No abstract

Background Women in Africa face disproportionate risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition, accounting for more than half of new infections in Africa and similarly face a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Very high STI prevalence is being observed globally, especially among people taking pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention. Doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (dPEP) has been proposed as an STI prevention strategy to reduce chlamydia, syphilis, and possibly gonorrhea, and trials are ongoing among cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women who are taking PrEP in high-income settings. We designed and describe here the first open-label trial to determine the effectiveness of dPEP to reduce STI incidence among cisgender women. Methods We are conducting an open-label 1:1 randomized trial of dPEP versus standard of care (STI screening and treatment and risk-reduction counseling without dPEP) among 446 Kenyan women aged ≥ 18 and ≤ 30 years old women taking PrEP. Women are followed for 12 months, with quarterly STI testing, treatment, and adherence counseling. The primary trial outcome will be the combined incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Treponema pallidum, compared between the randomized groups. We will also assess dPEP acceptability, tolerability, safety, impact on sexual behavior, adherence, and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis isolates. Finally, we will estimate cost per incident STI case and complications averted accounting for nonadherence and benefits relative AMR or side effects. Discussion The results of this trial may have immediate implications for the global epidemic of STIs and sexual health. If effective, dPEP could put STI prevention into women’s hands. While dPEP may be able to prevent STIs, it carries important risks that could counter its benefits; global debate about the balance of these potential risks and benefits requires data to inform policy and implementation and our study aims to fill this gap. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04050540.

No abstract

BackgroundGroup sex events (GSEs) are common among cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM), pose a unique risk profile for HIV and sexually transmitted disease (STD) transmission, and may be on the rise, in part because of Web-based networking platforms. However, collecting data on GSEs can be challenging, and many gaps exist in our knowledge about GSE participation among MSM.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop survey questions addressing aggregate and partner-specific group sex behaviors to measure prevalence of GSEs and associated risks in persons participating in Project Diagnostic Evaluation To Expand Critical Testing Technologies (DETECT), including MSM seeking HIV and STD testing at a public clinic in Seattle, Washington.MethodsWe developed a computer self-assisted survey that included questions about participant demographics, sexual history, and risk behaviors, including group sex, as a part of Project DETECT, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded study evaluating point-of-care HIV tests. Aggregate and partner-specific questions asked about participation in all GSEs, threesomes, and four-or-more-somes including questions about number and HIV status of sex partners and condom use during the events. To evaluate question performance, we assessed the discrepancies in reporting between the aggregate and partner-specific questions, quantified question refusal rates, and calculated the additional time required to answer the GSE questions. Information about network density (number of partnerships of overlapping duration) was estimated and compared for MSM who did and did not report GSEs.ResultsAmong 841 visits by 690 MSM who were asked any group sex survey question, participation in a GSE of any type in the past 3 months was reported at 293 visits (293/841, 34.8%). We found that 9.0% (76/841) of MSM in the sample reported ≥1 four-or-more-some in the partner-specific questions but did not report in the aggregate. The proportion of refusals on any given aggregate GSE-related question ranged from 0% (0/273) to 10.6% (15/141) (median 2.6%) and partner-specific questions ranged from 0% (0/143) to 22% (5/23) (median 3.0%), with questions about four-or-more-somes having the highest proportions of refusals. Completing the aggregate group sex questions added 1 to 2 minutes and the partner-specific questions added an additional 2 to 4 minutes per partner to the total survey length. As expected, the partner-specific GSE questions documented higher density of sexual networks that was not captured by asking about total partner counts and overlap of specific partnerships.ConclusionsWe found that the Project DETECT survey was able to obtain nuanced information about GSEs. The question skip patterns and consistency checks were effective, and survey fatigue was minimal. More research is needed on GSEs, and our survey represents a promising data collection tool to help fill gaps in knowledge about the subject.