The introduction of injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has the potential to significantly change the biomedical HIV prevention landscape. However, effective implementation will require health care providers to adopt, prescribe, and administer injectable PrEP within clinical settings. This study qualitatively examined challenges and benefit of injectable PrEP implementation from the perspective of health care providers. From April to August 2022, we conducted 19 in-depth interviews with current PrEP-prescribing health care providers in New York State, including 3 physician assistants, 5 physicians, and 11 nurse practitioners. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed to report semantic-level themes regarding injectable PrEP implementation. More than half of participants (61%) were aware of injectable PrEP; only 21% had experience prescribing it. Qualitative findings highlighted five themes. Three themes represented implementation challenges, including speculative concerns about side effects, appointment compliance, and practical and logistical considerations. The remaining two themes described benefits of injectable PrEP relative to oral PrEP, which included greater convenience and enhanced privacy. Findings from this qualitative study make significant applied contributions to the sparse knowledge on health care provider perspectives of injectable PrEP post-US Food and Drug Administration approval and their concerns and considerations regarding implementation in real-world clinical settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Surveillance Report, 2021, Vol. 34. Available from: https://www.cac.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Public Health Service. Preexposure Prophyalxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States—2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. 2021.
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PrEP for HIV prevention in the U.S.; 2023. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/PrEP-for-hiv-prevention-in-the-US-factsheet.html [Last accessed: October2, 2023].
4.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Approves First Injectable Treatment for HIV Pre-Exposure Prevention; 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-injectable-treatment-hiv-pre-exposure-prevention [Last accessed: October1, 2023].
5.
LandovitzRJ, DonnellD, ClementME, et al.Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med, 2021; 385(7):595–608.
6.
EshlemanSH, FogelJM, Piwowar-ManningE, et al.Characterization of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in women who received injectable cabotegravir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine for HIV prevention: HPTN 084. J Infect Dis, 2022; 225(10):1741–1749.
7.
Delany-MoretlweS, HughesJP, BockP, et al.Cabotegravir for the prevention of HIV-1 in women: Results from HPTN 084, a phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Lancet, 2022; 399(10337):1779–1789.
8.
LevyME, PatrickR, GambleJ, et al.Willingness of community-recruited men who have sex with men in Washington, DC to use long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. PLoS One, 2017; 12(8):e0183521; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183521.
9.
MeyersK, WuY, BrillA, et al.To switch or not to switch: Intentions to switch to injectable PrEP among gay and bisexual men with at least twelve months oral PrEP experience. PLoS One, 2018; 13(7):e0200296.
10.
DeanLT, PredmoreZ, SkinnerA, et al.Optimizing uptake of long-acting injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention for men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav, 2023; 27(8):2606–2616.
11.
ChanC, VaccherS, FraserD, et al.Preferences for current and future PrEP modalities among PrEP-experienced gay and bisexual men in Australia. AIDS Behav, 2022; 26(1):88–95.
12.
GraceD, GasparM, WellsA, et al.Injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: Perspectives on the benefits and barriers from gay, bisexual, and queer men and health system stakeholders in Ontario, Canada. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2023; 37(6):306–315.
13.
KerriganD, MantsiosA, GrantR, et al.Expanding the menu of HIV prevention options: a qualitative study of experiences with long-acting injectable cabotegravir as PrEP in the context of a phase II trial in the United States. AIDS Behav, 2018; 22:3540–3549.
14.
PatelRR, CraneJS, LópezJ, et al.Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention preferences among young adult African American men who have sex with men. PLoS One, 2018; 13(12):e0209484.
15.
EllisonJ, van den BergJJ, MontgomeryMC, et al.Next-generation HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis preferences among men who have sex with men taking daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2019; 33(11):482–491.
16.
PhilbinMM, ParishC, KinnardEN, et al.Interest in long-acting injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis (LAI PrEP) among women in the women's interagency HIV study (WIHS): A qualitative study across six cities in the United States. AIDS Behav, 2021; 25:667–678.
17.
YeagerS, MontoyaJL, BurkeL, et al.Patient and physician preferences regarding long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy: A mixed-methods study in Southern California, USA. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses, 2022; 38(11):856–862.
