In this large online survey of primarily men who have sex with men, those who used preexposure prophylaxis reported greater sexual satisfaction than did nonusers, including sexual sensations, sexual presence/awareness, and sexual exchange. Person-centered care and messaging may require acknowledging that some people use preexposure prophylaxis for reasons beyond HIV prevention.

Identifying patients at increased risk for HIV acquisition can be challenging. Primary care providers (PCPs) may benefit from tools that help them identify appropriate candidates for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). We and others have previously developed and validated HIV risk prediction models to identify PrEP candidates using electronic health records data. In the current study, we convened focus groups with PCPs to elicit their perspectives on using prediction models to identify PrEP candidates in clinical practice. PCPs were receptive to using prediction models to identify PrEP candidates. PCPs believed that models could facilitate patient-provider communication about HIV risk, destigmatize and standardize HIV risk assessments, help patients accurately perceive their risk, and identify PrEP candidates who might otherwise be missed. However, PCPs had concerns about patients' reactions to having their medical records searched, harms from potential breaches in confidentiality, and the accuracy of model predictions. Interest in clinical decision-support for PrEP was greatest among PrEP-inexperienced providers. Successful implementation of prediction models will require tailoring them to providers' preferences and addressing concerns about their use.

Background: HIV prevention is the primary goal of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP); however, ancillary benefits may exist, including PrEP as an entry point to primary care. Objective: To explore PrEP users' perspectives on how PrEP use relates to broader engagement in health care. Design: In-depth qualitative interviews. Participants: We recruited PrEP users aged 18 years or older from a social media group for people interested in PrEP information and a Boston community health center specializing in health care for sexual and gender minorities. Approach: Inductive content analysis to identify emergent themes. Key results: All 25 participants were men who have sex with men, whose mean age was 34 years, and 84% were White. Three major themes emerged: (1) accessing PrEP was a strong motivator for initial and continued engagement in health care, which for some evolved over time into accessing comprehensive primary care; (2) provider awareness and attitudes about PrEP influenced participants' ongoing engagement in health care; and (3) PrEP engendered a positive sense of control over users' personal health, giving them agency in reducing their risk of HIV and engaging in other aspects of their health. Quarterly PrEP visits helped participants establish and maintain a relationship with a primary care provider, access non–HIV-related care services, and feel empowered to keep themselves healthy. Conclusions: The benefits of PrEP extend beyond HIV prevention to broader engagement in health care, including new relationships with primary care providers and use of other preventive health care services. To maximize those benefits, efforts are needed to ensure that providers are aware, nonjudgmental, and supportive of PrEP use.

BACKGROUNDEvent-driven dosing of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using a 2-1-1 regimen is efficacious for men who have sex with men (MSM). However, data are limited on the prevalence, correlates, and patterns of non-daily PrEP use in the U.S.SETTINGNationwide online survey.METHODSWe distributed a survey to assess experiences with PrEP, including non-daily use, in May 2019 on geosocial networking sites commonly used by MSM.RESULTSAmong 9,697 respondents, mean age was 43 years, 67% were non-Hispanic white, and 90% were MSM. Nearly all (91.0%) had heard of PrEP, 40.1% ever used PrEP, and 33.3% used PrEP in the last 6 months. Most (60.6%) were interested in non-daily PrEP. Those without health insurance and those with higher incomes were more likely to be interested in non-daily PrEP. Of the 3,232 who used PrEP in the past 6 months, 176 (5.4%) reported non-daily use. Fewer sexual partners, frequent sex planning, and substance use were associated with non-daily use. Common reasons for non-daily use were inconsistent sexual activity (59%) and cost (49%). The most prevalent regimen was event-driven (48.3%); of those, 64.7% used 2-1-1. Of non-daily users, 24.0% used PrEP on a regular schedule but not every day, including only on weekends or days starting with T or S.CONCLUSIONSGiven substantial interest in non-daily PrEP, and use of non-daily strategies that have not been evaluated in clinical studies, there is a need for U.S. public health authorities to provide guidance on safe and effective non-daily dosing for MSM.

Background: Event-driven dosing of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using a 2-1-1 regimen is efficacious for men who have sex with men (MSM). However, data are limited on the prevalence, correlates, and patterns of nondaily PrEP use in the United States. Setting: Nationwide online survey. Methods: We distributed a survey to assess experiences with PrEP, including nondaily use, in May 2019 on geosocial networking sites commonly used by MSM. Results: Among 9697 respondents, the mean age was 43 years, 67% were non-Hispanic white, and 90% were MSM. Nearly all (91.0%) had heard of PrEP, 40.1% ever used PrEP, and 33.3% used PrEP in the past 6 months. Most (60.6%) were interested in nondaily PrEP. Those without health insurance and those with higher incomes were more likely to be interested in nondaily PrEP. Of the 3232 who used PrEP in the past 6 months, 176 (5.4%) reported nondaily use. Fewer sexual partners, frequent sex planning, and substance use were associated with nondaily use. Common reasons for nondaily use were inconsistent sexual activity (59%) and cost (49%). The most prevalent regimen was event driven (48.3%); of those, 64.7% used 2-1-1. Of nondaily users, 24.0% used PrEP on a regular schedule but not every day, including only on weekends or days starting with T or S. Conclusions: Given substantial interest in nondaily PrEP, and use of nondaily strategies that have not been evaluated in clinical studies, there is a need for US public health authorities to provide guidance on safe and effective nondaily dosing for MSM.

Clinical guidelines for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) include risk prediction tools to identify appropriate candidates. We conducted a qualitative interview study to explore the potential acceptability, interpretation, and anticipated impact of such tools from the perspectives of men who have sex with men (MSM) and primary care providers (PCPs). Our purposive sample of English-speaking participants included: (1) MSM reporting HIV risk behaviors (n = 32; median age = 38 years; 53% non-Hispanic white; 22% high school degree or less education); (2) PCPs specializing in health care for MSM (n = 12); and (3) PCPs in general practice (n = 19). MSM participants questioned the ability of risk tools to predict HIV acquisition, and their perceptions of what might constitute a high HIV risk score varied widely. Many MSM participants believed that receiving a high score would prompt them to consider PrEP or other risk reduction strategies. Some believed that the data would be useful, particularly if discussed with their providers, whereas others anticipated feeling fear, anxiety, or mistrust. PCPs expressed more confidence in HIV risk prediction and imagined integrating tools with medical histories and their clinical judgment to assess risk. PCPs were most enthusiastic about adopting HIV risk prediction as a teaching tool to help patients visualize and reduce risk, their concerns about time constraints notwithstanding. In conclusion, our findings suggest that PCPs' views of HIV risk prediction tools are generally positive, whereas MSM participants' are more mixed. Given that both groups emphasized the value of contextualizing risk, shared decision making may be needed to implement HIV risk prediction tools effectively.

Purpose of ReviewIn 2019, the US government launched an initiative to decrease new HIV infections by 90% over the next decade. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for high-risk populations, and the United States Preventative Services Task Force has issued a grade A recommendation for PrEP, indicating substantial net benefit. However, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of PrEP in clinical settings and whether PrEP use might promote antiretroviral drug resistance and increased sexual risk behaviors, which could increase transmission of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. In this narrative review, we summarize recent evidence of the effectiveness of PrEP when provided in clinical and community settings, the emergence of antiretroviral drug resistance during PrEP use, and associations between PrEP use and increased sexual risk behaviors. We also review novel PrEP modalities that are being developed to optimize PrEP acceptability, adherence, and effectiveness.Recent FindingsStudies suggest that PrEP is effective when provided in clinical settings. However, PrEP uptake and impact have been limited in the USA thus far, and major disparities in access to PrEP exist. In addition, there is evidence that drug resistance can occur with PrEP use, particularly with inadvertent PrEP use during undiagnosed acute HIV infection. Risk compensation can also occur with PrEP use and has been associated with increased sexually transmitted infections. Promising new modalities for PrEP could expand options.SummaryPrEP has strong potential to decrease HIV incidence. However, disparities in access must be addressed to ensure equity and impact for PrEP. While drug resistance and risk compensation can occur with PrEP use, these are not valid reasons to withhold PrEP from patients given its substantial protective benefits.

