Characteristics, sexual practices and sexually transmissible infection diagnoses of men who have sex with men and use non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis in Victoria, Australia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (NPEP) is available to people with a potential risk for HIV exposure within the preceding 72 h. We sought to determine if men who have sex with men (MSM) and receive NPEP had a significantly different risk profile (before the preceding 72 h) from MSM not receiving NPEP. If this is the case, NPEP consultations may act as a cue for also discussing pre-exposure prophylaxis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the demographic characteristics, sexual practices and clinical diagnoses of MSM who were NPEP users and those who were non-NPEP users attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre from January 2008 to December 2014. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the association between NPEP use and risk practices. Generalised estimating equations were used to adjust for within-individual correlations related to multiple visits of the same individual. Results: Of the 40 395 MSM consultations included in the study, 1776 consultations (4%) were related to NPEP prescription. NPEP prescribing was associated with ever having injected drugs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4–2.3), sex with males only (AOR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.6–2.3), more than three male partners in the past 3 months (AOR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.7) and inconsistent condom use with these partners within the past 3 months (AOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.9–2.4). Sex workers (AOR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9), and men reporting sex overseas within the past 12 months (AOR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6–0.8) were less likely to receive NPEP. MSM who used NPEP were more likely to test positive for any sexually transmissible infection (AOR 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.4). Conclusions: MSM receiving NPEP generally had a higher risk profile than MSM not requesting NPEP, indicating that NPEP was used by MSM at higher risk for HIV. Therefore, consultations for NPEP may be an opportune time for also discussing pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)555-559
Number of pages5
JournalSexual Health
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Aug 2016

Cite this