Understanding Opportunities for Prescribing Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) at Two Academic Medical Centers in a High Priority Jurisdiction for Ending the HIV Epidemic
Moira McNulty,Katherine McGuckin,Eleanor Friedman,Matthew Caputo,Joseph Mason,Samantha Devlin,Mihai Giurcanu,Anu Hazra,Jessica Ridgway,Chad J Achenbach
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.25.24310992
2024-07-26
Abstract:Introduction: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective, yet underutilized tool for HIV prevention. We sought to understand practice patterns and opportunities for prescribing PrEP across two large, urban, academic healthcare institutions in Chicago, Illinois.
Methods: We analyzed electronic medical record data from two institutions including encounters for persons >18 years of age with >1 negative HIV test between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2021 who had indications for PrEP. Eligible encounters were those within a six-month window after STI diagnosis, or as long as injection drug use (IDU) was documented. We categorized encounters as inpatient, emergency department (ED), primary care, infectious disease (ID), obstetrics and gynecology/womens health (OBGYN) and other outpatient settings. We performed bivariable and multivariable mixed effects regression models to examine associations, reporting odds ratios (or adjusted odds ratios) and 95% confidence intervals (OR, aOR, 95% CI).
Results: In total, 9644 persons contributed 53031 encounters that resulted in 4653 PrEP prescriptions. The two healthcare institutions had differing patient demographics; institution A had more 18 to 24 year-olds (58.3% vs 31.3%), more African Americans (83.8% vs 27.9%), and more women (65.7% vs 46.3%). Institution B had more White (40.6% vs 7.1%) and Hispanic persons (14.0% vs 4.2%), and more men who have sex with men (MSM) (15.2% vs 3.3%). Institution A had more eligible encounters in the ED (30.8% vs 7.3%) as well as in infectious disease, inpatient, OBYGN, and primary care settings. Institution B accounted for the majority of PrEP prescriptions (97.0%).
Adjusted models found lower odds of PrEP prescriptions in non-Hispanic Black (aOR 0.23 [0.16, 0.32]) and Latino (aOR 0.62 [0.44, 0.89]) patients, those with injection drug use (aOR 0.01 [0.00, 0.09]), men who have sex with women (aOR 0.36 [0.23, 0.56]), women who have sex with men (aOR 0.11 [0.06, 0.19]), and in the ED (ref) or OBGYN (0.11 [0.04, 0.27]) settings; while increased odds of PrEP prescription were associated with non-Hispanic White (ref) and MSM (aOR 24.87 [15.79, 39.15]) patients, and encounters at Institution B (aOR 1.78 [1.25, 2.53]) and in infectious disease (aOR [11.92 [7.65, 18.58]), primary care (aOR 2.76 [1.90, 4.01]), and other outpatient subspecialty settings (aOR 2.67 [1.84, 3.87]).
Conclusions: Institution A contained persons historically underrepresented in PrEP prescriptions, while institution B accounted for most PrEP prescriptions. Opportunities exist to improve equity in PrEP prescribing and across ED and OBGYN settings.
HIV/AIDS