Transgender Women's Concerns and Preferences on Potential Future Long-Acting Biomedical HIV Prevention Strategies: The Case of Injections and Implanted Medication Delivery Devices (IMDDs).

There are several long-acting biomedical HIV prevention products in the development pipeline, including injections and implanted medication delivery devices (IMDDs). It is critical to understand concerns and preferences on the use of these products in populations that shoulder a disproportionate burden of the HIV epidemic, such as transgender women. This will allow researchers and public health professionals to construct interventions tailored to the needs of these women to promote optimal use of these tools. In studies of other biomedical HIV prevention products (e.g., oral PrEP) it is clear that transgender women have unique concerns related to the use of these strategies. This may have an impact on this group's uptake and sustained use of longacting HIV prevention products. This study conducted four focus groups with N = 18 transgender women in New York City to understand their concerns and preferences on long-acting PrEP injections and IMDDs. Findings showed that participants were overwhelmingly positive about long-acting HIV prevention strategies, though they had some apprehensions. Overall, participants felt that injections and IMDDs could help address adherence challenges, and that transgender-specific needs should be addressed during clinical trials. Also, there were concerns related to injection or IMDD logistics, concerns about injections' or IMDDs' presence in the body, and familiarity with these products affected participants' opinions on them. Findings from this work can be used to inform protocols, measures, materials, and adherence interventions in future initiatives for transgender women using PrEP injections or IMDDs.

Knowledge About Oral PrEP Among Transgender Women in New York City.

This paper grows our understanding about PrEP knowledge in transgender women (TW) to improve PrEP-focused education/outreach. Research took place in New York City. We conducted four focus groups in English or Spanish (N = 18). Discussions focused on participants' perceptions and knowledge of oral PrEP. Most participants knew that PrEP is efficacious and requires consistent use. However, some participants were skeptical of medications; others acknowledged that false assumptions about PrEP exist among TW. Most TW in our focus groups were informed about PrEP through clinics or community-based organizations. Some participants felt that messages about medications were oversimplified, and wanted more information.

Barriers and Facilitators to Oral PrEP Use Among Transgender Women in New York City.

Transgender women may face a disparate risk for HIV/AIDS compared to other groups. In 2012, Truvada was approved for daily use as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, there is a dearth of research about barriers and facilitators to PrEP in transgender women. This paper will shed light on transgender women living in New York City's perceived and actual challenges to using PrEP and potential strategies to overcome them. After completing an initial screening process, four 90-min focus groups were completed with n = 18 transgender women. Participants were asked what they like and dislike about PrEP. Participants identified the following barriers: uncomfortable side effects, difficulty taking pills, stigma, exclusion of transgender women in advertising, and lack of research on transgender women and PrEP. Facilitators included: reducing pill size, increasing the types of available HIV prevention products, and conducting scientific studies to evaluate PrEP in transgender women.

Retained in HIV Care But Not on Antiretroviral Treatment: A Qualitative Patient-Provider Dyadic Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients retained in HIV care but not on antiretroviral therapy (ART) represent an important part of the HIV care cascade in the United States. Even in an era of more tolerable and efficacious ART, decision making in regards to ART offer and uptake remains complex and calls for exploration of both patient and provider perspectives. We sought to understand reasons for lack of ART usage in patients meeting the Health Resources Services Administration definition of retention as well as what motivated HIV primary care appointment attendance in the absence of ART. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a qualitative study consisting of 70 in-depth interviews with ART-naïve and ART-experienced patients off ART and their primary care providers in two urban safety-net HIV clinics in San Francisco and New York. Twenty patients and their providers were interviewed separately at baseline, and 15 dyads were interviewed again after at least 3 mo and another clinic visit in order to understand any ART use in the interim. We applied dyadic analysis to our data. Nearly all patients were willing to consider ART, and 40% of the sample went on ART, citing education on newer antiretroviral drugs, acceptance of HIV diagnosis, social support, and increased confidence in their ability to adhere as facilitators. However, the strength of the provider recommendation of ART played an important role. Many patients had internalized messages from providers that their health was too good to warrant ART. In addition, providers, while demonstrating patient-centered care through sensitivity to patients experiencing psychosocial instability, frequently muted the offer of ART, at times unintentionally. In the absence of ART, lab monitoring, provider relationships, access to social services, opiate pain medications, and acute symptoms motivated care. The main limitations of this study were that treatment as prevention was not explored in depth and that participants were recruited from academic HIV clinics in the US, making the findings most generalizable to this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Provider communication with regard to ART is a key focus for further exploration and intervention in order to increase ART uptake for those retained in HIV care.