18.
RaelCT, MartinezM, GiguereR, et al.Transgender women's concerns and preferences on potential future long-acting biomedical HIV prevention strategies: The case of injections and implanted medication delivery devices (IMDDs). AIDS Behav, 2020; 24:1452–1462.
19.
GreeneGJ, SwannG, FoughtAJ, et al.Preferences for long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), daily oral PrEP, or condoms for HIV prevention among US men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav, 2017; 21:1336–1349.
20.
CalderBJ, SchiefferRJ, Bryndza TfailyE, et al.Qualitative consumer research on acceptance of long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis products among men having sex with men and medical practitioners in the United States. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses, 2018; 34(10):849–856.
21.
BielloKB, HosekS, DruckerMT, et al.Preferences for injectable PrEP among young US cisgender men and transgender women and men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav, 2018; 47:2101–2107.
22.
LandovitzRJ, HanscomBS, ClementME, et al.Efficacy and safety of long-acting cabotegravir compared with daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine to prevent HIV infection in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men 1 year after study unblinding: A secondary analysis of the phase 2b and 3 HPTN 083 randomised controlled trial. Lancet HIV, 2023; 10(12):e767–e778.
23.
LorenzettiL, DinhN, van der StratenA, et al.Systematic review of the values and preferences regarding the use of injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition. J Int AIDS Soc, 2023; 26(Suppl 2):e26107; doi: 10.1002/jia2.26107.
24.
Xavier HallCD, SmithJC, DriggersRA, et al.PrEParing for long-acting injectable PrEP in the South: Perspectives from healthcare providers in Georgia. AIDS care, 2021; 33(6):706–711.
25.
HendersonM, SchmidtH-MA, ChitemboL, et al.The future of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention: A global qualitative consultation on provider perspectives on new products and differentiated service delivery. AIDS Behav, 2023; 27(11):3755–3766.
26.
LiegeonG, GhosnJ. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir for PrEP: A game-changer in HIV prevention?. HIV Med, 2023; 24(6):653–663.
27.
PilgrimNA, EvansTM, CzarnogorskiM. A layer plus approach to implementation research and collaboration for long-acting injectable preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention. Health Promot Pract, 2022; 23(6):912–915.
28.
WarrenM, NyagahW, Verde HashimC, et al.Shaping and coordinating the implementation science agenda for injectable cabotegravir for PrEP: the role of the Biomedical Prevention Implementation Collaborative (BioPIC). J Int AIDS Soc, 2023; 26:e26094.
29.
BraunV, ClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol, 2006; 3(2):77–101.
30.
PadgettDK.Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health. Sage Publications; 2011.
31.
WeisL, FineM. Speed Bumps: A Student-Friendly Guide to Qualitative Research. Teachers College Press: 2000.
32.
GubaEG.Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 1981; 29(2):75–91.
33.
BeckhamSW, SanchezT, FowlerR, et al.Variation in preferences for long-acting injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis among US men who have sex with men: A latent class analysis. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2023; 37(10):495–503.
34.
MurrayMI, MarkowitzM, FrankI, et al.Satisfaction and acceptability of cabotegravir long-acting injectable suspension for prevention of HIV: patient perspectives from the ECLAIR trial. HIV Clin Trials, 2018; 19(4):129–138.
35.
ValentePK, BauermeisterJA, LinWY, et al.Preferences across pre-exposure prophylaxis modalities among young men who have sex with men in the United States: A latent class analysis study. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2022; 36(11):431–442.
36.
HarrisonSE, PatonM, MuessigKE, et al.“Do I want PrEP or do I want a roof?”: Social determinants of health and HIV prevention in the southern United States. AIDS Care, 2022; 34(11):1435–1442.
37.
MayerKH, AgwuA, MalebrancheD. Barriers to the wider use of pre-exposure prophylaxis in the United States: A narrative review. Adv Ther, 2020; 37(5):1778–1811; doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01295-0.
38.
HavensJP, ScarsiK, SaylesH, et al.Acceptability and feasibility of a pharmacist-led HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) program in the Midwestern United States. Open Forum Infect Dis, 2019; 6(10):ofz365.
39.
SieglerAJ, MayerKH, LiuAY, et al.Developing and assessing the feasibility of a home-based preexposure prophylaxis monitoring and support program. Clin Infect Dis, 2018; 68(3):501–504; doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy529.
40.
California Prevention Training Center. Injectable PrEP Frequently Asked Questions—Access and Financing; 2023. Available from: https://californiaptc.com/prep-learning-collaboratives/long-acting-injectable-prep/injectable-prep-frequently-asked-questions-financing/ [Last accessed: November11, 2023].
41.
National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. Long-Acting Injectable PrEP is Here: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Implementation; 2022. Available from: https://getprepbroward.com/documents/Long-Acting-Injectable-PrEP.pdf [Last accessed: November10, 2022].
42.
MeyersK, GolubSA. Planning ahead for implementation of long-acting HIV prevention: Challenges and opportunities. Curr Opin HIV AIDS, 2015; 10(4):290–295; doi: 10.1097/coh.0000000000000159.
43.
CalabreseSK.Understanding, contextualizing, and addressing PrEP stigma to enhance PrEP implementation. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep, 2020; 17:579–588.
44.
GolubSA, GamarelKE, SuraceA. Demographic differences in PrEP-related stereotypes: implications for implementation. AIDS Behav, 2017; 21:1229–1235.
45.
ElopreL, McDavidC, BrownA, et al.Perceptions of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among young, Black men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2018; 32(12):511–518.
46.
CalabreseSK, DovidioJF, TekesteM, et al.HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis stigma as a multidimensional barrier to uptake among women who attend planned parenthood. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2018; 79(1):46–53; doi: 10.1097/qai.0000000000001762.
47.
ArnoldT, Brinkley-RubinsteinL, ChanPA, et al.Social, structural, behavioral and clinical factors influencing retention in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) care in Mississippi. PLoS One, 2017; 12(2):e0172354.
48.
FooterKH, LimS, RaelCT, et al.Exploring new and existing PrEP modalities among female sex workers and women who inject drugs in a US city. AIDS Care, 2019; 31(10):1207–1213.
49.
BazziAR, ValasekCJ, StreuliSA, et al.Long-acting injectable human immunodeficiency virus pre-exposure prophylaxis preferred over other modalities among people who inject drugs: Findings from a qualitative study in California. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 2022; 36(7):254–262.
50.
Salvant ValentineS, CarnesN, CaldwellJ, et al.Mapping nurse practitioners' scope of practice laws: A resource for evaluating pre-exposure prophylaxis prescriptions. Health Equity, 2022; 6(1):27–31; doi: 10.1089/heq.2021.0113.
51.
CarnesN, ZhangJ, GelaudeD, et al.Restricting access: A secondary analysis of scope of practice laws and pre-exposure prophylaxis prescribing in the United States, 2017. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care, 2022; 33(1):89–97; doi: 10.1097/jnc.0000000000000275.
52.
NelsonLE, McMahonJM, LeblancNM, et al.Advancing the case for nurse practitioner-based models to accelerate scale-up of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. J Clin Nurs, 2019; 28(1–2):351–361.
53.
ZhangC, MitchellW, XueY, et al.Understanding the role of nurse practitioners, physician assistants and other nursing staff in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nurs, 2020; 19(1):117; doi: 10.1186/s12912-020-00503-0.
54.
American Association of Nurse Practitioners. State Practice Environments; 2023. Available from: https://www.aanp.org/advocacy/state/state-practice-environment [Last accessed: December1, 2023].
55.
GriffinDW, HoyJF, McMahonJH. Long-acting cabotegravir PrEP: A time for cautious optimism. Lancet HIV, 2023; 10(12):e756–e757.
56.
LandovitzRJ, LiS, EronJJJr, et al.Tail-phase safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of long-acting injectable cabotegravir in HIV-uninfected adults: A secondary analysis of the HPTN 077 trial. Lancet HIV, 2020; 7(7):e472–e481; doi: 10.1016/s2352-3018(20)30106-5.
