Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Pre-exposure prophylaxis for MSM and transgender persons in early adopting countries

Hoornenborg, Elskea,*; Krakower, Douglas S.c,d,*; Prins, Mariaa,b; Mayer, Kenneth H.c,d

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001627
EDITORIAL REVIEW
Free

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a potent and underutilized HIV prevention tool. In this paper we review the state of knowledge regarding PrEP implementation for men who have sex with men and transgender persons in early adopting countries. We focus on implementation of PrEP in demonstration projects and clinical care, and describe the status of PrEP availability and uptake. We report on approaches to identifying appropriate PrEP candidates in real-world settings and on best practices for clinical monitoring. This includes the exclusion of undiagnosed HIV infection prior to PrEP initiation and longitudinal measurement of renal function, in light of safety data. Since adherence is the primary factor moderating the effectiveness of PrEP, we discuss effective adherence support interventions. Additionally, we review the evidence for risk compensation with PrEP use and opportunities to provide PrEP as part of comprehensive and inclusive preventive health programs. We summarize cost-effectiveness studies, including their variable conclusions because of differing underlying assumptions, and discuss the importance of budgetary impact for public health programs and health care insurers. Further, we emphasize a need for greater engagement of health care providers in PrEP to increase access. We conclude with recommendations for ways to improve future efforts at implementing PrEP.

aPublic Health Service of Amsterdam, Department of Infectious Diseases

bAcademic Medical Center, Department of Infectious Diseases, Center for Immunity and Infection Amsterdam (CINIMA), University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

cBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Harvard Medical School

dThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Correspondence to Elske Hoornenborg, MD, Public Health Service Amsterdam, Department of Infectious Diseases, Nieuwe Achtergracht 100, 1018WT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 205555193; e-mail: ehoornenborg@ggd.amsterdam.nl

Received 16 June, 2017

Revised 10 August, 2017

Accepted 21 August, 2017

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

The use of antiretrovirals to prevent HIV infection as part of a comprehensive prevention package when used in conjunction with universal treatment of those who are infected offers an opportunity for epidemic control [1]. The efficacy of using tenofovir disiproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV acquisition was established more than 7 years ago [2], but uptake has been relatively limited, given that there are still close to 2 million new HIV infections annually [3]. Even in the United States, where PrEP was first approved for clinical use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012, and more than one million Americans are considered to be appropriate candidates for PrEP [4], only about 10% of those at greatest risk have accessed PrEP. Europe and other resource-rich countries are lagging behind the United States in implementing PrEP [8]. PrEP roll-out is a work in progress, with regulatory approvals for its use for HIV prevention completed in 15 countries, ranging from South Africa to Peru to Taiwan, and dossiers under review in multiple other countries [5].

The current study reviews the state of knowledge regarding PrEP in MSM and transgender persons, given that HIV continues to spread most rapidly in these populations in the developed world [6]. We focus on the experiences of the earliest adopters, recognizing that structural impediments common for at-risk heterosexuals and people who inject drugs, particularly in resource-constrained environments (e.g. poverty and limited health infrastructure), pose additional challenges to PrEP implementation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Regional and national experiences with pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation

Pre-exposure prophylaxis in the United States

In 2012, the United States became the first nation where PrEP had been granted regulatory approval. PrEP uptake has been gradual in the United States, but studies have found that rates of new PrEP prescriptions have increased steeply in recent years [7,8]. About 100 000 started PrEP in total in the United States [8]. In Table 1, PrEP implementation in the US as well as in Canada, Australia and Europe is summarized [4,8–20]. Of the 80 000 individuals who initiated PrEP in the United States from 2012 through 2015, about 75% were men and nearly 75% were white, which did not reflect the US epidemic, suggesting that racial and sexual disparities in PrEP utilization remain [21,22]. Addressing these disparities is an urgent priority, given disproportionately high rates of new HIV infections in the United States among people of color [23,24]. Although few data are available about PrEP use by transgender persons in the United States, the experience of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT)-focused community health center in New York City illustrates the need for culturally-tailored services for this population [25]: after implementing a more inclusive healthcare environment for transgender people, their PrEP utilization increased substantially [25].

Table 1

Table 1

Table 1

Table 1

Within the United States, there is heterogeneity in PrEP utilization by region and state [8]. The states where providers are more aware of PrEP, and at-risk persons are more likely to use it, tend to have less discriminatory climates for sexual and gender minorities [26]. Interventions that can decrease disparities in insurance access, increase public financing of PrEP-related costs, and improve the social environment for cultural acceptance of sexual and gender minorities, are needed to facilitate more universal access to PrEP in the United States.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pre-exposure prophylaxis in Europe

In 2015, two landmark European studies, one of which was also conducted in Canada, reported high PrEP effectiveness in MSM when used on a daily [27] or event-driven basis [28]. Subsequently, France began rolling out PrEP in January 2015, after temporary regulatory approval, and reported having around 3400 people using PrEP by mid-2017 [9]. In August 2016, the European Commission officially granted marketing authorization for TDF/FTC in combination with safer sex to reduce the risk of sexually acquired HIV-1 infection among uninfected adults at high risk, which led to national regulatory agencies providing access to PrEP in Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Wales, and Scotland [19,29]. In England, after the successful PROUD trial, PrEP has been temporarily made available by the National Health Service England for 10 000 people who are at risk for HIV infection [30]. However, no free-of-charge PrEP programs are currently in place in other European countries, and heterogeneity in PrEP access seems to be evolving, resulting in national heterogeneity. As a consequence of the lack of reimbursement of PrEP medication costs, in combination with the high retail price of TDF/FTC, informal PrEP use (i.e. use of generic PrEP obtained overseas, online, or from friends) has been reported [31,32]. This may be contributing to decreases in HIV infections as observed in London [33].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pre-exposure prophylaxis in Canada

One of the sites for the Ipergay study was in Quebec [28], but it was not until February 2016 that Health Canada approved the daily oral use of TDF/FTC in combination with safer sex practices, to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. However, PrEP funding is to be determined at the provincial level and not yet in place throughout Canada. Canada's first PrEP demonstration project started in Toronto in October 2014 [34]. A clinic in Montreal has more than 1000 people on daily and event-driven PrEP [35].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pre-exposure prophylaxis in Australia

Early efforts to implement PrEP in Australia have been MSM-focused. PrEP has not received full regulatory approval in Australia. Australia's major demonstration projects have opened in several states: the Expanded PrEP Implementation in Communities in New South Wales program, in New South Wales [36], the pre-exposure prophlaxis expanded program in Victoria and South Australia [37], and Queensland PrEP study program in Queensland [38]. These projects represent partnerships amongst research, medical, community, and government organizations, and include large-scale, rapid roll-out of PrEP in community settings and assessment of HIV incidence, using clinical data collection systems, and over 12 000 people are enrolled in these projects by July 2017 [10]. If these projects are successful, they could provide a model for enacting a coordinated public health program for implementing PrEP in Australia and other countries.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Emerging challenges

Identifying appropriate pre-exposure prophylaxis candidates

Because PrEP entails the use of medication in otherwise healthy individuals, which has costs and requires monitoring and adherence support, the identification of those who would most benefit from PrEP is of great importance, but poses many challenges. The societal benefit and cost-effectiveness of PrEP will be attenuated if individuals at low risk for HIV infection start PrEP (’worried-well’), and if people at high risk are not interested in, or do not access, PrEP [39]. Eligibility criteria are needed to ensure that PrEP is implemented in an efficient way in order to not only minimize harms and maximize benefits for individuals but also to optimize public health impact and cost-effectiveness.

