Susanne Doblecki-Lewis1, Albert Y Liu2, Daniel J Feaster3, Stephanie E Cohen4, Richard Elion5, Oliver Bacon6, Megan Coleman5, Gabriel Cardenas3, Michael A Kolber1. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL. 2. BridgeHIV, San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL. 4. San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco City Clinic, San Francisco, CA. 5. Department of Clinical Investigations, Whitman-Walker Clinic, Washington, DC. 6. Division of Infectious Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) depends on retention in care after initial engagement. SETTING: The United States PrEP Demonstration Project offered daily oral tenofovir/emtricitabine to participants in San Francisco, Miami, and Washington, D.C. for 48 weeks from 2012 to 2014. METHODS: The Demo Project participants' patterns of retention were assigned to 1 of 3 categories: early loss to follow-up (ELTF) within the first 12 weeks of the study, retention throughout the study, or intermittent retention in which missed or delayed visits resulted in gaps in medication availability. For each group, baseline characteristics were tabulated. A two-step multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 366/554 (66.1%) of enrolled participants were retained for all study visits, 127/554 (22.9%) had intermittent retention, and 61/554 (11.0%) ELTF. In multivariable analysis, Miami compared with San Francisco site was associated with ELTF rather than full retention [aOR 2.84; confidence interval (CI): 1.24 to 6.47] and also with intermittent rather than full retention (aOR 2.70; CI: 1.43 to 5.11). Younger age was associated with ELTF (aOR 1.80 for each 10-year decrement in age; CI: 1.26 to 2.57) and intermittent retention (aOR 1.47; CI: 1.17 to 1.84) compared with full retention. Factors associated with ELTF (but not intermittent retention) compared with full retention were black compared with white (aOR 3.32; CI: 1.09 to 10.16), reporting sex work (aOR 4.67; CI: 1.49 to 14.58), lack of regular employment (aOR 2.53; CI: 1.27 to 5.05), and lack of previous PrEP awareness (aOR 2.01; CI: 1.01 to 3.96). CONCLUSIONS: Tailored interventions addressing causes and risk factors for loss from PrEP care may improve retention and consistency of PrEP use.
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) depends on retention in care after initial engagement. SETTING: The United States PrEP Demonstration Project offered daily oral tenofovir/emtricitabine to participants in San Francisco, Miami, and Washington, D.C. for 48 weeks from 2012 to 2014. METHODS: The Demo Project participants' patterns of retention were assigned to 1 of 3 categories: early loss to follow-up (ELTF) within the first 12 weeks of the study, retention throughout the study, or intermittent retention in which missed or delayed visits resulted in gaps in medication availability. For each group, baseline characteristics were tabulated. A two-step multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 366/554 (66.1%) of enrolled participants were retained for all study visits, 127/554 (22.9%) had intermittent retention, and 61/554 (11.0%) ELTF. In multivariable analysis, Miami compared with San Francisco site was associated with ELTF rather than full retention [aOR 2.84; confidence interval (CI): 1.24 to 6.47] and also with intermittent rather than full retention (aOR 2.70; CI: 1.43 to 5.11). Younger age was associated with ELTF (aOR 1.80 for each 10-year decrement in age; CI: 1.26 to 2.57) and intermittent retention (aOR 1.47; CI: 1.17 to 1.84) compared with full retention. Factors associated with ELTF (but not intermittent retention) compared with full retention were black compared with white (aOR 3.32; CI: 1.09 to 10.16), reporting sex work (aOR 4.67; CI: 1.49 to 14.58), lack of regular employment (aOR 2.53; CI: 1.27 to 5.05), and lack of previous PrEP awareness (aOR 2.01; CI: 1.01 to 3.96). CONCLUSIONS: Tailored interventions addressing causes and risk factors for loss from PrEP care may improve retention and consistency of PrEP use.
Authors: Robert M Grant; Javier R Lama; Peter L Anderson; Vanessa McMahan; Albert Y Liu; Lorena Vargas; Pedro Goicochea; Martín Casapía; Juan Vicente Guanira-Carranza; Maria E Ramirez-Cardich; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Telmo Fernández; Valdilea G Veloso; Susan P Buchbinder; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Kenneth H Mayer; Esper Georges Kallás; K Rivet Amico; Kathleen Mulligan; Lane R Bushman; Robert J Hance; Carmela Ganoza; Patricia Defechereux; Brian Postle; Furong Wang; J Jeff McConnell; Jia-Hua Zheng; Jeanny Lee; James F Rooney; Howard S Jaffe; Ana I Martinez; David N Burns; David V Glidden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert M Grant; Peter L Anderson; Vanessa McMahan; Albert Liu; K Rivet Amico; Megha Mehrotra; Sybil Hosek; Carlos Mosquera; Martin Casapia; Orlando Montoya; Susan Buchbinder; Valdilea G Veloso; Kenneth Mayer; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Linda-Gail Bekker; Esper G Kallas; Mauro Schechter; Juan Guanira; Lane Bushman; David N Burns; James F Rooney; David V Glidden Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Norma C Ware; Monique A Wyatt; Jessica E Haberer; Jared M Baeten; Alexander Kintu; Christina Psaros; Steven Safren; Elioda Tumwesigye; Connie L Celum; David R Bangsberg Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2012-04-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jose R Castillo-Mancilla; Jia-Hua Zheng; Joseph E Rower; Amie Meditz; Edward M Gardner; Julie Predhomme; Caitlin Fernandez; Jacob Langness; Jennifer J Kiser; Lane R Bushman; Peter L Anderson Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Hailey J Gilmore; Albert Liu; Kimberly Ann Koester; K Rivet Amico; Vanessa McMahan; Pedro Goicochea; Lorena Vargas; David Lubensky; Susan Buchbinder; Robert Grant Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Arunrat Tangmunkongvorakul; Suwat Chariyalertsak; K Rivet Amico; Pongpun Saokhieo; Vorawan Wannalak; Thirayut Sangangamsakun; Pedro Goicochea; Robert Grant Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2012-12-19
Authors: Jonathan Garcia; Caroline Parker; Richard G Parker; Patrick A Wilson; Morgan Philbin; Jennifer S Hirsch Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2015-08-26
Authors: Matthew A Spinelli; David V Glidden; Peter L Anderson; Monica Gandhi; Stephanie Cohen; Eric Vittinghoff; Megan E Coleman; Hyman Scott; Oliver Bacon; Richard Elion; Michael A Kolber; Susan P Buchbinder; Albert Y Liu Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Hyman M Scott; Matthew Spinelli; Eric Vittinghoff; Alicia Morehead-Gee; Anne Hirozawa; Catherine James; Hali Hammer; Albert Liu; Monica Gandhi; Susan Buchbinder Journal: AIDS Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Katie B Biello; Pablo K Valente; Willey Y Lin; William Lodge Ii; Ryan Drab; Lisa Hightow-Weidman; Daniel Teixeira da Silva; Kenneth Mayer; José A Bauermeister Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-12-03
Authors: David P Serota; Eli S Rosenberg; Patrick S Sullivan; Annie L Thorne; Charlotte-Paige M Rolle; Carlos Del Rio; Scott Cutro; Nicole Luisi; Aaron J Siegler; Travis H Sanchez; Colleen F Kelley Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Douglas Krakower; Kevin M Maloney; Victoria E Powell; Ken Levine; Chris Grasso; Kathy Melbourne; Julia L Marcus; Kenneth H Mayer Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Peter J W Saxton; Sunita Azariah; Alana Cavadino; Rose F Forster; Renee Jenkins; Suzanne F Werder; Kim Southey; Joseph G Rich Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2022-02-15