Abstract
Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for nearly 70% of new HIV diagnoses, with young black MSM at the highest risk for infection in the United States. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can decrease HIV acquisition in at-risk individuals by over 90%. However, therapeutic efficacy requires a daily pill, posing adherence challenges. Experimental modalities, including injectable PrEP given once every two months, may improve adherence among those most in need. To assess interest in and preference for injectable PrEP, an online survey was mounted on two popular MSM sexual networking apps. Differences by age, race, and other characteristics were examined using multinomial logistic regressions. Of 4,638 respondents, 73% expressed interest in injectable PrEP and 47% indicated they would prefer an injection (compared to 17% who prefer a daily pill and 36% who were unsure). Within this sample, interest in and preference for injectable PrEP was highest among MSM at highest risk for HIV infection (i.e., younger age groups, racial/ethnic minorities, those with risker sexual behavior). As a result, if proven effective in clinical trials, injectable PrEP has the potential to reduce social disparities in HIV transmission among MSM.
Keywords: HIV transmission, men who have sex with men, youth, racial/ethnic minorities, pre-exposure prophylaxis
INTRODUCTION
In 2015, nearly 40,000 people were diagnosed with HIV in the United States (U.S.), with men who have sex with men (MSM) accounting for nearly 70% of these infections (1). Important HIV transmission disparities exist, particularly by race and age. Blacks represent 12% of the U.S. population but account for 40% of HIV cases among MSM. Moreover, while HIV diagnoses among white MSM have fallen by 18% over the last decade, they rose by over 20% among black and Hispanic MSM (2). Gaps in the age of diagnosis have also grown. Adolescents and young adults (ages 13 to 29) represent over 40% of all new cases of HIV; 80% of youth diagnoses occur in young men who have sex with men (YMSM) (2). Black YMSM are at the highest risk for HIV infection in the U.S. Despite this subpopulation being the focus of enhanced HIV prevention initiatives (3), disparities persist.
In addition to behavioral risk reduction, pharmacological pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has the potential to effectively curtail new transmissions by protecting uninfected individuals from HIV transmission (4, 5). Currently, the only U.S. FDA-approved and recommended formulation of PrEP is the once daily, oral antiretroviral combination pill consisting of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF/FTC). When taken as prescribed, PrEP users can decrease their risk for HIV infection by over 90% compared to non-users (4). However, maximizing the efficacy of PrEP can only be achieved through consistent medication adherence. In the intention-to-treat analysis of the 2010 iPrEx study, PrEP lowered HIV transmission among MSM and transgender women by 44% (6). Further, the as-treated analysis for iPrEx demonstrated that participants with TDF/FTC blood levels indicative of four or more pills per week had 92% lower transmission (6). This was subsequently supported by findings from the 2015 open-label extension (iPrEx OLE), which found that no participants with TDF/FTC blood levels indicative of four or more pills per week contracted HIV, demonstrating the importance of good adherence (7).
The CDC estimates that almost half a million U.S. MSM are PrEP candidates, however PrEP has not been scaled up to achieve a population-wide impact (8). In spite of reinforced evidence of PrEP’s ability to reduce the risk for HIV acquisition, PrEP uptake initially remained low due to limited awareness and access barriers (9). Between 2012 and 2015, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Foster City, CA), the sole manufacturer of TDF/FTC in the U.S., reported nearly 50,000 new PrEP prescriptions, an increase of over 500%, but with prominent discrepancies: only 7.5% of new users were under the age of 25 and only 10% were black (10).
Individuals who initiate daily oral PrEP may continue to face challenges related to adherence, particularly younger people (11). In order to offset adherence barriers, new PrEP modalities will need to alleviate challenges specific to daily oral therapy, including remembering to take a pill consistently. The safety and acceptability of injectable PrEP, or cabotegravir, has been established (12,13), and large-scale randomized controlled trials comparing injectable PrEP to a daily oral pill is underway to establish its efficacy among MSM (i.e., HPTN 083) and heterosexual women (i.e., HPTN 084) (14). Injectable PrEP has the potential to prevent unintended dosing interruptions because an injection would only be required once every two months according to the current regimen under study (14). Few studies have analyzed the perceived acceptability of injectable PrEP, particularly among those subpopulations most at risk for HIV (15–17), and to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined acceptability of and preferences for injectable PrEP since trials have been undertaken and publicized. Understanding how to facilitate the incorporation of alternative medication regimens into individuals’ schedules and lifestyles is essential to reducing HIV transmission.
