Perceived Versus Calculated HIV Risk: Implications for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Uptake in a Randomized Trial of Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BackgroundInaccurate HIV risk perception by men who have sex with men is a barrier to HIV prevention. Providing information about objective HIV risk could improve pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake.MethodsPrEP Accessibility Research & Evaluation 2 (PrEPARE2) was a randomized controlled trial of men who have sex with men to determine whether an objective risk score affects future PrEP uptake. Participants completed a baseline survey to assess demographics, risk behaviors, and HIV self-perceived risk (SPR). The survey generated a calculated HIV risk (CalcR) score, estimating HIV risk based on reported condomless anal intercourse and sexually transmitted infections, and was provided to individuals in the intervention arm. Participants were contacted 8 weeks later to determine whether they initiated PrEP.ResultsOf 171 participants (median age 32 years; 37% Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black; median 5 sexual partners in the past 6 months), 81% had heard of PrEP, and 57% believed they were good PrEP candidates. SPR had poor agreement with CalcR (kappa = 0.176) with 38% underestimating their HIV risk. At week 8, only 14 of 135 participants had initiated PrEP with no difference between arms (CalcR 11%, control 10%, P > 0.99). The most common reason for not starting PrEP was low HIV risk perception. There was a relative decrease in SPR over time (P = 0.06) but no difference between arms (P = 0.29).ConclusionProviding an objective HIV risk score alone did not increase PrEP uptake. HIV testing performed at testing sites may be a crucial time to correct misperceptions about risk and initiate same-day PrEP, given enthusiasm for PrEP on the testing day to facilitate greater uptake

PrEP University: A Multi-Disciplinary University-Based HIV Prevention Education Program.

The introduction of emtricitabine/tenofovir diphosphate (FTC/TDF) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention has raised questions regarding which clinicians will serve as prescribers and how providers will be educated about this HIV prevention strategy. We piloted an HIV Prevention Education Program called PrEP University (PrEP U) to address knowledge gaps in HIV prevention among medical trainees. We examined PrEP awareness and assessed learning as a result of the program, measuring knowledge before and after the lectures with an anonymous 5-question multiple choice test. A total of 198 learners participated in PrEP University, which included 127 first year medical students, and post-graduate trainees in internal medicine (n = 23), family medicine (n = 16), OBGYN (n = 13) and pharmacy (n = 19). Prior to PrEP U, 27% of all participants were not aware of PrEP and an additional 8% were unsure if they had heard of it. Knowledge increased significantly after the education program among trainees in OBGYN (2.3 vs 3.8, p < 0.001), pharmacy (1.4 vs 2.5, p = 0.012) and school of medicine (3.3 vs 4.4, p < 0.001), with a trend seen in family medicine (2.7 vs. 3.7, p = 0.067) and internal medicine (2.7 vs 3.4, p = 0.068). Overall, an HIV Prevention Education Program was successfully administered to nearly 200 participants and resulted in improved knowledge of HIV prevention and PrEP across. Pharmacists and OBGYN physicians are two groups with an expanding role in the use of PrEP. Similar programs at other medical schools should be implemented to ensure that future physicians and pharmacists are comfortable with PrEP prescription

