Walter Eichler and his role in the development of electroneurography.

Walter Eichler (1904-1942) performed the first in situ nerve conduction studies in humans. Eichler's work has been largely overlooked and there have been no biographical accounts written of him. His 1937 paper, Über die Ableitung der Aktionspotentiale vom menschlichen Nerven in situ (On the recording of the action potentials from human nerves in situ) was translated and reviewed. Archival material was obtained on his career that was housed predominantly at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau. He had memberships in Nazi organizations but did not appear to be politically active. During his brief career, he constructed novel equipment and established seminal principles for performing nerve conductions on humans. The authors repeated his experiment in the ulnar nerve, which duplicated Eichler's findings. His recordings were quite remarkable given advances in technology. In summary, the Eichler paper is the first study in the development of in situ clinical electroneurography in humans. Many of his procedural observations are still fundamental in the current practice of electroneurography. As best can be determined, his study in humans did not appear ethically compromised. Although Eichler's personal background remains open to question, his paper is a seminal study in the history and development of clinical electroneurography.Abbreviations: AP: Action potential; C: Capacitor; CNP: Compound nerve potential; DC: Direct current; E1: Preferred term for active electrode; E2: Preferred term for reference electrode; NSDÄB: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche NSD-Ärtzebund (National Socialist German Doctors' League; NSDAP: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party/ Nazi Party); SS: Schutzstaffel (Protective Echelon or Squad of the Nazi party).

Exploring preferences and decision-making about long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among young sexual minority men 17-24 years old.

Intramuscular cabotegravir for long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (i.e., LAI-PrEP) was approved by the U.S. FDA in 2021. We sought to explore LAI-PrEP decision-making among a nationwide sample of young sexual minority men (YSMM) 17-24 years old. In 2020, HIV-negative/unknown YSMM (n = 41) who met CDC criteria for PrEP were recruited online to participate in synchronous online focus groups eliciting preferences and opinions about LAI-PrEP, as well as the impact of a potential self-administered option. Data were analyzed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis with constant comparison. Preferences and decision-making about LAI-PrEP varied widely among YSMM, with participants frequently comparing LAI-PrEP to oral PrEP regimens. We identified five key themes related to LAI-PrEP decision-making including concerns about adherence to PrEP dosing and clinic appointments, awareness and knowledge of PrEP safety and efficacy data, comfort with needles, minimizing PrEP stigma, and considerations of self-administration. YSMM acknowledged more PrEP options as beneficial to supporting uptake and persistence.

Evidence of Potential Discriminatory HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Prescribing Practices for People Who Inject Drugs Among a Small Percentage of Providers in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: A large percentage of people who inject drugs (PWID) are living with HIV. Yet, rates of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among PWID remain low. Stigma surrounding substance use and PWID have been identified as potential barriers to PrEP. This study examined healthcare providers' concerns regarding PWID and willingness to prescribe PrEP to PWID. METHODS: An online, cross-sectional survey of a diverse group of healthcare providers in the 10 U.S. cities with the greatest HIV prevalence was conducted between July 2014 and May 2015. Participants responded to a patient vignette of a PWID and asked to indicate whether the patient would be a candidate for PrEP and why via free-response text. Descriptive statistics are reported using frequency measures. Bivariate analyses were conducted using chi-squared comparisons and logistical regression. RESULTS: Survey data from 480 providers were included in analyses. Of the 480 responses, 85.5% were classified as PrEP aware, while 14.2% were PrEP unaware. Additionally, 82.6% indicated the patient would be a good candidate for PrEP, 4.4% believed the patient was not a good candidate for PrEP, and 13% were unsure. Among those who were unsure or would not prescribe PrEP (n = 84), open-ended responses indicated lack of knowledge (42.9%), concern about adherence (27.4%), concern about cost (4.8%), and bias (7.1%) as the primary reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of providers in this study did not demonstrate bias against PWID, our study found that limited PrEP knowledge and bias are barriers to PrEP prescription among PWID for some providers. Interventions are needed that increase PrEP awareness of CDC guidelines and reduce implicit bias among providers.

Uptake of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination by HIV Status and HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Care Engagement Among Young Sexual Minority Men 17-24 Years Old in the USA.

Introduction: HIV and human papillomavirus (HPV) are common sexually transmitted infections among young sexual minority men (YSMM) that are prevented by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and HPV vaccination, respectively. We sought to determine the association between a history of PrEP use and HPV vaccination uptake among YSMM. Methods: Data were collected from an online survey of YSMM (n = 287; M age = 20.6 years, range: 17-24; 58% Black or Latinx) recruited from social media and men-for-men geosocial networking apps in 2020 and analyses were conducted using chi-squared comparisons and Poisson regression using STATA (IC) version 15.1. Results: About half (45.0%) of YSMM reported receiving at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. Controlling for other factors, YSMM who were living with HIV or had used PrEP were significantly more likely to have received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine (PR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.52-4.07; PR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.26-2.31, respectively). Conclusions: YSMM living with HIV or with PrEP use experience reported higher rates of HPV vaccination compared to their counterparts, potentially due to greater utilization of health care or contacts with providers attuned to their health needs. Nevertheless, HPV vaccination uptake is suboptimal given the high prevalence of high-risk HPV genotypes among YSMM. Policy Implications: Standard of care for YSMM should include revisiting HPV vaccination status and discussion of PrEP and other HIV prevention methods given suboptimal rates of HPV and PrEP uptake among this priority population for HPV vaccination, anal cancer, and HIV prevention.

Tailored HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Intervention Needs from a Latent Class Analysis Among U.S. Healthcare Providers.

Interventions are needed to expand HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescribing practices among healthcare providers, but research classifying providers to determine tailored intervention needs is lacking. Providers reported demographics, factors related to HIV treatment and prevention experience, and PrEP-related factors such as knowledge and community protection beliefs via online survey. Latent class analysis grouped providers with similar patterns of HIV prevention- and treatment-related care and tested for associations with demographics and PrEP-related factors. Three distinct classes of providers emerged: (1) PrEP naïve, (2) PrEP aware, and (3) PrEP prescribers. Providers with lower community protection beliefs and staff capacity were more likely to be classified as PrEP naïve compared to aware (ps < 0.05). Providers with concerns about PrEP-related tasks and staff capacity were more likely to be classified as PrEP aware compared to prescribers (ps < 0.05). PrEP-naïve providers could benefit from continuing education, whereas PrEP-aware providers might benefit from capacity building and prescribing optimization interventions.

RESUMEN: Se necesitan intervenciones para expandir los hábitos de prescripción de la profilaxis de pre-exposición al VIH (PrEP) entre los proveedores de atención médica, pero faltan investigaciones que categoricen a los proveedores para identificar necesidades que requieran intervención personalizada. A través de una encuesta en línea, proveedores de salud reportaron sus datos demográficos, los factores relacionados con la experiencia en el tratamiento y la prevención del VIH y los factores relacionados con la PrEP, como el conocimiento y las creencias de protección de la comunidad. Se aplicó un análisis de clases latentes para agrupar a los proveedores con patrones similares de atención de la prevención y el tratamiento del VIH y se evaluó la asociación de estos con factores demográficos y factores relacionados con la PrEP. Surgieron tres clases de proveedores: (1) ingenuos de la PrEP, (2) conscientes de la PrEP y (3) prescriptores de la PrEP. Los proveedores con creencias de protección de la comunidad y capacidad del personal más bajos tuvieron más probabilidad de ser clasificados como ingenuos de la PrEP en comparación con los proveedores conscientes de la PrEP (ps <0.05). Los proveedores con preocupaciones sobre las tareas relacionadas con la PrEP y la capacidad del personal tuvieron mas probabilidad de ser clasificados como conscientes de la PrEP en comparación con los prescriptores de la PrEP (ps <0.05). Los proveedores ingenuos de la PrEP podrían beneficiarse de la educación continua, mientras que los proveedores conscientes de la PrEP podrían beneficiarse de intervenciones para el desarrollo de capacidades y optimización de los hábitos de prescripción.

HIV Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) Awareness and Non-Occupational PEP (nPEP) Prescribing History Among U.S. Healthcare Providers.

Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) has been clinically recommended since 2005. HIV providers and non-HIV providers (n = 480) practicing within above-average HIV prevalence ZIP codes of the 10 U.S. cities with greatest overall HIV prevalence participated in a cross-sectional survey between July 2014 and May 2015. Providers were asked about their awareness of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and nPEP prescribing experience for patients with potential sexual exposures to HIV, which we coded into a PEP prescribing cascade with three categories: (1) PEP unaware, (2) PEP aware, no nPEP prescribing experience, and (3) nPEP prescribing experience. Overall, 12.5% were unaware of PEP, 43.5% were aware but hadn't prescribed nPEP, and 44.0% had prescribed nPEP for potential sexual exposures to HIV. Fewer providers practicing in the U.S. South had ever prescribed nPEP compared to providers in other regions (χ2= 39.91, p < 0.001). HIV providers, compared to non-HIV providers, were more likely to be classified in the nPEP prescription group compared to the PEP aware without nPEP prescription group (RRR = 2.96, p < 0.001). PrEP prescribers, compared to those PrEP unaware, were more likely to be classified in the nPEP prescription group compared to PEP aware without nPEP prescription group (RRR = 12.49, p < 0.001).

Health Care Provider Barriers to HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Increasing prescription of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is imperative to ending the HIV epidemic in the United States. The objective of this review was to identify health care provider barriers to PrEP implementation. A systematic review was conducted in February 2019 using PubMed to identify barriers to PrEP prescribing practices in the United States. Targeted search terms surrounding PrEP and providers resulted in 222 original studies, 28 of which were ultimately included in our review, with data collected between 2011 and 2018. Six themes were identified across reviewed studies: (i) a lack of PrEP knowledge, (ii) the presence of the Purview Paradox, which refers to discordance in beliefs between HIV specialists and primary care providers on who should prescribe PrEP, (iii) concerns about PrEP costs, (iv) concerns about behavioral and health consequences, (v) interpersonal stigma, and (vi) concerns about patient adherence. A majority of providers were lacking knowledge regarding PrEP, resulting in discomfort in prescribing PrEP, or limited awareness and understanding of PrEP clinical guidelines. Discrepant opinions were identified regarding whether PrEP was best managed within primary care or specialty clinics. Other barriers included concerns about cost, patient adherence, and follow-up maintenance care. Finally, concerns about risk compensation and discomfort discussing sexual activities with patients who would benefit most from PrEP were apparent. Additional work is needed to prepare providers to prescribe and manage patients on PrEP, optimize PrEP delivery, and reduce provider bias. Future research is needed to identify providers' attitudes and beliefs regarding innovations in PrEP dosing, task shifting, and novel strategies for PrEP care.