEP risks multiple stigmas that can differ according to specific cultural conditions. This includes the stigma of being related to HIV (which may also relate to other stigmas, such as homosexuality, sex work, and/or drug use) and the stigma of PrEP being an alternative to condoms (as condom use is associated with responsible sexual activity). PrEP-related stigma has emerged as a significant social harm that can arise from PrEP research participation, reported by trial participants from a range of different trial sites, different trial populations, and spanning different continents. Social marketing needs to redress PrEP-related stigmas through health promotion campaigns aimed at clinicians, HIV-affected communities, and people at high risk of HIV who might benefit from PrEP access. PrEP access needs to be reframed as a positive and responsible option to help people remain HIV-negative.