Most PrEP clinical trials, demonstration projects, and national guidelines have recommended PrEP for MSM and transgender persons who report condomless anal sex (CAS), recent sexually transmitted infection (STI), and/or use of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) after sexual exposures to HIV [40]; however, recommendations regarding number of partners, or recency of exposures, have varied across studies/projects and guidelines. Some subpopulations are at particularly high risk for HIV because of the concentration of undiagnosed and untreated HIV within their sexual networks. For example, in the United States, black MSM represent a group at very high risk of acquiring HIV infection [41–43]; however, PrEP uptake has been disproportionately low compared to nonblack MSM [44–46], which may be attributable to assortative mixing (preferentially choosing partners from within one's ethnic group, thereby concentrating risk per contact) and limited social mobility, disparities in healthcare access, and distrust of culturally-insensitive healthcare systems [47,48]. Some data suggest that 72% of the infections among migrant MSM in Europe occur after migration [49], but there is limited evidence [50] about PrEP uptake among specific racial and ethnic MSM subgroups in Europe and Australia. Transgender women also bear a disproportionate HIV burden. In the United States, estimated HIV prevalence among transgender women is 22% [51], and in Europe, limited studies among transgender sex workers also suggest increased HIV risk [52,53]. However, the number of transgender persons in the major PrEP studies (0–29) [2,28,54] has been too small to draw definitive conclusions about PrEP efficacy for transgender people [55,56]. Several PrEP studies focusing on transgender women are now underway; however, identifying and engaging MSM and transgender women at highest risk for HIV infection remains challenging. The PROUD study successfully engaged MSM at high risk by using sexual health clinics [27], and the Ipergay [28] and US PrEP Demo Project [54] attracted MSM at high risk through community and venue-based recruitment. These studies prove that identifying MSM at high risk is feasible, but the question is whether less supportive jurisdictions are capable of sustaining PrEP scale-up and implementation.

To support busy clinicians in readily identifying PrEP candidates, the US Centers for Disease Control and prevention (CDC) developed an MSM risk-index score, based on age, sexual risk behavior, and substance use, to estimate risk for HIV infection [57] and subsequent eligibility for PrEP [58]. Some providers have applied this score in their clinical practice [59], but use of this and other risk assessment tools is not widespread. Other international guidelines do not utilize a risk score, but provide criteria to identify which MSM and transgender women are at greatest risk [60,61].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Clinical monitoring

After many thousands of person-years of experience with PrEP, side effects are common [39% in the Preexposure Prophylaxis Initiative (iPrEPX) Open Label Extension study], generally mild, and tend to peak in the first month of PrEP use, with gastrointestinal symptoms and headache being most prevalent [62]. Clinical trials and a systematic review found that most adverse events did not significantly differ among individuals using TDF-based PrEP versus placebo [2,63–66]. Because TDF can cause small, albeit reversible, reductions in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [2,63,64], creatinine clearance should be monitored every 6 months for younger people, but more frequent monitoring may be indicated for older persons, and those with predisposing conditions. Clinically insignificant loss of bone mineral density has been reported in association with TDF use [67,68]; routine bone mineral densiometry is not recommended for PrEP users, although it may be indicated in patients with pre-existing osteoporosis and/or osteopenia.

The emergence of viral resistance in PrEP users with incident HIV infection is another safety concern. As PrEP involves only two antiretroviral agents, resistance may be selected for in the setting of incident HIV infection with associated high-level viremia, particularly in partially adherent persons. However, this risk appears to be low: in a meta-analysis, resistance mainly occurred in those starting PrEP during acute (unrecognized) HIV infection [40], underscoring the importance excluding those who are viremic prior to the initiation of PrEP. Excluding those who started PrEP during acute infection, mutations were detected among five of 160 (3.1%) seroconvertors assigned to TDF/FTC in five studies, using standard genotyping, and all were M184I/V mutations. Only one of these five cases was likely to have selected the mutation due to PrEP use; the other four cases had no detectable drug levels at seroconversion [69]. Among those starting PrEP during acute infection (n = 17 in five studies), mutations were detected in eight persons (47%). Moreover, data suggest that the vast majority of HIV infections that occur in PrEP users are due to medication nonadherence, and newly diagnosed patients found to have a drug-resistant strain may have been infected with a resistant virus, or have selected drug resistance by using PrEP after infection. However, there are three case reports of acute HIV infections among PrEP users who had protective TDF/FTC levels at the time they became infected [70–72]. In two of the cases, drug-resistant virus was transmitted, but in the third case, a sexually active MSM became infected with pan-sensitive virus. These data suggest that in rare cases, PrEP alone may not be 100% protective, though efficacy in those using the medication consistently has exceeded 90% for all MSM and transgender populations studied in clinical trials.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Adherence

Adherence is the primary factor moderating the impact of PrEP on HIV acquisition [40]. Hence, maintenance of consistent adherence has an impact on the cost per infection averted [73,74]. The pharmacology of TDF/FTC suggests that there may be more ‘forgiveness’ (efficacy in the setting of occasional missed doses) for MSM and transgender women whose HIV exposure mode is via anal intercourse, because of increased TDF/FTC rectal mucosal concentrations, compared to women exposed heterosexually [75]. A post-hoc analysis of the iPREX study found that none of the individuals whose tenofovir-diphosphate concentrations in dried blood spots were consistent with using the medication at least four times a week became HIV-infected [76,77]. However, in the real world, retention in PrEP care may be a challenge. One study of PrEP utilization in clinics in three mid-sized US cities found that retention in PrEP care was suboptimal, with only 57% of patients retained in PrEP care at 6 months after initiation. Among those patients retained in care at 6 months, the proportion of patients with optimal adherence for the prior month ranged from 33 to 77%, suggesting a need for interventions to support adherence in real-world clinical settings [78].

It is possible that tailored PrEP use modalities improve adherence. Event-driven PrEP (two pills within 24 h of an exposure and a pill a day for the 2 days following) was highly effective in one participant in the Ipergay study for MSM [28], and was preferred by 27% of participants when offered the choice between daily and event-driven use [79]. This approach might improve cost-effectiveness as compared to daily PrEP, as fewer pills would generally be needed [74]. More data on the effectiveness of event-driven PrEP are needed, because the Ipergay study is the sole efficacy study of this approach, and the mean number of pills taken per month was 15. A subanalysis in a small group provided proof of efficacy in those having infrequent sexual contact and thus using PrEP less frequently [80]. Event-driven PrEP is currently offered in demonstration projects in Amsterdam and Antwerp, and in Canada and France [81–83].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Risk compensation, behavior, and sexually transmitted infection

Concerns have been raised that PrEP provision will induce risk compensation, that is, PrEP users will engage in more CAS if they perceive that the medication is protective. However, increases in sexual risk have antedated PrEP availability. Increasing condomless sex, STI, and HIV spread among MSM began after effective antiretroviral drugs became widely available in 1996 and HIV was no longer considered a deadly disease [84–86]. Sexual risk compensation has not been universal, for example, after circumcision, men in Kenya reduced risky sexual behavior [87].

The potential decreased use of condoms by PrEP users perceiving decreased HIV acquisition risk may be associated with increased risk for acquiring bacterial STI, which could potentiate HIV transmission in nonadherent PrEP users, in addition to causing STI-related morbidities [88]. The possibility exists that increasing rates of bacterial STI observed among MSM [89,90] may be associated with increased PrEP use [91]. However, the earliest rises in incident bacterial STI preceded the availability of PrEP by several years in those areas where PrEP has become widely available, and rising STI incidence has also been observed in regions where PrEP had not been made widely available. So the observed changes in STI epidemiology in the PrEP era are complex and multifactorial.

Most of the early PrEP clinical trials did not report risk compensation [27,28,92], but because participants were usually unaware if they received placebo or active medication, and received enhanced counseling, the generalizability of these findings to real-world settings may be limited.

The PrEP demonstration projects and observational studies that are currently underway [93] will be more informative about risk compensation in real-life settings. Preliminary results from these projects and studies are conflicting [37,54,77,94–96]. The fact that routine and frequent STI screening and behavioral counseling are part of comprehensive care for PrEP users might explain the discrepancy between trends in risk behavior and STI. On one hand, frequent STI screening might increase early detection and treatment of asymptomatic STI, and prevent onward transmission, in particular, when PrEP programs attract a group previously not seen in sexual health clinics [93]. On the other hand, ascertainment bias may also be playing a role in the increase in STI detection in people who might not regularly present for routine screening. It has been demonstrated that STI increase might lag behind an increase in risk behavior [85]. The maximum follow-up time in the published studies was 1.4 years and this might be too short to observe an effect on STI incidence. Interestingly, estimates from modeling studies suggest that risk compensation is unlikely to decrease the preventive impact of PrEP, and one study even suggested that PrEP might result in a decrease in STI [97,98].

Although most PrEP studies excluded MSM with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, tested only a subset of the participants, or did not report on HCV infection, both prevalent HCV infections at PrEP start (5%) and incident HCV infections (range: 0.7–1.3/100 person-years) while using PrEP have been documented [11,27,28,95,99]. These rates are higher than previously described in HIV-uninfected MSM [100–102], but data on temporal changes in HCV incidence among PrEP users are lacking. MSM who were HCV-positive at PrEP start in the Netherlands were infected with HCV strains already circulating among HIV-infected MSM, suggesting an overlap between sexual networks of HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected MSM [11]. PrEP use is likely to increase this overlap, which might result in expanding epidemics of HCV and other STI that are more frequent among HIV-infected MSM than among HIV-uninfected men [103].

Finally, especially in regions where PrEP was recently implemented, early adopters are the first to use PrEP and future PrEP users might behave differently. Hence, continued follow-up is required to assess the long-term effects of PrEP use on STI incidence and whether risk compensation results in a lower net effect of PrEP on HIV incidence. Importantly, risk compensation in HIV-infected MSM and HIV-uninfected MSM not on PrEP, who now live and have sex in a world with PrEP and non-PrEP using partners, might also contribute to changing patterns of STI and HIV spread, and should be closely monitored. A recent study found indications, based on national cross-sectional behavioral surveys among MSM in the period 2004–2014, that PrEP's introduction and scale-up may be accelerating pre-existing trends of increasing STI [104]. These data suggest that frequent STI screening, including HCV, should be offered to all PrEP users, and risk-reduction measures, including the role of condom use in preventing STI, should be discussed.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pre-exposure prophylaxis as part of comprehensive prevention measures

Provision of PrEP offers an opportunity to integrate STI care and address sexual and psychosocial healthcare relevant for prevention of HIV and other STI. Innovative ways to integrate STI and PrEP-related care could offer promising approaches to addressing STI among persons who use PrEP. The Dean Street Express Clinic in London, United Kingdom [105], offers a service that helps clients obtain PrEP, either by purchasing the medications at retail prices at the clinic or by ordering these medications online at lower cost, and provides free HIV and STI testing and clinical monitoring for individuals who use PrEP. These services are provided in an efficient, client-centered manner, and include self-administered STI tests and rapid reporting of test results using mobile technology, with the goal of minimizing barriers to entry and retention in STI and PrEP care [105]. In Oakland, California, a program that was specifically designed to provide PrEP and affirming sexual health services for young MSM, which included flexible clinic hours and other client-centered features to create a ‘clinic without walls,’ was associated with high utilization of STI services and PrEP; 91% of 262 HIV-uninfected youth in the program who were offered PrEP elected to initiate it [106]. In addition to innovative ways to integrate STI and PrEP care, provision of PrEP in STI clinics with more traditional infrastructure could represent an additional strategy to optimize STI testing and treatment for persons using PrEP. This approach resulted in successful provision of PrEP and STI-related care to MSM at an STI clinic in San Francisco as part of a demonstration project [54]. However, some STI clinics may lack the infrastructure or budget for providing the longitudinal care that accompanies PrEP provision, so the scale-up may require restructuring of and extra budget for some of these clinics in order to implement PrEP successfully.