The aim of this study was to assess differences in interest in and preference for oral vs injectable PrEP, and for reasons for not being interested in injectable PrEP, among a national sample of MSM in the U.S. Moreover, we examined variances in interest and preference by sociodemographics—particularly age and race/ethnicity—and behavioral factors, given the disproportionate burden of new infections in racial and ethnic minorities and in the young.
METHODS
Participants and Procedures
Data were collected from an anonymous online survey of adult (18 years of age or older) members of two MSM social/sexual networking apps. The study protocol and survey, conducted over 10 days in March 2016, was developed in collaboration with researchers at academic institutions, a community health center specializing in the care of MSM, and key personnel working with social/sexual networking platforms. A link to the survey was sent to desktop, mobile web and mobile app users who had been active in the past 90 days. In total, 16,466 members clicked the provided link to the survey, 4,638 of whom consented and were eligible. Eligibility included: being 18 years of age or older, being assigned male sex at birth and/or identifying as male (i.e., cis-man, transgender man or transgender woman), ever having sex with another man, and being HIV-uninfected or not knowing one’s HIV status. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The Fenway Institute of Fenway Health in Boston, MA.
Study Instrument
In addition to sociodemographics, the measures for this study included history of PrEP use, interest in diverse PrEP modalities, and sexual risk behaviors. Participants took an average of 10 minutes to complete the survey. At the end of the survey, those who wished to be entered into a raffle for a chance to win one of three iPads were taken to a page separate from their survey responses to provide an email address.
Sociodemographics
Sociodemographics included age, race/ethnicity, health insurance status, education, and employment status.
Sexual and Condom Use Behaviors
Sexual and condom-use behaviors were measured using items adapted from previous MSM research studies (18) and included an inquiry of the number of male sexual partners in the past three months. Individuals who reported any intercourse with males in the past three months (i.e., “sexually active”) were asked the number of times they had condomless anal sex (CAS) with these partners. Respondents were then classified as: no CAS, one time, or two or more times.
PrEP Use and Modality Preferences
Prior PrEP use was assessed by asking: “Have you ever heard about PrEP (i.e., pre-exposure prophylaxis, medication taken by mouth BEFORE sex as protection against HIV infection)?” Those who responded affirmatively were then asked if they had ever taken PrEP. Participants were also provided with a short description of injectable PrEP: “Another form of PrEP that is currently being tested is an injection, or a shot, given by a doctor or nurse every two months. Instead of taking a pill by mouth every day, studies are underway to determine if having a shot every two months will offer protection against HIV.” Individuals were then asked how interested they would be in injectable PrEP (categorized into: very/somewhat interested vs neutral or somewhat/very uninterested), reasons they might not be interested in this modality (informed by our prior formative study (19)), level of difficulty of taking injectable PrEP compared to a daily pill as prescribed, and their preference for injectable PrEP compared to a daily, oral pill (categorized into: prefer injectable vs unsure vs. prefer daily pill).
Statistical Analysis
Response percentages were calculated overall, as well as by interest in and preference for injectable PrEP, for sociodemographic characteristics and sexual behaviors. Chi-squared tests were performed to examine differences in these measures by interest in and preference for injectable PrEP. To examine independent correlates of interest in and preference for injectable PrEP, multivariable binomial and multinomial logistic regression models were fit, respectively. All analyses were done in SAS v9.3.
As is common in online surveys, attrition occurred throughout the questionnaire. As a result, many sociodemographic characteristics, which were asked at the end of the survey, had substantial missing data. However, given the exploratory and descriptive nature of this study, we did not impute missing data, and missing observations were excluded.
RESULTS
Of the 4,638 who completed the survey, participants came from all 50 states, Washington DC, and four U.S. territories. Sample characteristics are described in Table I. Briefly, 10.6% were 18 to 21 years old, 14.9% were 22 to 25 years old, and 13.7% were 26 to 29 years old. Nearly half of the respondents (47.7%) identified as white, 25.1% as black and 11.4% as Hispanic. One in eight (11.9%) did not have any health insurance and 16.1% had public health insurance (e.g., Medicaid/Medicare). More than half (52.8%) reported CAS two or more times in the past three months. Approximately 15% reported ever having used oral PrEP.
