Introduction: In March 2020, Australian state and federal governments introduced physical distancing measures alongside widespread testing to combat COVID-19. These measures may decrease people's sexual contacts and thus reduce the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmissible infections (STIs). We investigated the impact of physical distancing measures due to COVID-19 on the sexual behavior of gay and bisexual men in Australia. Methods: Between April 4, 2020, and April 29, 2020, 940 participants in an ongoing cohort study responded to questions to measure changes in sexual behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Men reported the date they become concerned about COVID-19 and whether they engaged in sexual behavior with regular or casual partners or “fuckbuddies” in the 6 months before becoming concerned about COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as “before COVID-19”), and following the date, they become concerned about COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as “since COVID-19”). Before and since COVID-19 was based on individual participants' own perceived date of becoming concerned about COVID-19. Results: The mean age of was 39.9 years (SD: 13.4). Most participants (88.3%) reported sex with other men during the 6 months before COVID-19. Of the 587 men (62.4%) who reported sex with casual partners before COVID-19, 93 (15.8%) continued to do so in the period since COVID-19, representing a relative reduction of 84.2%. Conclusion: Gay and bisexual men in Australia have dramatically reduced their sexual contacts with other men since COVID-19. These behavioral changes will likely result in short-term reductions in new HIV and STI diagnoses. If sexual health screenings are undertaken before resuming sexual activity, this could present a novel opportunity to interrupt chains of HIV and STI transmission.

Despite high levels of efficacy, the implementation of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as a strategy to prevent new HIV infection has been slow. Studies show that PrEP works so long as it is taken, making adherence one of the great challenges of effective PrEP implementation alongside issues of access and uptake. Given that effective PrEP use requires ongoing self-administration of pills by people at high risk of HIV acquisition, it is a strategy best understood not as simply biomedical, but as biobehavioral or biopsychosocial, meaning that that social, psychological, cultural, and structural factors all contribute to the success or failure of the intervention. The willingness of people at risk of HIV to take up and adhere to PrEP depends greatly upon social understandings – whether it is seen as effective, as a healthy option, and a socially acceptable strategy for preventing HIV. Stigma – unfavorable associations – can negatively influence the implementation of PrEP. Because it is associated with high-risk sexual activity, PrEP risks multiple stigmas that can differ according to specific cultural conditions. This includes the stigma of being related to HIV (which may also relate to other stigmas, such as homosexuality, sex work, and/or drug use) and the stigma of PrEP being an alternative to condoms (as condom use is associated with responsible sexual activity). PrEP-related stigma has emerged as a significant social harm that can arise from PrEP research participation, reported by trial participants from a range of different trial sites, different trial populations, and spanning different continents. Social marketing needs to redress PrEP-related stigmas through health promotion campaigns aimed at clinicians, HIV-affected communities, and people at high risk of HIV who might benefit from PrEP access. PrEP access needs to be reframed as a positive and responsible option to help people remain HIV-negative.

Abstract Bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been increasing over the past 2 decades in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. With the widespread use of early human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, which virtually eliminates transmission risk, and the availability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, there have been attitudinal changes regarding HIV infection with resultant increases in sexual contact and declines in condom use. Doxycycline is used for primary prophylaxis in a number of infectious diseases. We conducted a state-of-the-art review to examine the current state of research, knowledge gaps, and challenges around the use of doxycycline prophylaxis to prevent syphilis and other STIs. International academic and government experts met in March 2019 to frame the initial inquiry, which was supplemented by focused literature searches. Two small short-term randomized controlled trials examining doxycycline prophylaxis found high efficacy. Five additional clinical studies are underway or in development. Studies differed in design, population, outcomes, and safety measures. Doxycycline prophylaxis for bacterial STIs shows promise. Better and more robust data are needed on efficacy; target population; community acceptability; behavioral risk compensation; doxycycline dose, regimen, and formulation; long-term safety; antimicrobial resistance; cost-effectiveness; and risk–benefit.

Background Digital proximity tracing apps were rolled out early in the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries to complement conventional contact tracing. Empirical evidence about their benefits for pandemic response remains scarce. We evaluated the effectiveness and usefulness of COVIDSafe, Australia's national smartphone-based proximity tracing app for COVID-19. Methods In this prospective study, done in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, we included all individuals in the state who were older than 12 years with confirmed, locally acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection between May 4 and Nov 4, 2020. We used data from the NSW Notifiable Conditions Information Management System, the national COVIDSafe database, and information from case interviews, including information on app usage, the number of app-suggested contacts, and the number of app-suggested contacts determined by public health staff to be actual close contacts. We calculated the positive predictive value and sensitivity of COVIDSafe, its additional contact yield, and the number of averted public exposure events. Semi-structured interviews with public health staff were done to assess the app's perceived usefulness. Findings There were 619 confirmed COVID-19 cases with more than 25 300 close contacts identified by conventional contact tracing during the study period. COVIDSafe was used by 137 (22%) cases and detected 205 contacts, 79 (39%) of whom met the close contact definition. Its positive predictive value was therefore 39%. 35 (15%) of the 236 close contacts who could have been expected to have been using the app during the study period were identified by the app, making its estimated sensitivity 15%. 79 (0·3%) of the estimated 25 300 contacts in NSW were app-suggested and met the close contact definition. The app detected 17 (<0·1%) additional close contacts who were not identified by conventional contact tracing. COVIDSafe generated a substantial additional perceived workload for public health staff and was not considered useful. Interpretation The low uptake of the app among cases probably led to a reduced sensitivity estimate in our study, given that only contacts who were using the app could be detected. COVIDSafe was not sufficiently effective to make a meaningful contribution to the COVID-19 response in Australia's most populous state over a 6 month period. We provide an empirical evaluation of this digital contact tracing app that questions the potential benefits of digital contact tracing apps to the public health response to COVID-19. Effectiveness evaluations should be integrated into future implementations of proximity contact tracing systems to justify their investment. Funding New South Wales Ministry of Health (Australia); National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)