Are We Prepped for Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)? Provider Opinions on the Real-World Use of PrEP in the United States and Canada

Karris, Maile Y.; Beekmann, Susan E.; Mehta, Sanjay R.; Anderson, Christy M.; Polgreen, Philip M.

doi:10.1093/cid/cit796

Cited by 166 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Class two had a slightly higher probability of agreeing that cost might pose a substantial barrier (Castel et al, 2015). Both groups of providers also identified the risk for drug resistance and risk compensation as potential barriers to PrEP use-findings that were consistent with the results of other studies of potential physician providers of PrEP (Blumenthal et al, 2015;Caceres et al, 2015;Castel et al, 2016;Hakre et al, 2016;Hankins et al, 2015;Karris et al, 2014;Krakower et al, 2014;Krakower et al, 2015;Krakower and Mayer, 2016;Puro et al, 2013;Smith et al, 2016).…”

Section: Costsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Several studies focused on cost-effectiveness, investigating whether the benefits of preventing HIV through administering PrEP outweigh the costs of PrEP (Hankins et al, 2015;Hakre et al, 2016;Karris et al, 2014). Funding PrEP while other potentially more cost-effective HIV prevention interventions remain underfunded may have high opportunity costs, diverting resources from early initiation of anti-retroviral therapy or other prevention strategies (Hankins, Macklin, and Warren, 2015).…”

Section: Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prescribers were hesitant in prescribing PrEP because the effectiveness of the drug was considered equivocal (Blumenthal et al, 2015;Caceres et al, 2015;Castel et al, 2016;Hakre et al, 2016;Hankins et al, 2015;Karris et al, 2014;Krakower et al, 2014;Krakower et al, 2015;Krakower and Mayer, 2016;Puro et al, 2013;Smith et al, 2016). PCPs reported lack of knowledge or training about PrEP as the main barrier in prescribing PrEP and in providing PrEP education to patients (Hakre et al, 2016).…”

Section: Safety/effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most (>80%) providers agreed that new studies showing efficacy, patient request, ease of patient obtaining PrEP, and recommendations from CDC would likely increase their use of PrEP (Blumenthal et al, 2015). Many of the reports indicated that patients would become resistant to the drug and that it would essentially be ineffective, which limited their willingness to prescribe PrEP (Blumenthal et al, 2015;Caceres et al, 2015;Castel et al, 2016;Hakre et al, 2016;Hankins et al, 2015;Karris et al, 2014;Krakower et al, 2014;Krakower et al, 2015;Krakower and Mayer, 2016;Puro et al, 2013;Smith et al, 2016).…”

Section: Safety/effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The survey inquired about the participants' HIV practice, to whom they had provided or would provide PrEP, how they assessed eligibility, how they measured adherence, when PrEP would be discontinued, and what perceived barriers existed (Karris et al, 2014). When asked why physicians would not provide PrEP, 77% were worried about adherence and the risk for future resistance, 53% did not want to use potentially toxic drugs for healthy persons, and 53% felt there was insufficient evidence for the efficacy of PrEP (Karris et al, 2014).…”

Section: Safety/effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Physician Attitudes Toward the Ethics of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): Cost, Safety, and Resource Allocation

Grippo

Smallwood

Pincura

et al. 2017

JGPHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:In the United States, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) remains a substantial public health issue. There is evidence that the use of antiretroviral medications such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can be a safe and effective primary prevention strategy to reduce new cases of HIV infection. Provider practice behavior as it relates to prescribing PrEP and the potential impact on specific vulnerable populations needs increased attention. Few studies have evaluated the attitudes of physicians towards ethical issues related to prescribing PrEP. Methods:The purpose of the present literature review was to evaluate provider attitudes toward the ethics of prescribing PrEP for individuals at risk of acquiring HIV infection. Searches of the PubMed and Cochrane databases were conducted. Three reviewers independently assessed the relevance of articles and discarded those not directly related to the attitudes of physicians toward ethics of the cost, safety, and resource allocation of PrEP. A total of twenty-one articles were included in the review.Results: Provider attitudes and perceptions focused on three areas: resource allocation, cost, and safety or effectiveness of PrEP. Providers who were hesitant in prescribing PrEP were concerned with the availability of resources, patient adherence, risk of drug resistance, and toxicity. In the studies reviewed, few providers had prescribed PrEP; however, prescribing practices trended upward with time and awareness. Conclusions:Realization of the benefits of PrEP will require a utilitarian ethical approach to identifying the populations that will benefit most, monitoring for adverse effects, addressing costs, and educating and training providers to prescribe PrEP responsibly. Ensuring that PrEP fulfills its potential as part of a combination regimen for HIV prevention requires identification of additional evidence, education, support services, and resources that are needed, as well as the regulatory framework and cost scenarios for access to PrEP.

