Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 2886–2894 | Cite as

Condomless Anal Sex Among HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex with Men: Biomedical Context Matters

  • Alison J. Hughes
  • Yea-Hung Chen
  • Susan Scheer
Original Paper

Abstract

Data from Medical Monitoring Project was used to determine if partner type is associated with condomless anal sex (CAS) and insertive condomless anal sex (ICAS) among HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Participants reported HIV status and PrEP use of up to five anal sex partners. Partner type was categorized as HIV-positive, HIV status unknown, HIV-negative on PrEP or HIV-negative not on PrEP. To account for correlation of multiple observations per participant, generalized estimating equations were used to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CAS and ICAS. Condom use during anal sex and insertive anal sex varied based on partner type. There was a higher prevalence of CAS and ICAS in partnerships with HIV-positive partners or HIV-negative partners on PrEP compared to HIV-negative partners not on PrEP.

Keywords

Men who have sex with men Pre-exposure prophylaxis HIV serosorting Condom use Anal sex 

Notes

Funding

Medical Monitoring Project, CDC, Grant Number # NU62PS004970-02-00.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

In accordance with the ethical standards of US Federal Code Title 45 Part 46 and the non-research determination made by four San Francisco institutional review boards in 2012, the Medical Monitoring Project was conducted as a supplemental HIV surveillance activity with a non-research determination during the 2014 and 2015 data collection cycles nationally and in San Francisco.

Informed Consent

All participants were given a patient information sheet, similar to an informed consent, prior to the interview and granted permission for the medical record abstraction.

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):493–505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1 Infected Adults and Adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services; 2012. http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/lvguidelines/adultandadolescentgl.pdf.
  3. 3.
    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;363:2587–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holmes D. FDA paves the way for pre-exposure HIV prophylaxis. Lancet. 2012;380:325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassell MM, Halperin DT, Shelton JD, Stanton D. Risk compensation: the Achilles’ heel of innovations in HIV prevention. BMJ. 2006;332(7541):605–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golub SA, Kowalczyk W, Weinberger CL, Parsons JT. Preexposure prophylaxis and predicted condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54(5):548.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks RA, Landovitz RJ, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, Lee SJ, Barkley TW. Sexual risk behaviors and acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in serodiscordant relationships: a mixed methods study. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012;26(2):87–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marcus JL, Glidden DV, Mayer KH, Liu AY, Buchbinder SP, Amico KR, et al. No evidence of sexual risk compensation in the iPrEx trial of daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e81997.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu AY, Vittinghoff E, Chillag K, Mayer K, Thompson M, Grohskopf L, et al. Sexual risk behavior among HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men (MSM) participating in a tenofovir pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) randomized trial in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;64(1):87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Volk JE, Marcus JL, Phengrasamy T, Blechinger D, Nguyen DP, Follansbee S, et al. No new HIV infections with increasing use of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a clinical practice setting. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1601–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387:53–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van de Ven P, Mao L, Fogarty A, Rawstorne P, Crawford J, Prestage G, et al. Undetectable viral load is associated with sexual risk taking in HIV serodiscordant gay couples in Sydney. AIDS. 2005;19(2):179–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prestage G, Mao L, Kippax S, Jin F, Hurley M, Grulich A, et al. Use of viral load to negotiate condom use among gay men in Sydney, Australia. AIDS Behav. 2009;13(4):645–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stolte IG, De Wit JB, Van Eeden A, Coutinho RA, Dukers NH. Perceived viral load, but not actual HIV-1-RNA load, is associated with sexual risk behaviour among HIV-infected homosexual men. AIDS. 2004;18(14):1943–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kennedy-Martin T, Curtis S, Faries D, Robinson S, Johnston J. A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results. Trials. 2015;16(1):495.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNaghten AD, Wolfe MI, Onorato I, Nakashima AK, Valdiserri RO, Mokotoff E, et al. Improving the representativeness of behavioral and clinical surveillance for persons with HIV in the United States: the rationale for developing a population-based approach. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(6):e550.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frankel MR, McNaghten AD, Shapiro MF, Sullivan PS, Berry SH, Johnson CH, et al. A probability sample for monitoring the HIV-infected population in care in the U.S. and in selected states. Open AIDS J. 2012;6(1):67–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral and Clinical Characteristics of Persons Receiving Medical Care for HIV Infection—Medical Monitoring Project, United States, 2013 Cycle (June 2013–May 2014). HIV Surveillance Special Report 16; January 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/#panel2.
  20. 20.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Distinguishing Public Health Research and Public Health Nonresearch. 2010. http:/www.cdc.gov/od/science/integrity/docs/cdc-policy-distinguishing-publichealth-research-nonresearch.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2013.
  21. 21.
    Protection of Human Subjects, US Federal Code Title 45 Part 46. 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html.
  22. 22.
    Otis J, McFadyen A, Haig T, Blais M, Cox J, Brenner B, et al. Beyond condoms: risk reduction strategies among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men receiving rapid HIV testing in Montreal, Canada. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(12):2812–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Newcomb ME, Mongrella MC, Weis B, McMillen SJ, Mustanski B. Partner disclosure of PrEP use and undetectable viral load on geosocial networking apps: frequency of disclosure and decisions about condomless sex. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(2):200–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    US Public Health Service (PHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States—2014 Clinical Practice Guideline. 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prepguidelines2014.pdf.
  25. 25.
    Raymond HF, Chen YH, Ick T, Scheer S, Bernstein K, Liska S, et al. A new trend in the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men, San Francisco, 2004–2011. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;62(5):584–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McFarland W, Chen YH, Nguyen B, Grasso M, Levine D, Stall R, et al. Behavior, intention or chance? A longitudinal study of HIV seroadaptive behaviors, abstinence and condom use. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(1):121–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parsons JT, Schrimshaw EW, Wolitski RJ, Halkitis PN, Purcell DW, Hoff CC, et al. Sexual harm reduction practices of HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men: serosorting, strategic positioning, and withdrawal before ejaculation. AIDS. 2005;19:S13–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Snowden JM, Raymond HF, McFarland W. Seroadaptive behaviours among men who have sex with men in San Francisco: the situation in 2008. Sex Trans Infect. 2011;87(2):162–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hughes A, Scheer S. Congruence between self-report and medical record CD4 lymphocyte and HIV viral load test results among HIV-infected patients in care. In: CSTE Conference. Omaha, NE, USA; 2012. Abstract 105.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    HIV Epidemiology Section, San Francisco Department of Public Health. HIV Epidemiology Annual Report 2015. San Francisco: San Francisco Department of Public Health September 2016; 1–91.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    San Francisco Department of Public Health. San Francisco Sexually Transmitted Disease Annual Summary, 2014. San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California. December 2015; 1–130.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kojima N, Davey DJ, Klausner JD. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection and new sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men. AIDS. 2016;30(14):2251–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Trans Infect. 1999;75(1):3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen YH, Snowden JM, McFarland W, Raymond HF. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use, seroadaptation, and sexual behavior among men who have Sex with men, San Francisco, 2004–2014. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(12):2791–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weber S, Buchbinder S. San Francisco Getting to Zero Consortium. The Getting to Zero San Francisco consortium: early results. In: AIDS 2016. Durban, South Africa; 2016. Abstract WEPEE609.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bush S, Magnuson D, Rawlings M, Hawkins T, McCallister S, Mera Giler R. Racial characteristics of FTC/TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis users in the US. In: ICAAC. Boston, MA, USA; 2016. Abstract 2651.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marcus JL, Hurley LB, Hare CB, Silverberg MJ, Volk JE. Disparities in uptake of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a large integrated health care system. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):e2–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Surveillance Report, 2014. vol. 26; November 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Francisco Department of Public HealthSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations