How do we conduct a national transfusion related lookback program?

BACKGROUND: Lookback investigations are conducted by blood services when a risk of transmission of infection from a donor to a recipient has been identified. They involve tracing transfusion recipients and offering them testing for the relevant infectious agent. Results are relayed to the recipient to provide reassurance that there has been no transmission or to ensure appropriate treatment and care if required, and blood services are able to learn lessons from the planning, delivery, and outcomes of the investigation. A national lookback exercise was conducted in Scotland following the introduction of a test to identify occult hepatitis B infection, as recommended by the UK Advisory Committee for the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) in 2021. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This paper outlines the development and delivery of a national lookback program. It discusses the logistical, economic, ethical, regulatory, and scientific issues that were considered during the planning and delivery of the lookback exercise. RESULTS: Development and delivery of a national lookback required robust governance, engagement of all relevant stakeholders and a shared understanding of aims, effective communication, systems, resources, limitations, and project management. Outcomes included a high testing uptake, low levels of reported anxiety, and a comprehensive data set. CONCLUSION: Key aspects for delivery of a successful large-scale lookback program include a patient-centered approach, clear and accessible communication, and whole-systems multiagency collaboration. Major challenges include stakeholder engagement and capacity.

Improving HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence and retention in care: Process evaluation and recommendation development from a nationally implemented PrEP programme.

INTRODUCTION: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), in which people take HIV medication to prevent HIV acquisition, underpins global HIV transmission elimination strategies. Effective prevention needs people to adhere to PrEP and remain in care during periods of risk, but this is difficult to achieve. We undertook a process evaluation of Scotland's PrEP programme to explore barriers and facilitators to PrEP adherence and retention in care and to systematically develop evidence-based, theoretically-informed recommendations to address them. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups (09/2018-07/2019) with patients who identified as gay or bisexual men and were either using PrEP, had declined the offer of PrEP, had stopped PrEP, or had been assessed as ineligible for PrEP (n = 39 of whom n = 5 (13%) identified as trans, median age 31 years and interquartile range 14 years), healthcare professionals involved in PrEP provision (n = 54 including specialist sexual health doctors and nurses of various grades, PrEP prescribing general practitioners, health promotion officers, midwifes, and a PrEP clinical secretary), and clients (n = 9) and staff (n = 15) of non-governmental organisations with an HIV prevention remit across Scotland. We used thematic analysis to map key barriers and facilitators to priority areas that could enhance adherence and retention in care. We used implementation science analytic tools (Theoretical Domains Framework, Intervention Functions, Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, APEASE criteria) and expert opinion to systematically generate recommendations. RESULTS: Barriers included perceived complexity of on-demand dosing, tendency for users to stop PrEP before seeking professional support, troublesome side-effects, limited flexibility in the settings/timings/nature of review appointments, PrEP-related stigma and emerging stigmas around not using PrEP. Facilitators included flexible appointment scheduling, reminders, and processes to follow up non-attenders. Examples of the 25 recommendations include: emphasising benefits of PrEP reviews and providing appointments flexibly within individualised PrEP care; using clinic systems to remind/recall PrEP users; supporting PrEP conversations among sexual partners; clear on-demand dosing guidance; encouraging good PrEP citizenship; detailed discussion on managing side-effects and care/coping planning activities. CONCLUSIONS: PrEP adherence and retention in care is challenging, reducing the effectiveness of PrEP at individual and population levels. We identify and provide solutions to where and how collaborative interventions across public health, clinical, and community practice could address these challenges.

Improving HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and initiation: process evaluation and recommendation development from a national PrEP program†.

BACKGROUND: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is key to HIV transmission elimination but implementation is challenging and under-researched. We undertook a process evaluation of the first 2years of a national PrEP program to explore barriers and facilitators to implementation and to develop recommendations to improve implementation, focusing on PrEP uptake and initiation. METHODS: Stage 1 involved semi-structured telephone interviews and focus groups (September 2018-July 2019) with geographically and demographically diverse patients seeking/using/declining/stopping PrEP (n =39), sexual healthcare professionals (n =54), community-based organisation service users (n =9) and staff (n =15) across Scotland. We used deductive thematic analysis, to derive and then map key barriers and facilitators to priority areas that experts agreed would enhance uptake and initiation. In Stage 2, we used analytic tools from implementation science to systematically generate evidence-based, theoretically-informed recommendations to enhance uptake and initiation of PrEP. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were multi-levelled and interdependent. Barriers included the rapid pace of implementation without additional resource, and a lack of familiarity with PrEP prescribing. Facilitators included opportunities for acquisition of practice-based knowledge and normalisation of initiation activities. We refined our 68 'long-list' recommendations to 41 using expert input and the APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects, and Equity) criteria. Examples include: provision of PrEP in diverse settings to reach all in need; co-produced, culturally sensitive training resources for healthcare professionals, with focused content on non-daily dosing; meaningful collaborative working across all stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: These evidence-based, theory informed recommendations provide a robust framework for optimising PrEP uptake and initiation in diverse settings to ensure PrEP reaches all who may benefit.

Population-level effectiveness of a national HIV preexposure prophylaxis programme in MSM.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate Scotland's national HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) programme in relation to PrEP uptake and associated population-level impact on HIV incidence among MSM. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study within real-world implementation. METHODS: Comparison of HIV diagnoses from national surveillance data and HIV incidence within a retrospective cohort of HIV-negative MSM attending sexual health clinics from the National Sexual Health information system between the 2-year periods pre(July 2015-June 2017) and post(July 2017-June 2019) introduction of PrEP. RESULTS: Of 16 723 MSM attending sexual health services in the PrEP period, 3256 (19.5%) were prescribed PrEP. Between pre-PrEP and PrEP periods, new HIV diagnoses among MSM declined from 229 to 184, respectively [relative risk reduction (RRR): 19.7%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.5-33.8]; diagnosed recently acquired infections declined from an estimated 73 to 47, respectively (35.6%, 95% CI 7.1-55.4). Among MSM attending sexual health clinics, HIV incidence per 1000 person-years declined from 5.13 (95% CI 3.90-6.64) pre-PrEP to 3.25 (95% CI 2.30-4.47) in the PrEP period (adjusted IRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.87). Compared with the pre-PrEP period, incidence of HIV was lower in the PrEP period for those prescribed PrEP (aIRR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.70) and for those not prescribed PrEP (aIRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43-1.05). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate national population-level impact of PrEP for the first time in a real-world setting. HIV incidence reduced in MSM who had been prescribed PrEP and, to a lesser extent, in those who had not. Promotion of the benefits of PrEP needs to extend to MSM who do not access sexual health clinics.