Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at particular risk for HIV/sexually transmitted infections (STI). To investigate the European guidance used for MSM STI and HIV screening, risk level profiling and how this translated to practice, we conducted a questionnaire survey of leading physicians in the European branch of the International Union against Sexually Transmitted Infections (IUSTI). We identified that most European countries have limited guidance on screening intervals for MSM. Where risk profiling is advised, it is often left to clinicians to weight different behaviours and decide on screening frequency. Our results suggest that European MSM STI and HIV testing guidelines be developed with clear and specific recommendations around screening intervals and risk profiling. These guidelines will be particularly helpful due to rapidly evolving models of sexual healthcare, and the emergence of new providers who may benefit from guidelines that require less interpretation.

No abstract

TDM with anti-TNF's was collected. Logistic regression was used to predict factors influencing TDM use. Results 243 respondents participated (51.6% male) of which 237 respondents met inclusion criteria; treating >5 IBD patients and at least 1 with an anti-TNF per month. Of the total respondents, 45% were Consultant Gastroenterologists (GI), 40% IBD Nurse Specialists (CNS) and 15% GI Specialist Registrars (SPR). Of these 237 respondents, TDM was used by 95.7% for secondary loss of response; 71.4% for primary non-response and 53.6% used TDM proactively. Barriers for TDM use were time lag in receiving results (27.1%), lack of awareness of guidelines (15.6%), and cost (11.9%). Clinicians working at a teaching hospital were more likely to use TDM compared to a district hospital (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.71-9.8). IBD CNS and GI SPR used TDM more often, when compared to Consultant GI (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.69-10 & OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.3-7.2 respectively). Clinicians practising for >20 years were more likely to check TDM than less experienced clinicians (OR 4.1, 95% CI 0.4-41.8). Clinicians with large volume IBD practice (>50% IBD patients per month) were more likely to check TDM than those seeing fewer IBD patients (OR 45.6,. Proactive TDM was more likely to be used by clinicians working in a tertiary care setting (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84-6.05), IBD CNS (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.1), clinicians managing large volume IBD practice (OR 10.8, 95% CI 1.2-90) and clinicians with 5-9 years of experience in practice (OR 2.6 & CI 1.04-6.42). Conclusions Large volume IBD centres with more experience of treating IBD patients are more likely to employ treatmentoptimising strategies with TDM. Significant barriers to TDM implementation in the UK are time lag from test to result, lack of awareness of current guidelines and evolving knowledge, cost and less experience. Validation of point of care testing, lower cost assays, and wider dissemination of current evolving paradigms with updated recommendations may further optimise treatment with anti-TNF therapies.