Search

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a drug regimen recommended for anyone at high risk of getting HIV to prevent them from being infected. Little research exists on how state-level policies might be related to differential PrEP uptake across the United States. To better understand the associations between state-level policies and PrEP uptake, we examined HIV criminalization, nondiscrimination laws for sexual and gender minorities, Medicaid expansion, Ryan White funding, and sociodemographic characteristics in relation to the PrEP-to-need ratio, a measure of PrEP uptake. Using a cross-sectional design, we analyzed data from all fifty states; Washington, D.C.; and Puerto Rico (all of which we categorize as states here) regarding policy, socioeconomic factors, and PrEP-to-need ratio in 2018. States with HIV criminalization laws had lower PrEP-to-need ratio, and states with more nondiscrimination laws for sexual and gender minorities had higher PrEP-to-need ratio. We found no association between Medicaid expansion, Ryan White funding, percentage Hispanic, percentage uninsured, median household income, percentage with high school education, or state population and PrEP uptake. Legislators should consider how laws concerning HIV and sexual and gender minorities might protect against discrimination and subvert fear and stigma, given the potential impact of these policies on HIV prevention.

An applicator designed for rectal delivery of microbicides was tested for acceptability by 95 young men who have sex with men, who self-administered 4 mL of placebo gel prior to receptive anal intercourse over 90 days. Subsequently, 24 of the participants self-administered rectally 4 mL of tenofovir or placebo gel over 7 days using a vaginal applicator, and compared both applicators on a Likert scale of 1-10, with 10 the highest rating. Participants reported high likelihood to use either applicator in the future (mean scores 9.3 and 8.8 respectively, p = ns). Those who tested both liked the vaginal applicator significantly more than the rectal applicator (7.8 vs. 5.2, p = 0.003). Improvements in portability, conspicuousness, aesthetics, tip comfort, product assembly and packaging were suggested for both. This rectal-specific applicator was not superior to a vaginal applicator. While likelihood of future use is reportedly high, factors that decrease acceptability may erode product use over time in clinical trials. Further attention is needed to develop user-friendly, quick-acting rectal microbicide delivery systems.