Similar to STI, behavioral health conditions (e.g. depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders) are prevalent among persons who may benefit from PrEP and among those who have initiated PrEP [79,107,108], so provision of PrEP also offers an opportunity to address these conditions. In a study of the safety and acceptability of PrEP among black MSM in three US cities (HIV Prevention Trials Network Study 073), representing a population with high rates of new HIV infections, 30% of participants reported behavioral health comorbidities at enrollment [109]. Behavioral health conditions have also been associated with unplanned discontinuations of PrEP [110]. Ensuring access to effective behavioral healthcare could support persistence with PrEP and thus increase its effectiveness. Additionally, MSM who are candidates for PrEP may often use recreational drugs, and ideally comprehensive PrEP programs will address this issue, since ‘chemsex’ can lead to high-risk sexual hehavior, and many adverse health consequences and nonadherence [27,28,79,111,112].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis

In resource-rich settings, PrEP is currently a costly intervention, as annual medication costs exceed $10 000 per person [113]. Given budgetary constraints, public health programs and healthcare insurers will need to consider whether investing in PrEP represents good value, despite its cost. Studies that have modeled the cost-effectiveness of implementing PrEP in resource-rich settings have produced variable conclusions, depending on the populations included in these models and the assumptions underlying model development. For example, modeling studies focused on MSM in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States have found that PrEP is likely to be cost-effective if it is used by subpopulations of MSM who are at highest risk for acquiring HIV [74,114,115]. In contrast, a study that modeled the cost-effectiveness of PrEP use in the United Kingdom suggested that the use of PrEP for MSM during periods of CAS is not cost-effective at current antiretroviral prices, but it would become cost-effective if drug prices would be reduced [116]. Use of event-driven PrEP by individuals with occasional HIV exposures could decrease the medication costs associated with implementing PrEP, as was modeled in the Netherlands [74]. However, an economic evaluation of the use of event-driven PrEP in France, based on data from the Ipergay study, found that event-driven PrEP might not be cost-effective, despite its high efficacy without substantial reductions in the price of TDF/FTC [117]. Importantly, results from these cost-effectiveness analyses need to be interpreted in light of methodological differences and limitations, including limited data on the effectiveness of PrEP, long-term medication adherence, and risk compensation, when used outside of controlled studies, so further economic assessments of PrEP will be informative. The recent approval of generic TDF/FTC for use as PrEP in the United States could alter cost considerations significantly, but the price of the medication has not yet been announced.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Healthcare providers and pre-exposure prophylaxis

Effective scale-up of PrEP in resource-rich settings will require the engagement of large numbers of healthcare providers. In the United States, for example, there are an estimated 1.2 million individuals who are likely to benefit from using PrEP [4], which means that there will be need of thousands of PrEP providers to meet demand. However, in studies of frontline clinicians, many providers have indicated barriers to prescribing PrEP, including concerns about the efficacy, safety, and cost of PrEP [118,119], about practical barriers to prescribing PrEP, and concerns about people's financial barriers to accessing PrEP [118,119]. A recent survey of primary care providers affiliated with a large academic medical center in south-eastern United States found that even though 78% of clinicians provided care to MSM, 83% of these clinicians had not prescribed PrEP, citing lack of knowledge (60%) and comfort (42%) as barriers to providing PrEP; a majority (56%) perceived that they had not encountered any patient with indications for PrEP [120]. They indicated that they would be more likely to prescribe PrEP with additional training, reference materials, and access to consultations with infectious disease specialists by phone or pager.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis access could thus be expanded by engaging clinicians through effective training interventions. These interventions may be most effective if they summarize efficacy and safety data for PrEP, provide locally-tailored guidance for overcoming financial barriers to accessing PrEP, and connect clinicians with expert colleagues who can provide real-time clinical guidance. Busy clinicians have also indicated that they would be more motivated to prescribe PrEP if they had access to nonclinician health system navigators, who could assist clinicians in helping patients to access financial assistance programs or delivering behavioral counseling [121]. Additional studies have found that a lack of consensus about which clinicians should be primarily responsible for prescribing PrEP (i.e. specialists or generalists) could also contribute to the slow uptake of PrEP in the United States [122,123]. To avoid overburden of healthcare providers, innovative models for delivering PrEP care are needed, for example, community-based services [124]. A recent study demonstrated the feasibility of a pharmacist-led, community-based PrEP clinic [125]. Other examples can be found in chronic disease management applied to other health conditions (e.g. diabetes), such as self-management or community-based programs. A home-based PrEP support system, including self-testing for HIV and STI, was found to be acceptable among participants and healthcare providers in a recent pilot study [126].

Because providers from a variety of training backgrounds could successfully prescribe PrEP with appropriate training, motivation, and support, efforts to disseminate examples of successful PrEP provision by colleagues with diverse professional roles (e.g. infectious diseases specialists [95], primary care clinicians [127], and STI clinicians [54]) might encourage a greater number of providers to consider PrEP as part of their clinical purview.

Another barrier to implementing PrEP is that providers may miss opportunities to identify persons at risk for HIV acquisition, because many clinicians (outside of STI specialty clinics) do not routinely conduct comprehensive sexual health assessments. One innovative strategy to help providers in completing these assessments includes the use of patient-reported outcomes to collect information about HIV risk behaviors, such as with computer tablets in clinic waiting rooms, or with brief risk prediction tools during clinical encounters [128,129]. A qualitative study with black MSM in New York City to assess barriers to utilizing PrEP found that participants felt mistrustful of and disempowered by healthcare providers when discussing sexual health histories and HIV-prevention options, and that a recommendation to use PrEP would not be sufficiently compelling for them to initiate PrEP [130]. These results indicate a need to train providers in how to conduct patient-centered, nonjudgmental sexual health histories and discussions about PrEP, which would ideally include elements of rigorously tested, culturally-tailored prevention messages about PrEP for disenfranchised populations [59] and clear communication of acceptance towards LGBT individuals.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusions

Pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake is continuing to grow (summarized in Table 1), but challenges remain, including concerns about risk compensation and increases in STI, costs, suboptimal awareness of PrEP in communities who might benefit from its use, and limited engagement in PrEP care by providers. Demonstration projects have introduced the concept of PrEP among those who might benefit from PrEP, and also enabled public health professionals and clinicians around the world to become familiar with PrEP implementation, and to move from being earlier adopters to being key opinion leaders and role models in implementing PrEP, which has enhanced the diffusion of this novel strategy in the United States. However, in Europe and Australia, implementation of PrEP is patchy and not yet occurring on a wide scale, suggesting a need for more coordinated efforts at scale-up.

As daily oral TDF/FTC, ‘PrEP 1.0,’ becomes a more established modality for HIV prevention, studies are underway to develop novel modalities for chemoprophylaxis (e.g. long-acting injectables) that could potentially mitigate any adherence challenges that taking daily or event-driven pills may present for some individuals. However, none of the new modalities will be ready for regulatory approval for several years, and there are no guarantees that they will be more effective than TDF/FTC in clinical use. Thus, given that almost two million new HIV infections are still occurring each year [3], wider implementation of TDF/FTC for PrEP is warranted. As the rates of new infections continue at alarming rates among specific key populations, for example, transgender persons in Europe and the United States, and black MSM in the United States, and these populations face numerous social, structural, and economic barriers to accessing PrEP and being retained in PrEP care [131], any efforts at implementing PrEP must be culturally-tailored to engage and support these individuals and must address persistent inequities (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2

A causal relationship between PrEP and increasing rates of STI, which were already present before PrEP implementation, has not been clearly established, but data suggest risk compensation is taking place. More data from demonstration projects and observational studies in implementation settings, collected over a longer period of follow-up, are needed to clarify the impact of PrEP on STI and HIV trends in real-life settings. More information on uptake, adherence, and effectiveness of event-driven PrEP can guide PrEP implementation programming. Also, as behavioral measurements differ across studies, the use of uniform questions about risk compensation worldwide would help to interpret and compare future outcomes of studies.

