Use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in England: data from the AURAH2 prospective study
Authors: Nadia Hanum, Valentina Cambiano, Janey Sewell, Andrew N Phillips, Alison J Rodger, Andrew Speakman, Nneka Nwokolo, David Asboe, Richard Gilson, Amanda Clarke, Ada R Miltz, Simon Collins, Fiona C Lampe
Journal: The Lancet Public Health (2020)

<h2>Summary</h2><h3>Background</h3> Since October, 2017 (and until October, 2020), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has only been available in England, UK, through the PrEP Impact Trial, by purchasing it from some genitourinary medicine clinics, or via online sources. Here we report changes from 2013 to 2018 in PrEP and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) awareness and use among HIV-negative gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and assess predictors of PrEP initiation. <h3>Methods</h3> In the prospective cohort study Attitudes to, and Understanding of Risk of Acquisition of HIV 2 (AURAH2), MSM were recruited from three sexual health clinics in England: two in London and one in Brighton, UK. Men were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older and HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status. Participants self-completed a baseline paper questionnaire at one of the three clinics between July 30, 2013, and April 30, 2016, and were subsequently able to complete 4-monthly and annual online questionnaires, which were available between March 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, and collected information on sociodemographics, health and wellbeing, HIV status, and sexual behaviours. PrEP and PEP use in the previous 12 months was obtained at baseline and in annual questionnaires. We assessed trends over calendar time in 3-month periods from first enrolment to the end of the study period (July–December, 2013, was counted as one period) in use of PrEP and PEP using generalised estimating equation logistic models. We used age-adjusted Poisson models to assess factors associated with PrEP initiation among participants who reported never having used PrEP at baseline. <h3>Findings</h3> 1162 men completed a baseline questionnaire, among whom the mean age was 34 years (SD 10·4), and of those with available data, 942 (82%) of 1150 were white, 1076 (94%) of 1150 were gay, and 857 (74%) of 1159 were university educated. 622 (54%) of 1162 men completed at least one follow-up online questionnaire, of whom 483 (78%) completed at least one annual questionnaire. Overall, PrEP use in the past year increased from 0% (none of 28 respondents) in July to December, 2013, to 43% (23 of 53) in January to March, 2018. The corresponding increase in PrEP use among men who reported condomless sex with two or more partners was from 0% (none of 13 respondents) to 78% (21 of 27). PEP use peaked in April to June, 2016, at 28% (41 of 147 respondents), but decreased thereafter to 8% (four of 53) in January to March, 2018. Among 460 men who had never used PrEP at baseline, predictors of initiating PrEP included age 40–44 years (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 4·25, 95% CI 1·14–15·79) and 45 years and older (3·59, 1·08–11·97) versus younger than 25 years; and after adjustment for age, recent HIV test (5·17, 1·89–14·08), condomless sex (5·01, 2·16–11·63), condomless sex with two or more partners (5·43, 2·99–9·86), group sex (1·69, 1·01–2·84), and non-injection chemsex-related drugs use (2·86, 1·67–4·91) in the past 3 months, PEP use (4·69, 2·83–7·79) in the past 12 months, and calendar year (Jan 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018 <i>vs</i> July 30, 2013, to Dec 31, 2015: 21·19, 9·48–47·35). Non-employment (0·35, 0·14–0·91) and unstable or no housing (<i>vs</i> homeowner 0·13, 0·02–0·95) were associated with reduced rates of PrEP initiation after adjustment for age. About half of PrEP was obtained via the internet, even after the PrEP Impact trial had started (11 [48%] of 23 respondents in January to March, 2018). <h3>Interpretation</h3> PrEP awareness and use increased substantially from 2013 to 2018 among a cohort of MSM in England. Improving access to PrEP by routine commissioning by National Health Service England could increase PrEP use among all eligible MSM, but should include public health strategies to target socioeconomic and demographic disparities in knowledge and use of PrEP. <h3>Funding</h3> National Institute for Health Research.