Pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in the Amsterdam Cohort Studies: Use, eligibility, and intention to use

Coyer, Liza; Bilsen, Ward van; Bil, Janneke P.; Davidovich, Udi; Hoornenborg, Elske; Prins, Maria; Matser, Amy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205663

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the type of PrEP use, previous studies in Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia found that between 23.5% and 48% of the participants preferred non-daily PrEP [12,[28][29][30][31]. A single-centre study in France found the preference for on-demand PrEP to be as high as 75.6% [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Factors associated with the informal use of HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis in Germany: a cross‐sectional study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Until September 2019, pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine for HIV prevention was not covered by health insurance plans in Germany, and was only available through private prescriptions with self‐pay or through informal non‐prescription sources. The objective of this study was to investigate the proportion of informal PrEP use among PrEP users and to identify factors of public health relevance that might be associated with informal PrEP use. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional study recruiting PrEP users independent of their PrEP source. Clients from anonymous community testing checkpoints, users of three dating apps for men who have sex with men residing in Germany and users of a PrEP community website, were recruited to complete a short anonymous online survey. Participants were recruited between 24 July and 3 September 2018. The results were analysed using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions. Results We recruited 2005 participants currently using PrEP. The median age was 38 years, and 80.3% of the participants identified themselves as male (missing: 19.1%). Overall, 71.6% obtained PrEP through medical services with a private prescription or a clinical trial, and 17.4% obtained PrEP through informal sources (missing: 11.0%). The most common informal sources were ordering online from another country (8.8%), travel abroad (3.6%), and friends (2.5%). Factors associated with informal PrEP use were on demand/intermittent dosing (adjusted OR: 3.5, 95% CI 2.5 to 5.0) and not receiving medical tests during PrEP use (adjusted OR: 3.2, 95% CI 2.0 to 5.2). In addition, informal PrEP users who did not take PrEP daily had a strongly increased risk of starting PrEP without prior medical tests (adjusted stratum‐specific OR = 31.7, 95% CI 4.6 to 219.5). Conclusions Informal PrEP use was associated with a higher risk of not getting tested before and during PrEP use, which could lead to HIV infections resistant to tenofovir and emtricitabine if people with undiagnosed HIV use PrEP. Health insurance plans that cover PrEP and the accompanying routine tests could ensure adequate medical supervision of PrEP users and reduce barriers to PrEP use. Our findings strongly support the implementation of PrEP programmes in countries with similar patterns of informal PrEP use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Factors associated with the informal use of HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis in Germany: a cross‐sectional study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Potential applicants interested in PrEP could have perceived their chance of inclusion as low and thus were discouraged from participating, implying that the number of those actually interested in initiating PrEP in Amsterdam are higher than the number of applicants to the AMPrEP project. Currently, few data on intention to use PrEP in the Netherlands have been published and only crude estimates of the number of MSM willing to take PrEP are available .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Men who have sex with men more often chose daily than event‐driven use of pre‐exposure prophylaxis: baseline analysis of a demonstration study in Amsterdam

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe Amsterdam PrEP project is a prospective, open‐label demonstration study at a large sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic. We examined the uptake of PrEP; the baseline characteristics of men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender persons initiating PrEP; their choices of daily versus event‐driven PrEP and the determinants of these choices.MethodsFrom August 2015 through May 2016, enrolment took place at the STI clinic of the Public Health Service of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. MSM or transgender persons were eligible if they had at least one risk factor for HIV infection within the preceding six months. Participants were offered a choice between daily or event‐driven use of tenofovir/emtricitabine. Baseline data were analysed using descriptive statistics and multivariable analysis was employed to determine variables associated with daily versus event‐driven PrEP.ResultsOnline applications were submitted by 870 persons, of whom 587 were invited for a screening visit. Of them, 415 were screened for eligibility and 376 initiated PrEP. One quarter (103/376, 27%) chose event‐driven PrEP. Prevalence of bacterial STI was 19.0% and mean condomless anal sex (CAS) episodes in the preceding three months were 11. In multivariable analysis, older age (≥45 vs. ≤34, aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.9), being involved in a steady relationship (aOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.7), no other daily medication use (aOR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9), and fewer episodes of CAS (per log increase aOR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) were determinants for choosing event‐driven PrEP.DiscussionPrEP programmes are becoming one of the more important intervention strategies with the goal of reducing incident HIV‐infection and we were unable to accommodate many of the persons applying for this study. Offering a choice of dosing regimen to PrEP users may enable further personalization of HIV prevention strategies and enhance up‐take, adherence and cost‐effectiveness.ConclusionsThe majority of participants preferred daily versus event‐driven use. Within this majority, a high number of CAS episodes before PrEP initiation was reported and we observed a high prevalence of STI. Determinants of choosing event‐driven PrEP were older age, fewer CAS episodes, no other daily medication use, and involved in a steady relationship.

show abstract

“…Despite these developments, PrEP uptake has been slow. As for the Netherlands, a recent estimation showed that only a small proportion of PrEP‐eligible MSM actually used PrEP in 2017 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motives for choosing, switching and stopping daily or event‐driven pre‐exposure prophylaxis – a qualitative analysis

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction In settings where both daily and event‐driven pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are offered to men who have sex with men (MSM), a clear understanding of the motives to choose between the different dosing‐regimens can facilitate more effective PrEP implementation. We therefore studied the motives for choosing for, switching between, and stopping daily or event‐driven PrEP. Methods We used data (August 2015‐June 2017) from the prospective, longitudinal, open‐label Amsterdam PrEP demonstration study, in which daily (dPrEP) and event‐driven PrEP (edPrEP) were offered to 374 HIV‐negative MSM and two transgender persons. Participants self‐selected the preferred PrEP‐regimen at baseline and could switch regimens at three‐monthly follow‐up visits. We measured motives for choosing PrEP‐regimen at baseline and for switching and stopping PrEP at follow‐up visits. Open‐ and closed‐end items were combined and qualitatively analysed. Results Choices of PrEP‐regimens were determined by personal and contextual factors, involving the perceived self‐efficacy concerning adherence, the risk‐context, and the anticipated impact of PrEP on physical and sexual wellbeing. dPrEP was preferred because of the anticipated better adherence and the fear of side‐effects relating to edPrEP re‐initiations. Moreover, dPrEP was perceived to be more effective than edPrEP. Motives to choose edPrEP were the expected physical burden of dPrEP, anticipated side‐effects of dPrEP, and fear to forget daily doses. Regarding the risk‐context: dPrEP was preferred for unplanned and/or frequent sex, while edPrEP was chosen when risk was predictable and/or less frequent. While some chose for dPrEP to gain more sexual freedom, others chose for edPrEP to minimize sexual risk episodes. Changes in the above factors, such as changing risk patterns, changing relationships or changing physical conditions, resulted in switching regimens. Choices to stop PrEP were related to lower sexual risk, adherence issues and side‐effects. Conclusions The great diversity of motives illustrates the importance of offering a choice of PrEP‐regimens. In counselling of MSM starting PrEP, choices for PrEP‐regimens may be addressed as a continuum of flexible and changeable options over time. This may help individuals choose the PrEP‐regimen that best fits their current sexual context, priorities and personal capabilities and therefore will be more easily adhered to.

show abstract

Pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in the Amsterdam Cohort Studies: Use, eligibility, and intention to use

Cited by 30 publications

References 12 publications

Factors associated with the informal use of HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis in Germany: a cross‐sectional study

Factors associated with the informal use of HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis in Germany: a cross‐sectional study

Men who have sex with men more often chose daily than event‐driven use of pre‐exposure prophylaxis: baseline analysis of a demonstration study in Amsterdam

Motives for choosing, switching and stopping daily or event‐driven pre‐exposure prophylaxis – a qualitative analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About