Accuracy of administrative claims prescription fill data to estimate glucocorticoid use and dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: To assess accuracy of administrative claims prescription fill-based estimates of glucocorticoid use and dose, and approximate bias from glucocorticoid exposure misclassification. METHODS: We identified adults with rheumatoid arthritis with linked Medicare and CorEvitas registry data. An algorithm identifying glucocorticoid use and average dose over 90 days from Medicare prescription fills was compared to physician-reported measures from a CorEvitas visit during the same period, using weighted kappa to compare doses (none, ≤5 mg, 5-10 mg, >10 mg/day). A deterministic sensitivity analysis examined the effect of exposure misclassification on estimated glucocorticoid-associated infection risk from a prior study. RESULTS: We identified 621 observations among 494 patients. Prescription fills identified glucocorticoid use in 41.9% of observations versus 31.1% identified by CorEvitas physician-report. For glucocorticoid use (yes/no), prescription fills had sensitivity 88.1% (95% CI 82.7-92.3), specificity 79.0% (74.8-82.7), PPV 65.4% (59.3-71.2), NPV 93.6% (90.6-95.9), and 81.8% agreement with CorEvitas, with kappa 0.61 (moderate to substantial agreement). There was 89.5% agreement between prescription fills and physician-reported doses, with weighted kappa 0.56 (moderate agreement). Applying these results to a prior Medicare study evaluating glucocorticoid-associated infection risk [risk ratio 1.44 (95% CI 1.41-1.48)] led to an externally adjusted risk ratio of 1.74 when accounting for exposure misclassification, representing -17% bias in infection risk estimate. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of claims data to estimate glucocorticoid use and dose, but investigators should account for exposure misclassification, which may lead to underestimates of glucocorticoid risks. Our results could be applied to adjust risk estimates in other studies that use prescription fills to estimate glucocorticoid use.

Preexposure Prophylaxis Implementation in a Reproductive Health Setting: Perspectives From Planned Parenthood Providers and Leaders.

Integrating pregnancy and HIV prevention services would make reproductive health care settings an optimal venue for the promotion and delivery of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to cisgender women. However, these settings have been slow to adopt PrEP. Planned parenthood clinicians and leaders possess critical insight that can help accelerate PrEP implementation in reproductive health care settings and elements of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (i.e., relative priority of the intervention to staff, implementation climate, available resources to implement the intervention, and staff access to knowledge and information about the intervention) can shed light on elements of Planned Parenthood's inner setting that can facilitate PrEP implementation. In this study, individual 60-min interviews were conducted with clinical care team members (n = 10), leadership team members (n = 6), and center managers (n = 2) to explore their perspectives on PrEP implementation and associated training needs. Transcripts were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. Despite having variable PrEP knowledge, participants (100% women, 61% non-Hispanic White) expressed positive attitudes toward implementing PrEP. Barriers and facilitators toward providing PrEP were reported at the structural, provider, and patient levels. Participants desired PrEP training that incorporated culturally competent patient-provider communication. Although participants identified ways that Planned Parenthood uniquely enabled PrEP implementation, barriers must be overcome to optimize promotion and delivery of PrEP to cisgender women.

Electronic Dissemination of a Web-Based Video Promotes PrEP Contemplation and Conversation Among US Women Engaged in Care at Planned Parenthood.

We evaluated the acceptability and impact of a web-based PrEP educational video among women (n = 126) by comparing two Planned Parenthood centers: one assigned to a Web Video Condition and one to a Standard Condition. Most women reported the video helped them better understand what PrEP is (92%), how PrEP works (93%), and how to take PrEP (92%). One month post-intervention, more women in the Web Video Condition reported a high level of comfort discussing PrEP with a provider (82% vs. 48%) and commonly thinking about PrEP (36% vs. 4%). No women with linked medical records initiated PrEP during 1-year follow-up.

Racial and ethnic differences in women's HIV risk and attitudes towards pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the context of the substance use, violence, and depression syndemic.

Women with syndemic conditions, i.e., two or more co-occurring epidemics, are at elevated risk for HIV acquisition and are therefore prime candidates for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, PrEP uptake remains low among women, especially among Black and Hispanic women. This study examined associations of syndemic conditions with PrEP attitudes and HIV risk among women, and the moderating effect of race and ethnicity. In 2017, 271 non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic, PrEP-eligible women engaged in care at Planned Parenthood in the northeastern region of the U.S. completed an online survey. Participants reported syndemic conditions (i.e., intimate partner violence, depression, substance use), PrEP attitudes (e.g., PrEP interest), HIV sexual risk (e.g., multiple male sexual partners), and sociodemographics. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the effects of syndemic conditions on PrEP attitudes and HIV risk, and the moderating effect of race and ethnicity. Women with more syndemic conditions had a higher odds of reporting multiple male sexual partners. Syndemic conditions were positively associated with PrEP attitudes for Hispanic women than non-Hispanic Black and White women. Women with syndemic conditions, particularly Hispanic women, may be receptive to interventions promoting PrEP.

Birth Control Sabotage as a Correlate of Women's Sexual Health Risk: An Exploratory Study.

INTRODUCTION: To explore associations between birth control sabotage, a form of reproductive coercion, and women's sexual risk among women attending family planning health centers. Data were collected from a 2017 cross-sectional online survey of 675 women who attended Connecticut Planned Parenthood centers. Participants reported birth control sabotage; sexual risk (i.e., inconsistent condom use during vaginal and anal sex in the past 6 months, lifetime sexually transmitted infection diagnosis, lifetime exchange sex [trading sex for money, drugs, or other goods], and multiple sexual partners in the past 6 months); and sociodemographics. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine associations between birth control sabotage and women's sexual risk. RESULTS: One in six women (16.4%; n = 111) reported experiencing birth control sabotage. Women who reported birth control sabotage had a greater odds of ever having an sexually transmitted infection (adjusted odds ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.60; p = .003), ever engaging in exchange sex (adjusted odds ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-6.53; p = .020), and having multiple sexual partners in the past 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.18; p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate increased engagement in sexual risk taking among women who reported birth control sabotage compared with women did not.

Contraception as a Potential Gateway to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis: US Women's Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Modality Preferences Align with Their Birth Control Practices.

Addressing women's low uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) requires improved understanding of their product preferences. Such preferences should be contextualized according to other aspects of their reproductive health, including their contraception practices. We investigated women's preferences across 10 PrEP modalities currently available or under study and examined associations between PrEP modality preferences and contraception practices. Heterosexually active women recently engaged in care at Connecticut Planned Parenthood centers (n = 563) completed an online survey. Participants were presented with images and descriptions of 10 PrEP modalities and asked to indicate their preference and specify their reasoning in an open-response format. Participants also reported prior and current use of 16 contraception modalities along with relationship, sexual health, and sociodemographic characteristics. The sample included women ages 18-45 (45.3% 25 or younger) who were predominantly non-Hispanic black (35.7%) or white (33.7%). All PrEP modalities presented were preferred by at least some women, with daily pills (24.9%), injections (24.3%), and invisible implants (14.9%) preferred most commonly. Across all modalities, associated reasoning often centered around ease of use and comfort. Coincidence with contraception modality was the third-most common reason underlying women's preferences. Women currently using the analogous contraception modality versus never having used it had higher odds of preferring PrEP daily pills [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.03], injections (AOR = 8.45), invisible implants (AOR = 11.63), and vaginal rings (AOR = 8.66). Diversification of available PrEP modalities and prioritization of those coinciding with popular contraception practices-especially daily pills, injections, and implants-could optimize PrEP acceptability, encourage PrEP uptake, and ultimately reduce HIV incidence among women.

Current US Guidelines for Prescribing HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Disqualify Many Women Who Are at Risk and Motivated to Use PrEP.

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clinical guidelines for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are widely used to assess patients' PrEP eligibility. The guidelines include 2 versions of criteria-guidance summary criteria and recommended indications criteria-that diverge in a potentially critical way for heterosexually active women: Both require women's knowledge of their own risk behavior, but the recommended indications also require women's knowledge of their partners' HIV risk or recognition of a potentially asymptomatic sexually transmitted infection. This study examined women's PrEP eligibility according to these 2 different versions of criteria across risk and motivation categories. SETTING/METHODS: HIV-negative women (n = 679) recently engaged in care at Connecticut Planned Parenthood centers were surveyed online in 2017. The survey assessed PrEP eligibility by both versions of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, HIV risk indicators, PrEP motivation indicators, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Participants were mostly non-Hispanic white (33.9%) or black (35.8%) and had low income (<$30,000/year; 58.3%). Overall, 82.3% were eligible for PrEP by guidance summary criteria vs. 1.5% by recommended indications criteria. Women disqualified by recommended indications criteria included those reporting condomless sex with HIV-positive or serostatus-unknown male partners (n = 27, 11.1% eligible); 1 or more recent sexually transmitted infection(s) (n = 53, 3.8% eligible); multiple sex partners (n = 168, 3.0% eligible); intended PrEP use (n = 211, 2.8% eligible); and high self-perceived risk (n = 5, 0.0% eligible). CONCLUSION: Current guidelines disqualify many women who could benefit from PrEP and may lead to discrepant assessments of eligibility. Guideline reform is needed to improve clarity and increase women's PrEP access and consequent HIV protection.

HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Stigma as a Multidimensional Barrier to Uptake Among Women Who Attend Planned Parenthood.

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake has lagged among US women. PrEP stigma is a recognized barrier to uptake among men who have sex with men but remains largely unexplored among women. This study examined the pervasiveness of PrEP stigma among US women and its implications for uptake. SETTING/METHODS: In a 2017 online survey of Planned Parenthood patients drawn from the 3 cities with the highest numbers of new HIV infections in Connecticut, 597 heterosexually active, HIV-negative, PrEP-inexperienced women reported background characteristics, 2 dimensions of anticipated PrEP stigma (PrEP-user stereotypes and PrEP disapproval by others), and 3 indicators of potential PrEP uptake (interest in learning more about PrEP, intention to use PrEP, and comfort discussing PrEP with a provider). RESULTS: Participants commonly perceived PrEP-user stereotypes, with many believing that others would regard them as promiscuous (37%), HIV-positive (32%), bad (14%), or gay (11%) if they used PrEP. Thirty percent would feel ashamed to disclose PrEP use. Many participants expected disapproval by family (36%), sex partners (34%), and friends (25%). In adjusted analyses, perception of PrEP-user stereotypes was uniquely associated with less comfort discussing PrEP with a provider. Expected PrEP disapproval by others was uniquely associated with less PrEP interest, less intention to use PrEP, and less comfort discussing PrEP with a provider. Exploratory moderation analyses suggested that intention to use PrEP was greatest when participants anticipated low levels of both PrEP-user stereotypes and PrEP disapproval by others. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need for positive messaging targeting potential PrEP users and their social networks to increase PrEP acceptance and uptake.