Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
As evidence grows for the effectiveness of antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention [1–6], complementary research on PrEP acceptability [7] and uptake [8–13] has gained prominence. In the USA, PrEP acceptability research has largely focused on men who have sex with men (MSM) [14], given the sustained burden of HIV incidence in this group [15]. Although this work has identified many individual factors associated with willingness to use PrEP, emerging research has also examined PrEP acceptability in light of MSM partnership dynamics [16–19]. Focusing on dyads is imperative: at least one third of HIV infections among US MSM occur within primary partnerships [20, 21], and relationship dynamics—including intimacy, commitment, and other interpersonal factors—demonstrably influence both HIV risk and protective behaviors [22, 23]. For example, prior studies report that many MSM in primary partnerships engage in condomless sex to express intimacy, and condom nonuse may be motivated by the desire to preserve these intimacy benefits [24–27].
In this issue, Gamarel and Golub examine how intimacy motivations for condom nonuse may affect willingness to use PrEP among MSM in romantic partnerships [28]. The team interviewed MSM who self-reported being in seroconcordant, HIV-negative primary partnerships; 90 % reported recent condomless anal sex with their primary partners and 34 % did so with an outside (non-primary) partner. Regardless of whether participants had condomless sex with an outside partner, intimacy motivations for condomless sex were significantly and positively associated with the intention to use PrEP, if PrEP were available at no cost. This association was absent among a separate sample of MSM without primary partners, indicating that the desire to express intimacy through condomless sex may play a unique role in PrEP uptake among MSM in romantic relationships.
Gamarel and Golub’s insightful work has several implications for further research. First, PrEP-protected sex and condom-protected sex may carry different interpersonal meanings within MSM partnerships, and research should examine these distinctions. Study participants who expressed concern about the intimacy-inhibiting effects of condoms were more likely to want PrEP, suggesting that PrEP may not affect intimacy in the same way. Identifying the different values that MSM couples place on exclusively PrEP-protected sex, exclusively condom-protected sex, dually protected sex (using PrEP with condoms), and sex without protection can help to inform PrEP outreach, education, and user support. The perceived opportunity to engage in condomless sex at lower risk may motivate PrEP uptake, as suggested by a study among serodiscordant MSM couples [19]. Further study is needed, however, to understand how attitudes toward PrEP-protected sex will influence PrEP uptake and behavior in MSM relationships.
Second, the focus on intimacy motivations brings attention to the potential “secondary” benefits of PrEP—namely, advantages beyond pure risk-reduction. From the user’s perspective, these may include opportunities to reduce HIV risk while retaining the potential benefits of condomless sex (e.g., intimacy, pleasure, and fertility); reduced HIV-related anxiety or fear [19, 29–32]; and increased control over sexual health [31]. Additional research is now needed to understand how PrEP users anticipate and experience these secondary benefits (if at all) and to incorporate this information into user support strategies.
Third, Gamarel and Golub’s findings highlight the need for couples-based approaches to PrEP implementation among MSM. Partners may be a source of support for PrEP use and adherence [16, 18, 33], but little research has investigated couples-based HIV prevention strategies for MSM [22, 34]. One study has tested a couples-based strategy to promote HIV medication adherence among MSM in serodiscordant partnerships [35], which may be adaptable to PrEP use. Several other MSM couples-based approaches show promise [36, 37]; research is now needed to extend dyadic interventions to PrEP decision-making, as well as sustained use among couples who choose to adopt PrEP.
Finally, the team’s emphasis on seroconcordant HIV-negative partnerships is a meaningful expansion of the PrEP acceptability literature. To advance this work, future research might investigate PrEP acceptability, uptake, and PrEP user experiences in the context of sexual agreements and shared decision-making. Intimacy is one of many relationship factors [23], and dyadic research is needed to understand how perceived intimacy and other partnership features (e.g., duration, communication, and trust) influence PrEP acceptability. Additional research could also explore sexual agreements as both facilitators and potential barriers to PrEP use; if, for example, an agreement prohibits sex outside a seroconcordant partnership, PrEP use may be viewed as evidence of violation, thereby complicating uptake or adherence. Gamarel and Golub’s findings also reinforce the need for PrEP providers to ask patients about both primary and outside partners when evaluating whether patients are at “substantial risk of HIV acquisition” [38], particularly when patients report being in a seroconcordant relationship.
PrEP offers a compelling new tool for HIV prevention in several populations, including MSM at risk of infection, and PrEP implementation efforts can benefit from a nuanced understanding of the contexts in which HIV risk and protective behaviors occur. The interpersonal dynamics of primary MSM partnerships are one such context. By identifying how intimacy motivations for condom nonuse may influence PrEP acceptability in this population, Gamarel and Golub have introduced an important set of research questions, as well as promising opportunities for maximizing PrEP’s preventive impact.
References
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;363:2587-2599.
Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:399-410.
Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:423-434.
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. 2013;381:2083-2090.
Anderson PL, Glidden DV, Liu A, et al. Emtricitabine-tenofovir concentrations and pre-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in men who have sex with men. Sci Transl Med. 2012, 4:151ra125.
Donnell D, Baeten JM, Bumpus NN, et al. HIV Protective Efficacy and Correlates of Tenofovir Blood Concentrations in a Clinical Trial of PrEP for HIV Prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014.
