With just over two weeks until the virtual 2020 Joint Australasian HIV&AIDS and Sexual Health Conferences, now is a… https://t.co/qdLZhBZgQ7
Clinical posts from members and guests of the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM) from various international medical and scientific conferences on HIV, AIDS, viral hepatitis, and sexual health.
PEP, PrEP and HIV testing
This conference is a marathon. Day 4 and I am exhausted. So many people, protests and presentations to attend - it's quite overwhelming. One of the highlights for me yesterday was a packed oral poster session on PEP, PrEP and HIV testing held over lunch. The presenters only had 5 minutes each to present their key findings, and there was spirited discussion from the audience. A presentation by Antonio Urbina (St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital) reviewed the delivery of non-occupational post-exposure-prophylaxis (PEP) in emergency departments in New York City. 216 cases were reviewed. While apparently very successful (94% completed the course and only one person seroconverted), the audience questioned the intensity and length of the PEP regime - a 4 week course based on Combivir, which often causes nausea. There was debate about whether a shorter and better tolerated regime could be used. One of the other presenters in the session, Kristen Underhill (Yale) picked up on how negative experiences of antiretroviral drugs from a course of PEP can have lasting consequences. Kristen had conducted group interviews with gay and bisexual men in Rhode Island to explore the acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). She found that men who had had a previous bad experience with PEP found the idea of PrEP very unappealing.
The other standout presentation was from Alex Carballo-Diéguez (HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, NYC). Alex was reporting the results of his study of home HIV testing among 'high risk' HIV-negative gay men in New York City. A small group of men (n=32) was enrolled and given OraQuick oral fluid rapid test kits to use at home (the test has just been approved by the US FDA for sale over-the-counter). The men were encouraged to test themselves and their casual sex partners. Around 100 tests were performed. Telephone support/counselling was offered but rarely used. Five sexual partners tested positive for HIV during the study. Very few adverse incidents were reported. When quizzed by a member of the audience who was concerned about relying on a test with a longer window period than a lab-based HIV test, Alex noted, "Sometimes when looking for the optimal, we overlook the good enough." While debate will undoubtedly continue about the merits of home-based testing, I think this research illustrates that home testing can function pretty well as a harm reduction tool and, as Alex noted, can give gay men a greater sense of control over their health and HIV status. It's certainly motivated me to work with my colleagues in Sydney and Melbourne to do a similar study of home-based HIV testing.