In summary, PrEP could have a dramatic impact on the HIV epidemic and HIV-related disparities in resource-rich settings, if it is deployed in an effective, equitable, and sustainable manner. This will require coordinated efforts and firm commitment from public health authorities, funding agencies, researchers, clinicians, and patient advocates operating under diverse local constraints. Concerns about the cost-effectiveness of PrEP, if it is not deployed in a judicious manner, cannot be dismissed in an era of widespread budgetary constraints, even among resource-rich nations. Thus, strategies are needed to increase optimal PrEP use among those persons at greatest risk for HIV acquisition, and also to determine when it might be appropriate to transition from PrEP to less costly safer sex approaches. In addition, the potential future impact of PrEP on STI epidemics cannot be dismissed. If, however, PrEP can be implemented in a manner that is fiscally sound and integrated with comprehensive preventive care, using the opportunity to address concomitant STI and behavioral health concerns, then investments in PrEP could offer substantial financial and public health value.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the following persons for providing information regarding PrEP in their countries: Silke David, Sarika Desai, Andrew Grulich, Michelle Hanlon, Adam Jones, Sheena McCormack, Rak Nandwani, Sofia Ribeiro, John Saunders, Darrell Tan, Anouk Urbanus, Bea Vuylsteke, Edwina Wright, and Iryna Zablotsky-Manos.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

