After adjusting for other variables in the model, those making ≥$30,000 had greater odds of being PrEP users compared to those making <$10,000 per year [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 4.13, confidence interval (CI): 1.87 to 9.12, P < 0.001]. Receptive CAS in the last 6 months was positively associated with PrEP use (aOR: 3.41, CI: 1.71 to 6.78, P < 0.001). Those who reported sex with an HIV-positive partner in the last 6 months had greater odds of being PrEP users compared to those without an HIV-positive partner (aOR: 2.87, CI: 1.53 to 5.38, P = 0.001). YMSM who used poppers in the last 6 months had greater odds of being a PrEP user compared to those who did not use poppers (aOR: 3.47, CI: 1.96 to 6.13, P < 0.001). Finally, an STI diagnosis in the past year was associated with being a PrEP user (aOR: 2.90, CI: 1.64 to 5.13, P < 0.001). Table 2 contains multivariate results.
Although not statistically significant in multivariate modeling, a greater percentage of PrEP users perceived themselves at high risk for HIV compared to non-PrEP users. These results point to the need for targeted strategies for identifying YMSM candidates for PrEP based on their risk perception and behavioral risk profile. In our study, 87% of those deemed good candidates for PrEP screening (indicated by a score ≥10 on the CDC risk index) were not current or past PrEP users. Although it is important to educate and encourage health providers to ask their patients about sexual risk and PrEP, using GSN apps to disseminate information regarding PrEP, including where to go for PrEP, is warranted.
1. New York State Department of Health. Blueprint to End AIDS. New York State Department of Health; 2015.
3. Doblecki-Lewis S, Cohen S, Liu A. Clinical treatment options infectious diseases: update on PrEP
implementation, adherence, and advances in delivery. Cur Treat Options Infect Dis. 2015;7:101–112.
4. Eckert V, Chavez GF, Mark KE, et al.. California HIV/AIDS Epidemiological Profile, 2009 Update. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, Office of AIDS; 2012.
5. Office of AIDS Research. HIV/AIDS Surveillance in California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; 2012.
6. Landovitz RJ, Tseng CH, Weissman M, et al.. Epidemiology, sexual risk behavior, and HIV prevention practices of men who have sex with men using GRINDR in Los Angeles, California. J Urban Health. 2013;90:729–739.
7. Lehmiller JJ, Ioerger M. Social networking smartphone applications and sexual health outcomes among men who have sex with men. PloS One. 2014;9:e86603.
8. Rendina HJ, Jimenez RH, Grov C, et al.. Patterns of lifetime and recent HIV testing among men who have sex with men in New York city who use Grindr. AIDS Behav. 2014;18:41–49.
9. Winetrobe H, Rice E, Bauermeister J, et al.. Associations of unprotected anal intercourse with Grindr-met partners among Grindr-using young men who have sex with men
in Los Angeles. AIDS Care. 2014;26:1303–1308.
10. Holloway IW, Pulsipher CA, Gibbs J, et al.. Network influences on the sexual risk behaviors of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men using geosocial networking applications
. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(suppl 2):112–122.
11. Beymer MR, Weiss RE, Bolan RK, et al.. Sex on demand: geosocial networking phone apps and risk of sexually transmitted infections among a cross-sectional sample of men who have sex with men in Los Angeles County. Sex Transm Infect. 2014;90:567–572.
12. Goedel WC, Halkitis PN, Greene RE, et al.. Correlates of awareness of and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP
) in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men who use geosocial-networking smartphone applications in New York city. AIDS Behav. 2016;20:1435–1442.
13. Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, Bacon O, et al.. High interest in pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men at risk for HIV-infection: baseline data from the US PrEP
demonstration project. JAIDS. 2015;68:439–448.
14. Liu AY, Vittinghoff E, Chillag K, et al.. Sexual risk behavior among HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men participating in a tenofovir preexposure prophylaxis randomized trial in the United States. JAIDS. 2013;64:87–94.
15. Marcus JL, Glidden DV, Mayer KH, et al.. No evidence of sexual risk compensation in the iPrEx trial of daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis. PloS One. 2013;8:e81997.
16. Tripathi A, Whiteside YO, Duffus WA. Perceptions and attitudes about preexposure prophylaxis among seronegative partners and the potential of sexual disinhibition. South Med J. 2013;106:558–564.
