Andy Guise1, Eliot Ross Albers2, Steffanie A Strathdee1. 1. Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2. International Network of People who Use Drugs, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, or 'PrEP', is the use of antiretroviral medicines by people who are HIV-negative to protect themselves against acquiring HIV. PrEP has shown efficacy for preventing HIV acquisition. Despite the potential, many concerns have been voiced by people who inject drugs (PWID) and their organizations. There is a need to engage with these views and ensure their integration in to policy and strategy. This paper presents PWID views on PrEP to foster the uptake of these opinions into scientific and policy debate around PrEP METHODS: Critical analysis of a report of a community consultation led by the International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD). RESULTS: The INPUD report highlights enthusiasm from PWID for PrEP, but also three main concerns: the feasibility and ethics of PrEP, its potential use as a substitute for other harm reduction strategies and how a focus on PrEP heralds a re-medicalization of HIV. Each concern relates to evidenced gaps in essential services or opposition to harm reduction and PWID human rights. CONCLUSIONS: People who use drugs have fundamental concerns about the potential impacts of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV which reflect a 'fault line' in HIV prevention: a predominance of biomedical approaches over community perspectives. Greater community engagement in HIV prevention strategy is needed, or we risk continuing to ignore the need for action on the underlying structural drivers and social context of the HIV epidemic.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, or 'PrEP', is the use of antiretroviral medicines by people who are HIV-negative to protect themselves against acquiring HIV. PrEP has shown efficacy for preventing HIV acquisition. Despite the potential, many concerns have been voiced by people who inject drugs (PWID) and their organizations. There is a need to engage with these views and ensure their integration in to policy and strategy. This paper presents PWID views on PrEP to foster the uptake of these opinions into scientific and policy debate around PrEP METHODS: Critical analysis of a report of a community consultation led by the International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD). RESULTS: The INPUD report highlights enthusiasm from PWID for PrEP, but also three main concerns: the feasibility and ethics of PrEP, its potential use as a substitute for other harm reduction strategies and how a focus on PrEP heralds a re-medicalization of HIV. Each concern relates to evidenced gaps in essential services or opposition to harm reduction and PWID human rights. CONCLUSIONS:People who use drugs have fundamental concerns about the potential impacts of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV which reflect a 'fault line' in HIV prevention: a predominance of biomedical approaches over community perspectives. Greater community engagement in HIV prevention strategy is needed, or we risk continuing to ignore the need for action on the underlying structural drivers and social context of the HIV epidemic.
Authors: Tim Rhodes; Jo Kimber; Will Small; John Fitzgerald; Thomas Kerr; Matthew Hickman; Greg Holloway Journal: Addiction Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Louisa Degenhardt; Bradley M Mathers; Andrea L Wirtz; Daniel Wolfe; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; M Patrizia Carrieri; Steffanie A Strathdee; Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch; Michel Kazatchkine; Chris Beyrer Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2013-09-04
Authors: Sheena McCormack; David T Dunn; Monica Desai; David I Dolling; Mitzy Gafos; Richard Gilson; Ann K Sullivan; Amanda Clarke; Iain Reeves; Gabriel Schembri; Nicola Mackie; Christine Bowman; Charles J Lacey; Vanessa Apea; Michael Brady; Julie Fox; Stephen Taylor; Simone Antonucci; Saye H Khoo; James Rooney; Anthony Nardone; Martin Fisher; Alan McOwan; Andrew N Phillips; Anne M Johnson; Brian Gazzard; Owen N Gill Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kenneth H Mayer; Philip A Chan; Rupa R Patel; Charlene A Flash; Douglas S Krakower Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Susan G Sherman; Kristin E Schneider; Ju Nyeong Park; Sean T Allen; Derrick Hunt; C Patrick Chaulk; Brian W Weir Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Emanuel Krebs; Xiao Zang; Benjamin Enns; Jeong E Min; Czarina N Behrends; Carlos Del Rio; Julia C Dombrowski; Daniel J Feaster; Kelly A Gebo; Brandon D L Marshall; Shruti H Mehta; Lisa R Metsch; Ankur Pandya; Bruce R Schackman; Steffanie A Strathdee; Bohdan Nosyk Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Alberto Edeza; Angela Bazzi; Peter Salhaney; Dea Biancarelli; Ellen Childs; Matthew J Mimiaga; Mari-Lynn Drainoni; Katie Biello Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Nathan W Furukawa; Mathew Weimer; Kara S Willenburg; Michael E Kilkenny; Amy D Atkins; R Paul McClung; Zachary Hansen; Kathleen Napier; Senad Handanagic; Neal A Carnes; Jeffrey Kemp Rinderle; Robyn Neblett-Fanfair; Alexandra M Oster; Dawn K Smith Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.792