Acceptability and tolerability of and adherence to HIV preexposure prophylaxis among Toronto gay and bisexual men: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Preexposure prophylaxis is efficacious at preventing HIV infection, but concerns persist about adherence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We assessed preexposure prophylaxis acceptability, adherence and clinical outcomes in a pilot demonstration project. METHODS: HIV-uninfected adult gay and bisexual men who scored 10 or higher on a validated HIV risk score (HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM) and reported condomless receptive anal sex were sequentially enrolled into a 1-year open-label single-arm pilot study of daily oral therapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in Toronto. The primary outcome was acceptability of preexposure prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were preexposure prophylaxis adherence (4-d recall, pill count and dried blood spot analysis), HIV seroconversion, STIs and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 86 men screened, 52 were enrolled. Participants were mostly young (median age 33 yr [interquartile range (IQR) 28-37 yr) white (38 [73%]) gay (49 [94%]) men. Preexposure prophylaxis acceptability was high: all participants reported their experience as "good" or "very good." The median adherence rate was high, at 100% (IQR 95%-100%) by self-report and 96.9% (IQR 93.4%-98.4%) by pill count. Dried blood spot analysis suggested that doses were taken 4-7 days/week at 88.7% (173/195) of month 3-12 visits. No cases of HIV seroconversion occurred, but 25 participants (48%) experienced at least 1 bacterial STI, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 32.8, 32.8, 8.2 and 8.2 for chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis and lymphogranuloma venereum, respectively. No adverse events led to discontinuation of prophylaxis, but the estimated glomerular filtration rate declined by 0.22 mL/min per month. INTERPRETATION: Preexposure prophylaxis was associated with high adherence and acceptability and no HIV infections in this study. Frequent STIs and clinically unapparent toxic renal effects reinforce the need for ongoing vigilance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT02149888.

High HIV risk and syndemic burden regardless of referral source among MSM screening for a PrEP demonstration project in Toronto, Canada.

BACKGROUND: To maximize public health impact and cost-effectiveness, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) must reach individuals at high HIV risk. Referrals for PrEP can be self- or provider-initiated, but there are several challenges to both. We assessed whether HIV risk differed by referral source among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex (gbMSM) screening for an HIV PrEP demonstration project. METHODS: PREPARATORY-5 was an open-label PrEP demonstration project enrolling gbMSM at high risk of HIV acquisition in Toronto, Canada. Study eligibility criteria related to high risk was defined as scoring ≥10 on the HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM (HIRI-MSM) and engaging in at least 1 act of condomless receptive anal sex within the past 6 months. Recruitment was promoted through self-referrals (ads in a sexual networking app and gay newspaper/website) and provider-referrals (10 community-based organizations, CBOs). HIV risk score (HIRI-MSM) and syndemic health burden were measured among gbMSM screened for study participation and compared according to referral source. RESULTS: Between October 16 and December 30, 2014, online ads generated 1518 click-throughs and CBOs referred 115 individuals. Overall, 165 men inquired about the trial, of which 86 underwent screening. The majority of screened men were self-referrals (60.5%), scored ≥10 on HIRI-MSM (96.5%), and reported condomless receptive anal sex in the past 6 months (74.2%). Self- and provider-referrals had similarly high HIV risk profiles, with a median (IQR) HIRI-MSM score of 26.0 (19.0-32.5) and 28.5 (20.0-34.0) (p = 0.3), and 75.0% and 73.5% reporting condomless receptive anal sex (p = 0.9), respectively. The overall burden of syndemic health problems was also high, with approximately one-third overall identified as having depressive symptoms (39.5%), alcohol-related problems (39.5%), multiple drug use (31.4%), or sexual compulsivity (31.4%). There were no significant differences in syndemic health problems by referral source. CONCLUSIONS: HIV risk and syndemic burden were high among gbMSM presenting for this PrEP demonstration project regardless of referral source. Self-referral may be a useful and efficient strategy for identifying individuals suitable for PrEP use. Online strategies and CBOs working in gay men's health may play important roles in connecting individuals at high HIV risk to PrEP services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02149888 . Registered May 12th 2014.

A double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter safety and immunogenicity study of a refrigerator-stable formulation of Zostavax.

The vaccine Zostavax has been shown to prevent herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia and is recommended for individuals > or =60 years of age. This study compared the safety and the immunogenicity of a refrigerator-stable formulation (Zostavax refrigerated) with those of the current formulation (Zostavax frozen) in subjects > or =50 years of age. Subjects with a negative history for HZ were randomized 1:1 to receive one dose of either formulation. Enrollment was stratified 1:2 by age (50 to 59 years and > or =60 years). Safety was evaluated for 28 days postvaccination. Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) antibody responses were measured by a glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA). The primary endpoints were the VZV antibody geometric mean titer (GMT; day 28), the VZV antibody geometric mean rise (GMR; days 1 to 28), and the incidence of vaccine-related serious adverse experiences (AEs) over 28 days. The refrigerated (n = 182) and frozen (n = 185) formulations induced similar GMTs (727.4 and 834.4 gpELISA units/ml, respectively); the estimated GMT ratio (refrigerated formulation/frozen formulation) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.07). The GMRs were 2.6- and 2.9-fold, respectively. No vaccine-related serious AEs were reported in either group, and the safety profiles of the formulations were generally similar. The frequencies of injection-site AEs during follow-up were 35.6% and 46.4% in the refrigerated and the frozen formulation groups, respectively, and were generally mild. The frequencies of systemic AEs were similar in the two groups, and those of vaccine-related AEs were approximately 6% in both groups. The refrigerator-stable formulation of Zostavax has an acceptable safety profile and is as immunogenic as the frozen formulation; thus, the vaccine may be used in clinical settings where freezer availability is limited.