Reasons for not using pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV and strategies that may facilitate uptake in Ontario and British Columbia among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV is underutilized. We aimed to identify barriers to use of PrEP and strategies that may facilitate its uptake. METHODS: Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, aged 19 years or older and living in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, completed a cross-sectional survey in 2019-2020. Participants who met Canadian PrEP guideline criteria and were not already using PrEP identified relevant barriers and which strategies would make them more likely to start PrEP. We described the barriers and strategies separately for Ontario and BC. RESULTS: Of 1527 survey responses, 260 respondents who never used PrEP and met criteria for PrEP were included. In Ontario, the most common barriers were affordability (43%) and concern about adverse effects (42%). In BC, the most common reasons were concern about adverse effects (41%) and not feeling at high enough risk (36%). In Ontario, preferred strategies were short waiting time (63%), the health care provider informing about their HIV risk being higher than perceived (62%), and a written step-by-step guide (60%). In BC, strategies were short waiting time (68%), people speaking publicly about PrEP (68%), and the health care provider counselling about their HIV risk being higher than perceived (64%), adverse effects of PrEP (65%) and how well PrEP works (62%). INTERPRETATION: Concern about adverse effects and not self-identifying as having high risk for HIV were common barriers, and shorter waiting times may increase PrEP uptake. In Ontario, the findings suggested lack of affordability, whereas in BC, strategies involving health care providers were valued.

Disjuncture between self-perceived and clinically assessed risk of HIV among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Self-perceived and clinically assessed HIV risk do not always align. We compared self-perceived and clinically assessed risk of HIV and the reasons for self-perceived low risk of HIV among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) from large urban centers in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Never PrEP users recruited from sexual health clinics or online, completed a cross-sectional survey between July/2019 and August/2020. We contrasted self-perceived HIV risk against criteria from the Canadian PrEP guidelines and participants were categorized as concordant or discordant. We used content analysis to categorize participants' free-text explanations for perceived low HIV risk. These were compared with answers to quantitative responses about condomless sex acts and number of partners. RESULTS: Of 315 GBM who self-perceived low risk of HIV, 146 (46%) were considered at high risk according to the guidelines. Participants with discordant assessment were younger, had less years of formal education, were more often in an open relationship and were more likely to self-identify as gay. Reasons for self-perceived low HIV risk in the discordant group were condom use (27%), being in a committed relationship/having one main partner (15%), having no or infrequent anal sex (12%) and having few partners (10%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a disjuncture between self-perceived and clinically assessed risk of HIV. Some GBM may underestimate their HIV risk and clinical criteria may overestimate risk. Bridging these gaps requires efforts to increase HIV risk awareness in the community, and refinement of clinical assessments based on individualized discussions between the provider and the user.

Sexual health promotion for sexual and gender minorities in primary care: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) face health disparities related to systemic discrimination and barriers to sexual health. Sexual health promotion encompasses strategies that enable individuals, groups and communities to make informed decisions regarding their sexual well-being. Our objective is to describe the existing sexual health promotion interventions tailored for SGMs within the primary care context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review and search for articles in 12 medical and social science academic databases on interventions that are targeted towards SGMs in the primary care context in industrialised countries. Searches were conducted on 7 July 2020 and 31 May 2022. We defined sexual health interventions in the inclusion framework as: (1) promote positive sexual health, or sex and relationship education; (2) reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted infections; (3) reduce unintended pregnancies; or (4) change prejudice, stigma and discrimination around sexual health, or increase awareness surrounding positive sex. Two independent reviewers will select articles meeting inclusion criteria and extract data. Participant and study characteristics will be summarised using frequencies and proportions. Our primary analysis will include a descriptive summary of key interventional themes from content and thematic analysis. Gender-based Analysis Plus will be used to stratify themes based on gender, race, sexuality and other identities. The secondary analysis will include the use of the Sexual and Gender Minority Disparities Research Framework to analyse the interventions from a socioecological perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for a scoping review. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X5R47). The intended audiences are primary care providers, public health, researchers and community-based organisations. Results will be communicated through peer-reviewed publication, conferences, rounds and other opportunities to reach primary care providers. Community-based engagement will occur through presentations, guest speakers, community forums and research summary handouts.

PrEP-related stigma and PrEP use among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore the association between PrEP-related stereotypes and perceived disapproval (hereafter PrEP-related stigma), and PrEP use. METHODS: We used data from a cross-sectional online survey among adult gay, bisexual, other men who have sex with men in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Participants were recruited 2019-2020 in-person from sexual health clinics and outreach programs, and online through dating mobile applications and websites. We used logistic regression models to explore the relationship between PrEP-related stigma and: 1-being a 'never' versus 'current' PrEP user, and 2-being a 'former' versus 'current' user. RESULTS: The median age of the sample was 32 (Q1-Q3 = 27-40), most were white born in Canada (48%), 45% had never used PrEP, 16% were former PrEP users and 39% were current PrEP users. Of 1527 individuals who started the survey, 1190 participants answered questions about PrEP-related stigma: 254 (21.3%) were classified as having low level of PrEP-related stigma, 776 (65.2%) intermediate, and 160 (13.5%) high. No significant association was found when never PrEP users and current PrEP users were compared: adjusted OR = 1.44 (95%-CI: 0.8-2.5). High PrEP-related stigma was positively associated with being a former PrEP user compared to being a current PrEP user: adjusted OR = 2.5 (95%-CI: 1.3-4.9). CONCLUSION: PrEP-related stigma is associated with not using PrEP, particularly with PrEP discontinuation. Our findings indicate that stigma persists as a barrier to PrEP use.

A systematic review of the impacts of oral tetracycline class antibiotics on antimicrobial resistance in normal human flora.

OBJECTIVES: There is interest in doxycycline as prophylaxis against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but concern about antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We conducted a systematic review (CRD42021273301) of the impact of oral tetracycline-class antibiotics on AMR in normal flora. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (1940-2021) and conference proceedings (2014-21) for randomized controlled trials in adults comparing daily oral tetracycline-class antibiotics to non-tetracycline controls. The primary outcome was AMR to tetracyclines; secondary outcomes included resistance to non-tetracyclines. Data were inappropriate for meta-analysis, so we analysed findings descriptively. RESULTS: Our search yielded 6265 abstracts of which 7 articles fulfilled inclusion criteria. Most were at moderate/high risk of bias, generally due to inadequate methodologic reporting. Studies used doxycycline, tetracycline, oxytetracycline or minocycline for 2-18 weeks. Most observed an increased burden of tetracycline resistance, including in subgingival (n = 3 studies), gastrointestinal (n = 2) and upper respiratory tract (n = 1) flora; one study of skin flora found no change in tetracycline-resistant Propionibacterium species after 18 weeks of oxytetracycline/minocycline. Four studies reassessed AMR at 2-50 weeks post-intervention and reported varying degrees of resistance. Three articles reported on the prevalence of non-tetracycline AMR after doxycycline prophylaxis, of which one found a transient increase among gastrointestinal Escherichia coli; the other two showed no difference from control. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effects are modest and transient, limited data from small prospective studies may suggest that oral tetracyclines for 2-18 weeks increase resistance in subgingival, gastrointestinal and upper respiratory tract flora. STI prophylaxis trials should include AMR in commensal bacteria as study outcomes.