Experiences of mpox illness and case management among cis and trans gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in England: a qualitative study.

Background: The 2022-2024 global mpox outbreak, occurring primarily in the sexual networks of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), has not been accompanied by a focus on patient perspectives of illness. We explore the experiences of GBMSM diagnosed with mpox in England to understand needs for social and clinical support. Methods: In-depth interviews (March/July 2023) were conducted with 22 GBMSM diagnosed with mpox in 2022, randomly selected from a national mpox surveillance database, and 4 stakeholders from clinical/community-based organisations. Interviews covered experiences of illness, testing, diagnosis, treatment and contact tracing, and were recorded, transcribed and analysed with a thematic framework. Findings: Media coverage drawing on homophobic stereotypes around sex between men contributed to feelings of stigma and shame. GBMSM living with HIV appeared to cope better with mpox stigma, drawing on their experiences of being diagnosed with HIV for resilience. Younger GBMSM with less experience of stigmatising illness found mpox diagnosis more traumatic and sometimes required support beyond what was provided. Accessing testing could be complicated when healthcare professionals did not recognise mpox symptoms. Men felt information on course of illness, isolation and vaccination after recovery was often inconsistent and contradictory. GBMSM described that care from sexual health and infectious disease units usually better met their emotional and medical needs. This was frequently linked by men to these services having skills in working with the GBMSM community and managing infection risk sensitively. General hospital services and centralised contact tracing could increase feelings and experiences of stigma as some staff were perceived to lack skills in supporting GBMSM and, sometimes, clinical knowledge. Long-term impacts described by men included mental health challenges, urethral/rectal symptoms and life-changing disability. Interpretation: In this study stigma was a central feature of mpox illness among GBMSM and could be exacerbated or lessened depending on the clinical and social support provided. Involving communities affected by outbreaks in co-producing, planning and delivering care (including contact-tracing) may help improve support provided. Funding: TCW, AJR, AS and FMB received support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Ref: NIHR202038). CS and JS receive support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Blood Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infections at UCL in partnership with UKHSA; RV receives support from the NIHR HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections and NIHR HPRU in Gastrointestinal Infections. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UK Health Security Agency, World Health Organization or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Late diagnosis of HIV in 2022: Why so little change?

BACKGROUND: The proportion of people who are diagnosed late is a key metric to measure the public health response to HIV. But this percentage remains stubbornly high in nearly every country. Delays in accessing antiretroviral therapy affects both (i) individual health, due to a higher risk of mortality, and (ii) population-based health, due to continued risk of transmission. Despite huge efforts to increase testing, late diagnosis continues to be an indication of a public health failure. OUTLINE: This short review includes community perspectives on why late diagnosis continues and how it may be reduced. We discuss both structural barriers that prevent people from testing earlier and personal reasons why some people still refuse testing when offered. We note that late diagnosis is reported in all countries and in all demographic groups and that sex, gender, age, and sexuality all affect these rates. However, even in groups with high HIV awareness, such as in gay and bisexual men in the UK, more than one in three people with HIV continue to be diagnosed late. Fears and prejudice about HIV based on outdated information are still common among both health workers and people using health services. For example, testing is still not offered in primary or emergency care settings, and even free testing might not be accepted if someone fears the outcome might jeopardize their resident status, employment, relationship, or health. SUMMARY: In addition to developing targeted projects to reach the highest-risk groups, a positive mainstream public campaign could make testing more acceptable at a broad population level across all demographics. This could challenge and repair the media campaigns from the 1980s that still contribute to the stigma that frightens people away from testing now. We hope that an effective approach in one country might also help others.

BHIVA position statement on HIV, the law and the work of the clinical team.

The purpose of this statement is to outline issues at the interface between HIV transmission and the law and provide guidance to healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in the field of HIV medicine. The guidance is to support work in the UK, and it is important to note that the law in England and Wales differs from that in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Approaches are suggested to deal with these issues consistently, within legal and General Medical Council (GMC) regulatory frameworks and in the context of the public health agenda. The guidance specifically addresses sexual transmission.

Clinical implementation of long-acting antiretroviral treatment in high-income countries: challenges and advantages.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Long-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) brings a paradigm shift to HIV care with injectable cabotegravir/rilpivirine (IM-CAB/RPV) in current or imminent use in several countries. This brings the usual opportunities and challenges of a new therapy, plus requirements to adapt services to reliably deliver injections and ensure patients understand advantages and limitations. We summarise key considerations for implementation in high-income countries. RECENT FINDINGS: Monthly IM-CAB/RPV is noninferior to oral ART and monthly IM-CAB/RPV to 1-monthly in carefully selected virally suppressed people. The numerically higher virological failure rate on two-monthly IM-CAB/RPV warrants close attention and careful monitoring. Implementation projects report positive experiences for patients and staff, but also barriers. Data is needed in younger people, pregnancy/breastfeeding, and in those with detectable viraemia secondary to suboptimal adherence. SUMMARY: We highlight a paucity of real-world data and key unanswered questions. Existing data on injection techniques may have implications for training; monitoring of outcomes is crucial to ensure clinical trial results are replicated in real-life. Better understanding of treatment failure, and individualised therapy, is crucial, and it is important to repeat patient preference surveys as new data emerges to ensure decisions are based on the most recent evidence of benefit vs risk.

UK guideline for the use of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis 2021.

We present the updated British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to HIV following sexual exposures, occupational exposures and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. This serves as an update to the 2015 BASHH guideline on PEP following sexual exposures and the 2008 Expert Advisory Group on AIDS guidelines on HIV PEP. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on best clinical practice in the provision, monitoring and support of PEP for the prevention of HIV acquisition following sexual, occupational and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. The guideline covers when to prescribe PEP, what antiretroviral agents to use and how to manage PEP. This includes (i) evidence of PEP efficacy; (ii) evidence relating to individual-level efficacy of antiretroviral therapy to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV; (iii) data on the detectable (transmissible) prevalence of HIV in specific populations; (iv) risk of HIV transmission following different types of sexual and occupational exposure; (v) baseline risk assessment; (vi) drug regimens and dosing schedules; (vii) monitoring PEP; (viii) baseline and follow-up blood-borne virus testing; (ix) the role of PEP within broader HIV prevention strategies, for example, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The guideline also covers special scenarios such as PEP in pregnancy, breastfeeding and chronic hepatitis B virus infection, and when PEP should be considered in people using HIV PrEP. The guidelines are aimed at clinical professionals directly involved in PEP provision and other stakeholders in the field. A proforma to assist PEP consultations is included. A public consultation process was undertaken prior to finalizing the recommendations.