Participation, retention and uptake in a multicentre pre-exposure prophylaxis cohort using online, smartphone-compatible data collection.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of a national pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) programme using smartphone-compatible data collection. METHODS: This was a multicentre cohort study (NCT03893188) enrolling individuals interested in PrEP in Switzerland. All centres participate in the SwissPrEPared programme, which uses smartphone-compatible data collection. Feasibility was assessed after centres had enrolled at least one participant. Participants were HIV-negative individuals presenting for PrEP counselling. Outcomes were participation (number enrolled/number eligible), enrolment rates (number enrolled per month), retention at first follow-up (number with first follow-up/number enrolled), and uptake (proportion attending first visit as scheduled). Participant characteristics were compared between those retained after baseline assessment and those who dropped out. RESULTS: Between April 2019 and January 2020, 987 individuals were assessed for eligibility, of whom 969 were enrolled (participation: 98.2%). The median enrolment rate was 86 per month [interquartile range (IQR) 52-137]. Retention at first follow-up and uptake were both 80.7% (782/969 and 532/659, respectively). At enrolment, the median age was 40 (IQR 33-47) years, 95% were men who have sex with men, 47% had a university degree, and 75.5% were already taking PrEP. Most reported multiple casual partners (89.2%), previous sexually transmitted infections (74%) and sexualized drug use (73.1%). At baseline, 25.5% tested positive for either syphilis, gonorrhoea or chlamydia. Participants who dropped out were at lower risk of HIV infection than those retained after baseline assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In a national PrEP programme using smartphone-compatible data collection, participation, retention and uptake were high. Participants retained after baseline assessment were at considerable risk of HIV infection. Younger, less educated individuals were underrepresented in the SwissPrEPared cohort.

Management of BU-HIV co-infection.

BACKGROUND: Buruli Ulcer (BU)-HIV co-infection is an important emerging management challenge for BU disease. Limited by paucity of scientific studies, guidance for management of this co-infection has been lacking. METHODS: Initiated by WHO, a panel of experts in BU and HIV management developed guidance principles for the management of BU-HIV co-infection based on review of available scientific evidence, current treatment experience, and global recommendations established for management of HIV infection and tuberculosis. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that all BU patients should be offered quality provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling. In areas with high prevalence of malaria and/or bacterial infections, all patients with HIV co-infection should be started on cotrimoxazole preventative therapy. Combination antibiotic treatment for BU should be commenced before starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) and provided for 8 weeks duration. The suggested combination is rifampicin (10 mg/kg daily up to a maximum of 600 mg/day) plus streptomycin (15 mg/kg daily). An alternative regimen is rifampicin plus clarithromycin (7.5 mg/kg twice daily up to a maximum of 1000 mg daily) although due to drug interactions with antiretroviral drugs this regimen should be used with caution. ART should be initiated in all BU-HIV co-infected patients with symptomatic HIV disease (WHO clinical stage 3 or 4) regardless of CD4 cell count and in asymptomatic individuals with CD4 count ≤500 cells/mm(3) . If CD4 count is not available, BU-HIV co-infected individuals with category 2 or 3 BU disease should be offered ART. For eligible individuals, ART should be commenced as soon as possible within 8 weeks after commencing BU treatment, and as a priority in those with advanced HIV disease (CD4 ≤ 350 cells/mm(3) or WHO stage 3 or 4 disease). All co-infected patients should be actively screened for tuberculosis before commencing BU treatment and before starting ART. Programmes should implement a monitoring and reporting system to document the outcomes of BU-HIV interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the clinical and epidemiological interactions between BU and HIV disease is limited. While awaiting more urgently needed evidence, current management practice of both diseases has been useful to build simple 'common sense' preliminary guidance on how to manage BU-HIV co-infection.