Table I.
Sample Characteristics
| Measure | N | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (n = 4638) | 18–21 | 490 | 10.6 |
| 22–25 | 690 | 14.9 | |
| 26–29 | 636 | 13.7 | |
| 30–39 | 1056 | 22.8 | |
| 40–49 | 772 | 16.6 | |
| 50+ | 944 | 21.4 | |
|
| |||
| Race/ethnicity (n = 3397) | White | 1619 | 47.7 |
| Black | 854 | 25.1 | |
| Hispanic | 386 | 11.4 | |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 244 | 7.2 | |
| Multiracial | 244 | 7.2 | |
| Other | 50 | 1.5 | |
|
| |||
| Insurance status (n = 3326) | No insurance | 397 | 11.9 |
| Private | 1983 | 59.6 | |
| Public | 535 | 16.1 | |
| Other | 411 | 12.4 | |
|
| |||
| Educational attainment (n = 3384) | High school/GED or less | 1377 | 40.7 |
| College graduate | 1193 | 35.2 | |
| Graduate/professional degree | 814 | 24.1 | |
|
| |||
| Employment status (n = 3355) | Full-time employment | 1243 | 37.0 |
| Not full-time employment | 2112 | 63.0 | |
|
| |||
| Country of birth (n = 3364) | United States | 2976 | 88.5 |
| Outside United States | 388 | 11.5 | |
|
| |||
| Number of condomless anal sex acts, past 3 months (n = 3502) | 0 | 1281 | 36.6 |
| 1 | 371 | 10.6 | |
| 2+ | 1850 | 52.8 | |
|
| |||
| Oral PrEP experienced (n = 4630) | No | 3941 | 85.1 |
| Yes | 689 | 14.9 | |
Interest in Injectable PrEP
Over two-thirds of respondents (73.2%) expressed interest in injectable PrEP; 44.7% were very interested and 28.5% were somewhat interested. Among those not interested in injectable PrEP, common reasons included: concern about long-acting side effects (50.8%), dislike of needles (30.0%), and dislike of having a foreign substance injected into their body (18.4%). Less common reasons were: not feeling that they need it (14.4%) and not thinking it would work (7.8%). In bivariate analyses (Table II), individuals who were interested in injectable PrEP were significantly more likely to: be 26–29 years old or 30–39 years old compared to 18–21 years old; be black or Hispanic compared to white; have completed high school or less compared to graduating college; report more CAS; and be oral PrEP experienced. In the multivariable model (Table II), participants who reported being interested in injectable PrEP had higher odds of: being younger (e.g., aOR 18–21 vs. 50+ = 1.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.32); being black (aOR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.09) or Hispanic (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.09) compared to white; engaging in more CAS (aOR for 2+ vs 0 = 1.74, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08); and previously using oral PrEP (aOR = 2.64, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.49). Those who reported being interested in injectable PrEP had lower odds of: being a college graduate (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) compared to having less education than college.
Table II.
Factors Associated with Interest in Injectable PrEP, Bivariate and Multivariable1
| Measure | Bivariate | Multivariable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| N (%) | p | aOR (95% CI) | p | ||
| Age | 18–21 | 306 (63.7) | 0.004 | 1.55 (1.03, 2.32) | 0.037 |
| 22–25 | 468 (68.9) | 1.54 (1.11, 2.12) | 0.009 | ||
| 26–29 | 447 (71.4) | 1.37 (1.00, 1.88) | 0.049 | ||
| 30–39 | 749 (72.2) | 1.30 (1.01, 1.68) | 0.040 | ||
| 40–49 | 509 (66.8) | 0.99 (0.77, 1.27) | 0.940 | ||
| 50+ | 650 (66.5) | 1.0 | |||
|
| |||||
| Race/ethnicity | White | 1148 (71.7) | <0.001 | 1.0 | |
| Black | 670 (79.9) | 1.44 (1.14, 1.82) | 0.002 | ||
| Hispanic | 304 (80.4) | 1.53 (1.11, 2.09) | 0.009 | ||
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 178 (73.6) | 1.16 (0.79, 1.71) | 0.443 | ||
