Introduction Concerns over potential drug‐drug interactions (DDI) between feminizing hormone therapy (FHT) and pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) have hampered uptake and adherence of PrEP among transgender women (TGW). To determine DDI between FHT and PrEP, we measured the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of blood plasma estradiol (E2) and tenofovir (TFV) in Thai TGW. Methods Twenty TGW who never underwent orchiectomy and had not received injectable FHT within six months were enrolled between January and March 2018. FHT (E2 valerate and cyproterone acetate) were prescribed to participants at baseline until week 5, and then from week 8 until the end of study. Daily PrEP (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) was initiated at week 3 and continued without interruption. Intensive E2 PK parameters and testosterone concentration at 24 hours (C24) were measured at weeks 3 (without PrEP) and 5 (with PrEP), and intensive TFV PK parameters were measured at weeks 5 (with FHT) and 8 (without FHT). Results Median (interquartile range) age, body mass index, and creatinine clearance were 21.5 (21–26) years, 20.6 (19.0‐22.4) kg/m2, and 116 (101‐126.5) mL/min, respectively. The geometric mean (%CV) of area under curve from time zero to 24 hours (AUC0‐24), maximum concentration (Cmax), and C24 of E2 at weeks 3 and 5 were 775.13 (26.2) pg h/mL, 51.47 (26.9) pg/mL, and 15.15 (42.0) pg/mL; and 782.84 (39.6), 55.76 (32.9), and 14.32 (67.4), respectively. The geometric mean (%CV) of TFV AUC0‐24, Cmax, and C24 at weeks 5 and 8 were 2242.1 (26.5) ng h/mL, 353.9 (34.0) ng/mL, and 40.9 (31.4) ng/mL; and 2530.2 (31.3), 311.4 (30.0), and 49.8 (29.6), respectively. The geometric mean of TFV AUC0‐24 and C24 at week 5 were significantly less than that at week 8 by 12% (p = 0.03) and 18% (p < 0.001), respectively. There were no significant changes in E2 PK parameters and median C24 of bioavailable testosterone between week 3 and week 5. Conclusions Our study demonstrated lower blood plasma TFV exposure in the presence of FHT, suggesting that FHT may potentially affect PrEP efficacy among TGW; but E2 exposure was not affected by PrEP. Further studies are warranted to determine whether these reductions in TFV are clinically significant. Clinical Trial Number: NCT03620734.

No abstract

ObjectiveComprehensive data on Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) infections to guide screening services among transgender women (TGW) are limited. We studied the burden of CT/NG infections in pharyngeal, rectal and urethral sites of Thai TGW and determined missed CT/NG diagnoses if selected site screening was performed.MethodsThai TGW were enrolled to the community-led test and treat cohort. CT/NG screening was performed from pharyngeal swab, rectal swab and urine using nucleic acid amplification test. CT/NG prevalence in each anatomical site was analysed, along with the relationships of CT/NG among the three anatomical sites.ResultsOf 764 TGW included in the analysis, 232 (30.4%) had CT/NG infections at any anatomical site, with an overall incidence of 23.7 per 100 person-years. The most common CT/NG infections by anatomical site were rectal CT (19.5%), rectal NG (9.6%) and pharyngeal NG (8.1%). Among 232 TGW with CT/NG infections at any anatomical site, 22%–94.4% of infections would have been missed if single anatomical site testing was conducted, depending on the selected site. Among 668 TGW who tested negative at pharyngeal site, 20.4% had either rectal or urethral infections. Among 583 TGW who tested negative at the rectal site, 8.7% had either pharyngeal or urethral infections. Among 751 TGW who tested negative at the urethral site, 19.2% had either pharyngeal or rectal infections.ConclusionAlmost one-third of Thai TGW had CT/NG infections. All-site screening is highly recommended to identify these infections, but if not feasible rectal screening provides the highest yield of CT/NG diagnoses. Affordable molecular technologies and/or CT/NG screening in pooled samples from different anatomical sites are urgently needed.Trial registration numberNCT03580512.

Key populations increasingly lead the design, implementation, and evaluation of HIV services. This increased power provides an opportunity to make HIV services more people-centered. Despite many challenges, there is a strong argument that key populations must play a greater role in HIV service planning, development, and delivery across the world. This viewpoint focuses on Asia where key populations have advocated for legal reform, engaged vulnerable groups to decrease stigma, cocreated innovative HIV services, and developed new key population-led health services. We use a framework of people-centered social innovation to consider the increased power of key populations to control HIV service delivery. Greater power to key populations in HIV services is demonstrated in evidence from engagement programs, co-creation activities using crowdsourcing, and key population-led health services. Further research on key populations and their roles in HIV implementation and sustainable scale-up is needed in Asia and beyond.

Despite the challenges to the HIV response in the Asia–Pacific, a demedicalisation of HIV intervention has been demonstrated to be an important strategy to maximise the uptake of HIV prevention tools among key populations in this region. Demedicalisation of HIV interventions translates medical discourse and shifts the paradigm from a disease-focused to a people-centred approach. It also recognises real-life experiences of key populations in the HIV response by empowering them to voice their needs and be at the forefront of the epidemic control. We further categorise a demedicalisation approach into three frameworks: (1) the demystification of clinical or medical concerns; (2) the destigmatisation of people living with HIV; and (3) the decentralisation of healthcare services. This article reviewed the demedicalisation framework by looking at the HIV intervention examples from countries in the Asia–Pacific, which included: (1) a study on drug–drug interaction between pre-exposure prophylaxis and feminising hormone treatment for transgender women; (2) the roles of key population-led health services; and (3) certification of key population lay providers.