High HIV incidence among MSM prescribed postexposure prophylaxis, 2000–2009
- 20 February 2012
- journal article
- concise communications
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in AIDS
- Vol. 26 (4), 505-512
- https://doi.org/10.1097/qad.0b013e32834f32d8
Abstract
Objective: To determine (trends in) HIV incidence among MSM\ who have recently had postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) prescribed in Amsterdam, compared with MSM participating in the Amsterdam Cohort Studies (ACS). Design and methods: We used data from MSM who were prescribed PEP in Amsterdam between 2000 and 2009, who were HIV-negative at the time of PEP prescription and had follow-up HIV testing 3 and/or 6 months after PEP prescription (n = 395). For comparison, cohort data from MSM participating in the ACS in the same period were used (n = 782). Poisson log-linear regression analyses were performed to model trends in HIV incidence and identify differences in HIV incidence between both cohorts at different time points. Results: Between 2000 and 2009, among MSM who were prescribed PEP, an overall HIV incidence of 6.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4–11.2] per 100 person-years was found, compared with an HIV incidence of 1.6 (95% CI 1.3–2.1) per 100 person-years among MSM participating in the ACS (P < 0.01). In both cohorts, an increasing trend in HIV incidence over time was observed [incidence rate ratio (IRRpercalendaryear) 1.3 (95% CI 0.9–1.7) and 1.1 (95% CI 1.0–1.2) among MSM prescribed PEP and MSM of the ACS, respectively]. The difference in HIV incidence between both cohorts was most evident in more recent years [IRRPEPversusACS in 2009 4.8 (95% CI 2.0–11.5)]. Conclusion: Particularly in more recent years, MSM recently prescribed PEP had a higher HIV incidence compared with MSM participating in the ACS, indicating ongoing sexual risk behaviour.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Two HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Regimens Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Amsterdam: Adverse Effects Do Not Influence ComplianceSexually Transmitted Diseases, 2010
- Use of Non-Occupational Post-Exposure Prophylaxis does not Lead to an Increase in High Risk Sex Behaviors in Men Who have Sex with Men Participating in the EXPLORE TrialAIDS and Behavior, 2010
- Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis, subsequent risk behaviour and HIV incidence in a cohort of Australian homosexual menAIDS, 2009
- The public health impact of widespread availability of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis against HIVHIV Medicine, 2007
- Trends in HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Prescription and Compliance After Sexual Exposure in Amsterdam, 2000–2004Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 2007
- Prophylaxis and follow-up after possible exposure to HIV, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus outside hospital: evaluation of policy 2000-3BMJ, 2005
- Proposed recommendations for the management of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis after sexual, injecting drug or other exposures in EuropeEurosurveillance, 2004
- Behavioral Impact, Acceptability, and HIV Incidence Among Homosexual Men With Access to Postexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIVJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 2004
- Feasibility of Postexposure Prophylaxis (PEP) against Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection after Sexual or Injection Drug Use Exposure: The San Francisco PEP StudyThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2001
- A Case–Control Study of HIV Seroconversion in Health Care Workers after Percutaneous ExposureThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1997