| Multiracial | 181 (74.2) | 1.02 (0.72, 1.44) | 0.901 | ||
| Other | 37 (75.5) | 0.90 (0.45, 1.80) | 0.773 | ||
|
| |||||
| Insurance status | No insurance | 300 (76.1) | 0.222 | 1.0 | |
| Private | 1453 (73.9) | 0.95 (0.71, 1.26) | 0.712 | ||
| Public | 407 (78.1) | 1.24 (0.89, 1.73) | 0.201 | ||
| Other | 309 (76.1) | 0.97 (0.69, 1.36) | 0.850 | ||
|
| |||||
| Educational attainment | High school/GED or less | 1050 (77.5) | 0.014 | 1.0 | |
| College graduate | 854 (72.5) | 0.79 (0.64, 0.97) | 0.022 | ||
| Graduate/professional degree | 602 (74.6) | 0.97 (0.77, 1.23) | 0.804 | ||
|
| |||||
| Employment status | Full-time | 916 (74.8) | 0.777 | 1.0 | |
| Not full-time | 1569 (75.2) | 1.17 (0.97, 1.43) | 0.108 | ||
|
| |||||
| Country of birth | United States | 2204 (75.1) | 0.955 | 1.0 | |
| Outside United States | 287 (74.9) | 0.90 (0.67, 1.20) | 0.467 | ||
|
| |||||
| Condomless anal sex acts, past 3 months | 0 | 842 (67.3) | <0.001 | 1.0 | |
| 1 | 288 (79.3) | 1.70 (1.27, 2.28) | <0.0001 | ||
| 2+ | 1461 (79.5) | 1.74 (1.46, 2.08) | <0.0001 | ||
|
| |||||
| Oral PrEP experienced | Yes | 563 (82.2) | <0.001 | 2.64 (2.00, 3.49) | <0.0001 |
| No | 2566 (66.3) | 1.0 | |||
Dependent variable=Being very or somewhat interested in injectable PrEP, compared to being neutral, somewhat or very uninterested
Preference for Injectable PrEP Vs Daily Pill
Nearly half (47.2%) of respondents indicated that they would prefer injectable PrEP compared to 16.8% who preferred a daily pill and 36.0% who were unsure; moreover, 47.0% also indicated that injectable PrEP would be less difficult than a daily pill to take as prescribed. In bivariate analyses (Table III), participants that preferred injectable PrEP were significantly more likely to: be younger; be black or Hispanic compared to white; have completed high school or less compared to graduating college; be born outside of the U.S.; and engage in more CAS. In the multivariable, multinomial model (Table III), respondents who reported preferring injectable PrEP to oral PrEP had higher odds of: being younger (e.g., aOR 18–21 vs. 50+ = 1.71, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.79); being black (aOR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.12) or Hispanic (aOR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.12) compared to white; engaging in more CAS (aOR for 2+ vs 0 = 1.52, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.91); and being oral PrEP experienced (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.89). Compared to those who preferred a daily oral pill, those who reported being unsure about their preference had higher odds of being oral PrEP experienced (aOR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23).
Table III.
Factors Associated with Preference for Injectable PrEP, Bivariate and Multivariable
| Measure | Bivariate | Multivariable1 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Prefer Injectable PrEP | Unsure | Prefer Oral Pill | p | Prefer Injectable PrEP aOR (95% CI) | p | Unsure aOR (95% CI) | p | ||
|
| |||||||||
| N (%) | |||||||||
| Age | 18–21 | 170 (53.3) | 96 (30.1) | 53 (16.6) | <0.001 | 1.71 (1.05, 2.79) | 0.031 | 0.98 (0.58, 1.65) | 0.943 |
| 22–25 | 258 (49.3) | 185 (35.4) | 80 (15.3) | 1.71 (1.14, 2.55) | 0.010 | 1.32 (0.87, 1.99) | 0.188 | ||
| 26–29 | 278 (52.2) | 175 (32.8) | 80 (15.0) | 1.97 (1.33, 2.93) | 0.001 | 1.18 (0.78, 1.77) | 0.444 | ||
| 30–39 | 474 (52.7) | 311 (34.6) | 115 (12.8) | 1.94 (1.41, 2.68) | <0.001 | 1.19 (0.85, 1.66) | 0.303 | ||
| 40–49 | 280 (43.1) | 238 (36.6) | 132 (20.3) | 1.11 (0.81, 1.51) | 0.528 | 0.87 (0.64, 1.20) | 0.403 | ||
| 50+ | 327 (38.0) | 358 (41.6) | 176 (20.4) | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Race/ethnicity | White | 635 (42.0) | 594 (39.3) | 282 (18.7) | <0.001 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Black | 423 (52.7) | 275 (34.3) | 104 (13.0) | 1.58 (1.17, 2.12) | 0.003 | 1.30 (0.95, 1.77) | 0.097 | ||
| Hispanic | 213 (58.4) | 100 (27.4) | 52 (14.2) | 1.45 (1.00, 2.12) | 0.053 | 0.90 (0.60, 1.36) | 0.626 | ||
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 102 (44.2) | 94 (40.7) | 35 (15.2) | 1.18 (0.71, 1.96) | 0.513 | 1.36 (0.81, 2.28) | 0.244 | ||
| Multiracial | 113 (49.3) | 75 (32.8) | 41 (17.9) | 1.03 (0.67, 1.57) | 0.906 | 0.84 (0.54, 1.31) | 0.438 | ||
| Other | 23 (47.9) | 18 (37.5) | 7 (14.6) | 1.12 (0.46, 2.73) | 0.801 | 1.15 (0.46, 2.85) | 0.768 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Insurance status | No insurance | 182 (49.1) | 137 (36.9) | 52 (14.0) | 0.511 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Private | 895 (48.0) | 660 (35.4) | 310 (16.6) | 1.07 (0.74, 1.55) | 0.704 | 0.75 (0.51, 1.10) | 0.137 | ||
| Public | 243 (48.2) | 182 (36.1) | 79 (15.7) | 1.11 (0.73, 1.68) | 0.639 | 0.89 (0.58, 1.36) | 0.581 | ||
| Other | 163 (43.1) | 145 (38.4) | 70 (18.5) | 0.67 (0.44 (1.04) | 0.072 | 0.73 (0.47, 1.14) | 0.168 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Educational attainment | High school/GED or less | 649 (51.2) | 415 (32.7) | 204 (16.1) | 0.008 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| College graduate | 497 (44.2) | 440 (39.1) | 187 (16.6) | 0.91 (0.71, 1.18) | 0.481 | 1.20 (0.92, 1.56) | 0.178 | ||
| Graduate/professional degree | 357 (46.1) | 291 (37.5) | 127 (16.4) | 0.98 (0.73, 1.32) | 0.899 | 1.12 (0.83, 1.52) | 0.465 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Employment status | Full-time | 549 (47.4) | 412 (35.6) | 197 (17.0) | 0.815 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Not full-time | 946 (47.5) | 722 (36.3) | 322 (16.2) | 0.92 (0.72, 1.18) | 0.511 | 0.92 (0.71, 1.18) | 0.509 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Country of birth | United States | 1299 (46.6) | 1021 (36.7) | 465 (16.7) | 0.051 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Outside United States | 195 (53.4) | 117 (32.1) | 53 (14.5) | 1.27 (0.88, 1.85) | 0.207 | 1.02 (0.69, 1.52) | 0.909 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Condomless anal sex acts, past 3 months | 0 | 513 (43.8) | 433 (36.9) | 226 (19.3) | 0.001 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| 1 | 165 (48.1) | 114 (33.2) | 64 (18.7) | 1.11 (0.78, 1.57) | 0.559 | 0.84 (0.59, 1.21) | 0.358 | ||
| 2+ | 873 (49.6) | 638 (36.3) | 249 (14.1) | 1.52 (1.21, 1.91) | <0.001 | 1.18 (0.93, 1.49) | 0.165 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Oral PrEP experienced | Yes | 293 (47.0) | 258 (41.4) | 72 (11.6) | <0.001 | 1.39 (1.02, 1.89) | 0.038 | 1.63 (1.18, 2.23) | 0.003 |
| No | 1494 (47.2) | 1105 (34.9) | 564 (17.8) | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
Multinomial regression, dependent variable=Preferring injectable PrEP or being unsure, compared to preferring a daily oral pill
DISCUSSION
Social inequities in HIV infection are well-documented (1–3). PrEP has the potential to decrease the number of new infections. However, currently PrEP is only available as a daily pill, and uptake data suggests that those most at risk for HIV, including youth and racial/ethnic minorities, are less likely to initiate PrEP (10). Among those who initiate PrEP, studies also indicate that adherence is lower for younger and racial/ethnic minority individuals (20). As such, in order to reduce demographic imbalances in HIV transmission, it is essential to develop diverse, effective prevention modalities that are acceptable to disproportionately affected groups.
