Missed Opportunities When We Focus only on Risk: Using the Concerns Based Conversation Starter to Identify Potential PrEP Candidates.

Collection and use of self-reported HIV sexual risk-behaviors to identify pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) candidates is common practice in PrEP providing and referral services. Critiques of this strategy highlight overreliance on self-report and contribution to ongoing PrEP stigma. As an alternative (or complimentary) approach, we evaluated a 5-item Concerns Based Conversation Starter (CBCS) that could be used to identify individuals who could benefit from PrEP. The CBCS was included in the 2019 cycle of the American Men's Internet Survey. Item responses were characterized overall and in relation to CDC risk-based PrEP indication and reported willingness to use PrEP. In total, 1606 HIV-negative men who have sex with men not on PrEP were evaluated. Of these, 50% were below the age of 25, 11% Black, 16% Latino, and 64% White. Across the sample, 61% (986) met risk-based criteria for PrEP indication, 80% (1278) were identified by the CBCS, and 52% (835) were flagged by both. The CBCS uniquely identified 28% (443) for follow-up PrEP discussions that would have been missed by a risk-based only approach. Only 9% (151) of the sample had risk-based indication but did not report concerns. Over half of those flagged by the CBCS expressed willingness to use PrEP. The CBCS identified more people than a risk-based indication approach, with most also reporting an interest in using PrEP. A small percentage of risk-indicated participants were 'missed' by the CBCS. As PrEP options and access points expand, implementation tools like the CBCS can facilitate more wide-scale, values-focused PrEP implementation.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Remote Coaching mHealth Adherence Intervention in Youth Living with HIV.

Youth living with HIV (YLWH) in the US have low rates of viral suppression (VS). In a prospective randomized clinical trial (ATN152) that enrolled 89 YLWH on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with detectable viral load, we evaluated a 12 week triggered escalating real-time adherence (TERA) intervention with remote coaching, electronic dose monitoring (EDM), and outreach for missed/delayed doses compared to standard of care (SOC). Median [Q1, Q3] percent days with EDM opening was higher in TERA (72% (47%, 89%)) versus SOC (41% (21%, 59%); p < 0.001) and incidence of numbers of 7 day gaps between openings were lower (TERA to SOC ratio: 0.40; 95% CI 0.30, 0.53; p < 0.001). There were no differences in VS at week 12 (TERA 35%; 95% CI 21%, 51% versus SOC 36%; 95% CI 22%, 51%; p > 0.99) or later time-points. The intervention improved adherence but not VS in heavily ART-experienced YLWH. Remote coaching more closely tailored to the unique dosing patterns and duration of need for youth struggling to reach VS warrants further investigation.