Advertisement

Community Levels of PrEP Use Among Men Who Have Sex with Men by Race/Ethnicity, San Francisco, 2017

  • H. Fisher RaymondEmail author
  • Jonathan M. Snowden
  • John Guigayoma
  • Willi McFarland
  • Yea-Hung Chen
Original Paper

Abstract

Efforts in San Francisco are maximizing the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men (MSM) where high levels of use are needed to maximize reducing new HIV infections. National HIV Behavioral Surveillance surveys MSM in San Francisco. Demographics, health care and risk behaviors are assessed. PrEP use is measured for 12 month, 6 month and 30 day periods. Of 399 HIV uninfected men sampled in 2017, 43.4% used PrEP in the past 12 months. Proportions of men using PrEP by race/ethnicity were not significant at any time point. Decreases between 6 month and 30 day use were highest among African American and Latino men. These men had the highest proportion of intermittent use in the past 30 days but not significantly. While our data suggest the disparity in PrEP use by race/ethnicity has narrowed in San Francisco, novel delivery of PrEP may narrow disparity further.

Keywords

Men who have sex with men Race/ethnicity Pre-exposure prophylaxis Disparities 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by CDC (Grant Number 1U62/PS005077).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional 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.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    CDC. HIV among gay and bisexual men. Atlanta: CDC; 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grant R, Liu A, Hecht J, Buchbinder S, Weber S, Crouch P-C, et al. Scale-up of preexposure prophylaxis in San Francisco to impact HIV incidence. CROI 2015, Seattle Washington 2015.Google 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang YA, Zhu W, Smith DK, Harris N, Hoover KW. HIV preexposure prophylaxis, by race and ethnicity—United States, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(41):1147–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gantenberg JR, King M, Montgomery MC, Galarraga O, Prosperi M, Chan PA, et al. Improving the impact of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation in small urban centers among men who have sex with men: an agent-based modelling study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0199915.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shen M, Xiao Y, Rong L, Meyers LA, Bellan SE. The cost-effectiveness of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and early antiretroviral therapy in the presence of drug resistance among men who have sex with men in San Francisco. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaillon A, Hoenigl M, Mehta SR, Weibel N, Little SJ, Smith DM. A practical online tool to estimate antiretroviral coverage for HIV infected and susceptible populations needed to reduce local HIV epidemics. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacKellar D, Valleroy L, Karon J, Lemp G, Janssen R. The Young Men’s Survey: methods for estimating HIV seroprevalence and risk factors among young men who have sex with men. Public Health Rep. 1996;111(Suppl 1):138–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacKellar DA, Gallagher KM, Finlayson T, Sanchez T, Lansky A, Sullivan PS. Surveillance of HIV risk and prevention behaviors of men who have sex with men—a national application of venue-based, time–space sampling. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(Suppl 1):39–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    (CDC) cfdcap. Update to interim guidance for preexposure prophylaxis (prep) for the prevention of HIV infection: prep for injecting drug users. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(23):463–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, Pialoux G, Cotte L, Charreau I, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2237–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glasmeier AK. Living Wage Calculator: MIT; 2018. http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075.
  15. 15.
    Snowden JM, Chen YH, McFarland W, Raymond HF. Prevalence and characteristics of users of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men, San Francisco, 2014 in a cross-sectional survey: implications for disparities. Sex Transm Infect. 2017;93(1):52–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    USPublicHealthService. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States- 2014 A Clinical Practice Guideline. In: Service UPH, editor. 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pollack LM, Osmond DH, Paul JP, Catania JA. Evaluation of the center for disease control and prevention’s HIV behavioral surveillance of men who have sex with men: sampling issues. Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32(9):581–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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;29:1351–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eaton LA, Driffin DD, Bauermeister J, Smith H, Conway-Washington C. Minimal awareness and stalled uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among at risk, HIV-negative, black men who have sex with men. AIDS Pat Care STDs. 2015;29(8):423–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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. 2017;30:9–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyers K, Rodriguez K, Moeller RW, Gratch I, Markowitz M, Halkitis PN. High interest in a long-acting injectable formulation of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in young men who have sex with men in NYC: a P18 cohort substudy. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e114700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    John SA, Whitfield THF, Rendina HJ, Parsons JT, Grov C. Will gay and bisexual men taking oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) switch to long-acting injectable PrEP should it become available? AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1184–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beymer MR, Gildner JL, Holloway IW, Landovitz RJ. Acceptability of injectable and on-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis among an online sample of young men who have sex with men in California. LGBT Health. 2018;5(6):341–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goedel WC, King MRF, Lurie MN, Nunn AS, Chan PA, Marshall BDL. Effect of racial inequities in pre-exposure prophylaxis use on racial disparities in HIV incidence among men who have sex with men: a modeling study. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr (1999). 2018;79(3):323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.University of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University–Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  4. 4.San Francisco Department of Public HealthSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations