Doxycycline as Postsexual Exposure Prophylaxis: Use, Acceptability, and Associated Sexual Health Behaviors Among a Multi-Site Sample of Clinical Trial Participants.

Doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP) reduces sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW). In a clinical trial of doxy-PEP, we sought to assess acceptability, impact, and meaning of doxy-PEP use among MSM/TGW. We conducted semistructured, in-depth 1:1 interviews with MSM and TGW enrolled in the intervention arm of the Doxy-PEP study. We queried motivations for and meaning of use, attitudes, beliefs, adherence, effect on sexual behaviors, and partner, community, and structural factors related to use. We coded interview transcripts into content areas, followed by thematic analysis. We interviewed 44 participants (median age 38), 2% were TGW, 17% Black, 61% White, 30% Hispanic, and 45% persons with HIV. We identified three overarching themes. First, participants found doxy-PEP acceptable, and believed it was effective based on their history of STIs, easy to adhere to, and acceptable to sex partners. Second, doxy-PEP benefited their quality of life and mental health, offering "peace of mind" by reducing their anxiety about acquisition or unwitting transmission of STIs. Participants reported feeling more "in control" of preventing STIs, and positive about supporting their personal, partner, and community health. Third, impact on sexual behavior was variable, with most reporting no change or a brief initial change. Participants in a multi-site clinical trial of doxycycline for STI prevention perceived it to be efficacious, and that it provided quality-of-life benefits, including reduced anxiety and sense of control over sexual health. Doxy-PEP had limited impact on sexual behavior. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03980223.

Concordance between SARS-CoV-2 index individuals and their household contacts on index individual COVID-19 transmission cofactors: a comparison of self-reported and contact-reported information.

BACKGROUND: Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, several clinical trials have evaluated postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) among close contacts of an index individual with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because index individuals do not directly inform the efficacy of prevention interventions, they are seldom enrolled in COVID-19 PEP studies. However, adjusting for prognostic covariates such as an index individual's COVID-19 illness and risk behaviors can increase precision in PEP efficacy estimates, so approaches to accurately collecting this information about the index individual are needed. This analysis aimed to assess whether surveying household contacts captures the same information as surveying the index individual directly. METHODS: REGN 2069/CoVPN 3502, a randomized controlled trial of COVID-19 PEP, enrolled household contacts of SARS-CoV-2 index individuals. CoVPN 3502-01 retrospectively enrolled and surveyed the index individuals. We compared responses to seven similar questions about the index individuals' transmission cofactors that were asked in both studies. We estimated the percent concordance between index individuals and their household contacts on each question, with 50% concordance considered equivalent to random chance. RESULTS: Concordance between index individuals and contacts was high on the most objective questions, approximately 97% (95% CI: 90-99%) for index individual age group and 96% (88-98%) for hospitalization. Concordance was moderate for symptoms, approximately 85% (75-91%). Concordance on questions related to the index individual's behavior was only slightly better or no better than random: approximately 62% (51-72%) for whether they received COVID-19 treatment, 68% (57-77%) for sharing a bedroom, 70% (59-79%) for sharing a common room, and 49% (39-60%) for mask wearing at home. However, while contacts were surveyed within 96 h of the index individual testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the median time to enrollment in CoVPN 3502-01 was 240 days, which may have caused recall bias in our results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a need to survey index individuals directly in order to accurately capture their transmission cofactors, rather than relying on their household contacts to report on their behavior. The lag in enrolling participants into CoVPN 3502-01 also highlights the importance of timely enrollment to minimize recall bias.

Postexposure Doxycycline to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men who have sex with men (MSM) are needed. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomized study involving MSM and transgender women who were taking preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (PrEP cohort) or living with HIV infection (persons living with HIV infection [PLWH] cohort) and who had had Neisseria gonorrhoeae (gonorrhea), Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia), or syphilis in the past year. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to take 200 mg of doxycycline within 72 hours after condomless sex (doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis) or receive standard care without doxycycline. STI testing was performed quarterly. The primary end point was the incidence of at least one STI per follow-up quarter. RESULTS: Of 501 participants (327 in the PrEP cohort and 174 in the PLWH cohort), 67% were White, 7% Black, 11% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 30% Hispanic or Latino. In the PrEP cohort, an STI was diagnosed in 61 of 570 quarterly visits (10.7%) in the doxycycline group and 82 of 257 quarterly visits (31.9%) in the standard-care group, for an absolute difference of -21.2 percentage points and a relative risk of 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.46; P<0.001). In the PLWH cohort, an STI was diagnosed in 36 of 305 quarterly visits (11.8%) in the doxycycline group and 39 of 128 quarterly visits (30.5%) in the standard-care group, for an absolute difference of -18.7 percentage points and a relative risk of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.60; P<0.001). The incidences of the three evaluated STIs were lower with doxycycline than with standard care; in the PrEP cohort, the relative risks were 0.45 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.65) for gonorrhea, 0.12 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25) for chlamydia, and 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.59) for syphilis, and in the PLWH cohort, the relative risks were 0.43 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.71), 0.26 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.57), and 0.23 (95% CI, 0.04 to 1.29), respectively. Five grade 3 adverse events and no serious adverse events were attributed to doxycycline. Of the participants with gonorrhea culture available, tetracycline-resistant gonorrhea occurred in 5 of 13 in the doxycycline groups and 2 of 16 in the standard-care groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combined incidence of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis was lower by two thirds with doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis than with standard care, a finding that supports its use among MSM with recent bacterial STIs. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; DoxyPEP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03980223.).

Comparison of Racial, Ethnic, and Geographic Location Diversity of Participants Enrolled in Clinic-Based vs 2 Remote COVID-19 Clinical Trials.

Importance: Racial and ethnic diversity among study participants is associated with improved generalizability of clinical trial results and may address inequities in evidence that informs public health strategies. Novel strategies are needed for equitable access and recruitment of diverse clinical trial populations. Objective: To investigate demographic and geographical location data for participants in 2 remote COVID-19 clinical trials with online recruitment and compare with those of a contemporaneous clinic-based COVID-19 study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from 3 completed, prospective randomized clinical trials conducted at the same time: 2 remotely conducted studies (the Early Treatment Study and Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 Postexposure Prophylaxis [PEP] Study) and 1 clinic-based study of convalescent plasma (the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19 study). Data were collected from March to August 2020 with 1 to 28 days of participant follow-up. All studies had clinical sites in Seattle, Washington; the 2 remote trials also had collaborating sites in New York, New York; Syracuse, New York; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Los Angeles, California. Two remote trials with inclusive social media strategies enrolled 929 participants with recent SARS-CoV-2 exposure (Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 PEP Trial) and 231 participants with COVID-19 infection (Early Treatment Study); the clinic-based Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19 study enrolled 250 participants with recent COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed from April to August 2021. Interventions: Remote trials used inclusive social media strategies and clinician referral for recruitment and telehealth, courier deliveries, and self-collected nasal swabs for remotely conducted study visits. For the clinic-based study, participants were recruited via clinician referral and attended in-person visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: Google Analytics data were used to measure online participant engagement and recruitment. Participant demographics and geographical location data from remote trials were pooled and compared with those of the clinic-based study. Statistical comparison of demographic data was limited to participants with COVID infections (ie, those in the remotely conducted Early Treatment Study vs those in the clinic-based study) to improve accuracy of comparison given that the Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 PEP Trial enrolled participants with COVID-19 exposures and thus had different enrollment criteria. Results: A total of 1410 participants were included. Among 1160 participants in remote trials and 250 participants in the clinic-based trial, the mean (range) age of participants was 39 (18-80) years vs 50 (19-79) years and 676 individuals (58.3%) vs 131 individuals (52.4%) reported female sex. The Early Treatment Study with inclusive social media strategies enrolled 231 participants in 41 US states with increased rates of racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity compared with participants in the clinic-based study. Among 228 participants in the remotely conducted Early Treatment Study with race data vs participants in the clinic-based study, 39 individuals (17.1%) vs 1 individual (0.4%) identified as Alaska Native or American Indian, 11 individuals (4.8%) vs 22 individuals (8.8%) identified as Asian, 26 individuals (11.4%) vs 4 individuals (1.6%) identified as Black, 3 individuals (1.3%) vs 1 individual identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 117 individuals (51.3%) vs 214 individuals (85.6%) identified as White, and 32 individuals (14.0%) vs 8 individuals (3.2%) identified as other race (P < .001). Among 230 individuals in the Early Treatment Study vs 236 individuals in the clinic-based trial with ethnicity data, 71 individuals (30.9%) vs 11 individuals (4.7%) identified as Hispanic or Latinx (P<.001). There were 29 individuals in the Early Treatment Study with nonurban residences (ie, rural, small town, or peri-urban; 12.6%) vs 6 of 248 individuals in the clinic-based trial with residence data (2.4%) (P < .001). In remote trial online recruitment, the highest engagement was with advertisements on social media platforms; among 125 147 unique users with age demographics who clicked on online recruitment advertisements, 84 188 individuals (67.3%) engaged via Facebook. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that remote clinical trials with online advertising may be considered as a strategy to improve diversity among clinical trial participants.

A qualitative study of the allergy testing experiences, views and preferences of adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients can be tested for IgE sensitivities with in vivo or in vitro testing, but patients' experiences of different allergy test modalities have not been studied. The objective of this study was to investigate adult patients' experiences, views and preferences for allergy testing, exploring skin prick testing and allergen-specific IgE testing. METHODS: A qualitative study of adults attending out-patients for investigation of a suspected allergy. A purposive, convenience sample identified participants and semi-structured interviews were conducted, face to face or by telephone. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to explore patients' experiences. RESULTS: 23 patients were interviewed. The characteristics of skin prick tests particularly valued were the immediacy and visibility of results, which enabled testing and interpretation to be achieved within a single clinic appointment. In vitro testing offered patients simplicity and procedural speed, necessitating only a single puncture site, and was perceived to be a superior test as it was conducted in a laboratory. CONCLUSIONS: The patient preferred method of allergy testing was skin prick testing rather than in vitro allergen specific IgE testing. However, most patients were accepting of either testing modality because their desire to confirm or exclude an allergic trigger overrode any perceived disadvantages of the test method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable as study descriptive and qualitative.

Does the use of a glossary aid patient understanding of the letters sent to their general practitioner?

The NHS Plan suggests that all patients should be offered copies of letters regarding their treatment which are currently sent from a specialist clinic to their general practitioner (GP). Previous work has suggested that this enhances patient satisfaction, but medical letters can be difficult to understand. This report concerns the production and evaluation of a lung disease glossary to enhance patient understanding of terms used within the letter sent to their GP. Non-clinical staff reviewed 219 letters sent to GPs and words not likely to be understood by patients were listed and used to produce a glossary of 133 terms. One hundred and thirty-one participants from nine respiratory outpatient clinics in a London teaching hospital were sent the glossary and a questionnaire with their copy of the letter also sent to their GP Of the 131 participants, 93 patients (71%) returned the questionnaire. Eighty-three (89%) found the glossary useful and the number of words checked ranged from 0 to 14 with a median of three words. Those who did not find the glossary useful explained that their understanding was already optimal or that the words they did not understand were not contained within the glossary. This was usually because the words related to non-respiratory comorbidities. This study confirms that the inclusion of a specialty specific glossary with the patients' copy of the letter being sent to their GP is appreciated by patients and appears to aid their understanding.