Perceived Versus Calculated HIV Risk: Implications for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Uptake in a Randomized Trial of Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BackgroundInaccurate HIV risk perception by men who have sex with men is a barrier to HIV prevention. Providing information about objective HIV risk could improve pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake.MethodsPrEP Accessibility Research & Evaluation 2 (PrEPARE2) was a randomized controlled trial of men who have sex with men to determine whether an objective risk score affects future PrEP uptake. Participants completed a baseline survey to assess demographics, risk behaviors, and HIV self-perceived risk (SPR). The survey generated a calculated HIV risk (CalcR) score, estimating HIV risk based on reported condomless anal intercourse and sexually transmitted infections, and was provided to individuals in the intervention arm. Participants were contacted 8 weeks later to determine whether they initiated PrEP.ResultsOf 171 participants (median age 32 years; 37% Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black; median 5 sexual partners in the past 6 months), 81% had heard of PrEP, and 57% believed they were good PrEP candidates. SPR had poor agreement with CalcR (kappa = 0.176) with 38% underestimating their HIV risk. At week 8, only 14 of 135 participants had initiated PrEP with no difference between arms (CalcR 11%, control 10%, P > 0.99). The most common reason for not starting PrEP was low HIV risk perception. There was a relative decrease in SPR over time (P = 0.06) but no difference between arms (P = 0.29).ConclusionProviding an objective HIV risk score alone did not increase PrEP uptake. HIV testing performed at testing sites may be a crucial time to correct misperceptions about risk and initiate same-day PrEP, given enthusiasm for PrEP on the testing day to facilitate greater uptake

Perceived Versus Calculated HIV Risk: Implications for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Uptake in a Randomized Trial of Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BACKGROUND: Inaccurate HIV risk perception by men who have sex with men is a barrier to HIV prevention. Providing information about objective HIV risk could improve pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake. METHODS: PrEP Accessibility Research & Evaluation 2 (PrEPARE2) was a randomized controlled trial of men who have sex with men to determine whether an objective risk score affects future PrEP uptake. Participants completed a baseline survey to assess demographics, risk behaviors, and HIV self-perceived risk (SPR). The survey generated a calculated HIV risk (CalcR) score, estimating HIV risk based on reported condomless anal intercourse and sexually transmitted infections, and was provided to individuals in the intervention arm. Participants were contacted 8 weeks later to determine whether they initiated PrEP. RESULTS: Of 171 participants (median age 32 years; 37% Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black; median 5 sexual partners in the past 6 months), 81% had heard of PrEP, and 57% believed they were good PrEP candidates. SPR had poor agreement with CalcR (kappa = 0.176) with 38% underestimating their HIV risk. At week 8, only 14 of 135 participants had initiated PrEP with no difference between arms (CalcR 11%, control 10%, P > 0.99). The most common reason for not starting PrEP was low HIV risk perception. There was a relative decrease in SPR over time (P = 0.06) but no difference between arms (P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Providing an objective HIV risk score alone did not increase PrEP uptake. HIV testing performed at testing sites may be a crucial time to correct misperceptions about risk and initiate same-day PrEP, given enthusiasm for PrEP on the testing day to facilitate greater uptake

Self-initiated continuation of and adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) after PrEP demonstration project roll-off in men who have sex with men: associations with risky decision making, impulsivity/disinhibition, and sensation seeking.

The objective of this study was to examine differences in the levels of risky decision making and other frontal system behavior constructs in relation to self-initiated continuance of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and PrEP adherence outcomes among men who have sex with men (MSM) following completion of a clinical PrEP trial. At the last PrEP trial visit, study provided PrEP was discontinued and participants were navigated to the community for PrEP continuation. In this cross-sectional analysis, 84/187 (45%) MSM who completed a prospective observational post-PrEP trial follow-up visit at the University of California San Diego were included. PrEP adherence was measured using dried blood spot tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) levels. Risky decision making was assessed using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), while impulsivity/disinhibition, sensation seeking, and substance use were assessed via standardized self-report questionnaires. A total of 58/84 (69%) of MSM who completed the 12-month post-study visit continued PrEP. Of those, n = 46 (79%) reached TFV-DP levels associated with adequate adherence. Individuals who elected to continue PrEP 12 months post-trial had riskier decision making on BART, but less impulsivity/disinhibition compared to individuals who did not continue PrEP. Neither risky decision making nor impulsivity/disinhibition/sensation seeking nor substance use correlated with PrEP adherence. Our findings suggest that those with risky decision making may have greater insight into their HIV risks, and therefore be more likely to continue to use PrEP. However, elevated impulsivity/disinhibition, indicative of greater neurobehavioral alterations, was negatively associated with PrEP continuance and is a potential target for future interventions to help people link to PrEP