Young I, McDaid L. How acceptable are antiretrovirals for the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV?: a review of research on the acceptability of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention. AIDS Behav. 2014;18:195-216.
Liu A, Cohen S, Follansbee S, et al. Early experiences implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in San Francisco. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001613.
Bush S, Rawlings K, Ng L, Mera R. Regional differences in the utilization of Truvada for PrEP. 9th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence. Miami, FL, 2014, Abstract 353.
Mera R, Rawlings K, Pechonkina A, et al. Status of Truvada (TVD) for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States: An Early Drug Utilization Analysis. 53rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Denver, CO, 2013, Abstract H-663a.
Grant RM, Anderson PL, McMahan V, et al. Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, sexual practices, and HIV incidence in men and transgender women who have sex with men: a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014.
Ndase P, Celum C, Campbell J, et al. Successful discontinuation of the placebo arm and provision of an effective HIV prevention product after a positive interim efficacy result: the Partners PrEP study experience. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66:206-212.
King HL, Keller SB, Giancola MA, et al. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Accessibility Research and Evaluation (PrEPARE Study). AIDS Behav. 2014;18:1722-1725.
Holt M. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention: a review of awareness and acceptability among men who have sex with men in the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas. Sex Health. 2014;11:166-170.
CDC: HIV among gay and bisexual men. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, 2014.
Mimiaga MJ, Closson EF, Kothary V, Mitty JA. Sexual partnerships and considerations for HIV antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis utilization among high-risk substance using men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43:99-106.
Saberi P, Gamarel KE, Neilands TB, et al. Ambiguity, ambivalence, and apprehensions of taking HIV-1 pre-exposure prophylaxis among male couples in San Francisco: a mixed methods study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e50061.
Brooks RA, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, et al. Motivators, concerns, and barriers to adoption of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV-serodiscordant male relationships. AIDS Care. 2011;23:1136-1145.
Brooks RA, Landovitz RJ, Kaplan RL, et al. Sexual risk behaviors and acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in serodiscordant relationships: a mixed methods study. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012;26:87-94.
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:e50522.
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;23:1153-1162.
Burton J, Darbes L, Operario D. Couples-focused behavioral interventions for prevention of HIV: Systematic review of the state of the evidence. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:1-10.
Karney BR, Hops H, Redding CA, et al. A framework for incorporating dyads in models of HIV-prevention. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:189-203.
Hoff CC, Chakravarty D, Beougher SC, Neilands TB, Darbes LA. Relationship characteristics associated with sexual risk behavior among MSM in committed relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2012;26:738-745.
Darbes LA, Chakravarty D, Neilands TB, Beougher SC, Hoff CC. Sexual risk for HIV among gay male couples: a longitudinal study of the impact of relationship dynamics. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43:47-60.
Greene GJ, Andrews R, Kuper L, Mustanski B. Intimacy, monogamy, and condom problems drive unprotected sex among young men in serious relationships with other men: a mixed methods dyadic study. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43:73-87.
Golub SA, Starks TJ, Payton G, Parsons JT. The critical role of intimacy in the sexual risk behaviors of gay and bisexual men. AIDS Behav. 2012;16:626-632.
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. 2014. doi:10.1007/s12160-014-9646-3.
Gilmore H, Koester K, Liu A, et al. To take or not to take PrEP: Perspectives from participants enrolled in the iPrEx Open Label Extension (OLE) in the United States. 9th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence. Miami, FL, 2014, Abstract 440.
Koester K, Amico KR, Liu A, et al. Sex on PrEP: qualitative findings from the iPrEx open label extension (OLE) in the US. XX International AIDS Conference. Melbourne, Australia, 2014, Abstract TUAC0102.
Patel V, Estabrook S, Smith K, Golub S, et al. Motivators and concerns for adopting pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men using mobile dating "apps" in New York City. 9th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence. Miami, FL, 2014, Abstract 434.
Underhill K, Morrow K, Operario D, et al. Project PrEP Talk: An in-depth qualitative analysis of PrEP acceptability, expectations and risk compensation beliefs among United States MSM. XIX International AIDS Conference. Washington, D.C., USA, 2012, Abstract TUPD0306.
Corneli A, Perry B, Kawango Agot, et al. Participant Explanations for Study Product Adherence in FEM-PrEP. 9th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence. Miami, FL, 2014, Abstract 366.
Jiwatram-Negron T, El-Bassel N: Systematic Review of Couple-Based HIV Intervention and Prevention Studies: Advantages, Gaps, and Future Directions. AIDS Behav. 2014.
Remien RH, Stirratt MJ, Dolezal C, et al. Couple-focused support to improve HIV medication adherence: a randomized controlled trial. AIDS. 2005;19:807-814.
Wu E, El-Bassel N, McVinney LD, et al. Feasibility and promise of a couple-based HIV/STI preventive intervention for methamphetamine-using, black men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2011;15:1745-1754.
Stephenson R, Sullivan PS, Salazar LF, et al. Attitudes towards couples-based HIV testing among MSM in three US cities. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(Suppl 1):S80-S87.
CDC: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States 2014: A Clinical Practice Guideline, 2014.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Dr. Don Operario and Dr. Sarah Calabrese for feedback on an earlier draft of this Commentary. I am supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, #5K01MH093273 (PI: Underhill).
Author’s Statement of Conflict of Interest
K. Underhill declares no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
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. 49, 151–153 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9651-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9651-6