HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and opportunities for vaccination against hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus and human papillomavirus: an analysis of the Ontario PrEP cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Populations who seek HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are disproportionately affected by hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human papillomavirus (HPV). We examined immunity/vaccination against these infections among participants in the Ontario PrEP cohort study (ON-PrEP). METHODS: ON-PrEP is a prospective cohort of HIV-negative PrEP users from 10 Ontario clinics. We descriptively analysed baseline immunity/vaccination against HAV (IgG reactive), HBV (hepatitis B surface antibody >10) and HPV (self-reported three-dose vaccination). We further performed multivariable logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with baseline immunity/vaccination. We used cumulative incidence functions to describe vaccine uptake among participants non-immune at baseline. RESULTS: Of 633 eligible participants, 59.1% were white, 85.8% were male and 79.6% were gay. We found baseline evidence of immunity/vaccination against HAV, HBV and HPV in 69.2%, 81.2% and 16.8% of PrEP-experienced participants and 58.9%, 70.3% and 10.4% of PrEP-naïve participants, respectively. Characteristics associated with baseline HAV immunity were greater PrEP duration (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.41/year, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.84), frequent sexually transmitted and bloodborne infection (STBBI) testing (aOR 2.38, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.92) and HBV immunity (aOR 3.53, 95% CI 2.09 to 5.98). Characteristics associated with baseline HBV immunity were living in Toronto (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 1.87 to 6.70) or Ottawa (aOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.41 to 5.40), self-identifying as racialised (aOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.18), greater PrEP duration (aOR 1.39/year, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) and HAV immunity (aOR 3.75, 95% CI 2.19 to 6.41). Characteristics associated with baseline HPV vaccination were being aged ≤26 years (aOR 9.28, 95% CI 2.11 to 40.77), annual income between CAD$60 000 and CAD$119 000 (aOR 3.42, 95% CI 1.40 to 8.34), frequent STBBI testing (aOR 7.00, 95% CI 1.38 to 35.46) and HAV immunity (aOR 6.96, 95% CI 2.00 to 24.25). Among those non-immune at baseline, overall cumulative probability of immunity/vaccination was 0.70, 0.60 and 0.53 among PrEP-experienced participants and 0.93, 0.80 and 0.70 among PrEP-naïve participants for HAV, HBV and HPV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline immunity to HAV/HBV was common, and a sizeable proportion of non-immune participants were vaccinated during follow-up. However, HPV vaccination was uncommon. Continued efforts should be made to remove barriers to HPV vaccination such as cost, inclusion in clinical guidelines and provider recommendation.

Community and Health Care Provider Preferences for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Interventions for Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men: e-Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Canadian clinical guidelines recommend at least annual and up to quarterly bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing among sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM). However, testing rates are suboptimal. Innovative solutions are needed to close the gap because there is currently limited knowledge on how best to approach this issue. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to build consensus regarding interventions with the greatest potential for improving local STI testing services for GBM communities in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, using a web-based e-Delphi process. METHODS: The e-Delphi method involves using a panel format to conduct successive rounds of prioritization, with feedback between rounds, to determine priorities among groups. We recruited experts separately from the community (GBM who sought or underwent STI testing in the preceding 18 months; conducted between October 2019 and November 2019) and health care providers (those who offered STI testing to GBM in the past 12 months; conducted between February 2020 and May 2020). The experts prioritized 6 to 8 potential interventions on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not a priority to definitely a priority over 3 survey rounds and ranked their top 3 interventions. Consensus was defined as ≥60% within a ±1 response point. Summaries of responses were provided in successive rounds. We reported the percentage of a priority (encompassing somewhat a priority, a priority, and definitely a priority responses) at the end of the final round of the survey. RESULTS: Of the community experts (CEs), 84% (43/51) completed all rounds; 19% (8/43) were living with HIV; 37% (16/43) were HIV negative and on pre-exposure prophylaxis; and 42% (18/43) were HIV negative and not on pre-exposure prophylaxis. We reached consensus on 6 interventions: client reminders (41/43, 95%), express testing (38/43, 88%), routine testing (36/43, 84%), an online booking app (36/43, 84%), online-based testing (33/43, 77%), and nurse-led testing (31/43, 72%). The CEs favored convenient interventions that also maintain a relationship with their provider. Of the provider experts (PEs), 77% (37/48) completed all rounds; 59% (22/37) were physicians. Consensus was reached on the same 6 interventions (range 25/37, 68%, to 39/39, 100%) but not for provider alerts (7/37, 19%) and provider audit and feedback (6/37, 16%). Express testing, online-based testing, and nurse-led testing were prioritized by >95% (>37/39) of the PEs by the end of round 2 because of streamlined processes and decreased need to see a provider. CONCLUSIONS: Both panels were enthusiastic about innovations that make STI testing more efficient, with express testing rating highly in both the prioritizations and top 3 rankings. However, CEs preferred convenient interventions that involved their provider, whereas PEs favored interventions that prioritized patient independence and reduced patient-provider time. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/13801.

Community perspectives on ideal bacterial STI testing services for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Toronto, Canada: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Innovation is needed to produce sustained improvements in bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STI) testing given suboptimal access and uptake among sexually active gay, bisexual or other men who have sex with men (GBM). Yet, the STI testing processes and technologies that best address local testing barriers among GBM in Toronto is unknown. We aimed to explore men's perspectives regarding STI testing services for GBM to identify and prioritize new STI testing interventions in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with twenty-seven GBM in 2017: two with cisgender men living with HIV, one with cisgender HIV-negative men, and one with transgender men. Twenty-seven men participated in the focus groups with 40% 18-30 years of age, 48% self-identifying as white, and the remainder self-identifying as Middle Eastern, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, South Asian, First Nations, African/Caribbean/Black, or mixed race. 59% of participants self-identified as living with HIV. Participants were asked about their STI testing experiences in Toronto, barriers and facilitators to testing, and ideal STI testing process. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Core concepts included how clinical context, bacterial STI testing delivery, and interactions with healthcare providers can create barriers and recommendations for ways to improve. Regarding clinical context, participants desired more clinics with accessible locations/hours; streamlined testing that minimized use of waiting rooms and wait times; and improved clinic ambience. Bacterial STI testing delivery recommendations included standardization to ensure consistency in sexual history intake, tests offered, follow-up and public health reporting between clinics. Men also recommended reducing the multistep process testing by offering components such as lab requisitions and results online. Participants also recommended interactions with healthcare providers be professional and non-judgmental, offer compassionate and competent care with destigmatizing and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) affirming communication. CONCLUSION: Concrete and practical solutions for improving existing sexual health services and facilitating optimal STI testing include streamlining testing options and providing patient-centred, LGBT-affirming care to enable optimal STI testing.

Survey of Health Care Providers' Practices and Opinions Regarding Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BACKGROUND: Rates of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to rise among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) globally. Testing and treatment can prevent morbidity and transmission. However, testing rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: In 2018, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey to explore STI testing ordering practices, 14 potential barriers for testing and 11 possible ways to improve testing from the perspective of health care providers in Toronto, Ontario. An estimated 172 providers were invited from primary care and sexual health clinic settings. Providers were eligible to complete the survey if they provided care for ≥1 GBMSM per week and were involved in the decision-making process in providing STI tests. We used descriptive statistics to summarize survey responses. RESULTS: Ninety-five providers (55% response rate) participated, of whom 68% worked in primary care and 32% in sexual health settings. Most (66%) saw ≤10 GBMSM clients per week. In primary care (65%) and sexual health (40%) clinic settings, insufficient consultation time was the most common barrier to STI testing. In primary care, other common barriers included difficulty introducing testing during unrelated consultations (53%), forgetting (47%), and patients being sexually inactive (31%) or declining testing (27%). The following were most likely to improve testing: express/fast-track testing services (89%), provider alerts when patients are due for testing (87%), patient-collected specimens (84%), nurse-led STI testing (79%), and standing orders (79%). CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions to improve bacterial STI testing included initiatives that simplify and expedite testing and expand testing delivery to other health care professionals.

Community-Directed Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Interventions Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for an E-Delphi Study in Toronto, Canada.

BACKGROUND: HIV-positive and HIV-negative (gay, bisexual, and other) men who have sex with men (MSM) have experienced a dramatic increase in bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs)-syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. STI testing and treatment mitigate adverse health outcomes and substantially reduce transmission; yet, testing rates remain below recommended levels. Innovation is needed to produce the required increases in testing levels, frequency, and the use of appropriate testing technologies in ways that are engaging, nonstigmatizing, and acceptable to men. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to build consensus with regard to interventions with the greatest potential for improving local STI testing services for MSM communities in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: Following a literature review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of novel testing interventions, and focus groups, and surveys to describe local barriers and facilitators of testing among MSM, we will conduct a Web-based, modified Delphi study (e-Delphi). We will form expert panels of community members and STI test providers. Panelists will rate potential interventions in terms of their priority, using a 7-point Likert scale from definitely not a priority to definitely a priority. They will also rank their preferences by selecting their top 3 preferred interventions. Surveys will be distributed in 3 rounds, with feedback on the distribution of responses from preceding rounds provided in rounds 2 and 3. We will define consensus as having ≥60% (18/30) members indicate a preference within 2 adjacent response points. Qualitative data on disagreements will be obtained using open-ended text responses to explain for ratings and rankings that are different from the majority. RESULTS: On the basis of a literature review and identification of barriers and facilitators to STI testing among community members and test providers in Toronto, we have selected 8 potential interventions for inclusion in the e-Delphi panel surveys. These include 4 interventions that streamline STI testing for asymptomatic individuals, 2 interventions that are targeted at clients and 2 interventions that are targeted at providers. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will provide community direction for informed decision making regarding the implementation of STI testing interventions in this setting. They will characterize the intervention climate for innovation to STI testing services, including perceived needs for changes to test delivery, relative priorities for change, and readiness for implementation. These methods may be transferable to other urban jurisdictions experiencing similar epidemics and for other contexts where stakeholder input is needed to manage sensitive areas of concern. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/13801.