Background

Inaccurate HIV risk perception by men who have sex with men is a barrier to HIV prevention. Providing information about objective HIV risk could improve pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake.

Methods

PrEP Accessibility Research & Evaluation 2 (PrEPARE2) was a randomized controlled trial of men who have sex with men to determine whether an objective risk score affects future PrEP uptake. Participants completed a baseline survey to assess demographics, risk behaviors, and HIV self-perceived risk (SPR). The survey generated a calculated HIV risk (CalcR) score, estimating HIV risk based on reported condomless anal intercourse and sexually transmitted infections, and was provided to individuals in the intervention arm. Participants were contacted 8 weeks later to determine whether they initiated PrEP.

Results

Of 171 participants (median age 32 years; 37% Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black; median 5 sexual partners in the past 6 months), 81% had heard of PrEP, and 57% believed they were good PrEP candidates. SPR had poor agreement with CalcR (kappa = 0.176) with 38% underestimating their HIV risk. At week 8, only 14 of 135 participants had initiated PrEP with no difference between arms (CalcR 11%, control 10%, P > 0.99). The most common reason for not starting PrEP was low HIV risk perception. There was a relative decrease in SPR over time (P = 0.06) but no difference between arms (P = 0.29).

Conclusion

Providing an objective HIV risk score alone did not increase PrEP uptake. HIV testing performed at testing sites may be a crucial time to correct misperceptions about risk and initiate same-day PrEP, given enthusiasm for PrEP on the testing day to facilitate greater uptake.

Background

Inaccurate HIV risk perception by men who have sex with men is a barrier to HIV prevention. Providing information about objective HIV risk could improve pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake.

Methods

PrEP Accessibility Research & Evaluation 2 (PrEPARE2) was a randomized controlled trial of men who have sex with men to determine whether an objective risk score affects future PrEP uptake. Participants completed a baseline survey to assess demographics, risk behaviors, and HIV self-perceived risk (SPR). The survey generated a calculated HIV risk (CalcR) score, estimating HIV risk based on reported condomless anal intercourse and sexually transmitted infections, and was provided to individuals in the intervention arm. Participants were contacted 8 weeks later to determine whether they initiated PrEP.

Results

Of 171 participants (median age 32 years; 37% Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black; median 5 sexual partners in the past 6 months), 81% had heard of PrEP, and 57% believed they were good PrEP candidates. SPR had poor agreement with CalcR (kappa = 0.176) with 38% underestimating their HIV risk. At week 8, only 14 of 135 participants had initiated PrEP with no difference between arms (CalcR 11%, control 10%, P > 0.99). The most common reason for not starting PrEP was low HIV risk perception. There was a relative decrease in SPR over time (P = 0.06) but no difference between arms (P = 0.29).

Conclusion

Providing an objective HIV risk score alone did not increase PrEP uptake. HIV testing performed at testing sites may be a crucial time to correct misperceptions about risk and initiate same-day PrEP, given enthusiasm for PrEP on the testing day to facilitate greater uptake.

The introduction of emtricitabine/tenofovir diphosphate (FTC/TDF) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention has raised questions regarding which clinicians will serve as prescribers and how providers will be educated about this HIV prevention strategy. We piloted an HIV Prevention Education Program called PrEP University (PrEP U) to address knowledge gaps in HIV prevention among medical trainees. We examined PrEP awareness and assessed learning as a result of the program, measuring knowledge before and after the lectures with an anonymous 5-question multiple choice test. A total of 198 learners participated in PrEP University, which included 127 first year medical students, and post-graduate trainees in internal medicine (n = 23), family medicine (n = 16), OBGYN (n = 13) and pharmacy (n = 19). Prior to PrEP U, 27% of all participants were not aware of PrEP and an additional 8% were unsure if they had heard of it. Knowledge increased significantly after the education program among trainees in OBGYN (2.3 vs 3.8, p < 0.001), pharmacy (1.4 vs 2.5, p = 0.012) and school of medicine (3.3 vs 4.4, p < 0.001), with a trend seen in family medicine (2.7 vs. 3.7, p = 0.067) and internal medicine (2.7 vs 3.4, p = 0.068). Overall, an HIV Prevention Education Program was successfully administered to nearly 200 participants and resulted in improved knowledge of HIV prevention and PrEP across. Pharmacists and OBGYN physicians are two groups with an expanding role in the use of PrEP. Similar programs at other medical schools should be implemented to ensure that future physicians and pharmacists are comfortable with PrEP prescription.