RESUMO
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective tool in protecting persons from acquiring HIV infection through sex or injection drug use. However, awareness and willingness to use PrEP among Black gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (BMSM) remain suboptimal compared to White MSM (WMSM) in the United States. Our aims were to (1) assess the factors associated with PrEP awareness and willingness to use PrEP among MSM and (2) compare the PrEP perceptions among BMSM versus non-Black MSM. Data were drawn from two cross-sectional behavioral surveys in Baltimore, MD: Behavioral Surveillance Research (BESURE) conducted in 2017, and Safe Spaces 4 Sexual Health (SS4SH), conducted in 2018 and 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study population. We used Poisson regression models to identify variables associated with awareness of PrEP and willingness to use PrEP. PrEP perceptions were assessed via 13 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Finally, we conducted a post-hoc exploratory bivariate analysis of the relationship between PrEP perception and willingness to use PrEP, stratified by race/ethnicity. A total of 261 MSM participated in this study. Many of the participants were aware of PrEP (75.1%). Factors associated with greater PrEP awareness included having greater than a high school education (aRR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04, 1.43); and earning more than $25,000 annually (aRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08, 1.42). Participants who had received money in exchange for sex one or more times were less likely to be aware of PrEP (aRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36, 0.95). More than half of the participants were willing to use PrEP (55.3%). In bivariate and multivariable analyses, demographic or behavioral characteristics were not significantly associated with willingness to use PrEP. Higher agreement with the following statements was associated with lower willingness to use PrEP: "Having to take a pill every day is difficult" (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97) and, "I am concerned about the side effects of PrEP" (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96), and "PrEP is for people who have riskier sex lives than I do" (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95). Conversely, higher willingness to use PrEP was associated with comfortable having sex without a condom (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21), less anxious about sex (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.24), and my friends think that I should take PrEP (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32). We found BMSM compared to non-Black MSM had higher mean scores related to taking a daily pill (p = 0.041), concerns about side effects (p = 0.012), concerns about people thinking they had HIV (p = 0.001), concerns about the financial costs of PrEP (p = 0.038) and caution when dealing with healthcare organizations/medical mistrust (p = 0.019). Perceptions with a statistically significant lower score among BMSM versus non-Black MSM included statements such as, comfortable having sex without a condom (p = 0.003) and less anxious about sex (p < 0.001). We conclude HIV prevention strategies, programs, and interventions should be cognizant of PrEP perceptions that facilitate or hinder PrEP uptake in Baltimore City, MD.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing data on coronavirus vaccines are limited. This study evaluated adverse reactions reported to a statewide hotline after the administration of a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. METHODS: We collected reports between 1 December 2020 through 30 August 2021 of any individual 12 years of age and older who received an FDA EUA-approved vaccine and experienced an adverse reaction. For each case, we collected vaccine brand, demographics, adverse reaction type, severity, onset of reaction, duration, and outcome. Relative risk analyses were conducted to investigate factors associated with vaccine adverse reactions. RESULTS: 638 adverse drug reaction cases were recorded. The majority identified as female (70.8%) and the median age was 56. Implicated brands were Pfizer BNT162b2 (46.6%), Moderna mRNA-1273 (43.41%), and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S (8.78%). Although the lowest number of cases was with Janssen, this vaccine had the highest incident rate based on reactions per 100,000 doses. Adverse reactions with the highest incidence were systemic reactions (92.7%), injection-site reactions (8.5%), and local non-injection-site reactions (10.4%), with most judged as minor severity. Relative risk was higher for Moderna compared to Pfizer for injection-site non-severe (RR 2.01) and injection-site severe (RR 1.94) reactions. Janssen had a higher risk of headache, dyspnea, and vision changes compared to Pfizer, and a higher risk of headache compared to Moderna. The relative risk for fever, chills, and lymphadenopathy was higher for the second dose than the first dose for all patients. CONCLUSION: This observational study analyzing adverse drug reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine found that most complaints concerned systemic reactions. We found reaction differences among vaccine brands, between first and second doses for some effects, and selected recurrent events. Poison control centers are uniquely positioned to conduct post-marketing surveillance for the new vaccines as they are available 24/7 to the public and are healthcare providers. Further post-marketing studies are essential to provide a holistic safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.