show abstract

Section: Costsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Safety/effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Safety/effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Safety/effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Physician Attitudes Toward the Ethics of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): Cost, Safety, and Resource Allocation

Grippo

Smallwood

Pincura

et al. 2017

JGPHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Medical misinformation: A primer and recommendations for pharmacists

Goldwire

Johnson²,

Abdalla

et al. 2023

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical misinformation is more pervasive today because of widespread and near instantaneous dissemination of information via the internet and social media platforms. Consequences of medical misinformation may include decreased uptake of needed health care resources, delays in seeking care, vaccine hesitancy, medication non‐compliance, increased disease outbreaks and/or burden, and increased hospitalization and mortality. It disproportionately impacts underserved populations, including Black patients, those who identify as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and more), and patients with reduced health literacy skills or who are digitally disadvantaged. Medical misinformation challenges health care professionals not only to provide the best care possible, but to assist patients in finding accurate information. Preprint publications, although potentially beneficial in rapidly disseminating new scientific discoveries, often have not undergone peer review and may contribute to the widespread propagation of inaccurate or overstated results, thereby perpetuating the spread of medical misinformation when it exists. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic highlighted the importance of practicing evidence‐based medicine and the need for cautious review of preprint publications and articles from predatory publishers in addition to usual and customary literature evaluation techniques. Everyone plays a role in preventing the spread of medical misinformation, with pharmacists uniquely positioned as trusted and highly accessible professionals who may help combat its spread. The goal of this article is to define medical misinformation and related terms, outline mechanisms by which it is spread, describe its clinical impact, highlight how it disproportionately impacts underserved populations, provide actionable strategies to prevent its spread, and give examples of practical tactics to help identify, correct, and alert individuals about the possible presence of medical misinformation.

show abstract

Prevention paradox: Medical students are less inclined to prescribe HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis for patients in highest need

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionDespite healthcare providers’ growing awareness of pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), prescription rates remain low. PrEP is an efficacious HIV prevention strategy recommended for use with condoms but still protective in their absence. Concern about the impact of PrEP on condom use and other risk behaviour is, nonetheless, among the barriers to prescription commonly reported. To understand the implications of this concern for PrEP access, we examined how medical students’ willingness to prescribe PrEP varied by patients’ condom use and partnering practices. We also assessed the perceived acceptability of various reasons for condom discontinuation with PrEP.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to 854 medical students in the Northeastern US in 2015. Participants (n = 111) were surveyed about their willingness to prescribe PrEP for each of six male patients who systematically differed in their reported condom use (sustained use, sustained nonuse, or discontinuation with PrEP) and partnering practices (single male partner with untreated HIV or multiple male partners of unknown HIV status). Participants also reported perceived acceptability of four reasons for condom discontinuation: pleasure, sexual functioning, intimacy, and conception.ResultsWillingness to prescribe PrEP was inconsistent with patient risk: When the patient used condoms and planned to sustain condom use, most participants were willing to prescribe PrEP – 93% if the patient had a single partner and 86% if the patient had multiple partners. Fewer were willing to prescribe if the patient did not use condoms and planned to sustain nonuse (53% and 45%, respectively) or used condoms but planned to discontinue use (27% and 28%). Significantly fewer participants were willing to prescribe for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported sustained condom use or sustained condom nonuse. The number of participants who were willing to prescribe was similarly low for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported that he planned to discontinue condom use. More participants accepted a patient discontinuing condoms for conception (69%) than for intimacy (23%), pleasure (14%), or sexual functioning (13%).ConclusionMedical students’ clinical judgments were misaligned with patient risk and suggest misconceptions or personal values may undermine provision of optimal HIV prevention services.

show abstract

Are We Prepped for Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)? Provider Opinions on the Real-World Use of PrEP in the United States and Canada

Cited by 166 publications

References 20 publications

Physician Attitudes Toward the Ethics of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): Cost, Safety, and Resource Allocation

Physician Attitudes Toward the Ethics of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): Cost, Safety, and Resource Allocation

Medical misinformation: A primer and recommendations for pharmacists

Prevention paradox: Medical students are less inclined to prescribe HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis for patients in highest need

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About