A qualitative study of provider thoughts on implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in clinical settings to prevent HIV infection

Emily A Arnold, Patrick Hazelton, Tim Lane, Katerina A Christopoulos, Gabriel R Galindo, Wayne T Steward, Stephen F Morin, Emily A Arnold, Patrick Hazelton, Tim Lane, Katerina A Christopoulos, Gabriel R Galindo, Wayne T Steward, Stephen F Morin

Abstract

Background: A recent clinical trial demonstrated that a daily dose tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabrine (TDF-FTC) can reduce HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender (TG) women by 44%, and up to 90% if taken daily. We explored how medical and service providers understand research results and plan to develop clinical protocols to prescribe, support and monitor adherence for patients on PrEP in the United States.

Methods: Using referrals from our community collaborators and snowball sampling, we recruited 22 healthcare providers in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles for in-depth interviews from May-December 2011. The providers included primary care physicians seeing high numbers of MSM and TG women, HIV specialists, community health clinic providers, and public health officials. We analyzed interviews thematically to produce recommendations for setting policy around implementing PrEP. Interview topics included: assessing clinician impressions of PrEP and CDC guidance, considerations of cost, office capacity, dosing schedules, and following patients over time.

Results: Little or no demand for PrEP from patients was reported at the time of the interviews. Providers did not agree on the most appropriate patients for PrEP and believed that current models of care, which do not involve routine frequent office visits, were not well suited for prescribing PrEP. Providers detailed the need to build capacity and were concerned about monitoring side effects and adherence. PrEP was seen as potentially having impact on the epidemic but providers also noted that community education campaigns needed to be tailored to effectively reach specific vulnerable populations.

Conclusions: While PrEP may be a novel and clinically compelling prevention intervention for MSM and TG women, it raises a number of important implementation challenges that would need to be addressed. Nonetheless, most providers expressed optimism that they eventually could prescribe and monitor PrEP in their practice.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2587–2599.
    1. Grant RM. Antiretroviral agents used by HIV-uninfected persons for prevention: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:S96–101.
    1. Michael NL. Oral preexposure prophylaxis for HIV–another arrow in the quiver? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2663–2665.
    1. Cahill S. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention: Moving toward Implementation. Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute. 2012.
    1. van der Straten A, Van Damme L, Haberer JE, Bangsberg DR. Unraveling the divergent results of pre-exposure prophylaxis trials for HIV prevention. AIDS. 2012;26:F13–19.
    1. Baeten J, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo N, Mujugira A, et al. ARV PrEP for HIV-1 Prevention among Heterosexual Men and Women; Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Seattle, WA. 2012.
    1. Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Smith DK, Segolodi TM, Soud FA, et al. Daily oral antiretroviral use for the prevention of HIV infection in heterosexually active young adults in Botswana: results from the TDF2 study; IAS Conference on HIV Pathogensis, Treatment and Prevention, Rome, Italy. 2012.
    1. CDC. Interim guidance: preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:65–68.
    1. Grady D. F.D.A. Advisory Panel Backs Preventive Use of H.I.V. Drug. New York Times. 2012. Global Edition ed. New York NY.
    1. MSN Money. U.S. FDA Grants Priority Review for Truvada® for Reducing the Risk of Acquiring HIV Infection. 2012.
    1. Underhill K, Operario D, Mimiaga MJ, Skeer MR, Mayer KH. Implementation science of pre-exposure prophylaxis: preparing for public use. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2010;7:210–219.
    1. Underhill K, Operario D, Skeer M, Mimiaga M, Mayer K. Packaging PrEP to Prevent HIV: An Integrated Framework to Plan for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Implementation in Clinical Practice. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55:8–13.
    1. Myers GM, Mayer KH. Oral preexposure anti-HIV prophylaxis for high-risk U.S. populations: current considerations in light of new findings. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2011;25:63–71.
    1. Buchbinder SP, Liu A. Pre-exposure prophylaxis and the promise of combination prevention approaches. AIDS Behav. 2011;15:S72–79.
    1. Kelesidis T, Landovitz RJ. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8:94–103.
    1. Leibowitz AA, Parker KB, Rotheram-Borus MJ. A US policy perspective on oral preexposure prophylaxis for HIV. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:982–985.
    1. Hurt CB, Eron JJ, Jr, Cohen MS. Pre-exposure prophylaxis and antiretroviral resistance: HIV prevention at a cost? Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:1265–1270.
    1. Paltiel AD, Freedberg KA, Scott CA, Schackman BR, Losina E, et al. HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States: impact on lifetime infection risk, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:806–815.
    1. Hazelton P. Financing and Delivery Mechanisms to Increase Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Access in Populations at High-Risk of HIV Infection. San Francisco: Project Inform. 1–32 p. 2011.
    1. Pazella E. Comments by Ed Pazella of Aetna at Safety Issues in Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Negative Individuals, Proposals for Management of Safety Concerns, and Pending Plans for Scale-up; Washington, DC. 2011.
    1. Galea JT, Kinsler JJ, Salazar X, Lee SJ, Giron M, et al. Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis as an HIV prevention strategy: barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake among at-risk Peruvian populations. Int J STD AIDS. 2011;22:256–262.
    1. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook: Sage Publications. 1994.
    1. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Sage Publications. 2002.
    1. Muhr T. ATLAS.ti 5: The Knowledge Workbench. Berlin: Scientific Software Development. 1997.
    1. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:493–505.
    1. Flash C, Krakower D, Mayer KH. The Promise of Antiretrovirals for HIV Prevention. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2012.
    1. Marks G, Crepaz N, Janssen RS. Estimating sexual transmission of HIV from persons aware and unaware that they are infected with the virus in the USA. AIDS. 2006;20:1447–1450.
    1. Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, Ziebell R, Green T, et al. Estimated HIV incidence in the United States, 2006–2009. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17502.
    1. Forsyth AD, Valdiserri RO. Reaping the prevention benefits of highly active antiretroviral treatment: policy implications of HIV Prevention Trials Network 052. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7:111–116.
    1. Desai K, Sansom SL, Ackers ML, Stewart SR, Hall HI, et al. Modeling the impact of HIV chemoprophylaxis strategies among men who have sex with men in the United States: HIV infections prevented and cost-effectiveness. AIDS. 2008;22:1829–1839.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel