BackgroundIn 2010, the iPrEx trial demonstrated that oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduced the risk of HIV acquisition among high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM). The impact of iPrEx on PrEP knowledge and actual use among at-risk MSM is unknown. Online surveys were conducted to assess PrEP awareness, interest and experience among at-risk MSM before and after iPrEx, and to determine demographic and behavioral factors associated with these measures.Methods and FindingsCross-sectional, national, internet-based surveys were administered to U.S. based members of the most popular American MSM social networking site 2 months before (n = 398) and 1 month after (n = 4 558) publication of iPrEx results. Comparisons were made between these samples with regards to PrEP knowledge, interest, and experience. Data were collected on demographics, sexual risk, and experience with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PrEP awareness, interest, and experience post-iPrEx. Most participants were white, educated, and indicated high-risk sexual behaviors. Awareness of PrEP was limited pre- and post-iPrEx (13% vs. 19%), whereas interest levels after being provided with a description of PrEP remained high (76% vs. 79%). PrEP use remained uncommon (0.7% vs. 0.9%). PrEP use was associated with PEP awareness (OR 7.46; CI 1.52–36.6) and PEP experience (OR 34.2; CI 13.3–88.4). PrEP interest was associated with older age (OR 1.01; CI 1.00–1.02), unprotected anal intercourse with ≥1 male partner in the prior 3 months (OR 1.40; CI 1.10–1.77), and perceiving oneself at increased risk for HIV acquisition (OR 1.20; CI 1.13–1.27).ConclusionsAmong MSM engaged in online networking, awareness of PrEP was limited 1 month after the iPrEx data were released. Utilization was low, although some MSM who reported high-risk behaviors were interested in using PrEP. Studies are needed to understand barriers to PrEP utilization by at-risk MSM.

No abstract

Introduction Recent nationally representative studies documenting event-level sexual behavior have included samples that are predominantly heterosexual, resulting in limited information on the sexual repertoire of gay and bisexually identified men. Aim This study sought to document the sexual behaviors that gay and bisexually identified men report during their most recent male-partnered sexual event and to describe the situational characteristics and participants' evaluation of these events. Methods Via an internet-based survey, data were collected from 24,787 gay and bisexually identified men (ages 18–87 years) from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Main Outcome Measures Measures included items related to sociodemographics, recent sexual behavior history, situational characteristics, orgasm, and ratings of arousal and pleasure. Results Participants' mean age was 39.2 years; ethnicities included white (84.6%), Latino (6.4%), and African American (3.6%); and most men (79.9%) identified as homosexual. The most commonly reported behavior was kissing a partner on the mouth (74.5%), followed by oral sex (72.7%), and partnered masturbation (68.4%). Anal intercourse occurred among less than half of participants (37.2%) and was most common among men ages 18–24 (42.7%). Sex was most likely to occur in the participant's home (46.8%), with less frequently reported locations including hotels (7.4%) and public spaces (3.1%). The number of behaviors engaged in during last sexual event varied with most (63.2%) including 5–9 different sexual behaviors. Conclusions These data provide one of the first examinations of sexual behaviors during the most recent male-partnered sexual event among gay and bisexually identified men in the United States. Findings from this study suggest that gay and bisexually identified men have a diverse sexual repertoire and that partnered sexual behaviors are not limited solely to acts of penile insertion.

Few comparative data are available internationally to examine health differences by transgender identity. A barrier to monitoring the health and well-being of transgender people is the lack of inclusion of measures to assess natal sex/gender identity status in surveys. Data were from a cross-sectional anonymous online survey of members (n > 36,000) of a sexual networking website targeting men who have sex with men in Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries/ territories in Latin America/the Caribbean, Portugal, and Spain. Natal sex/gender identity status was assessed using a two-step method (Step 1: assigned birth sex, Step 2: current gender identity). Male-to-female (MTF) and female-to-male (FTM) participants were compared to non-transgender males in age-adjusted regression models on socioeconomic status (SES) (education, income, sex work), masculine gender conformity, psychological health and well-being (lifetime suicidality, past-week depressive distress, positive self-worth, general self-rated health, gender related stressors), and sexual health (HIV-infection, past-year STIs, past-3 month unprotected anal or vaginal sex). The two-step method identified 190 transgender participants (0.54%; 158 MTF, 32 FTM). Of the 12 health-related variables, six showed significant differences between the three groups: SES, masculine gender conformity, lifetime suicidality, depressive distress, positive self-worth, and past-year genital herpes. A two-step approach is recommended for health surveillance efforts to assess natal sex/gender identity status. Cognitive testing to formally validate assigned birth sex and current gender identity survey items in Spanish and Portuguese is encouraged.

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.