ObjectivesAs trials were assessing the safety and efficacy of daily oral antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of HIV infection, there was a clear need to understand the evolution of knowledge of, and attitudes toward, PrEP among primary care clinicians.MethodsPhysicians and nurse practitioners were surveyed in 2009 (n = 1500), 2010 (n = 1504), 2012 (n = 1503), 2013 (n = 1507), 2014 (n = 1508) and 2015 (n = 1501) to assess their awareness of PrEP, willingness to prescribe PrEP, and whether they support use of public funds to pay for PrEP. Pharmacists (n = 251) were surveyed about PrEP in 2012 only. Descriptive statistics were computed for physician demographics and PrEP-related questions. Prevalence ratios for willingness to prescribe PrEP were computed using Poisson regression analysis.ResultsAwareness of PrEP was low among clinicians (2009: 24%, 2010: 29%) but increased after trials reported effectiveness (2012: 49%, 2013: 51%, 2014: 61%, 2015: 66%). Following a description of PrEP with an estimated effectiveness of 75%, across 6 of the study years 91% of clinicians indicated a willingness to prescribe PrEP to at least one group at high risk of HIV acquisition. A smaller majority of clinicians indicated support for public funding of PrEP in 2009: 59%, 2010: 53%, and 2013: 63%.ConclusionsIn surveys conducted before and after the release of PrEP trial results, primary care clinicians were largely unaware of PrEP. They indicated high levels of willingness to prescribe it for patients at high risk of HIV acquisition and expressed interest in education about how to deliver this new clinical HIV prevention method. It will be important to continue monitoring clinician knowledge, attitudes, and practices as the use of PrEP increases in the US.
Our analytic method provides the only feasible means to monitor PrEP uptake in the United States. Although a marked increasing trend in uptake was observed for men, the number of women who used PrEP remained very low during the study period. Interventions are needed to increase PrEP use by women at substantial risk of acquiring HIV infection.
The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States. Whereas racial and ethnic disparities in severe COVID-19-associated outcomes, including mortality, have been documented (1-3), less is known about populationbased disparities in infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In addition, although persons aged <30 years account for approximately one third of reported infections, § there is limited information on racial and ethnic disparities in infection among young persons over time and by sex and age. Based on 689,672 U.S. COVID-19 cases reported to CDC's case-based surveillance system by jurisdictional health departments, racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 incidence among persons aged <25 years in 16 U.S. jurisdictions ¶ were described by age group and sex and across three periods during January 1-December 31, 2020. During January-April, COVID-19 incidence was substantially higher among most racial and ethnic minority groups compared with that among non-Hispanic White (White) persons (rate ratio [RR] range = 1.09-4.62). During May-August, the RR increased from 2.49 to 4.57 among non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NH/PI) persons but decreased among other racial and ethnic minority groups (RR range = 0.52-2.82). Decreases in disparities were observed during September-December (RR range = 0.37-1.69); these decreases were largely because of a greater increase in incidence among White persons, rather than a decline in incidence among racial and ethnic minority groups. NH/PI,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.