Belgian 2024 guidance on the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a guidance on the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV tailored to the Belgian context. METHODS: Different aspects of PrEP care were judged by an expert group of nine Belgian clinicians, seeking consensus for areas of controversies. RESULTS: PrEP should be considered in HIV negative patients at high risk of acquiring HIV. Currently, only oral tenofovir/emtricitabine is available in Belgium for PrEP, which can be used daily, or also event-driven in cisgender men and trans women who are not taking exogenous estradiol-based hormones. Personal counselling directed at medication adherence and sexual health should have a central role in PrEP care. At the initial assessment clinicians should give attention to symptoms of an acute HIV infection, the patients' immunization status and renal function. A regular follow-up must be set up to diagnose HIV seroconversion, treat sexually transmitted infections, and manage side effects of PrEP. CONCLUSION: The Belgian guidance on the use of PrEP provides a point of reference for standard PrEP care in Belgium and will be periodically updated.

Understanding adaptive responses in PrEP service delivery in Belgian HIV clinics: a multiple case study using an implementation science framework.

INTRODUCTION: In Belgium, oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is primarily provided in specialized clinical settings. Optimal implementation of PrEP services can help to substantially reduce HIV transmission. However, insights into implementation processes, and their complex interactions with local context, are limited. This study examined factors that influence providers' adaptive responses in the implementation of PrEP services in Belgian HIV clinics. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative multiple case study on PrEP care implementation in eight HIV clinics. Thirty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted between January 2021 and May 2022 with a purposive sample of PrEP care providers (e.g. physicians, nurses, psychologists), supplemented by 50 hours of observations of healthcare settings and clinical interactions. Field notes from observations and verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analysed guided by a refined iteration of extended Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Implementing PrEP care in a centralized service delivery system required considerable adaptive capacity of providers to balance the increasing workload with an adequate response to PrEP users' individual care needs. As a result, clinic structures were re-organized to allow for more efficient PrEP care processes, compatible with other clinic-level priorities. Providers adapted clinical and policy norms on PrEP care (e.g. related to PrEP prescribing practices and which providers can deliver PrEP services), to flexibly tailor care to individual clients' situations. Interprofessional relationships were reconfigured in line with organizational and clinical adaptations; these included task-shifting from physicians to nurses, leading them to become increasingly trained and specialized in PrEP care. As nurse involvement grew, they adopted a crucial role in responding to PrEP users' non-medical needs (e.g. providing psychosocial support). Moreover, clinicians' growing collaboration with sexologists and psychologists, and interactions with PrEP users' family physician, became crucial in addressing complex psychosocial needs of PrEP clients, while also alleviating the burden of care on busy HIV clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study in Belgian HIV clinics reveals that the implementation of PrEP care presents a complex-multifaceted-undertaking that requires substantial adaptive work to ensure seamless integration within existing health services. To optimize integration in different settings, policies and guidelines governing PrEP care implementation should allow for sufficient flexibility and tailoring according to respective local health systems.

Effect of screening for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis on incidence of these infections in men who have sex with men and transgender women taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (the Gonoscreen study): results from a randomised, multicentre, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend screening for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis at three anatomical sites (urethra, anus, and pharynx) every 3 months (3 × 3) in men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). We present the first randomised controlled trial to compare the effect of screening versus non-screening for N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis on the incidence of these infections in MSM and transgender women taking PrEP. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of 3 × 3 screening for N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis versus non-screening was done among MSM and transgender women taking PrEP in five HIV reference centers in Belgium. Participants attended the PrEP clinics quarterly for 12 months. N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis was tested at each visit in both arms, but results were not provided to the non-screening arm, if asymptomatic. The primary outcome was incidence rate of N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis infections in each arm, assessed in the per-protocol population. Non-inferiority of the non-screening arm was proven if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was lower than 1·25. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04269434, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 21, 2020, and June 4, 2021, 506 participants were randomly assigned to the 3 × 3 screening arm and 508 to the non-screening arm. The overall incidence rate of N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis was 0·155 cases per 100 person-days (95% CI 0·128-0·186) in the 3 × 3 screening arm and 0·205 (95% CI 0·171-0·246) in the non-screening arm. The incidence rate was significantly higher in the non-screening arm (IRR 1·318, 95% CI 1·068-1·627). Participants in the non-screening arm had a higher incidence of C trachomatis infections and symptomatic C trachomatis infections. There were no significant differences in N gonorrhoeae infections. Participants in the non-screening arm consumed significantly fewer antimicrobial drugs. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: We failed to show that non-screening for N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis is non-inferior to 3 × 3 screening in MSM and transgender women taking PrEP in Belgium. However, screening was associated with higher antibiotic consumption and had no effect on the incidence of N gonorrhoeae. Further research is needed to assess the benefits and harms of N gonorrhoeae and C trachomatis screening in this population. FUNDING: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre.