Chems4EU: chemsex use and its impacts across four European countries in HIV-positive men who have sex with men attending HIV services.

INTRODUCTION: Chemsex in a European context is the use of any of the following drugs to facilitate sex: crystal methamphetamine, mephedrone and gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)/gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) and, to a lesser extent, cocaine and ketamine. This study describes the prevalence of self-reported recreational drug use and chemsex in HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) accessing HIV services in four countries. It also examines the problematic impacts and harms of chemsex and access to chemsex-related services. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional multi-centre questionnaire study of HIV-positive MSM accessing nine HIV services in the UK, Spain, Greece and Italy. RESULTS: In all, 1589 HIV-positive MSM attending HIV services in four countries completed the questionnaire. The median age of participants was 38 years (interquartile range: 32-46 years) and 1525 (96.0%) were taking antiretroviral therapy (ART). In the previous 12 months, 709 (44.6%) had used recreational drugs, 382 (24.0%) reported chemsex and 104 (6.5%) reported injection of chemsex-associated drugs ('slamsex'). Of the 382 engaging in chemsex, 155 (40.6%) reported unwanted side effects as a result of chemsex and 81 (21.2%) as a result of withdrawal from chemsex. The reported negative impacts from chemsex were on work (25.1%, 96), friends/family (24.3%, 93) and relationships (28.3%, 108). Fifty-seven (14.9%) accessed chemsex-related services in the past year, 38 of whom (67%) felt the service met their needs. DISCUSSION: A quarter of participants self-reported chemsex in the past 12 months. There were high rates of harms from chemsex across all countries, including negative impacts on work, friends/family and relationships. Although a minority of those engaging in chemsex accessed support, most found this useful.

Patient-delivered partner therapy in the UK: what do the professionals think?

The aim of this study was to investigate consultant genitourinary (GU) physicians' and health advisers' views regarding acceptability of patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) in the United Kingdom (UK). A postal questionnaire was sent to all consultant GU physicians and senior health advisers: 206 (65%) physician questionnaires and 153 (77%) health-adviser questionnaires were returned. One hundred and three (50%) physicians and 31 (22%) health advisers reported ever having used PDPT. Approximately one-third of professionals are strongly opposed to PDPT. However, the majority of both professional groups are cautiously prepared to consider PDPT, but only if there is no other option and only if a health professional first makes contact with the partner. Chief concern among health professionals is the legal status of PDPT in the UK. Here, the current General Medical Council (GMC) guidance on remote prescribing is helpful. The outcome of the Medical Research Council randomized controlled trial on accelerated partner therapy, which fits in with GMC guidance, is eagerly awaited as professionals would welcome evidence-based national guidance.

Patient-delivered partner therapy in the UK: what do patients think?

The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of genitourinary (GU) medicine patients attending a mixed urban/rural clinic who would welcome patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) as a partner management option. Five hundred patients completed the questionnaire. Acceptability of traditional partner referral was 87% (435), partner referral with infection specific guidance was 82% (411) and PDPT was 81% (405). Significantly fewer patients, 71% (354) would find a partner home sampling kit acceptable and provider referral was the least popular option at 23% (117). PDPT is not used in the UK mainly due to concerns of health professionals regarding the legal status of PDPT and the lack of UK evidence. The outcome of the Medical Research Council randomized controlled trial on accelerated partner therapy (which fits in with General Medical Council advice on remote prescribing) is eagerly awaited as professionals would welcome evidence-based guidance and our study suggests that patients are willing to consider this form of partner management as an additional treatment option.