No abstract

IntroductionThe effectiveness of daily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is well established. However, there has been increasing interest in non-daily dosing schedules among gay and bisexual men (GBM). This paper explores preferences for PrEP dosing schedules among GBM at baseline in the PRELUDE demonstration project.Materials and methodsIndividuals at high-risk of HIV were enrolled in a free PrEP demonstration project in New South Wales, Australia, between November 2014 and April 2016. At baseline, they completed an online survey containing detailed behavioural, demographic, and attitudinal questions, including their ideal way to take PrEP: daily (one pill taken every day), event-driven (pills taken only around specific risk events), or periodic (daily dosing during periods of increased risk).ResultsOverall, 315 GBM (98% of study sample) provided a preferred PrEP dosing schedule at baseline. One-third of GBM expressed a preference for non-daily PrEP dosing: 20% for event-driven PrEP, and 14% for periodic PrEP. Individuals with a trade/vocational qualification were more likely to prefer periodic to daily PrEP [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 4.58, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): (1.68, 12.49)], compared to individuals whose highest level of education was high school. Having an HIV-positive main regular partner was associated with strong preference for daily, compared to event-driven PrEP [aOR = 0.20, 95% CI: (0.04, 0.87)]. Participants who rated themselves better at taking medications were more likely to prefer daily over periodic PrEP [aOR = 0.39, 95% CI: (0.20, 0.76)].DiscussionIndividuals’ preferences for PrEP schedules are associated with demographic and behavioural factors that may impact on their ability to access health services and information about PrEP and patterns of HIV risk. At the time of data collection, there were limited data available about the efficacy of non-daily PrEP schedules, and clinicians only recommended daily PrEP to study participants. Further research investigating how behaviours and PrEP preferences change correspondingly over time is needed.Trial registration NCT02206555. Registered 28 July 2014.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Vaccination against influenza may reduce antibiotic use, but data are limited and imprecise. Methods We conducted a case-control study using deidentified data from a large national primary care database to evaluate antibiotic prescribing changes following influenza vaccination in children 1-4 years old attending primary care in the Australian 2018 and 2019 influenza seasons. Cases were prescribed β-lactam or macrolide antibiotics during the influenza season and controls were not. Influenza vaccination was documented in the medical records. Adjusted odds ratios for antibiotic prescribing according to influenza vaccination status were estimated using generalized estimating equations, controlling for age, asthma diagnosis, other vaccinations, practice visit frequency, and attendance week. Results In 2018, 11 282 cases and 32 020 controls were eligible, and in 2019, 12 705 cases and 36 858 controls. Antibiotic prescriptions were less likely in vaccinated participants in 2018 (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.69) and 2019 (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.82) and did not vary by age, the number of GP visits, or prior prescribing of antibiotics. In the subgroup of children vaccinated in the preceding season, influenza vaccination was not associated with a reduction in antibiotic use (2018—aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; 2019—aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46). From our estimates, potentially 100 000 antibiotic prescriptions could be avoided annually in Australia if all children in this age range were vaccinated. Conclusions Influenza vaccination may substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing among young children. This effect should be considered in the overall assessment of the costs and benefits of childhood influenza vaccination programs.