Advertisement

Suboptimal HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Awareness and Willingness to Use Among Women Who Use Drugs in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Chen ZhangEmail author
  • James McMahon
  • Janie Simmons
  • L. Lauren Brown
  • Robertson Nash
  • Yu Liu
Substantive Review

Abstract

In the United States (U.S.), more than 12 million women reported illicit drug use in the past month. Drug use has been linked to increased risk for HIV, but little is known about the uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV among women who use drugs (WWUD). Following the PRISMA guideline, we conducted a multi-database literature search to assess engagement along the PrEP care continuum among WWUD in the U.S. Seven studies with a total of 755 women were included in the review: 370 (49%) Black, 126 (16.7%) Hispanics, and 259 (34.3%) Whites. Employing random-effect models, data indicate 20.6% (95% CI 8.7%, 32.4%) of WWUD were aware of PrEP, and 60.2% (95% CI 52.2%, 68.2%) of those aware were also willing to use PrEP. Notwithstanding study limitations, our findings suggest there may be potential to increase PrEP uptake among WWUD, but efforts must first concentrate on improving PrEP awareness among this population.

Keywords

Women who use drugs Pre-exposure prophylaxis Systematic review Meta-analysis United States 

Resumen

En los Estados Unidos (EE. UU.), más de 12 millones de mujeres reportaron el uso de drogas ilícitas en el último mes. El uso de drogas se ha relacionado con un mayor riesgo de contraer el VIH, pero se sabe poco sobre la aceptación de la profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) para prevenir el VIH entre las mujeres que consumen drogas (MQCD). Siguiendo la guía de PRISMA, realizamos una búsqueda bibliográfica en múltiples bases de datos para evaluar el compromiso a lo largo de la cascada de atención de PrEP entre MQCD en los EE. UU. Se incluyeron siete estudios con un total de 755 mujeres en la revisión: 370 (49%) afroamericanas, 126 (16,7%) hispanas y 259 (34,3%) blancas. Empleando modelos de efectos aleatorios, los datos indican que el 20,6% (IC 95% = 8,7%, 32,4%) de MQCD tenían conocimiento de la PrEP, y un impresionante 60,2% (IC 95% = 52,2%, 68,2%) de las informadas también estaban dispuestas a utilizer la PrEP. A pesar de las limitaciones del estudio, nuestros hallazgos sugieren que puede haber un potencial para aumentar la aceptación de PrEP entre MQCD, pero los esfuerzos deben concentrarse primero en mejorar la conciencia de PrEP entre esta población.

Palabras clave

Mujeres que usan drogas Profilaxis preexposición Revisión sistemática Metanálisis Estados Unidos 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the University of Rochester Center for AIDS Research (Grant No. P30AI078498) and School of Nursing at University of Rochester Medical Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the sponsor who had no role in the design or conduct of the study, the writing of this report, or its submission for publication.

Funding

The study was supported by the University of Rochester Center for AIDS Research (P30AI078498) and School of Nursing at University of Rochester Medical Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the sponsor who had no role in the design or conduct of the study, the writing of this report, or its submission for publication.

Supplementary material

10461_2019_2573_MOESM1_ESM.doc (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 34 kb)
10461_2019_2573_MOESM2_ESM.docx (123 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 123 kb)
10461_2019_2573_MOESM3_ESM.doc (64 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 63 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    SAMHSA. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings: DHHS; 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CDC. HIV and Injection Drug Use. 2016; https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/cdc-hiv-idu-fact-sheet.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Paz-Bailey G, Noble M, Salo K, Tregear SJ. Prevalence of HIV among U.S. female sex workers: systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(10):2318–31.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khan MR, Berger A, Hemberg J, O’Neill A, Dyer TP, Smyrk K. Non-injection and injection drug use and STI/HIV risk in the United States: the degree to which sexual risk behaviors versus sex with an STI-infected partner account for infection transmission among drug users. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(3):1185–94.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Center for Diseas Control and Prevention. HIV basics: PrEP. 2017; https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html.
  6. 6.
    Nerlander LM, Hess KL, Rose CE, et al. Exchange sex and HIV infection among women who inject drugs-20 US Cities, 2009. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2017;75(Suppl 3):S333–40.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abad N, Baack BN, O’Leary A, Mizuno Y, Herbst JH, Lyles CM. A systematic review of HIV and STI behavior change interventions for female sex workers in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(9):1701–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deuba K, Anderson S, Ekstrom AM, et al. Micro-level social and structural factors act synergistically to increase HIV risk among Nepalese female sex workers. Int J Infect. 2016;49:100–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jie W, Xiaolan Z, Ciyong L, et al. A qualitative exploration of barriers to condom use among female sex workers in China. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e46786.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matovu JK, Ssebadduka NB. Knowledge, attitudes & barriers to condom use among female sex workers and truck drivers in Uganda: a mixed-methods study. Afr Health Sci. 2013;13(4):1027–33.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shannon K, Strathdee SA, Shoveller J, Rusch M, Kerr T, Tyndall MW. Structural and environmental barriers to condom use negotiation with clients among female sex workers: implications for HIV-prevention strategies and policy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(4):659–65.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England). 2013;381(9883):2083–90.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin M, Vanichseni S, Suntharasamai P, et al. Factors associated with the uptake of and adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in people who have injected drugs: an observational, open-label extension of the Bangkok Tenofovir Study. Lancet HIV. 2017;4(2):e59–66.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelley CF, Kahle E, Siegler A, et al. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Clin Infect Dis: Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2015;61(10):1590–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, et al. Tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(6):509–18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yi S, Tuot S, Mwai GW, et al. Awareness and willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(1):21580.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lampe MA, Smith DK, Anderson GJ, Edwards AE, Nesheim SR. Achieving safe conception in HIV-discordant couples: the potential role of oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(6):488.e481–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mimiaga MJ, Case P, Johnson CV, Safren SA, Mayer KH. Preexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis attitudes in high-risk Boston area men who report having sex with men: limited knowledge and experience but potential for increased utilization after education. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2009;50(1):77–83.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Misra K, Udeagu CC. Disparities in awareness of HIV postexposure and preexposure prophylaxis among notified partners of HIV-positive individuals, New York City 2015-2017. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2017;76(2):132–40.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mitchell JW, Stephenson R. HIV-negative partnered men’s willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis and associated factors among an internet sample of U.S. HIV-negative and HIV-discordant male couples. LGBT Health. 2015;2(1):35–40.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bazzi AR, Drainoni ML, Biancarelli DL, et al. Systematic review of HIV treatment adherence research among people who inject drugs in the United States and Canada: evidence to inform pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence interventions. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):31.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shrestha R, Copenhaver M. Exploring the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among high-risk people who use drugs in treatment. Front Public Health. 2018;6:195.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kapadia SN, Wu C, Mayer KH, et al. No change in health-related quality of life for at-risk U.S. women and men starting HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): findings from HPTN 069/ACTG A5305. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0206577.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Footer KHA, Lim S, Rael CT, et al. Exploring new and existing PrEP modalities among female sex workers and women who inject drugs in a US city. AIDS Care. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2019.1587352.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Center for Diseas Control and Prevention. PrEP 101. 2016.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levin J. Willingness to Use Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Among Community-Recruited Injection Drug Users. Paper presented at: 21st Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; March 3–6, 2014; Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuo I, Olsen H, Patrick R, et al. Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among community-recruited, older people who inject drugs in Washington, DC. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;164:8–13.