Institute of E.H. received financial reimbursement for time spent serving on advisory boards of Gilead Sciences, and also received the study drug for the Amsterdam PrEP study from Gilead Sciences. K.M. received unrestricted research grants from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences. D.K. participated in research funded by unrestricted research grants from Gilead Sciences. M.P. reports no conflicts of interests.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Cremin I, Alsallaq R, Dybul M, Piot P, Garnett G, Hallett TB. The new role of antiretrovirals in combination HIV prevention: a mathematical modelling analysis. AIDS 2013; 27:447–458.
2. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2587–2599.
3. UNAIDS. New HIV infections. http://www.unaids.org. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
4. Smith DK, Van Handel M, Wolitski RJ, Stryker JE, Hall HI, Prejean J, et al. Vital signs: estimated percentages and numbers of adults with indications for pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition: United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015; 64:1291–1295.
5. AVAC. Regulatory Status of TDF/FTC for PrEP. http://www.avac.org/resource/regulatory-status-tdfftc-prep. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
7. Wu H, Mendoza MC, Huang YA, Hayes T, Smith DK, Hoover KW. Uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among commercially insured persons: United States, 2010-2014. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 64:144–149.
8. Mera R, McCallister S, Palmer B, Mayer G, Magnuson D, Rawlings K. Truvada (TVD) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) utilization in the United States (2013–2015). 21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa, July 18–22, 2016 [Abstract TUAX0105LB].
9. JM Molina. One-year experience with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in France with TDF/FTC. 9th IAS Conference on HIV Science, Paris, France, 23-26 July 2017 [Abstract WEPEC0939].
10. Wright E. Health systems and study design features permitting rapid enrolment of individuals at high-risk of HIV acquisition into a pre-expossure prophylaxis study in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 9th IAS Conference on HIV Science, Paris, France, 23-26 July 2017. [Abstract WEAC0104].
11. Hoornenborg E, Achterbergh RCA, Schim van der Loeff MF, Davidovich U, Hogewoning A, de Vries HJC, et al. MSM starting pre-exposure prophylaxis are at risk of hepatitis C virus infection. AIDS 2017; 31:1603–1610.
12. US Public Health Service. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States: 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prepguidelines2014.pdf. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
13. Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM). Update on HIV PrEP for HIV clinicians. http://www.ashm.org.au/HIV/PrEP/. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
14. BREACH. Belgium PrEP Guidelines, 2017. http://www.breach-hiv.be/media/docs/6a_DeWit_finalpresented.pdf. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
15. Hoornenborg E, Rijnders B. Dutch PrEP Guideline. http://richtlijnhiv.nvhb.nl/index.php/Inhoud. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
18. PrEP Short Life Working Group. http://www.hivscotland.com/our-work/prep-in-scotland/. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
19. HIV Scotland. PrEP in Scotland Report. http://www.hivscotland.com/our-work/prep-in-scotland/. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
21. Bush S, Magnuson D, Rawlings K, Hawkins T, McCallister S, Mera Giler R. Racial characteristics of FTC/TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users in the US. ASM Microbe Conference 2016, Boston, June 16–20, 2016. [Abstract #2651]
22. Bezemer D, van Sighem A, Lukashov VV, van der Hoek L, Back N, Schuurman R, et al. Transmission networks of HIV-1 among men having sex with men in the Netherlands. AIDS 2010; 24:271–282.
23. Nwangwu-Ike N, Hernandez AL, An Q, Huang T, Hall HI. The epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus infection and care among adult and adolescent females in the United States, 2008–2012. Womens Health Issues 2015; 25:711–719.
24. Wejnert C, Hess KL, Rose CE, Balaji A, Smith JC, Paz-Bailey G. Age-specific race and ethnicity disparities in HIV infection and awareness among men who have sex with men: 20 US Cities, 2008–2014. J Infect Dis 2016; 213:776–783.
25. Radix A, Carneiro P, Stephanos S, Mosher S, Meacher P, Belkind U, et al. Transgender patients at risk: ensuring access to PrEP in a NYC Community Health Centre. 21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa, July 18–22, 2016. [Abstract WEACO202].
26. Oldenburg CE, Perez-Brumer AG, Hatzenbuehler ML, Krakower D, Novak DS, Mimiaga MJ, et al. State-level structural sexual stigma and HIV prevention in a national online sample of HIV-uninfected MSM in the United States. AIDS 2015; 29:837–845.
27. McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2016; 387:53–60.
28. Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, Pialoux G, Cotte L, Charreau I, et al. On-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2237–2246.
29. European Medicines Agency. First medicine for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis recommended for approval in the EU. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2016/07/news_detail_002578.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
31. AIDES Flash PrEP survey; 2016. http://www.aides.org/FlashPrEPinEurope. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
32. ECDC. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in Europe, 2016. http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/preexposure-prophylaxis-hiv-prevention-europe.pdf. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
33. Delpech V. Test and link to care: how do we measure our success?HepHIV Conference, 31 January–2 February, Malta.
34. Rajchgot J, Siemieniuk RA, Sivachandran N, Murphy P, Sharp A, Cicci A, et al. Feasibility of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis as part of routine care in Toronto, Canada. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 72:e80–e81.
35. Zoë Greenwald MvB, Girard G, Goyette A, Charest L, Lavoie S, Longpré D, et al. Who opts for daily versus on-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis? 12th Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention and Adherence, Miami, USA, 4–6, June 2017. [Abstract 227]
36. EPIC-NSW 2017. https://epic-nswstudy.org.au/. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
37. Lal L, Audsley J, Murphy DA, Fairley CK, Stoove M, Roth N, et al. Medication adherence, condom use and sexually transmitted infections in Australian preexposure prophylaxis users. AIDS 2017; 31:1709–1714.
38. Q PrEP’d. 2016. http://www.comeprepd.info/qprepd-project/. [Accessed at 3 August 2017]
39. Golub SPS, Hilley A, Pachankis J, Radix A. Brief behavioral intervention increases PReP drug levels in a real-world setting. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2017. [Abstract number 965].
40. Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, Baggaley R, O’reilly KR, Koechlin FM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS 2016; 30:1973–1983.
41. Hall HI, Song R, Tang T, An Q, Prejean J, Dietz P, et al. HIV trends in the United States: diagnoses and estimated incidence. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2017; 3:e8.
42. Millett GA, Peterson JL, Flores SA, Hart TA, Jeffries WL, Wilson PA, et al. Comparisons of disparities and risks of HIV infection in black and other men who have sex with men in Canada, UK, and USA: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2012; 380:341–348.
43. Wejnert C, Hess KL, Rose CE, Balaji A, Smith JC, Paz-Bailey G, et al. Age-specific race and ethnicity disparities in HIV infection and awareness among men who have sex with men: 20 US Cities, 2008–2014. J Infect Dis 2016; 213:776–783.
44. Cahill S, Taylor SW, Elsesser SA, Mena L, Hickson D, Mayer KH. Stigma, medical mistrust, and perceived racism may affect PrEP awareness and uptake in black compared to white gay and bisexual men in Jackson, Mississippi and Boston, Massachusetts. AIDS Care 2017; 1–8. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2017.1300633 [Epub ahead of print].
45. Eaton LA, Matthews DD, Driffin DD, Bukowski L, Wilson PA, Stall RD, et al. A multi-US city assessment of awareness and uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among black men and transgender women who have sex with men. Prev Sci 2017; 18:505–516.
46. Kuhns LM, Hotton AL, Schneider J, Garofalo R, Fujimoto K. Use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in young men who have sex with men is associated with race, sexual risk behavior and peer network size. AIDS Behav 2017; 21:1376–1382.
47. Millett GA, Flores SA, Peterson JL, Bakeman R. Explaining disparities in HIV infection among black and white men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis of HIV risk behaviors. AIDS 2007; 21:2083–2091.
48. Sullivan PS, Rosenberg ES, Sanchez TH, Kelley CF, Luisi N, Cooper HL, et al. Explaining racial disparities in HIV incidence in black and white men who have sex with men in Atlanta, GA: a prospective observational cohort study. Ann Epidemiol 2015; 25:445–454.
