Gordon Mansergh1, Krishna Kiran Kota2, Rob Stephenson3, Sabina Hirshfield4, Patrick Sullivan5. 1. Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN, USA. 3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NYC, USA. 5. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM) at risk for HIV infection. Other HIV prevention products are being developed, including long-acting injectable (LAI) and event-based oral and topical formulations. Understanding preferences for potential products by MSM can help direct further development of prevention messaging. METHODS: We present baseline data from HIV-negative participants enrolled in the US Mobile Messaging for Men (M-cubed) Study. Participants were asked their likelihood of and rank order preference for using daily oral PrEP and various potential prevention products (one- to -three-month injections, 2-1-1 sexual event oral dosing, anal or penile gel, or anal suppository), and their sociodemographic characteristics. Bivariate and multivariable logistics regression assessed demographic associations with likelihood of use and rank order preference. RESULTS: Overall, most MSM reported a likelihood of using LAI (74%), sexual event-based pills (67%) and penile gel (64%). Men who reported recent unprotected (condomless and PrEPless) anal sex most preferred a penile gel formulation (74%), followed closely by LAI and event-based pills (73% each). Current PrEP users (vs. non-users) had greater odds of reporting likelihood to use LAI (AOR = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.12 to 5.11), whereas men reporting recent unprotected anal sex had a greater odds of likelihood to use a penile gel (AOR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27 to 2.52) and an anal suppository (AOR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.08 to 2.02). Hispanic/Latino (vs. White) MSM (AOR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.73) and, marginally, Black MSM (AOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.38) had greater odds of reporting likelihood to use penile gel. Similar patterns were found for rank ordering preference of products, including condoms. CONCLUSIONS: Most MSM were interested in using various potential future HIV prevention products, especially LAI. However, two typologies of potential users emerged: men who prefer sexual event-based methods (condoms, event-based pill, sexual gels and suppositories) and men who prefer non-sexual event-based methods (daily pill, LAI). Men who reported recent unprotected anal sex preferred a penile gel product most, followed closely by sexual event-based pills and LAI. Racial/ethnic differences were noted as well. These findings on product preferences can help in formulation development and messaging.
BACKGROUND: Daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM) at risk for HIV infection. Other HIV prevention products are being developed, including long-acting injectable (LAI) and event-based oral and topical formulations. Understanding preferences for potential products by MSM can help direct further development of prevention messaging. METHODS: We present baseline data from HIV-negative participants enrolled in the US Mobile Messaging for Men (M-cubed) Study. Participants were asked their likelihood of and rank order preference for using daily oral PrEP and various potential prevention products (one- to -three-month injections, 2-1-1 sexual event oral dosing, anal or penile gel, or anal suppository), and their sociodemographic characteristics. Bivariate and multivariable logistics regression assessed demographic associations with likelihood of use and rank order preference. RESULTS: Overall, most MSM reported a likelihood of using LAI (74%), sexual event-based pills (67%) and penile gel (64%). Men who reported recent unprotected (condomless and PrEPless) anal sex most preferred a penile gel formulation (74%), followed closely by LAI and event-based pills (73% each). Current PrEP users (vs. non-users) had greater odds of reporting likelihood to use LAI (AOR = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.12 to 5.11), whereas men reporting recent unprotected anal sex had a greater odds of likelihood to use a penile gel (AOR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27 to 2.52) and an anal suppository (AOR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.08 to 2.02). Hispanic/Latino (vs. White) MSM (AOR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.73) and, marginally, Black MSM (AOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.38) had greater odds of reporting likelihood to use penile gel. Similar patterns were found for rank ordering preference of products, including condoms. CONCLUSIONS: Most MSM were interested in using various potential future HIV prevention products, especially LAI. However, two typologies of potential users emerged: men who prefer sexual event-based methods (condoms, event-based pill, sexual gels and suppositories) and men who prefer non-sexual event-based methods (daily pill, LAI). Men who reported recent unprotected anal sex preferred a penile gel product most, followed closely by sexual event-based pills and LAI. Racial/ethnic differences were noted as well. These findings on product preferences can help in formulation development and messaging.
Authors: Cheng-Shiun Leu; Rebecca Giguere; José A Bauermeister; Curtis Dolezal; William Brown; Ivan C Balán; Barbra A Richardson; Jeanna M Piper; Javier R Lama; Ross D Cranston; Alex Carballo-Diéguez Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2018-10-14
Authors: Jacqueline Ellison; Jacob J van den Berg; Madeline C Montgomery; Jun Tao; Rashmi Pashankar; Matthew J Mimiaga; Philip A Chan Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Parastu Kasaie; Jeff Pennington; Maunank S Shah; Stephen A Berry; Danielle German; Colin P Flynn; Chris Beyrer; David W Dowdy Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Bobby J Calder; Robert J Schieffer; Ewa Bryndza Tfaily; Richard D'Aquila; George J Greene; Alex Carballo-Diéguez; Rebecca Giguere; Patrick F Kiser; Thomas J Hope Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Patrick Sean Sullivan; Ryan J Zahn; Sarah Wiatrek; Cristian J Chandler; Sabina Hirshfield; Rob Stephenson; Jose A Bauermeister; Mary Ann Chiasson; Martin J Downing; Deborah J Gelaude; Aaron J Siegler; Keith Horvath; Erin Rogers; Ana Alas; Evelyn J Olansky; Heather Saul; Eli S Rosenberg; Gordon Mansergh Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-11-15
Authors: Latesha Elopre; Corilyn Ott; Crystal Chapman Lambert; K Rivet Amico; P S Sullivan; J Marrazzo; Michael J Mugavero; Janet M Turan Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-05