17. Whiteside YO, Harris T, Scanlon C, et al.. Self-perceived risk of HIV infection and attitudes about preexposure prophylaxis among sexually transmitted disease clinic attendees in South Carolina. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2011;25:365–370.
18. Bauermeister JA, Meanley S, Pingel E, et al.. PrEP
awareness and perceived barriers among single young men who have sex with men
in the United States. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11:520–527.
19. Hood JE, Buskin SE, Dombrowski JC, et al.. Dramatic increase in preexposure prophylaxis use among MSM in Washington state. AIDS. 2016;30:515–519.
20. Krakower DS, Mimiaga MJ, Rosenberger JG, et al.. Limited awareness and low immediate uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men using an internet social networking site. PloS One. 2012;7:e33119.
21. Liu AY, Kittredge PV, Vittinghoff E, et al.. Limited knowledge and use of HIV post- and pre-exposure prophylaxis among gay and bisexual men. JAIDS. 2008;47:241–247.
22. Mayer KH, Oldenburg CE, Novak DS, et al.. Early adopters: correlates of HIV chemoprophylaxis use in recent online samples of US men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2015;20:1489–1498.
23. Rucinski KB, Mensah NP, Sepkowitz KA, et al.. Knowledge and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis among an online sample of young men who have sex with men
in New York City. AIDS Behav. 2013;17:2180–2184.
24. Scanlin K, Mensah NP, Salcuni P, et al.. Increasing PrEP
use among men who have sex with men, New York city, 2013–2015. Paper presented at: Conference on Retroviruses and opportunistic infections February 22–February 25, 2016; Boston, MA.
25. Mimiaga MJ, Case P, Johnson CV, et al.. Preexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis attitudes in high-risk Boston area men who report having sex with men: limited knowledge and experience but potential for increased utilization after education. JAIDS. 2009;50:77–83.
26. Dolezal C, Frasca T, Giguere R, et al.. Awareness of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP
) is low but interest is high among men engaging in condomless anal sex with men in Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Juan. AIDS Educ Prev. 2015;27:289–297.
27. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Surveillance Report, 2014. Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015;26.
28. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States—2014 Clinical Practice Guideline. Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014.
29. Pérez-Figueroa RE, Kapadia F, Barton SC, et al.. Acceptability of PrEP uptake
among racially/ethnically diverse young men who have sex with men
: the p18 study. AIDS Educ Prev. 2015;27:112–125.
30. Brooks RA, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, et al.. Motivators, concerns, and barriers to adoption of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV-serodiscordant male relationships. AIDS Care. 2011;23:1136–1145.
31. Kubicek K, Arauz-Cuadra C, Kipke MD. Attitudes and perceptions of biomedical HIV prevention methods: voices from young men who have sex with men
. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44:487–497.
32. Amico KR. Adherence to preexposure chemoprophylaxis: the behavioral bridge from efficacy to effectiveness. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7:542–548.
33. Baeten JM, Haberer JE, Liu AY, et al.. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: where have we been and where are we going? JAIDS. 2013;63(suppl 2):S122–S129.
34. Smith DK, Pals SL, Herbst JH, et al.. Development of a clinical screening index predictive of incident HIV infection among men who have sex with men in the United States. JAIDS. 2012;60:421–427.
35. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc. 1995;57:289–300.
38. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital Signs: Estimated Percentages and Numbers of Adults with Indications for Preexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent HIV Acquisition—United States, 2015. Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015.
40. Paltiel AD, Freedberg KA, Scott CA, et al.. HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: impact on lifetime infection risk, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:806–815.
41. Kipke MD, Weiss G, Ramirez M, et al.. Club drug use in Los angeles among young men who have sex with men
. Subst Use Misuse. 2007;42:1723–1743.
42. Anderson PL, Glidden DV, Liu A, et al.. Emtricitabine-tenofovir concentrations and pre-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in men who have sex with men. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:151. ra125.
43. Dowshen N, Kuhns LM, Johnson A, et al.. Improving adherence to antiretroviral therapy for Youth Living with HIV/AIDS: a pilot study using personalized, interactive, daily text message Reminders. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e51.
44. Horvath KJ, Michael Oakes J, Simon Rosser BR, et al.. Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of an online peer-to-peer social support ART adherence intervention. AIDS Behav. 2013;17:2031–2044.