INTRODUCTION:Discontinuations of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by at-risk individuals could decrease the effectiveness of PrEP. Our objective was to characterize patterns of, reasons for, and clinical outcomes associated with PrEP discontinuations in primary care. METHODS:We conducted medical chart reviews for patients prescribed PrEP during 2011 to 2014 at a Boston community health centre specializing in healthcare for sexual and gender minorities. Patients were followed through 2015. We characterized patients' sociodemographics, relationship status, behavioural health conditions, patterns of and reasons for PrEP discontinuations, and HIV seroconversions. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess patient factors associated with PrEP discontinuations. RESULTS:Of the 663 patients prescribed PrEP, the median age was 33 years, 96% were men who have sex with men (MSM) and 73% were non-Hispanic white; 40% were in committed relationships and 15% had HIV-infected partners. Patients either used PrEP continuously (60%), had 1 or more discontinuations (36%), or did not initiate PrEP (4%). Discontinuations were most often due to a decrease in HIV risk perception (33%), non-adherence to care plans (16%), or insurance barriers (12%). Of the 7 (1.1%) PrEP patients diagnosed with HIV, 1 was HIV-infected at baseline, 2 seroconverted while using PrEP, and 4 seroconverted after discontinuations. In a multivariable model adjusted for race/ethnicity, relationship status, substance use disorders, and insurance status, those who were less than 30 years old (aHR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.9 for ages 18 to 24, aHR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.1 for ages 25 to 29, vs. ages 30 to 39 years), who identified as transgender women (aHR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.4, vs. cisgender men), and who had mental health disorders (aHR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4 for each additional disorder) were more likely to have discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS:Discontinuations of PrEP use among this American sample of predominately MSM were common, particularly among patients who were younger, identified as transgender women, or had behavioural health issues. As HIV seroconversions occurred after discontinuations of PrEP, strategies to prevent inappropriate discontinuations are needed.

Clinical studies have demonstrated that use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with or without emtricitabine as antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can decrease the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition when medication adherence is high. However, the potential for PrEP to promote antiretroviral resistance remains an important public health consideration. We performed a search of the medical literature to identify studies that address HIV drug resistance during PrEP use. In this review, we summarize findings about emergent drug resistance during clinical trials of PrEP, case reports of seroconversions in patients adherent to PrEP, and animal studies of PrEP effectiveness against drug-resistant viral strains. We also discuss the potential utility of novel PrEP formulations for protection against drug-resistant HIV, the impact of drug resistance on HIV treatment options, and mathematical models that estimate the potential contribution of PrEP to population-level drug resistance. Evidence suggests that selection for HIV drug resistance with PrEP use is infrequent and most likely to occur when PrEP is used during undiagnosed acute HIV infection. Breakthrough infections during PrEP use with high adherence are possible, but appear to be rare. The prevalence of drug-resistant HIV strains needs to be monitored as PrEP is scaled up. However, the benefit of a decreased HIV incidence with wider PrEP use is likely to outweigh the risk of harms from possible increases in the prevalence of HIV drug resistance.

Objectives To determine whether HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use is associated with use of non-HIV-related health care. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of potential PrEP candidates at a Boston, Massachusetts, community health clinic during 2012 to 2016, comparing the proportion of PrEP users and non-PrEP users receiving primary care. Results Of 5857 PrEP candidates, 2047 (35%) were prescribed PrEP. After adjustment for demographics and number of visits, more PrEP users received influenza vaccination (prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20, 1.37), tobacco screening (PR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.09), and depression screening (PR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.11) compared with non-PrEP users. After additional adjustment for diabetes, hypertension, and overweight or obesity, more PrEP users received glucose testing (PR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.56, 1.72) but fewer received hemoglobin A1c testing (PR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.71, 0.93) compared with non-PrEP users. Conclusions PrEP use was associated with receipt of influenza vaccination, tobacco and depression screening, and glucose but not hemoglobin A1c testing. Among PrEP users receiving routine care, the benefits of PrEP may extend to behavioral health, mental health, and prevention and treatment of other infectious and chronic diseases.

AffiliationsAll of the authors are with The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, MA. Julia L. Marcus is also with Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston. Douglas S. Krakower, Victoria Powell, and Kenneth H. Mayer are also with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.