Characteristics, sexual practices and sexually transmissible infections diagnoses of men who have sex with men and use non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis in Victoria, Australia
Jason J. Ong A B C * , Andre Landika B * , Christopher K. Fairley A B , Catriona Bradshaw A B , Marcus Chen A B , Tim R. H. Read A B and Eric P. F. Chow A BA Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, 580 Swanston Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia.
B Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: Jong@mshc.org.au
Sexual Health 13(6) 555-559 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH16092
Submitted: 12 April 2016 Accepted: 15 July 2016 Published: 19 August 2016
Abstract
Background: Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (NPEP) is available to people with a potential risk for HIV exposure within the preceding 72 h. We sought to determine if men who have sex with men (MSM) and receive NPEP had a significantly different risk profile (before the preceding 72 h) from MSM not receiving NPEP. If this is the case, NPEP consultations may act as a cue for also discussing pre-exposure prophylaxis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the demographic characteristics, sexual practices and clinical diagnoses of MSM who were NPEP users and those who were non-NPEP users attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre from January 2008 to December 2014. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the association between NPEP use and risk practices. Generalised estimating equations were used to adjust for within-individual correlations related to multiple visits of the same individual. Results: Of the 40 395 MSM consultations included in the study, 1776 consultations (4%) were related to NPEP prescription. NPEP prescribing was associated with ever having injected drugs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4–2.3), sex with males only (AOR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.6–2.3), more than three male partners in the past 3 months (AOR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.7) and inconsistent condom use with these partners within the past 3 months (AOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.9–2.4). Sex workers (AOR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9), and men reporting sex overseas within the past 12 months (AOR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6–0.8) were less likely to receive NPEP. MSM who used NPEP were more likely to test positive for any sexually transmissible infection (AOR 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.4). Conclusions: MSM receiving NPEP generally had a higher risk profile than MSM not requesting NPEP, indicating that NPEP was used by MSM at higher risk for HIV. Therefore, consultations for NPEP may be an opportune time for also discussing pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.
References
[1] Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, Srivastava PU, Marcus R, Abiteboul D, Heptonstall J, Ippolito G, Lot F, McKibben PS, Bell DM, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick Surveillance Group. A case–control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 1485–90.| A case–control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2Fis1Oltg%3D%3D&md5=6512cbe121ed667792123c47218d12a4CAS | 9366579PubMed |
[2] Moodley D, Moodley J, Coovadia H, Gray G, McIntyre J, Hofmyer J, Nikodem C, Hall D, Gigliotti M, Robinson P, Boshoff L, Sullivan JL, South African Intrapartum Nevirapine Trial (SAINT) Investigators. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of nevirapine versus a combination of zidovudine and lamivudine to reduce intrapartum and early postpartum mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Infect Dis 2003; 187 725–35.
| A multicenter randomized controlled trial of nevirapine versus a combination of zidovudine and lamivudine to reduce intrapartum and early postpartum mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXislKns7w%3D&md5=fdea2ba4426da818f21f51c84ee0bc6eCAS | 12599045PubMed |
[3] Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine. National guidelines for post-exposure prophylaxis after non-occupational exposure to HIV. Available from: www.ashm.org.au/Documents/Guid%20for%20%20the%20the%20Management%20of%20Occupational%20and%20Non-Occupational%20Post-Exposure%20Prophylaxis.pdf [verified 8 August 2016].
[4] Benn P, Fisher M, Kulasegaram R, BASHH Group PGWGCE UK guideline for the use of post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV following sexual exposure (2011). Int J STD AIDS 2011; 22 695–708.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BC387nslarsw%3D%3D&md5=2c23d4637a33de797421436de8688270CAS | 22174049PubMed |
[5] Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Updated Guidelines for antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV – United States, 2016. Available from: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/programresources/cdc-hiv-npep-guidelines.pdf [verified 8 August 2016].
[6] Guinot D, Ho MT, Poynten IM, McAllister J, Pierce A, Pell C, Grulich AE. Cost-effectiveness of HIV nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis in Australia. HIV Med 2009; 10 199–208.
| Cost-effectiveness of HIV nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1M3itVWjtw%3D%3D&md5=c652be0bc92b7864564b295c7dfd4e8dCAS | 19207598PubMed |
[7] Herida M, Larsen C, Lot F, Laporte A, Desenclos JC, Hamers FF. Cost-effectiveness of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis in France. AIDS 2006; 20 1753–61.
| Cost-effectiveness of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis in France.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16931940PubMed |
[8] Jain S, Oldenburg CE, Mimiaga MJ, Mayer KH. Subsequent HIV infection among men who have sex with men who used non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis at a Boston community health center: 1997–2013. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2015; 29 20–5.
| Subsequent HIV infection among men who have sex with men who used non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis at a Boston community health center: 1997–2013.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25369451PubMed |
[9] Donnell D, Mimiaga MJ, Mayer K, Chesney M, Koblin B, Coates T. Use of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis does not lead to an increase in high risk sex behaviors in men who have sex with men participating in the EXPLORE trial. AIDS Behav 2010; 14 1182–9.
| Use of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis does not lead to an increase in high risk sex behaviors in men who have sex with men participating in the EXPLORE trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20490908PubMed |
[10] US Public Health Service. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States – 2014. A clinical practice guideline. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prepguidelines2014.pdf [verified 8 August 2016].
[11] 11 Australasian Sexual Health Alliance. Australian STI management guidelines for use in primary care. 2016. Available from: http://www.sti.guidelines.org.au/ [verified 8 August 2016].
[12] Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med 2008; 3 17
| Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19087314PubMed |
[13] Gomez GB, Borquez A, Case KK, Wheelock A, Vassall A, Hankins C. The cost and impact of scaling up pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness modelling studies. PLoS Med 2013; 10 e1001401
| The cost and impact of scaling up pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness modelling studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23554579PubMed |
[14] Poynten IM, Jin F, Mao L, Prestage GP, Kippax SC, Kaldor JM, Imrie J, Grulich AE. Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis, subsequent risk behaviour and HIV incidence in a cohort of Australian homosexual men. AIDS 2009; 23 1119–26.
| Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis, subsequent risk behaviour and HIV incidence in a cohort of Australian homosexual men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19417578PubMed |
[15] Mehta SA, Silvera R, Bernstein K, Holzman RS, Aberg JA, Daskalakis DC. Awareness of post-exposure HIV prophylaxis in high-risk men who have sex with men in New York City. Sex Transm Infect 2011; 87 344–8.
| Awareness of post-exposure HIV prophylaxis in high-risk men who have sex with men in New York City.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21357600PubMed |
