Advertisement

Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Awareness and Use Within High HIV Transmission Networks

  • Kellie Schueler
  • Matthew Ferreira
  • Georgios Nikolopoulos
  • Britt Skaathun
  • Dimitrios Paraskevis
  • Angelos Hatzakis
  • Samuel R. Friedman
  • John A. SchneiderEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Improved implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be a valuable tool within communities experiencing high HIV incidence, such as black men who have sex with men (MSM). Using baseline data from the Chicago arm of the Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP), we examined awareness and use of PrEP within HIV potential transmission networks. Transmission Reduction Intervention Project recruited participants ages 18–69 (N = 218) during 2014–2016 from networks originating from recently and chronically HIV-infected MSM and transgender persons. In total, 53.2% of participants had heard of PrEP, while 8 (6.5%) HIV-negative participants reported ever using PrEP. In multivariable regression, PrEP awareness was associated with identifying as gay, attending some college or higher, having an HIV test in the previous 6 months, and experiencing HIV-related social support. PrEP awareness was not associated with experiencing or observing HIV-related stigma. PrEP use was associated with participants knowing two or more other PrEP-users. These findings demonstrate moderate awareness, but low uptake of PrEP within HIV potential transmission networks in Chicago. Future research should explore how to increase PrEP use in these networks and investigate the social dynamics behind our finding that PrEP users are more likely to know other PrEP users.

Keywords

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) Men who have sex with men (MSM) Network analysis African American Black 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse under Award Number DP1DA034989 and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under award number R01AI136056. Ten percent of the funding was provided by federal sources, while 90% was provided by The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

Institutional Review Boards of participating institutions approved all research activities related to this study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01827228). We obtained written informed consent from all study participants. Participants were educated about HIV prevention during the intervention and were connected to appropriate health care or other supportive services when needed. All protocols and policies for this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men [Internet]. HIV/AIDS. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html. Accessed 26 June 2017.
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. HIV among African Americans [Internet]. HIV/AIDS: HIV by Group. 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/racialethnic/africanamericans/index.html. Accessed 27 June 2017.
  3. 3.
    Purcell DW, Johnson CH, Lansky A. Estimating the population size of men who have sex with men in the United States to obtain HIV and syphilis rates. Open AIDS J. 2012;6:98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhns LM, Hotton AL, Schneider J, Garofalo R, Fujimoto K. Use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in young men who have sex with men is associated with race, sexual risk behavior and peer network size. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1376–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golden MR, Bennett AB, Dombrowski JC, Buskin SE. Achieving the goals of the National HIV/AIDS strategy: declining HIV diagnoses, improving clinical outcomes, and diminishing racial/ethnic disparities in King County, WA (2004–2013). Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43(5):269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The HIV Epidemiology Annual Report [Internet]. San Francisco, CA: Applied Research, Community Health Epidemiology, and Surveillance Branch of the San Francisco Department of Public Health; 2016 Sep. https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/RptsHIVAIDS/AnnualReport2015-20160831.pdf. Accessedd 10 Oct 2017.
  7. 7.
    Grant RM, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu A, Amico KR, Mehrotra M, et al. Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, sexual practices, and HIV incidence in men and transgender women who have sex with men: a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(9):820–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eaton LA, Matthews DD, Driffin DD, Bukowski L, Wilson PA, Stall RD, et al. A multi-US city assessment of awareness and uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among black men and transgender women who have sex with men. Prev Sci. 2017;18:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barash EA, Golden M. Awareness and use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among attendees of a seattle gay pride event and sexually transmitted disease clinic. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2010;24(11):689–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holloway IW, Dougherty R, Gildner J, Beougher SC, Pulsipher C, Montoya JA, et al. Brief report: PrEP uptake, adherence, and discontinuation among California YMSM using geosocial networking applications. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(1):15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Lassiter JM, Whitfield THF, Starks TJ, Grov C. Uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a National cohort of gay and bisexual men in the United States. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(3):285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cahill S, Taylor SW, Elsesser SA, Mena L, Hickson D, Mayer KH. Stigma, medical mistrust, and perceived racism may affect PrEP awareness and uptake in black compared to white gay and bisexual men in Jackson, Mississippi and Boston, Massachusetts. AIDS Care. 2017;28(11):1351–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bogorodskaya M, Avery A. Favorable attitudes but low awareness and restricted access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) Against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in an Urban Midwestern Community. Open Forum Infect Dis [Internet]. 2016 Dec 1. Accessed 12 April 2017.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ojikutu BO, Bogart LM, Higgins-Biddle M, Dale SK, Allen W, Dominique T, et al. Facilitators and barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among black individuals in the United States: results from the national survey on HIV in the Black Community (NSHBC). AIDS Behav. 2018;21:1–12.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strauss BB, Greene GJ, Phillips G, Bhatia R, Madkins K, Parsons JT, et al. Exploring patterns of awareness and use of HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1288–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walters SM, Rivera AV, Starbuck L, Reilly KH, Boldon N, Anderson BJ, et al. Differences in awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis among groups at-risk for HIV in New York State: New York City and Long Island, NY, 2011–2013. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;1(75):S383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    King HL, Keller SB, Giancola MA, Rodriguez DA, Chau JJ, Young JA, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis accessibility research and evaluation (PrEPARE study). AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1722–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krakower DS, Mimiaga MJ, Rosenberger JG, Novak DS, Mitty JA, White JM, et al. Limited awareness and low immediate uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men using an internet social networking site. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e33119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Golub SA, Gamarel KE, Rendina HJ, Surace A, Lelutiu-Weinberger CL. From efficacy to effectiveness: facilitators and barriers to PrEP acceptability and motivations for adherence among MSM and transgender women in New York City. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2013;27(4):248–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Whitfield THF, Grov C. Familiarity with and preferences for oral and long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a National sample of gay and bisexual men in the US. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1390–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pérez-Figueroa RE, Kapadia F, Barton SC, Eddy JA, Halkitis PN. Acceptability of PrEP uptake among racially/ethnically diverse Young men who have sex with men: the P18 study. AIDS Educ Prev. 2015;27(2):112–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peng P, Su S, Fairley CK, Chu M, Jiang S, Zhuang X, et al. A global estimate of the acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV among men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1063–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lelutiu-Weinberger C, Golub SA. Enhancing PrEP access for black and latino men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;73(5):547–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eaton LA, Kalichman SC, Price D, Finneran S, Allen A, Maksut J. Stigma and conspiracy beliefs related to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and interest in using PrEP among black and white men and transgender women who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1236–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mustanski B, Ryan DT, Hayford C, Phillips G, Newcomb ME, Smith JD. Geographic and individual associations with PrEP stigma: results from the RADAR cohort of diverse young men who have sex with men and transgender women. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(9):3044–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sang JM, Matthews DD, Meanley SP, Eaton LA, Stall RD. Assessing HIV stigma on prevention strategies for black men who have sex with men in the United States. AIDS Behav [Internet]. 2018 Jun 2. Accessed 24 Sep 2018.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fallon SA, Park JN, Ogbue CP, Flynn C, German D. Awareness and acceptability of pre-exposure HIV prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Baltimore. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1268–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Golub SA. PrEP stigma: implicit and explicit drivers of disparity. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2018;15(2):190–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morgan E, Skaathun B, Duvoisin R, Michaels S, Schneider JA. Are HIV seroconversions among young men who have sex with Men associated with social network proximity to recently or long-term HIV-infected individuals? JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;77(2):128.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rhodes T. The ‘risk environment’: a framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm. Int J Drug Policy. 2002;13(2):85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rhodes T, Singer M, Bourgois P, Friedman SR, Strathdee SA. The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(5):1026–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amirkhanian YA. Social networks, sexual networks and HIV risk in men who have sex with men. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2014;11(1):81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schneider J, Cornwell B, Jonas A, Lancki N, Behler R, Skaathun B, et al. Network dynamics of HIV risk and prevention in a population-based cohort of young Black men who have sex with men. Netw Sci. 2017;5(3):381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bien CH, Patel VV, Blackstock OJ, Felsen UR. Reaching key populations: PrEP uptake in an urban health care system in the Bronx, New York. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1309–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Garnett M, Hirsch-Moverman Y, Franks J, Hayes-Larson E, El-Sadr WM, Mannheimer S. Limited awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis among black men who have sex with men and transgender women in New York city. AIDS Care. 2018;30(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, Bacon O, Doblecki-Lewis S, Postle BS, Feaster DJ, et al. High interest in pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men at risk for HIV-infection: baseline data from the US PrEP demonstration project. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;68(4):439–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khanna AS, Michaels S, Skaathun B, Morgan E, Green K, Young L, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis awareness and use in a population-based sample of young black men Who have sex with men. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):136–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Latkin CA, Kuramoto SJ, Davey-Rothwell MA, Tobin KE. Social norms, social networks, and HIV risk behavior among injection drug users. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(5):1159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tobin KE, Latkin CA. Social Networks of HIV Positive Gay Men: Their Role and Importance in HIV Prevention. In: Understanding Prevention for HIV Positive Gay Men [Internet]. Springer, New York, NY; 2017. P. 349–66. https://link-springer-com.proxy.uchicago.edu/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-0203-0_15. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  40. 40.
    Nikolopoulos GK, Pavlitina E, Muth SQ, Schneider J, Psichogiou M, Williams LD, et al. A network intervention that locates and intervenes with recently HIV-infected persons: the transmission reduction intervention project (TRIP). Sci Rep [Internet]. 2016;5:6.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Duong YT, Kassanjee R, Welte A, Morgan M, De A, Dobbs T, et al. Recalibration of the limiting antigen avidity EIA to determine mean duration of recent infection in divergent HIV-1 subtypes. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0114947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tsang MA, Schneider JA, Sypsa V, Schumm P, Nikolopoulos GK, Paraskevis D, et al. Network characteristics of people who inject drugs within a new HIV epidemic following austerity in Athens, Greece. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;69(4):499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stangl A, Brady B, Fritz. Technical brief: measuring HIV stigma and discrimination. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women; 2012.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lindsey C, Sheather S. Best subsets variable selection in nonnormal regression models. Stata J. 2015;15(4):1046–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bouris A, Jaffe K, Eavou R, Liao C, Kuhns L, Voisin D, et al. Project nGage: results of a randomized controlled trial of a dyadic network support intervention to retain young black men who have sex with men in HIV care. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(12):3618–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu A, Cohen S, Follansbee S, Cohan D, Weber S, Sachdev D, et al. Early experiences implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in San Francisco. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schwartz J, Grimm J. PrEP on twitter: information, barriers, and Stigma. Health Commun. 2017;32(4):509–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hollingsworth TD, Anderson RM, Fraser C. HIV-1 transmission, by stage of infection. J Infect Dis. 2008;198(5):687–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Garcia J, Parker C, Parker RG, Wilson PA, Philbin M, Hirsch JS. Psychosocial implications of homophobia and HIV stigma in social support networks: insights for high-impact HIV prevention among black men who have sex with men. Health Educ Behav. 2016;43(2):217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kellie Schueler
    • 1
  • Matthew Ferreira
    • 2
  • Georgios Nikolopoulos
    • 3
  • Britt Skaathun
    • 4
  • Dimitrios Paraskevis
    • 5
  • Angelos Hatzakis
    • 5
  • Samuel R. Friedman
    • 6
  • John A. Schneider
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Pritzker School of MedicineUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Chicago Center for HIV EliminationUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Medical SchoolUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  4. 4.Division of Global Public Health, Department of MedicineUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  5. 5.Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  6. 6.National Development and Research InstitutesNew York CityUSA
  7. 7.Department of MedicineUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations