Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 23, Supplement 3, pp 296–303 | Cite as

PrEP Implementation and Persistence in a County Health Department Setting in Atlanta, GA

  • Charlotte-Paige RolleEmail author
  • Udodirim Onwubiko
  • Jennifer Jo
  • Anandi N. Sheth
  • Colleen F. Kelley
  • David P. Holland
Original Paper

Abstract

For marginalized populations, county health departments may be important PrEP access points; however, there are little data on successful PrEP programs at these venues outside of incentivized demonstration projects. Therefore, we implemented an open-access, free PrEP clinic at a county health department in Atlanta, GA to promote PrEP uptake among high-risk clients. The Fulton County Board of Health PrEP clinic launched in October 2015, and eligible clients who expressed interest initiated PrEP and attended follow-up visits per CDC guidelines. Clients engaged in quarterly follow-up and seen within the last 6 months were defined as “persistent”, whereas clients with a lapse in follow-up of > 6 months were defined as “not persistent.” Factors associated with PrEP persistence were assessed with unadjusted odds ratios. Between October 2015 and June 2017, 399 clients were screened for PrEP, almost all were eligible [392/399 (98%)]; however, 158/392 (40%) did not return to start PrEP after screening. Of 234 patients, 216 (92%) received a prescription for PrEP. As of June 2017, only 69/216 (32%) clients remained persistent in PrEP care, and the only evaluated factor significantly associated with PrEP persistence was age ≥ 30 years (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.02, 3.42). Implementation of PrEP in the county health department setting is feasible; however, we have identified significant challenges with PrEP uptake and persistence in our setting. Further research is needed to fully understand mediators of PrEP persistence and inform interventions to optimize health department-based PrEP services.

Keywords

PrEP implementation Health department HIV prevention PrEP persistence PrEP adherence Atlanta 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Diakima Thomas, and the FCBOH PrEP clinic staff for their contributions and feedback.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health: K23AI108335 (PI: Kelley) and K23AI114407 (PI: Sheth)

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures for any author.

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV surveillance report, 2016, vol 28. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/ (Nov 2017). Accessed 15 June 2018.
  2. 2.
    AIDSVu. www.aidsvu.org. Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health. https://aidsvu.org/state/georgia/atlanta/. Accessed 9 Jan 2017.
  3. 3.
    Hess KL, et al. Lifetime risk of a diagnosis of HIV infection in the United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2017;27(4):238–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    United States Public Health Service. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2014: a clinical practice guideline. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prepguidelines2014.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.
  5. 5.
    Kelley CF, et al. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1590–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rendina HJ, et al. Distinguishing hypothetical willingness from behavioral intentions to initiate HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): findings from a large cohort of gay and bisexual men in the US. Soc Sci Med. 2017;172:115–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnold T, et al. Social, structural, behavioral and clinical factors influencing retention in pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care in Mississippi. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2):e0172354.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoots BE, et al. Willingness to take, use of, and indications for pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men-20 US cities, 2014. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(5):672–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuehn B. PrEP disparities. JAMA. 2018;320(22):2304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siegler AJ, et al. The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis-to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(12):841–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang YA, et al. HIV preexposure prophylaxis, by race and ethnicity—United States, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(41):1147–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siegler AJ, et al. Location location location: an exploration of disparities in access to publicly listed pre-exposure prophylaxis clinics in the United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(12):858–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ojikutu BO, et al. Spatial access and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis among Black/African American individuals in the United States: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019;5(1):e12405.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rolle CP, et al. Challenges in translating PrEP interest into uptake in an observational study of young black MSM. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;76(3):250–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rusie LK, et al. PrEP initiation and retention in care over five years, 2012-2017: are quarterly visits too much? Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:283–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doblecki-Lewis S, et al. Patterns and correlates of participant retention in a multi-city pre-exposure prophylaxis demonstration project. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;79:62–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chan PA, et al. Retention in care outcomes for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation programmes among men who have sex with men in three US cities. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):20903.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hojilla JC, et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and retention among men who have sex with men in a community-based sexual health clinic. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1096–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grinsztejn B, et al. Retention, engagement, and adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men and transgender women in PrEP Brasil: 48 week results of a demonstration study. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(3):e136–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang YA, Tao G, Smith DK, Hoover KW. Persistence with HIV preexposure prophylaxis in the United States, 2012-2016. In: Conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections, March 4–7, 2019, Seattle, WA, Abstract 106.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coy KC, et al. Persistence on HIV preexposure prophylaxis medication over a 2-year period among a national sample of 7148 PrEP users, United States, 2015 to 2017. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(2):e25252.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Serota DP, Rosenberg ES, Thorne AL, del Rio C, Luisi N, et al. PrEP persistence and discontinuation in a Cohort of young black men who have sex with men in Atlanta, GA. In: Conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections (CROI), March 4–7, 2019, Seattle, WA, Abstract 963.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States updated to 2020 (2015).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiss G, et al. PrEP implementation by local health departments in US cities and counties: findings from a 2015 assessment of local health departments. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0200338.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nunn AS, et al. Defining the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care continuum. AIDS. 2017;31(5):731–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu AY, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marcus JL, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in a large integrated health care system: adherence, renal safety, and discontinuation. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73(5):540–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Social determinants of health and selected HIV care outcomes among adults with diagnosed HIV infection in 32 states and the District of Columbia, 2014. HIV Surveill Suppl Rep. 2016;21(7):1–62.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blackstock OJ, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis prescribing and retention in care among heterosexual women at a community-based comprehensive sexual health clinic. AIDS Care. 2017;29(7):866–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hosek S, et al. An HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) demonstration project and safety study for young MSM. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(1):21–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sullivan PS, et al. Implementation strategies to increase PrEP uptake in the South. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2019;16:259–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siegler AJ, Brock JB, Kelley CF, Ahlschlager LA, Rolle CPM, et al. Pilot test of a PrEP telmedicine system for young black MSM in the rural US South. In: Conference of retroviruses and opportunistic infections (CROI), March 4–7, 2019, Seatlle, WA, Abstract 955.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marcus JL, et al. Disparities in uptake of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a large integrated health care system. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):e2–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jenness S, Maloney K, Smith DK, Hoover KW, Goodreau SM, Weiss K, Rosenberg ES, Sullivan PS. The PrEP care continuum and HIV racial disparities among men who have sex with men. In: Conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections (CROI), March 4–7, 2018, Boston, MA, Abstract 1149.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giler Mera R, Magnuson D, Trevor H, Bush S, Rawlings K, McCallister S. Changes in truvada (TVD) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) utilization in the United States: (2012-2016). In: 19th IAS conference on HIV science, 23–26 July 2017, Paris, France, Abstract 1614.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sheth AN, Rolle CP, Gandhi M. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for women. J Virus Erad. 2016;2(3):149–55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Flash CA, et al. Perspectives on HIV prevention among urban black women: a potential role for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2014;28(12):635–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hong JN, Farel CE, Rahangdale L. Pharmacologic prevention of human immunodeficiency virus in women: practical approaches for the obstetrician and gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70(4):284–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Doblecki-Lewis S, et al. HIV risk and awareness and interest in pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis among sheltered women in Miami. Int J STD AIDS. 2016;27(10):873–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Auerbach JD, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and likelihood of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among US women at risk of acquiring HIV. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2015;29(2):102–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orlando Immunology CenterOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public HealthEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Fulton County Board of HealthAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Emory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  5. 5.Division of Infectious DiseasesEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  6. 6.Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public HealthEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations