PrEP use and unmet PrEP-need among men who have sex with men in London prior to the implementation of a national PrEP programme, a cross-sectional study from June to August 2019
Dana Ogaz, Louise Logan, Tyrone Curtis, Lorraine McDonagh, Luis María López Guerra, Daniel Bradshaw, Poorvi Patel, Chiara Macrì, Gary Murphy, O Nöel Gill, Anne M. Johnson, Anthony Nardone, Fiona Burns
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to prevention options, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), remains a public health priority for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), especially in London. We describe PrEP use in a London community sample of MSM before the introduction of a national PrEP programme in October 2020. METHODS: From June-August 2019, MSM aged ≥ 18 recruited from London commercial venues were asked to self-complete a sexual health questionnaire and provide an oral fluid sample for anonymous HIV antibody testing. Descriptive analyses of demographic characteristics, service engagement and outcomes, as well as sexual risk and prevention behaviours were examined in the survey population and in those reporting current PrEP use. We performed sequential, multivariate analyses examining current PrEP use in MSM of self-perceived HIV-negative/unknown status with identified PrEP-need defined as the report of condomless anal sex (CAS) in the last three months, or the report of CAS (in the last year) with an HIV-positive/unknown status partner not known to be on HIV treatment, in reflection of UK PrEP guidelines. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and thirty-fifth questionnaires were completed across 34 venues, where 1408 were analysed. One in five MSM of self-perceived HIV-negative/unknown status reported current PrEP use (19.7%, 242/1230). In men with PrEP-need, 68.2% (431/632) did not report current use. Current PrEP use was associated with age (aOR: 3.52, 95% CI: 1.76-7.02 in men aged 40-44 vs men aged 18-25) and education (aOR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.01-2.92 in men with ≥ 2 years/still full-time vs no/ < 2 years of education since age 16). CONCLUSION: Among MSM in London, PrEP use is high but there is indication of unmet PrEP-need in men of younger age and lower levels of post-16 education. National programme monitoring and evaluation will require continued community monitoring to guide interventions ensuring equitable PrEP access and uptake in those who could most benefit from PrEP.