InterPrEP. Internet-based pre-exposure prophylaxis with generic tenofovir DF/emtricitabine in London: an analysis of outcomes in 641 patients

Global Epidemiologic Characteristics of Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Individuals Using Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection

“…Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of these studies: data came from 26 countries, mostly from HICs (62 [70%]) and from MSM-only programs (58 [66%]). Table 2 provides more data on included studies, all of which were deemed to be of sufficient methodological quality as determined by the Joanna Briggs Institute tool (ie, score of ≥5) . A summary of the countries that provided data is shown in Figure 2.…”

Loss to Follow-Up from HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Care in Men Who Have Sex with Men in West Africa

“…While the literature is limited on the direct effect of peer education on retention in PrEP care, it has been shown to be useful in encouraging PrEP initiation, uptake and adherence [41,60,[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. In general, MSM largely prefer community-based clinics for PrEP delivery [24,[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83], as they offer a more comprehensive and MSM-friendly approach to PrEP provision [75]. Our present finding reinforces previous findings from CohMSM-PrEP that showed peerbased outreach over time helped reach a new profile of MSM initiating PrEP [61], that the provision of PrEP in MSM-friendly community-based clinics promoted its use, and that peer education facilitated correct PrEP adherence [60].…”

Eligibility for HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis, Intention to Use Preexposure Prophylaxis, and Informal Use of Preexposure Prophylaxis Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

“…Aloysius et al 7 describe a group of informal PrEP users from London who accessed a tenofovir/emtricitabine drug level monitoring service in 2016 to 2017, who were, in comparison with InPrEP participants, of similar age (median, 37 years; IQR, 32–45 years), had fewer STI diagnoses (16% vs. 26.8% in InPrEP), used more often daily PrEP (75% vs. 46.9%), and reported more often use of metamphetamine (14% vs. 7.6% in InPrEP) and mephedrone use (9% vs. 5.1% in InPrEP). In the Netherlands, the use of ecstasy is more common than mephedrone, 18 which may account for the observed differences in drug use.…”

“…However, despite evidence of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of PrEP, national implementation of PrEP has been piecemeal in many countries for various reasons, 3 including costs and the question of who should pay for PrEP. 4 – 6 In settings of limited or rationed access to formal PrEP, the use of informally accessed generic PrEP (i.e., without a prescription) has emerged 7 – 9 and may continue in countries (e.g., Austria and Macedonia) with inadequate PrEP availability up to this date. 10 Moreover, in several countries where same-gender relationships are a criminal offense or heavily stigmatized, 11 informal PrEP use may be the only available option to access PrEP.…”

“…In addition, data on other identifiers of sexual health care needs, such as chemsex (the use of γ-hydroxybutyric acid, mephedrone, or crystalized methamphetamine in the direct context of sex), 13 are also limited among informal PrEP users but are required to direct public health interventions and to organize health care. 3 , 7 , 9 In the Netherlands, a national PrEP program was not yet in place until August 2019. Therefore, we started a health care program at the Amsterdam Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) Clinic for informal PrEP users.…”