How acceptable are antiretrovirals for the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV? A review of research on the acceptability of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention

Recent research has demonstrated how antiretrovirals (ARVs) could be effective in the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV. We review research on the acceptability of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and treatment as prevention (TasP) for HIV prevention amongst potential users. We consider with whom, where and in what context this research has been conducted, how acceptability has been approached, and what research gaps remain. Findings from 33 studies show a lack of TasP research, PrEP studies which have focused largely on men who have sex with men (MSM) in a US context, and varied measures of acceptability. In order to identify when, where and for whom PrEP and TasP would be most appropriate and effective, research is needed in five areas: acceptability of TasP to people living with HIV; motivation for PrEP use and adherence; current perceptions and management of risk; the impact of broader social and structural factors; and consistent definition and operationalisation of acceptability which moves beyond adherence

Seasons of Risk: Anticipated Behavior on Vacation and Interest in Episodic Antiretroviral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among a Large National Sample of U.S. Men Who have Sex with Men (MSM)

The current analysis evaluates interest in and acceptability of daily PrEP during short episodes of anticipated increased risk (i.e. Epi-PrEP). In 2013, U.S. members of an Internet-based MSM sexual networking site were invited to complete a survey about HIV prevention practices in the context of vacationing. 7,305 MSM responded to the survey. Of respondents who had vacationed in the past year, 25.6% reported condomless anal sex (CAS) with new male sex partners while vacationing. Most (92.6%) respondents agreed that having to use PrEP every day was a barrier to PrEP use and 74.3% indicated they would take PrEP if they knew it would be helpful for short periods of anticipated increased risk. MSM who reported increased CAS while on vacation in the past year were more likely to indicate that they would take PrEP if it were helpful when used for short periods than respondents who did not (aOR=2.02, 95% CI 1.59–2.56, p <0.001). Studies designed to evaluate uptake, adherence, and protective benefit of short PrEP courses are warranted