Search

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a novel HIV prevention method whereby HIV-negative individuals take the drugs tenofovir and emtricitabine to prevent HIV acquisition. Optimal adherence is critical for PrEP efficacy. Chemsex describes sexual activity under the influence of psychoactive drugs, in the UK typically; crystal methamphetamine, gamma-hydroxybutyrate(GHB) and/or mephedrone. Chemsex drug use has been associated with increased HIV transmission risk among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and poor ART adherence among people living with HIV. This study assessed whether self-reported chemsex events affected self-reported daily PrEP adherence among PROUD study participants. METHODS: The PROUD study was an open-label, randomised controlled trial, conducted in thirteen English sexual health clinics, assessing effectiveness of TruvadaⓇ-PrEP among 544 HIV-negative GBM. The study reported an 86% risk-reduction of HIV from daily PrEP. Participants were asked about chemsex engagement at follow-up visits. Monthly self-reports of missed PrEP tablets were aggregated to assess adherence between visits. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to test for associations between chemsex and reporting less than seven out of seven intended doses(

ObjectivesThe use of antibiotics as pre-exposure or postexposure prophylaxis for sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention (STI prophylaxis) is not currently recommended in the UK, but there is evidence that self-prescribing occurs among those at greatest risk. We present the prevalence and factors associated with STI prophylaxis among a community sample of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users.MethodsThe 2019 online PrEP User Survey ran between 17 May and 1 July. Eligible participants included UK residents reporting HIV PrEP use or having tried to obtain HIV PrEP since January 2017. STI prophylaxis use was defined as reporting buying antibiotics to prevent STIs, either privately or through the internet; this question was only asked to HIV PrEP users. Factors associated with STI prophylaxis use were assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOverall, 9% (167/1856) of HIV PrEP users reported STI prophylaxis use; 97% were gay or bisexual men, 84% reported white ethnicity, 55% resided in London and 69% were aged ≥35 years. Factors associated with STI prophylaxis included: reporting ≥5 compared with 1–4 condomless sex partners in the past 6 months (12% vs 5.6%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.64), reporting chemsex drug use compared with no sexualised drug use in the past 12 months (13% vs 6.0%, aOR=1.88; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.93) and reporting an STI diagnosis in the past 12 months (12% vs 6.6%, aOR=1.54; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.18). Variables not significant in multivariable analyses included: ethnicity, age, residence and HIV PrEP sourcing.ConclusionsApproximately 1 in 10 HIV PrEP users from this community sample reported self-prescribed STI prophylaxis. STI prophylaxis was associated with sexual behaviour known to facilitate STI transmission and with a history of recent STIs acquisition. Given the potential risk of antimicrobial resistance, sexual health clinicians should consider asking attendees, especially HIV PrEP users, about the use of antibiotics as STI prophylaxis, to inform appropriate counselling, testing and management.

The 2019 online pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) user survey in the United Kingdom was conducted to assess HIV PrEP access, and user characteristics. One in five respondents continued experiencing difficulties accessing PrEP; users were almost exclusively gay or bisexual men at high risk of HIV. The majority obtained PrEP through health service clinics and rated PrEP positively. High STI rates were reported among users. Renal and sexual health checks are advised for those sourcing PrEP privately.

There is a recognised potential risk of transmission of blood-borne viruses (BBVs) from infected healthcare workers to patients during exposure prone procedures (EPPs). The restrictions placed on performance of EPPs by infected clinicians in the UK have had a particularly significant impact on dentists because of the exposure-prone nature of most dental procedures and the difficulties in identifying alternative career pathways in the profession that do not involve EPPs. More recently, the significant positive impact of antiviral drugs on viral load, together with a re-categorisation of EPPs in dentistry have resulted in evolution of the guidance with a consequent significant improvement to the career prospects of dentists infected with BBVs. This paper provides an update for practitioners on the progress that has been made and outlines the current position with respect to practice restrictions.

Sustaining the impact of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination on incidence and prevalence of HBV infection requires increasing and maintaining the uptake of vaccine among those at risk. In recent years, the level of vaccine uptake among people who inject drugs (PWID) in the UK has levelled-off. Data (2015–2016) from the national unlinked-anonymous monitoring survey of PWID, an annual survey that collects data from PWID across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, were used to examine HBV vaccine uptake. Data from participants who had injected drugs during the previous year were used to investigate sources of hepatitis B vaccine doses as well as factors associated with vaccine uptake. Among the 3175 anti-HBc-negative participants, 3138 (99%) reported their vaccination status; 23% (714) reported no vaccine uptake. Among those not vaccinated, 447 (63%) reported being sexually active and 116 (16%) reported sharing needles and syringes. Majority of those not vaccinated reported accessing services in the previous year that could have provided hepatitis B vaccine doses. These missed opportunities for vaccinating of PWID indicate a need for additional targeted interventions.

BACKGROUND: Overdose is a major cause of death among PWID, and for opioid overdoses naloxone administration can reduce harm. However, globally there is limited national level data on the extent of non-fatal overdose and naloxone uptake. The first national level data on the extent of self-reported overdose and self-reported receipt of naloxone among UK PWID, providing a baseline to monitor the impact of the recent policy change regarding naloxone availability, is presented. METHODS: Data on self-reported overdose and receipt of naloxone during the preceding year for 2013-2014 from a national survey of PWID was analysed. Participants who reported injecting during the preceding year were included. RESULTS: Participants (3850) were predominantly male (75%); mean age was 36 years. The most commonly injected drugs were: heroin (91%), crack (45%) and amphetamine (29%). 15% (591) reported overdosing during the preceding year. There were no differences in the proportion reporting overdose by age or gender, but overdose was more common among those who: injected multiple drugs; recently ceased addiction treatment; injected with used needles/syringes; ever had transactional sex; had used a sexual health clinic or emergency department and lived in Wales or Northern Ireland. Among those reporting an overdose during the preceding year, a third reported two to four overdoses and 7.5% five or more overdoses; half reported receiving naloxone. Those reporting naloxone receipt in the preceding year were more likely to: live in Wales or Northern Ireland; ever received used needles/syringes; ever been imprisoned; and less likely to have injected two drug types. CONCLUSION: These data provide a baseline for monitoring the impact of the 2015 UK policy change to improve take-home naloxone access. Interventions tackling overdose should promote naloxone awareness and access, and target those who; are poly-drug injectors, have ceased treatment, share needles/syringes and whose drug use links to sexual activity.