Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

SAGE Publications, Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 4(12), p. 278-283, 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1545109712473650

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Acceptability of oral versus rectal HIV preexposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men and transgender women in Peru.

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Objective: Oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with antiretrovirals (ARVs) is at the forefront of biomedical HIV prevention research, and ARVs are also being tested for rectal administration to target people practicing unprotected receptive anal intercourse (URAI) and at risk of HIV infection. This study assessed the acceptability of daily oral PrEP and rectal PrEP during URAI among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) in Peru. Methods: During the 2008 HIV sentinel surveillance survey conducted in 3 Peruvian cities (Lima, Iquitos, and Pucallpa), MSM and TGW reported being “versatile,” “most of the time receptive,” and “exclusively receptive” during anal sex behavior where surveyed on their acceptability of oral and rectal PrEP. Results: Among 532 individuals, high acceptance of either oral (96.2%) or rectal (91.7%) PrEP products was reported. If both products were efficacious/available, 28.6% would prefer a pill, 57.3% a rectal lubricant, and 14.1% either. A trend toward higher acceptance was observed as receptive anal sex behavior exclusivity rose ( P = .013). Being receptive most of the time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 9.1, P = .01) and exclusively receptive (aOR: 7.5, P = .01), compared to being versatile, were independently associated with oral PrEP acceptability. A similar association was found with the acceptability of rectal formulations (aOR: 2.3, P = .07; and aOR: 2.5, P = .02; respectively). Conclusions: Oral and rectal PrEP were highly acceptable among Peruvian MSM and TGW, particularly among those at the highest HIV infection risk. These data can guide the implementation of PrEP programs in Peru and similar settings and populations.