Regardless of its efficacy, if injectable PrEP is not acceptable to those most in need, its reach and impact will be limited and may in fact widen sociodemographic gaps. In our study, nearly half expressed a preference for injectable PrEP; a smaller proportion than a study conducted among men in New York City (15) but similar levels to a national study conducted in 2014 (17). Nearly one-third of respondents reported being unsure about their preference for injectable or oral PrEP, suggesting a need for further PrEP education and outreach, particularly delineating potential advantages and disadvantages of the distinct modalities for individuals and their personal contexts.
Moreover, results of our survey of a large sample of MSM in the U.S. suggest that some subgroups of individuals who are at the highest risk for HIV infection and have the lowest uptake of and adherence to oral PrEP—including black and Hispanic MSM, younger MSM, and individuals with higher behavioral risk—are most likely to be interested in and prefer injectable PrEP to oral PrEP. If the clinical trials demonstrate efficacy of injectable PrEP, and if injectable PrEP access and uptake among younger, black and Hispanic MSM reflects the level of interest that was seen in this study, this new modality could profoundly curtail the HIV epidemic in the U.S.
Given these findings, it is important that promotional efforts for injectable PrEP, if proven efficacious and approved by the FDA, consider how to best engage YMSM and racial/ethnic minorities. Actions may include developing diverse and inclusive advertisements, considering culturally-relevant motivations for using PrEP, addressing culturally-specific stigma related to PrEP use, and performing focused outreach in communities most affected by HIV (21, 22).
Limitations
Results should be interpreted in light of the limitations. We collected survey data online and based on self-report, which may have introduced non-response bias and social desirability bias. We are not able to assess the potential of differential non-response, and if participation and non-response were not random, our results may not be fully representative of the target population. Social desirability bias may have resulted in misclassification of important measures; however, because this survey was self-administered and anonymous, social desirability is likely limited. There were missing data for some measures; however, levels of missing data were comparable to those observed in other self-administered surveys of MSM online (23,24). Moreover, assessment of interest and preferences for injectable PrEP remain hypothetical and may not translate to real-life uptake. Relatedly, when assessing their preference for a daily oral pill vs. injectable PrEP, participants were operating under the assumption that oral PrEP is an available medication and injectable PrEP is still experimental. Therefore, those who preferred oral PrEP may have done so because of assumptions about superior safety and efficacy, potentially underestimating interest in and preference for injectable PrEP. Finally, participants were asked to choose between two prevention modalities—daily oral pill and injectable PrEP given every two months. Given the state of the research, it is likely that additional options will be available (e.g., on-demand PrEP, rectal gel), likely impacting preferences for and interest in injectable PrEP. This would be an important area for future research.
CONCLUSIONS
Among this sample of at-risk MSM recruited online, interest in and preference for injectable PrEP was highest among MSM at highest risk for HIV infection (i.e., younger age groups, racial/ethnic minorities, those with higher sexual risk behavior). As a result, if shown to be effective in ongoing clinical trials and if future uptake follows this current trend, injectable PrEP may be able to lessen social inequities in HIV transmission.
Acknowledgments
Sources of Funding:
This study was supported by ViiV Healthcare, Inc. Additional support for Dr. Kenneth H. Mayer’s role was provided by the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), an NIH funded program (grant number P30 AI060354), which is supported by the following NIH Co-Funding and Participating Institutes and Centers: NIAID, NCI, NICHD, NHLBI, NIDA, NIMH, NIA, NIDDK, NIGMS, NIMHD, FIC, and OAR. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
The authors wish to acknowledge the altruism of the participants and the assistance of the staff of Online Buddies, Inc. in mounting this web survey. This study was supported by an unrestricted research grant from ViiV Healthcare.
Footnotes
Prior Presentations:
HIV Research for Prevention 2016: AIDS Vaccine, Microbicide and ARV-based Prevention Science (HIVR4P), Chicago, IL
Conflicts of Interest:
Dr. Kenneth H. Mayer has received unrestricted research grants from ViiV Healthcare, Inc. and Gilead Sciences. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained electronically from all individual participants included in the study. A waiver of documentation of consent was approved by the Fenway Health Institutional Review Board.
References
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed March 2017];HIV surveillance report. 2016 Nov;27 Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-2015-vol-27.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed March 2017];HIV in the United States: at a glance. 2016 Dec; Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html.
- 3.Hergenrather KC, Emmanuel D, Durant S, Rhodes SD. Enhancing HIV prevention among young men who have sex with men: a systematic review of HIV behavioral interventions for young gay and bisexual men. AIDS Educ Prev. 2016 Jun;28(3):252–71. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2016.28.3.252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.U.S. Public Health Service. [Accessed March 2017];Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States: a clinical practice guideline. 2014 May; Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prepguidelines2014.pdf.
- 5.World Health Organization. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for preventing the acquisition of HIV. [Accessed March 2017];Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach. (2). 2016 Jun; Available at: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/chapter3.pdf?ua=1. [PubMed]
- 6.Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec;363(27):2587–99. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec;373(23):2237–46. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Smith DK, Van Handel M, Wolitski RJ, et al. Vital signs: estimated percentages and numbers of adults with indications for preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition – United States, 2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 Nov;64(46):1291–95. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6446a4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Krakower DS, Mimiaga MJ, Rosenberger JG, et al. Limited awareness and low immediate uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men using an internet social networking site. PLoS ONE. 2012 Mar;7(3):e33119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bush S, Magnuson D, Rawlings MK, Hawkins T, McCallister S, Mera Giler R. Racial characteristics of FTC/TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis users in the US. Presented at: ASM Microbe; 2016 Jun; Boston. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hosek SG, Rudy B, Landovitz R, et al. An HIV preexposure prophylaxis demonstration project and safety study for young MSM. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017 Jan;74(1):21–29. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Markowitz M, Frank I, Grant R, et al. ECLAIR: Phase 2A safety and PK study of cabotegravir LA in HIV-uninfected men. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); February 22–25, 2016; Boston. Abstract 106. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Landovitz R, Li S, Grinsztejn B, et al. Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of long-acting injectable cabotegravir in low-risk HIV-uninfected women and men: HPTN 077. International AIDS Society (IAS); 2017; Paris, France. Abstract 5481. [Google Scholar]
- 14.U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. HPTN 083: a phase 2b/3 double blind safety and efficacy study of injectable cabotegravir compared to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC), for pre-exposure prophylaxis in HIV-uninfected cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men. [Accessed March 2017];2016 Feb; Available at: https://www.hptn.org/sites/default/files/2016-05/HPTN%20083-Final%20Version%201.0-02Feb2016.pdf.
- 15.Meyers K, Rodriguez K, Moeller RW, Gratch I, Markowitz M, Halkitis PN. High interest in a long-acting injectable formulation of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in young men who have sex with men in NYC: a P18 cohort substudy. PloS One. 2014;9(12):e114700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Greene GJ, Swann G, Fought AJ, et al. Preferences for long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), daily oral PrEP, or condoms for HIV prevention among U.S. men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1336–49. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1565-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Whitfield TH, Grov C. Familiarity with and preferences for oral and long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a national sample of gay and bisexual men in the U.S. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1390–9. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1370-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mimiaga MJ, Noonan E, Donnell D, et al. Childhood sexual abuse is highly associated with HIV risk-taking behavior and infection among MSM in the EXPLORE Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009 Jul;51(3):340–8. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181a24b38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Biello KB, Hosek S, Drucker MT, et al. Preferences for injectable PrEP among young U.S. cisgender men and transgender women and men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-1049-7. [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Garcia J, Colson PW, Parker C, Hirsch JS. Passing the baton: community-based ethnography to design a randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among black men who have sex with men. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt B):244–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.10.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Golub SA, Gamarel KE, Surace A. Demographic differences in PrEP-related stereotypes: implications for implementation. AIDS Behav. 2017 May;21(5):1229–35. doi: 10.1007/s10461-015-1129-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sullivan PS, Khosropour CM, Luisi N, et al. Bias in online recruitment and retention of racial and ethnic minority men who have sex with men. J Med Internet Res. 2011 May;13(2):e38. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Biello KB, Rosenberger JG, Novak DS, Robertson AM, Mayer KH, Mimiaga MJ. Epidemiology of sexual health in the virtual environment: a multinational online survey of Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking men who use an internet sexual networking site. AIDS Behav. 2014 Jul;18(9):1675–85. doi: 10.1007/s10461-014-0844-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]