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peitzmeier SM, Tomko C, Wingo E, et al. Acceptability of microbicidal vaginal rings and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among female sex workers in a high-prevalence US city. AIDS Care. 2017;29:1–5.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walters SM, Reilly KH, Neaigus A, Braunstein S. Awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women who inject drugs in NYC: the importance of networks and syringe exchange programs for HIV prevention. Harm Reduct J. 2017;14(1):40.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walters SM, Rivera AV, Starbuck L, et al. Differences in awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis among groups at-risk for HIV in New York State: New York City and Long Island, NY, 2011-2013. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2017;75(Suppl 3):S383–91.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shrestha R, Altice FL, Huedo-Medina TB, Karki P, Copenhaver M. Willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): an empirical test of the information-motivation-behavioral Skills (IMB) model among high-risk drug users in treatment. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1299–308.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ryan R HS. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. 2016; http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources.
  35. 35.
    Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2009.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I(2) is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):5–18.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Borenstein M, Hedges L, Rothstein H. Meta-analysis fixed effect versus random effects 2007; https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/M-a_f_e_v_r_e_sv.pdf. Accessed August 30 2018.
  39. 39.
    Littell JH, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health = Arch belges de sante publique. 2014;72(1):39.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Freeman M, Tukey J. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Annu Math Stat. 1950;21(4):607–11.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine. 2012;30(Suppl 5):F88–99.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dolman L, Sauvaget C, Muwonge R, Sankaranarayanan R. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cold coagulation as a treatment method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(8):929–42.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gelberg L, Andersen RM, Leake BD. The behavioral model for vulnerable populations: application to medical care use and outcomes for homeless people. Health Serv Res. 2000;34(6):1273–302.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice FL, et al. Correlates of willingness to initiate pre-exposure prophylaxis and anticipation of practicing safer drug- and sex-related behaviors among high-risk drug users on methadone treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;173:107–16.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Metz VE, Sullivan MA, Jones JD, et al. Racial differences in HIV and HCV risk behaviors, transmission, and prevention knowledge among non-treatment-seeking individuals with opioid use disorder. J Psychoact Drugs. 2017;49(1):59–68.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stein M, Thurmond P, Bailey G. Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among opiate users. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1694–700.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bauermeister JA, Meanley S, Pingel E, Soler JH, Harper GW. PrEP awareness and perceived barriers among single young men who have sex with men. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11(7):520–7.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hoff CC, Chakravarty D, Bircher AE, et al. Attitudes towards PrEP and anticipated condom use among concordant HIV-negative and HIV-discordant male couples. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2015;29(7):408–17.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kuhns LM, Hotton AL, Schneider J, Garofalo R, Fujimoto K. Use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in young men who have sex with men is associated with race, sexual risk behavior and peer network size. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1376–82.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    O’Connell D. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) initiatives in New York State: a brief overview. 2015; https://cdn.hivguidelines.org/wp-content/uploads/20160824151355/Dan-OConnell-AI-PrEP-8.261.pdf.
  53. 53.
    Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2237–46.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Barreiro P. Hot news: sexually transmitted infections on the rise in PrEP users. AIDS Rev. 2018;20(1):71.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Montano MA, Dombrowski JC, Dasgupta S, et al. Changes in sexual behavior and STI diagnoses among MSM initiating PrEP in a clinic setting. AIDS Behav. 2018;23:548–55.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reif S, Geonnotti KL, Whetten K. HIV infection and AIDS in the deep South. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(6):970–3.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Young AM, Rudolph AE, Quillen D, Havens JR. Spatial, temporal and relational patterns in respondent-driven sampling: evidence from a social network study of rural drug users. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(8):792–8.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Center for Diseas Control and Prevention. HIV in the United States by Geography. 2018; https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/geographicdistribution.html.
  59. 59.
    Wilton J, Kain T, Fowler S, et al. Use of an HIV-risk screening tool to identify optimal candidates for PrEP scale-up among men who have sex with men in Toronto, Canada: disconnect between objective and subjective HIV risk. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):20777.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS (London, England). 2005;19(Suppl 2):S67–72.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bekker LG, Johnson L, Cowan F, et al. Combination HIV prevention for female sex workers: what is the evidence? Lancet (London, England). 2015;385(9962):72–87.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of NursingUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, College of Global Public Health, New York UniversityNew York CityUSA
  3. 3.Nashville CARESNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Infectious Diseases DivisionVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  5. 5.Vanderbilt Comprehensive Care ClinicNashvilleUSA
  6. 6.Division of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health Science, School of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations