Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preferences for Current and Future PrEP Modalities Among PrEP-Experienced Gay and Bisexual Men in Australia

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Alternatives to daily dosing of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are continuing to emerge. From October 2019 to March 2020, we conducted an online survey of PrEP-experienced gay and bisexual men in Australia about interest in and preference for four different PrEP modalities: daily dosing, event-driven dosing, long-acting injectable (LAI)-PrEP and subdermal PrEP implants. Using data from 1477 participants, we measured interest and preference of different modalities using multivariate logistic regression. High proportions of participants were interested in LAI-PrEP (59.7%), daily PrEP (52.0%), PrEP implants (45.3%) and event-driven PrEP (42.8%). LAI-PrEP was the most frequently selected preference (30.5%), followed by PrEP implants (26.3%), daily PrEP (21.4%) and event-driven PrEP (21.2%). Higher interest and preference for non-daily PrEP modalities were associated with being concerned about side effects and perceived difficulties with daily adherence. As novel modalities emerge, attitudes to them should be considered in public health messaging to facilitate informed decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Note applicable.

Consent for Publication

Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Consolidated HIV strategic information guidelines: driving impact through programme monitoring and management. Geneva: WHO; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beyrer C, Baral SD, van Griensven F, Goodreau SM, Chariyalertsak S, Wirtz AL, et al. Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. Lancet. 2012;380(9839):367–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Holt M, Lee E, Lea T, Bavinton B, Broady T, Mao L, et al. HIV preexposure prophylaxis cascades to assess implementation in Australia: results from repeated, national behavioral surveillance of gay and bisexual men, 2014–2018. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020;83(3):e16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hammoud MA, Vaccher S, Jin F, Bourne A, Maher L, Holt M, et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake among gay and bisexual men in Australia and factors associated with the nonuse of PrEP among eligible men: results from a prospective cohort study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;81(3):e73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Edeza A, Karina Santamaria E, Valente PK, Gomez A, Ogunbajo A, Biello K. Experienced barriers to adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among MSM: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. AIDS Care. 2020;33(6):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sidebottom D, Ekstrom AM, Stromdahl S. A systematic review of adherence to oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV—how can we improve uptake and adherence? BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization. What’s the 2+1+1? Event-driven oral pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV for men who have sex with men: update to WHO’s recommendation on oral PrEP. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. ASHM. The ASHM PrEP Guidelines September 2019 update. ASHM; 2019.

  10. Cornelisse VJ, Lal L, Price B, Ryan KE, Bell C, Owen L, et al. Interest in switching to on-demand HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among Australian users of daily PrEP: an online survey. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(7):ofz287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pleuhs B, Quinn KG, Walsh JL, Petroll AE, John SA. Health care provider barriers to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in the United States: a systematic review. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2020;34(3):111–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yi S, Tuot S, Mwai GW, Ngin C, Chhim K, Pal K, et al. Awareness and willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(1):21580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Coelho LE, Torres TS, Veloso VG, Landovitz RJ, Grinsztejn B. Pre-exposure prophylaxis 2.0: new drugs and technologies in the pipeline. Lancet HIV. 2019;6(11):e788–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Landovitz RJ, Donnell DJ, Clement M, Hanscom B, Cottle L, Coelho L, et al. HPTN083 interim results: pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) containing long‐acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB‐LA) is safe and highly effective for cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men (MSM, TGW). In: International AIDS conference 2020; virtual. International AIDS Society; 2020.

  15. Hall EW, Heneine W, Sanchez T, Sineath RC, Sullivan P. Preexposure prophylaxis modality preferences among men who have sex with men and use social media in the United States. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(5):e111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Levy ME, Patrick R, Gamble J, Rawls A, Opoku J, Magnus M, et al. Willingness of community-recruited men who have sex with men in Washington, DC to use long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0183521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meyers K, Wu Y, Brill A, Sandfort T, Golub SA. To switch or not to switch: Intentions to switch to injectable PrEP among gay and bisexual men with at least twelve months oral PrEP experience. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0200296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Whitfield TH, 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 U.S. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1390–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Greene GJ, Swann G, Fought AJ, Carballo-Dieguez A, Hope TJ, Kiser PF, et al. Preferences for long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), daily oral PrEP, or condoms for HIV prevention among U.S. men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1336–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellison J, van den Berg JJ, Montgomery MC, Tao J, Pashankar R, Mimiaga MJ, et al. Next-generation HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis preferences among men who have sex with men taking daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2019;33(11):482–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vaccher SJ, Gianacas C, Templeton DJ, Poynten IM, Haire BG, Ooi C, et al. Baseline preferences for daily, event-driven, or periodic HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among gay and bisexual men in the PRELUDE Demonstration Project. Front Public Health. 2017;5:341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grulich AE, Guy R, Amin J, Jin F, Selvey C, Holden J, et al. Population-level effectiveness of rapid, targeted, high-coverage roll-out of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men: the EPIC-NSW prospective cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(11):e629–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zablotska IB, Selvey C, Guy R, Price K, Holden J, Schmidt HM, et al. Expanded HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation in communities in New South Wales, Australia (EPIC-NSW): design of an open label, single arm implementation trial. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan C, Broady T, Bavinton BR, Mao L, Bear B, Mackie B, et al. Gay Community Periodic Survey: Sydney 2020. Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Sydney; 2020.

  25. Brooks B, Park SH, Guilamo-Ramos V, Schneider JA, Harry-Hernandez S, Mgbako O, et al. Sex tourism and pre-exposure prophylaxis modality preferences among men who have sex with men. J Sex Res. 2019;56(4–5):632–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Patel RR, Crane JS, Lopez J, Chan PA, Liu AY, Tooba R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention preferences among young adult African American men who have sex with men. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0209484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rael CT, Lentz C, Carballo-Dieguez A, Giguere R, Dolezal C, Feller D, et al. Understanding the acceptability of subdermal implants as a possible new HIV prevention method: multi-stage mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e16904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bauermeister JA, Downs JS, Krakower DS. PrEP product acceptability and dual process decision-making among men who have sex with men. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2020;17(3):161–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tolley EE, Zangeneh SZ, Chau G, Eron J, Grinsztejn B, Humphries H, et al. Acceptability of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB LA) in HIV-uninfected individuals: HPTN 077. AIDS Behav. 2020;24(9):2520–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Holt M, Lea T, Bear B, Halliday D, Ellard J, Murphy D, et al. Trends in attitudes to and the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by Australian gay and bisexual men, 2011–2017: implications for further implementation from a diffusion of innovations perspective. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(7):1939–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants of the study and the collaborating organisations ACON and the Centre for Social Research in Health (CSRH). The PrEP in NSW Transition Study was supported by Funds from the NSW Ministry of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Curtis Chan, Stefanie Vaccher, Doug Fraser, Andrew E. Grulich, Garrett P. Prestage & Benjamin R. Bavinton

  2. The Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Martin Holt

  3. Sydney Medical School – Westmead and Western Sydney Sexual Health Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Iryna Zablotska-Manos

Authors
  1. Curtis Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefanie Vaccher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doug Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew E. Grulich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Holt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Iryna Zablotska-Manos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Garrett P. Prestage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Benjamin R. Bavinton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SV, BB, AG, IZ-M, MH and GP contributed to the study conception, study design and survey instrument development. Data collection was managed by SV. Data preparation and analysis were performed by CC and DF. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CC and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Curtis Chan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethical Approval

The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of New South Wales (Ethics Approval Number HC180411).

Informed Consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, C., Vaccher, S., Fraser, D. et al. Preferences for Current and Future PrEP Modalities Among PrEP-Experienced Gay and Bisexual Men in Australia. AIDS Behav 26, 88–95 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03344-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03344-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation