In the UK, in
2004, the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT)
mounted an awareness-raising campaign about PEP directed at gay men.
Following
the campaign, according to data from the 2005 Gay Men’s Sex Survey,1
gay men in the UK in 2005 were almost twice as likely to be aware of PEP than
they were in 2003 - an increase from 22% to 39%. Awareness of PEP significantly
increased in every demographic subgroup and in every area of the country,
although the rise was greatest in London and Brighton, the cities most targeted by THT’s campaign.
In the
2007 Gay Men’s Sex Survey, awareness of PEP had increased again, to 56.3%.2
The
campaign also had a significant impact on the numbers of gay men seeking PEP,
and the numbers of men being prescribed the drugs. In the UK, the proportion of
gay men who had ever sought PEP increased significantly from 1.0% in 2003 to
1.4% in 2005 and had more than doubled to 3.4% in 2007, and the proportion who
had ever actually taken PEP rose from 0.6% in 2003 to 1.2% in 2005 and 2.4% in
2007.
Seeking
PEP and taking PEP rose in all demographic groups and in all areas and remained
highest in London and Brighton,
among men with higher numbers of sexual partners and those with higher incomes.
However,
taking PEP was still rare even among the group most at risk from HIV in the UK.
Although 7.5% of men not tested HIV positive said they thought they had been
involved in sexual HIV exposure in the last year, only 16% of those who thought
they had definitely been at risk had ever taken PEP.
A
2005 study by Sigma Research found
that about one-in-six gay men who seek PEP after an HIV risk were turned away
‘inappropriately’. Sigma’s Catherine Dodds told the CHAPS conference3
that five out of 30 PEP seekers Sigma interviewed about their experiences were
turned away when they sought PEP. Four of the five were denied it by A&E
staff but a fifth was told flatly by a health adviser at a genitourinary
medicine (GUM) clinic that ‘There was no such thing as PEP’.
In
addition, three more men were turned away for PEP, but the refusals were
probably appropriate as the men had not understood that they were at low
risk. There were also cases of people getting PEP inappropriately (for
instance following oral sex without getting semen in the mouth).
However
most gay men who sought PEP did so for good reasons. Four of the five who were
turned away had had unsafe anal sex as the passive partner – in one case with
someone known to be HIV-positive.
In
general, however, both gay men’s awareness of PEP and their success in getting
it has improved.
Another
survey suggested doctors in the USA
were also prescribing PEP inappropriately or misunderstood their own guidelines.4
The 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was
told that the majority of calls to a helpline set up to advise doctors about
non-occupational PEP against HIV were made too late. Fifty-five per cent of
calls were made more than 24 hours after the patient’s exposure to HIV and 28%
of them were made more than 72 hours after exposure. Only 32% were definitely
made within 24 hours of the exposure.
Although
the majority of calls were made by doctors, in the main they were not
experienced in giving PEP. Nearly a third of calls were made from A&E
departments.
Clinicians
did appear to assess exposure risk reasonably accurately. Fifty-five per cent
of calls were made about exposures deemed by the investigators to be ‘high
risk’ and only 5% were low risk. In 30.4% of cases the source partner was known
to have HIV.
A
presentation from New York
State at the 2006 Toronto
International AIDS Conference had similar findings.5
PEP has been available in hospital emergency departments since December 2004
but New York
guidelines state that the source partner must have HIV and that PEP will
only be prescribed within 36 hours of exposure. A survey revealed that only 60%
of hospitals have a protocol for prescribing PEP after what is called
‘voluntary sex’ (i.e. not sexual assault). PEP was prescribed two-thirds of the
time after a report of sexual assault but only 43% of the time after voluntary
sex. Thirty per cent of emergency departments, despite the state guidelines,
did not prescribe PEP, only a third followed-up patients and only 23% reviewed
seroconversion rates.
By 2010, a number of surveys from regional hospitals
presented to the second BHIVA/BASHH conference in Manchester showed that increasing numbers of
patients were seeking PEP following sexual exposure.
The studies showed that there was wide variation in
the achievement of some standards, including variation in the number of
patients given baseline HIV, STI and hepatitis B tests and in the number who
attend for follow-up. Although adherence to prescription guidelines was
improving, some patients were still being prescribed PEP when the likelihood of
infection was low.
Several surveys attested to the increasing awareness
and use of PEP amongst patients. Surveys from Belfast6
and Manchester7
found that requests for PEP had increased 2.5-fold in 2008/09 compared with
previous years, with 8.8 requests per month at Central Manchester
Hospital compared with
3.4 per month in 2007/08. The survey from Belfast
found that about half of patients coming forward were gay men and this and a
survey from Edinburgh8
reported that about 40% of partners were known to have HIV.
Some centres prescribed PEP in line with BASHH
recommendations9
(99% was achieved in Manchester
after standardised forms for assessing PEP were introduced), but in others some
prescriptions were still inconsistent with guidelines. Nineteen per cent of
prescriptions in Edinburgh
were for non-recommended categories. Most centres prescribed over 90% of PEP
within the 72-hour ‘window period’ but Belfast
prescribed 17% of PEP later than this.
A survey of healthcare staff from emergency
departments in Southampton and Portsmouth10
found that only 70% of staff had heard of PEP. Of those who had, 73% were aware
it should be prescribed within 72 hours.
While 94% of them would correctly prescribe PEP to
partners of known HIV-positive contacts, only 59% would prescribe it to a woman
who came in saying she had had anal sex with a man from sub-Saharan Africa (recommended
in the guidelines) while 39% would prescribe it to a man or woman who had had
vaginal intercourse with a partner of unknown status (not recommended).
Completion of PEP and long-term follow-up almost never
measured up to the BASHH targets, however. Whether patients completed their
four-week course was frequently not documented, but completion rates amongst
cases that were documented varied
from 55% in Belfast to 32% in Manchester, against a BASHH target level of
75%.
Nonetheless 44% of patients in Manchester turned up for their three-month
follow-up appointment and HIV test, so completion rates were probably higher.
The BASHH target for three-month follow-up is 60%: three-month attendance
figures in Belfast and Edinburgh were 35% and 54% respectively.
Testing people who presented for PEP for existing HIV
infection was not universal. In Manchester 76%
of patients were baseline-tested, rising to 95% by the end of the study period,
but in Edinburgh
only 44% were tested. One person tested positive at baseline in Edinburgh, as did one in Manchester, showing that pre-existing
infections may be missed, and PEP unnecessarily prescribed, if baseline tests
are not done.