49. Alvarez-Del Arco D, Fakoya I, Thomadakis C, Pantazis N, Touloumi G, Gennotte AF, et al. High levels of post-migration HIV acquisition within nine European countries. AIDS 2017; in press.
50. Fakoya I, Alvarez-del Arco D, Woode-Owusu M, Monge S, Rivero-Montesdeoca Y, Delpech V, et al. A systematic review of postmigration acquisition of HIV among migrants from countries with generalised HIV epidemics living in Europe: implications for effectively managing HIV prevention programmes and policy. BMC Public Health 2015; 15:561.
51. Baral SD, Poteat T, Stromdahl S, Wirtz AL, Guadamuz TE, Beyrer C. Worldwide burden of HIV in transgender women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13:214–222.
52. van Veen MG, Gotz HM, van Leeuwen PA, Prins M, van de Laar MJ. HIV and sexual risk behavior among commercial sex workers in the Netherlands. Arch Sex Behav 2010; 39:714–723.
53. Poteat T, Scheim A, Xavier J, Reisner S, Baral S. Global epidemiology of HIV infection and related syndemics affecting transgender people. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 72 (suppl 3):S210–S219.
54. Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, Anderson PL, Doblecki-Lewis S, Bacon O, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176:75–84.
55. Sevelius JM, Keatley J, Calma N, Arnold E. ’I am not a man’: trans-specific barriers and facilitators to PrEP acceptability among transgender women. Glob Public Health 2016; 11 (7–8):1060–1075.
56. Grant RM, Sevelius JM, Guanira JV, Aguilar JV, Chariyalertsak S, Deutsch MB. Transgender women in clinical trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 72 (suppl 3):S226–S229.
57. Smith DK, Pals SL, Herbst JH, Shinde S, Carey JW. Development of a clinical screening index predictive of incident HIV infection among men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012; 60:421–427.
58. US Public Health Service. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States: 2014 Clinical Practice Guideline. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/prep/index.html. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
59. Calabrese SK, Magnus M, Mayer KH, Krakower DS, Eldahan AI, Gaston Hawkins LA, et al. Putting PrEP into practice: lessons learned from early-adopting U.S. providers’ firsthand experiences providing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and associated care. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0157324.
60. European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS). European Guidelines for treatment of HIV-positive adults in Europe; Guidelines 8.0. EACS; 2015.
61. World Health Organization. Guideline on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. September 2015.
62. Glidden DV, Amico KR, Liu AY, Hosek SG, Anderson PL, Buchbinder SP, et al. Symptoms, side effects and adherence in the iPrEx open-label extension. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62:1172–1177.
63. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:399–410.
64. Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, Sangkum U, Mock PA, Leethochawalit M, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013; 381:2083–2090.
65. Grohskopf LA, Chillag KL, Gvetadze R, Liu AY, Thompson M, Mayer KH, et al. Randomized trial of clinical safety of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate among HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 64:79–86.
66. Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:423–434.
67. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Reid IR. Skeletal health in adults with HIV infection. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015; 3:63–74.
68. Tinago W, Cotter AG, Sabin CA, Macken A, Kavanagh E, Brady JJ, et al. Predictors of longitudinal change in bone mineral density in a cohort of HIV-positive and negative patients. AIDS 2017; 31:643–652.
69. Parikh UM, Mellors JW. Should we fear resistance from tenofovir/emtricitabine pre-exposure prophylaxis?. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2016; 11:49–55.
70. Grossman H. Newly acquired HIV-1 infection with multi-drug resistant (MDR) HIV-1 in a patient on TDF/FTC-based PrEP. HIV Research for Prevention (HIVR4P). Chicago, USA, 17–21 October 2016 [Abstract OA03.06LB]
71. Knox DC, Anderson PL, Harrigan PR, Tan DH. Multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection despite pre-exposure prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:501–502.
72. Hoornenborg E, Prins M, Achterbergh RCA, Woittiez LR, Cornelissen M, Jurriaans S, et al. Acquisition of wild-type HIV-1 infection in a patient on pre-exposure prophylaxis with high intracellular concentrations of tenofovir diphosphate: a case report. Lancet HIV 2017; doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30132-7. [Epub ahead of print].
73. Kasaie P, Pennington J, Shah MS, Berry SA, German D, Flynn CP, et al. The impact of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men: an individual-based model. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2017; 75:175–183.
74. Nichols BE, Boucher CA, van der Valk M, Rijnders BJ, van de Vijver DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention in the Netherlands: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16:1423–1429.
75. Hendrix CW, Andrade A, Bumpus NN, Kashuba AD, Marzinke MA, Moore A, et al. Dose frequency ranging pharmacokinetic study of tenofovir-emtricitabine after directly observed dosing in healthy volunteers to establish adherence benchmarks (HPTN 066). AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2016; 32:32–43.
76. Anderson PL, Glidden DV, Liu A, Buchbinder S, Lama JR, Guanira JV, et al. Emtricitabine-tenofovir concentrations and pre-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in men who have sex with men. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4:151ra125.
77. Grant RM, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu A, Amico KR, Mehrotra M, et al. Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, sexual practices, and HIV incidence in men and transgender women who have sex with men: a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14:820–829.
78. Chan PA, Mena L, Patel R, Oldenburg CE, Beauchamps L, Perez-Brumer AG, et al. Retention in care outcomes for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation programmes among men who have sex with men in three US cities. J Int AIDS Soc 2016; 19:20903.
79. Hoornenborg E, Achterbergh R, Schim van der Loeff M, Davidivich U, Van der Helm J, Hogewoning A, et al. Uptake and preference of daily and intermittent pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a demonstration project: baseline characteristics and HIV prevention choices made by Dutch MSM. International Aids Conference, Durban, 2016 [Abstract WEPEC234].
80. Antoni G, Tremblay C, Charreau I, Cua E, Rojas-Castro D, Hall N, et al. On-demand PrEP with TDF/FTC remains highly effective among MSM with infrequent sexual intercourse: a substudy of the ANRS IPERGAY trial. IAS 2017 [Abstract TUC0102].
81. Molina J-M. PrEP rollout in France. 21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa [Abstract WEWS080; 2016].
82. AMPrEP study group. Study protocol AMPrEP; 2015. http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctsearch.asp?Term=amprep. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
83. De Baetselier I, Reyniers T, Nostlinger C, Wouters K, Fransen K, Crucitti T, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an additional tool for HIV prevention among men who have sex with men in Belgium: the Be-PrEP-ARED study protocol. JMIR Res Protoc 2017; 6:e11.
84. Jansen IA, Geskus RB, Davidovich U, Jurriaans S, Coutinho RA, Prins M, et al. Ongoing HIV-1 transmission among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam: a 25-year prospective cohort study. AIDS 2011; 25:493–501.
85. Stolte IG, Dukers NH, Geskus RB, Coutinho RA, de Wit JB. Homosexual men change to risky sex when perceiving less threat of HIV/AIDS since availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a longitudinal study. AIDS 2004; 18:303–309.
86. Crepaz N, Hart TA, Marks G. Highly active antiretroviral therapy and sexual risk behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 292:224–236.
87. Wilson NL, Xiong W, Mattson CL. Is sex like driving? HIV prevention and risk compensation. J Dev Econ 2014; 106:78–91.
88. Katz DA, Dombrowski JC, Bell TR, Kerani RP, Golden MR. HIV incidence among men who have sex with men after diagnosis with sexually transmitted infections. Sex Transm Dis 2016; 43:249–254.
89. Public Health England. Sexually transmitted infections and chlamydia screening in England, 2015. Health Protection Report 2016; 11:2–4.
90. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2015. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
91. Alaei K, Paynter CA, Juan SC, Alaei A. Using PrEP, losing condoms? PrEP promotion may undermine safe sex. AIDS 2016; doi: 101097/QAD0000000000001262. [Epub ahead of print].
92. Sagaon-Teyssier L, Suzan-Monti M, Demoulin B, Capitant C, Lorente N, Preau M, et al. Uptake of PrEP and condom and sexual risk behavior among MSM during the ANRS IPERGAY trial. AIDS Care 2016; 28 (suppl 1):48–55.
93. PrEP Watch. Implementation map, 2017. http://www.prepwatch.org. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
