Carlos Iniesta1,2, Pep Coll3, María Jesús Barberá4, Miguel García Deltoro5, Xabier Camino6, Gabriela Fagúndez2, Asunción Díaz7, Rosa Polo2. 1. Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network, National Centre of Epidemiology, Health Institute Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. 2. National AIDS Programme, Ministry of Health, Madrid, Spain. 3. BCN Checkpoint, Barcelona, España. 4. STI Unit Vall d´Hebron-Drassanes, Infectious Diseases Department, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Infectious Disease Service, Consortium General University Hospital of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 6. Infectious Disease Service, University Hospital of Donostia, San Sebastian, Spain. 7. HIV and STI Surveillance Unit, National Centre of Epidemiology, Health Institute Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective and cost-effective strategy for HIV prevention. Spain carried out an implementation study in order to assess the feasibility of implementing PrEP programmes within its heterogeneous health system. METHODS: Observational longitudinal study conducted on four different types of health-care setting: a community centre (CC), a sexually transmitted infections clinic (STIC), a hospital-based HIV unit (HBHIVU) and a hospital-based STI unit (HBSTIU). We recruited gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBSM) and transgender women at risk of HIV infections, gave them PrEP and monitored clinical, behavioural PrEP-related and satisfaction information for 52 weeks. We collected perceptions on PrEP implementation feasibility from health-care professionals participating in the study. RESULTS: A total of 321 participants were recruited, with 99.1% being GBMSM. Overall retention was 87.2% and it was highest at the CC (92.6%). Condom use decreased during the study period, while STIs did not increase consistently. The percentage of people who did not miss any doses of PrEP during the previous week remained at over 93%. No HIV seroconversions occurred. We observed overall decreases in GHB (32.5% to 21.8%), cocaine (27.5% to 21.4%), MDMA (25.7% to 14.3%), speed (11.4% to 5.7%) and mephedrone use (10.7% to 5.0%). The overall participant satisfaction with PrEP was 98.6%. Health-care professionals' perceptions of PrEP feasibility were positive, except for the lack of personnel. CONCLUSIONS: PrEP implementation is feasible in four types of health-care settings. Local specificities have to be taken into consideration while implementing PrEP.
BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective and cost-effective strategy for HIV prevention. Spain carried out an implementation study in order to assess the feasibility of implementing PrEP programmes within its heterogeneous health system. METHODS: Observational longitudinal study conducted on four different types of health-care setting: a community centre (CC), a sexually transmitted infections clinic (STIC), a hospital-based HIV unit (HBHIVU) and a hospital-based STI unit (HBSTIU). We recruited gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBSM) and transgender women at risk of HIV infections, gave them PrEP and monitored clinical, behavioural PrEP-related and satisfaction information for 52 weeks. We collected perceptions on PrEP implementation feasibility from health-care professionals participating in the study. RESULTS: A total of 321 participants were recruited, with 99.1% being GBMSM. Overall retention was 87.2% and it was highest at the CC (92.6%). Condom use decreased during the study period, while STIs did not increase consistently. The percentage of people who did not miss any doses of PrEP during the previous week remained at over 93%. No HIV seroconversions occurred. We observed overall decreases in GHB (32.5% to 21.8%), cocaine (27.5% to 21.4%), MDMA (25.7% to 14.3%), speed (11.4% to 5.7%) and mephedrone use (10.7% to 5.0%). The overall participant satisfaction with PrEP was 98.6%. Health-care professionals' perceptions of PrEP feasibility were positive, except for the lack of personnel. CONCLUSIONS: PrEP implementation is feasible in four types of health-care settings. Local specificities have to be taken into consideration while implementing PrEP.
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: Michalina A Montaño; Julia C Dombrowski; Sayan Dasgupta; Matthew R Golden; Ann Duerr; Lisa E Manhart; Lindley A Barbee; Christine M Khosropour Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2019-02
Authors: Phillip Keen; Mohamed A Hammoud; Adam Bourne; Benjamin R Bavinton; Martin Holt; Stefanie Vaccher; Bridget Haire; Peter Saxton; Fengyi Jin; Lisa Maher; Andrew E Grulich; Garrett Prestage Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jill Blumenthal; Elizabeth C Pasipanodya; Sonia Jain; Shelly Sun; Eric Ellorin; Sheldon Morris; David J Moore Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 5.810
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: Carlos Iniesta; Débora Álvarez-Del Arco; Luis Miguel García-Sousa; Belén Alejos; Asunción Díaz; Nieves Sanz; Jorge Garrido; Michael Meulbroek; Ferran Pujol; Santiago Moreno; María José Fuster-Ruiz de Apocada; Pep Coll; Antonio Antela; Jorge Del Romero; Oskar Ayerdi; Melchor Riera; Juanse Hernández; Julia Del Amo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 3.240