Background: Several studies have demonstrated no linked HIV transmissions in serodifferent sexual encounters where the partner with HIV has an undetectable viral load. As a result, awareness and dissemination of treatment as prevention, and movements such as “Undetectable = Untransmittable” (U = U), has grown. Setting: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey from November 2017 through September 2018 to gather data from a total of 111,747 sexual minority men (SMM) in the United States. Methods: Participants provided sociodemographic data and answered questions regarding biomedical status, HIV and STI prevention behaviors, drug use, condomless anal sex, and perceived accuracy of the U = U message. We conducted analyses to understand factors associated with perceived accuracy of U = U stratified by HIV status. Results: Overall, 53.2% of the sample perceived U = U as accurate, with the highest rates among HIV-positive SMM (83.9%), followed by HIV-negative (53.8%) and status-unknown (39.0%) SMM. Multivariable models showed accuracy beliefs were, on average, 1–2% higher for each consecutive month of recruitment. Consistent with previous work, there was greater heterogeneity among HIV-negative and unknown men, with several factors differentiating perceived accuracy, compared with SMM with HIV. Perceived transmission risk levels with undetectable partners were skewed well above accurate levels, and greater perceived transmission risk was associated with lower perceived accuracy of U = U. Conclusions: Public confidence in treatment as prevention and U = U is growing, but clear, unequivocal messaging about the effectiveness of U = U is critical. Owing to misunderstandings of risk, language that focuses on protective benefits rather than transmission risks may reach more people and allow for better comparisons with PrEP and condoms.

Stigma against sexual and gender minorities is a major driver of health disparities. Psychological and behavioral interventions that do not address the stigma experienced by sexual and gender minorities may be less efficacious. We conducted a systematic review of existing psychological and behavioral health interventions for sexual and gender minorities to investigate how interventions target sexual and gender minority stigma and consider how stigma could affect intervention efficacy. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies were peer reviewed and published in English between January 2003 and July 2019 and reported empirical results of behavioral or psychological interventions implemented among sexual and gender minorities. All interventions addressed stigma. We identified 37 eligible interventions. Most interventions targeted sexual minority men. Interventions were frequently developed or adapted for implementation among sexual and gender minorities and addressed multiple levels and types of stigma. Interventions most frequently targeted proximal stressors, including internalized and anticipated stigma. HIV and mental health were the most commonly targeted health outcomes. A limited number of studies investigated the moderating or mediating effects of stigma on intervention efficacy. The application of an intersectional framework was frequently absent and rarely amounted to addressing sources of stigma beyond sexual and gender minority identities. A growing number of interventions address sexual and gender minority stigma in an effort to prevent deleterious health effects. Future research is needed to assess whether stigma modifies the effectiveness of existing psychological and behavioral interventions among sexual and gender minorities. Further, the application of intersectional frameworks is needed to more comprehensively intervene on multiple, intersecting sources of stigma faced by the diverse sexual and gender minority community.

Research suggests that the science of undetectable viral load (VL) status and HIV transmission-conveyed with the slogan ''Undetectable = Untransmittable'' or ''U = U''-has gaps in acceptance despite robust scientific evidence. Nonetheless, growing acceptance of U = U creates conditions for a shift in the sociopolitical and personal implications of viral suppression. We conducted an online survey over a 23-month period in 2018 and 2019 among 30,361 adolescent and adult (aged 13-99) sexual minority men living with HIV (SMM-LHIV) across the United States. We examined the impact of U = U on self-image, potential for changing societal HIV stigma, whether SMM-LHIV had ever spoken with a provider about viral suppression and HIV transmission, and primary sources of hearing about U = U. Approximately 80% of SMM-LHIV reported that U = U was beneficial for their self-image and societal HIV stigma, 58.6% reported it made them feel ''much better'' about their own HIV status, and 40.6% reporting it had the potential to make HIV stigma ''much better.'' The most consistent factors associated with these beliefs centered around care engagement, particularly self-reported viral suppression and excellent antiretroviral therapy adherence. Two-thirds reported ever talking to a provider about VL and HIV transmission, although the primary sources for having heard about U = U were HIV and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) news media and personal profiles on networking apps. These findings demonstrate the significant personal and social importance of U = U for SMM-LHIV that go above-and-beyond the well-documented health benefits of viral suppression, suggesting that providers should consider routinely initiating conversations with patients around the multifaceted benefits (personal health, sexual safety and intimacy, increased self-image, and reduced social stigma) of viral suppression.

Background Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduces risk of HIV infection for many gay and bisexual men (GBM); however, bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) associated with decreasing condom use among users is of concern. Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines for PrEP use recommend bacterial STI screening every six months. We sought to investigate comprehensive PrEP care, defined as: 1) discussion of sexual behavior, 2) blood sample, 3) urine sample, 4) rectal sample (rectal swab), and 5) throat sample (throat swab), provided at user’s last PrEP appointment. Methods PrEP-using GBM in New York City (n=104) were asked about their last PrEP care visit. We examined associations of demographics (age, race/ethnicity, and education), recent number of condomless anal sex (CAS) events, time on PrEP, and healthcare provider type on receiving comprehensive care at last visit using fully-adjusted binary logistic regression. Results At their last visit, nearly all men (94%) gave blood for testing, 88% provided a urine sample, and 77% discussed sexual behavior with their provider. However, only 51% reported having a rectal swab, and 48% an oral swab. Only 32% of men received comprehensive PrEP care at their last PrEP visit. Odds of receiving comprehensive care were significantly higher among younger men, men with a Bachelor’s degree or more education, and those who reported more CAS. Conclusions Less than one-third of GBM received comprehensive HIV/STI counseling and testing at their last visit. These findings indicate further efforts are needed to prepare healthcare providers for prescribing and managing patients on PrEP.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract