Barcelona 2013
Menu
AIDSImpact.com
Conference Details
Authors
International Committee
Plenary Speakers
Presenting Speakers
Programme
Sessions
Scientific Committee
Acknowledgements
| Abstract #424 - Biomedical Prevention | ||||
|
Session: 40.2: Biomedical Prevention (Parallel) on Tuesday @ 16.30-18.30 in Raval Chaired by Olive Shisana, Chinese Authors: Presenting Author: Dr Iryna Zablotska - The University of New South Wales, Australia |
||||
| Additional Authors: Dr. Prashant Sharma, Dr. Manorama Bhargava, | ||||
| Aim: In Australia, use of antiretrovirals (ARVs) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has not been approved, but some low levels of informal use of ARVs as PrEP have been reported. There have been no education or information campaigns about PrEP. Population-level measurement of PrEP use has been difficult due to low levels of PrEP awareness and poor understanding of PrEP, and it is further complicated by concurrent use of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), which is widely available in Australia. | ||||
| Method / Issue: We used data from the online survey of Australian high-risk homosexual men and assessed their awareness and use of PEP and PrEP. We also evaluated the validity of the measures of PrEP use. | ||||
| Results / Comments: Among 685 respondents, 27 men (3.9%) reported that they had taken ARVs before sex as PrEP to protect them from getting HIV. Of the 27, 18 men reported using ARVs for prevention on one occasion only. 85% of these ?PrEP users? took ARVs to prevent HIV infection after they thought they may have been exposed to HIV (as PEP) while 81% said they had taken anti-HIV medication as PrEP after sex. Only 4 men reported using ARVs both before and after having sex. 62% of respondents did not know about research evidence regarding PrEP effectiveness in gay men, and an additional 14% thought that such evidence has not been shown by research for any sex. | ||||
| Discussion: Awareness about PrEP among Australian gay men was low, and the level of knowledge about evidence of its efficacy was poor. Most ARV users did not distinguish between PEP and PrEP. There was indeed no daily PrEP use as currently recommended by CDC guidance, but rather an attempt by a few men to try ARVs as prevention, often without knowing how to use them correctly. Such poor understanding of PrEP poses significant issues not only for HIV prevention, but also for the monitoring of PrEP use and adherence to PrEP. Refining the measures of PEP and PrEP use may be largely futile without first providing education and information about ARV-based prevention methods in the community. | ||||
| Go Back | ||||