94. Marcus JL, Hurley LB, Hare CB, Nguyen DP, Phengrasamy T, Silverberg MJ, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in a large integrated healthcare system: adherence, renal safety, and discontinuation. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 73:540–546.
95. Volk JE, Marcus JL, Phengrasamy T, Blechinger D, Nguyen DP, Follansbee S, et al. No new HIV infections with increasing use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in a clinical practice setting. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61:1601–1603.
96. Montano M, Dombrowsk J, Barbee A, Golden M, Khosropour C. Changes in sexual behavior and STI diagnoses among MSM using PrEP in Seattle, WA. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2017. [Abstract number 979].
97. Jenness SM, Sharma A, Goodreau SM, Rosenberg ES, Weiss KM, Hoover KW, et al. Individual HIV risk versus population impact of risk compensation after HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis initiation among men who have sex with men. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0169484.
98. Jenness SM, Weiss KM, Goodreau SM, Gift T, Chesson H, Hoover KW, et al. Incidence of gonorrhea and chlamydia following HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men: a modeling study. Clin Infect Dis 2017; doi: 10.1093/cid/cix439. [Epub ahead of print].
99. Midgley L. Acute hepatitis C infection in lower risk MSM: an evolving picture. 23rd Annual Conference of BHIVA, 2017, Liverpool [Abstract O24].
100. Urbanus AT, Van De Laar TJ, Geskus R, Vanhommerig JW, van Rooijen MS, Schinkel J, et al. Trends in hepatitis C virus infections among MSM attending a sexually transmitted infection clinic: 1995–2010. AIDS 2014; 28:781–790.
101. Schmidt AJ, Falcato L, Zahno B, Burri A, Regenass S, Mullhaupt B, et al. Prevalence of hepatitis C in a Swiss sample of men who have sex with men: whom to screen for HCV infection?. BMC Public Health 2014; 14:3.
102. Yaphe S, Bozinoff N, Kyle R, Shivkumar S, Pai NP, Klein M. Incidence of acute hepatitis C virus infection among men who have sex with men with and without HIV infection: a systematic review. Sex Transm Infect 2012; 88:558–564.
103. Malek R, Mitchell H, Furegato M, Simms I, Mohammed H, Nardone A, et al. Contribution of transmission in HIV-positive men who have sex with men to evolving epidemics of sexually transmitted infections in England: an analysis using multiple data sources, 2009–2013. Euro Surveill 2015; 20.
104. Chen YH, Snowden JM, McFarland W, Raymond HF. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use, seroadaptation, and sexual behavior among men who have sex with men: San Francisco, 2004–2014. AIDS Behav 2016; 20:2791–2797.
105. Dean Street Clinic. http://dean.st/prep/. [Accessed 3 August 2017]
106. Udoh I, Myers J, Frazier R, Koester KA, Horwitz J, Kang Dufour M-S, et al. Bringing sexy back: PrEP and sexual health services for young urban men who have sex with men. 21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa, July 18–22, 2016 [Abstract TUPEE561].
107. Defechereux PA, Mehrotra M, Liu AY, McMahan VM, Glidden DV, Mayer KH, et al. Depression and oral FTC/TDF pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men and transgender women who have sex with men (MSM/TGW). AIDS Behav 2016; 20:1478–1488.
108. Pines HA, Gorbach PM, Weiss RE, Shoptaw S, Landovitz RJ, Javanbakht M, et al. Sexual risk trajectories among MSM in the United States: implications for pre-exposure prophylaxis delivery. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2014; 65:579–586.
109. Hightow-Weidman L, Magnus M, Shoptaw S, Emel L, Beauchamp G, Piwowar-Manning E, et al. Significant health comorbidities in Black men who have sex with men presenting for a US PrEP study. 21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa, July 18–22, 2016. Abstract WEPEC240.
110. Krakower D, Maloney K, Levine K, Grasso C, Melbourne K, Mayer K. Unplanned discontinuations of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis during clinical care. HIV Research for Prevention Conference 2016. Chicago, Illinois, October 17–21, 2016 [Abstract OA16.06].
111. Bourne A, Reid D, Hickson F, Torres-Rueda S, Weatherburn P. Illicit drug use in sexual settings (’chemsex’) and HIV/STI transmission risk behaviour among gay men in South London: findings from a qualitative study. Sex Transm Infect 2015; 91:564–568.
112. Sewell J, Miltz A, Lampe FC, Cambiano V, Speakman A, Phillips AN, et al. Poly drug use, chemsex drug use, and associations with sexual risk behaviour in HIV-negative men who have sex with men attending sexual health clinics. Int J Drug Policy 2017; 43:33–43.
113. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/lvguidelines/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf. [Accessed 13 February 2017]
114. Schneider K, Gray RT, Wilson DP. A cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men in Australia. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58:1027–1034.
115. Juusola JL, Brandeau ML, Owens DK, Bendavid E. The cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in the United States in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156:541–550.
116. Cambiano V, Miners A, Dunn D, McCormack S, Gill N, Nardone A, et al. Is pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention cost-effective in men who have sex with men who engage in condomless sex in the UK?Presented at the BASH Spring Conference, June 2015; Abstract O1.
117. Durand-Zaleski I, Mutuon P, Charreau I, Temblay C, Rojas D, Chas J, et al. Cost effectiveness of on demand PrEP in men who have sex with men (MSM) in the ANRS IPERGAY study. 21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa, July 18–22, 2016. [Abstract THAW304].
118. Krakower DS, Beekmann SE, Polgreen PM, Mayer KH. Diffusion of newer HIV prevention innovations: variable practices of frontline infectious diseases physicians. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62:99–105.
119. Krakower DS, Oldenburg CE, Mitty JA, Wilson IB, Kurth AE, Maloney KM, et al. Knowledge, beliefs and practices regarding antiretroviral medications for HIV prevention: results from a survey of healthcare providers in New England. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0132398.
120. Seidelman J, Clement M, Okeke L, McGee K, Murthy B, Johnston B, et al. Are primary care providers in the southeastern U.S. ready to prescribe PrEP?21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa, July 18–22, 2016. [Abstract WEPEC233].
121. Nguyen T, Agins B, Stevens L. Implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in New York State. 21st International AIDS Conference. Durban, South Africa, July 18–22, 2016. [Abstract WEPEC249].
122. Krakower D, Ware N, Mitty JA, Maloney K, Mayer KH. HIV providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis in care settings: a qualitative study. AIDS Behav 2014; 18:1712–1721.
123. Hoffman S, Guidry JA, Collier KL, Mantell JE, Boccher-Lattimore D, Kaighobadi F, et al. A Clinical home for pre-exposure prophylaxis: diverse healthcare providers’ perspectives on the ‘purview paradox’. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care 2016; 15:59–65.
124. Smith DK, Maier E, Betts J, Gray S, Kolodziejski B, Hoover KW. What community-based HIV prevention organizations say about their role in biomedical HIV prevention. AIDS Educ Prev 2016; 28:426–439.
125. Tung E, Thomas A, Eichner A, Shalit P. Feasibility of a pharmacist-run HIV PrEP clinic in a community pharmacy setting; 2017. Conference of Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Seattle, Washington, February 13–16, 2017.
126. Siegler AL, Mayer K, Thure K, Fish R, Andrew E, Gelman M, et al. An exploratory assessment of the feasibility and acceptability of homebased support to streamline HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery. IAS; 2016.
127. Krakower DS, Maloney KM, Grasso C, Melbourne K, Mayer KH. Primary care clinicians’ experiences prescribing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis at a specialized community health centre in Boston: lessons from early adopters. J Int AIDS Soc 2016; 19:21165.
128. Menza TW, Hughes JP, Celum CL, Golden MR. Prediction of HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:547–555.
129. Smith DK, Pals SL, Herbst JH, Shinde S, Carey JW. Development of a clinical screening index predictive of incident HIV infection among men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012; 60:421–427.
130. Hucks-Ortiz JPL, Wheeler DP, Fields SD. HPTN 073: successful engagement of Black MSM into a culturally relevant clinical trial for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). 21st International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa,18–22 July, [Abstract WEAC0103].
131. Rolle C-PM, Siegler AS, Sanchez T, Luisi N, Cutro S, Del Rio C, et al. Challenges Of translating PrEP interest into uptake among young black MSM in Atlanta. 2017 Conference of Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Seattle, Washington, February 13–16, 2017.

* Elske Hoornenborg and Douglas S. Krakower contributed equally to the writing of this article.

Keywords:

HIV; pre-exposure prophylaxis; MSM; transgender person

Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.