HIV Prevention Method Preferences Within Sexual Partnerships Reported by HIV-Negative MSM and TW in Tijuana, Mexico

Abstract

To assess the potential for decreased condom use as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is scaled-up in Latin America, we examined HIV prevention method preferences (neither PrEP nor condoms, condoms only, PrEP only, or PrEP with condoms) within 1302 sexual partnerships reported by 397 HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TW) in Tijuana, Mexico. Using PrEP with condoms (56%) was preferred to using condoms only (24%), using PrEP only (17%), and using neither PrEP nor condoms (3%). Compared to using condoms only, using PrEP only was preferred within primary (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.92, 8.90) and condomless sex practicing (AOR = 6.97, 95% CI 3.92, 12.40) partnerships, suggesting PrEP use may not displace condom use among MSM and TW in Tijuana and other similar settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Beyrer C, Baral SD, van Griensven F, et al. Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. Lancet. 2012;380(9839):367–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Poteat T, Scheim A, Xavier J, Reisner S, Baral S. Global epidemiology of HIV infection and related syndemics affecting transgender people. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;72(Suppl 3):S210–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    World Health Organization. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach, 2nd edn. 2016. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/208825/1/9789241549684_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 2 Feb 2018.

  4. 4.

    Blumenthal J, Haubrich RH. Will risk compensation accompany pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV? Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(11):909–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Traeger MW, Schroeder SE, Wright EJ, et al. Effects of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus infection on sexual risk behavior in men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(5):676–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Baral S, Sifakis F, Cleghorn F, Beyrer C. Elevated risk for HIV infection among men who have sex with men in low- and middle-income countries 2000–2006: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2007;4(12):e339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Baral SD, Poteat T, Stromdahl S, Wirtz AL, Guadamuz TE, Beyrer C. Worldwide burden of HIV in transgender women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):214–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hoagland B, De Boni RB, Moreira RI, et al. Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men and transgender women in Brazil. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1278–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Peinado J, Lama JR, Galea JT, et al. Acceptability of oral versus rectal HIV preexposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men and transgender women in Peru. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2013;12(4):278–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Galea JT, Kinsler JJ, Salazar X, et al. Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis as an HIV prevention strategy: barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake among at-risk Peruvian populations. Int J STD AIDS. 2011;22(5):256–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Colfax G, Vittinghoff E, Husnik MJ, et al. Substance use and sexual risk: a participant- and episode-level analysis among a cohort of men who have sex with men. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(10):1002–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hensel DJ, Rosenberger JG, Novak DS, Reece M. Sexual event-level characteristics of condom use during anal intercourse among HIV-negative men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(7):550–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mansergh G, Shouse RL, Marks G, et al. Methamphetamine and sildenafil (Viagra) use are linked to unprotected receptive and insertive anal sex, respectively, in a sample of men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82(2):131–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mustanski B, Newcomb ME, Clerkin EM. Relationship characteristics and sexual risk-taking in young men who have sex with men. Health Psychol. 2011;30(5):597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rosenberger JG, Reece M, Schick V, et al. Condom use during most recent anal intercourse event among a US sample of men who have sex with men. J Sex Med. 2012;9(4):1037–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Zea MC, Reisen CA, Poppen PJ, Bianchi FT. Unprotected anal intercourse among immigrant Latino MSM: the role of characteristics of the person and the sexual encounter. AIDS Behav. 2009;13(4):700–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Underhill K. Intimacy, condom use, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PReP) acceptability among men who have sex with men (MSM) in primary partnerships: a comment on Gamarel and Golub. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(2):151–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pitpitan EV, Goodman-Meza D, Burgos JL, et al. Prevalence and correlates of HIV among men who have sex with men in Tijuana, Mexico. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18:19304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Salas-Espinoza KJ, Menchaca-Diaz R, Patterson TL, et al. HIV prevalence and risk behaviors in male to female (MTF) transgender persons in Tijuana, Mexico. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(12):3271–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Carey MP, Schroder KE. Development and psychometric evaluation of the brief HIV Knowledge Questionnaire. AIDS Educ Prev. 2002;14(2):172–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Doherty IA, Padian NS, Marlow C, Aral SO. Determinants and consequences of sexual networks as they affect the spread of sexually transmitted infections. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(Suppl 1):S42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Carey MP, Carey KB, Maisto SA, Gordon CM, Weinhardt LS. Assessing sexual risk behaviour with the timeline followback (TLFB) approach: continued development and psychometric evaluation with psychiatric outpatients. Int J STD AIDS. 2001;12(6):365–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kauth MR, St Lawrence JS, Kelly JA. Reliability of retrospective assessments of sexual HIV risk behavior: a comparison of biweekly, three-month, and twelve-month self-reports. AIDS Educ Prev. 1991;3(3):207–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Schroder KE, Carey MP, Vanable PA. Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26(2):104–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Sullivan PS, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, Sanchez TH. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS. 2009;23(9):1153–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Goodreau SM, Carnegie NB, Vittinghoff E, et al. What drives the US and Peruvian HIV epidemics in men who have sex with men (MSM)? PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e50522.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gamarel KE, Golub SA. Intimacy motivations and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adoption intentions among HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) in romantic relationships. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(2):177–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Smith DK, Herbst JH, Rose CE. Estimating HIV protective effects of method adherence with combinations of preexposure prophylaxis and condom use among African American men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2015;42(2):88–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the study participants and staff without whom this study would not have been possible.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse: K01DA040543 (HAP), R01DA037811 (TLP), and T32DA023356 (RP).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. A. Pines.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pines, H.A., Patrick, R., Smith, D.M. et al. HIV Prevention Method Preferences Within Sexual Partnerships Reported by HIV-Negative MSM and TW in Tijuana, Mexico. AIDS Behav 24, 839–846 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-019-02492-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pre-exposure prophylaxis
  • HIV prevention method preferences
  • Men who have sex with men
  • Transgender women
  • Mexico