Search

This survey aimed to understand how far the Italian infectious diseases (ID) specialists are confident in the "Undetectable = Untransmittable" (U = U) message and translate this concept into clinical practice. An anonymous survey was distributed by e-mail to 286 clinicians to collect their opinions regarding six situations potentially at risk of HIV transmission between virologically suppressed patients and seronegative individuals who possibly require postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Overall, 51% of ID specialists deemed zero risk of HIV transmission through condomless sex for undetectable patients. This answer was more frequent among HIV specialists (30% vs. 21%, p = .01) and clinicians working in teaching hospitals (35% vs. 16%, p = .03). Remarkably, 61% of participants would advise taking PEP for the HIV-negative partner in case of sexual intercourse with a seropositive person with a recent blip occurrence or absence of an HIV RNA test performed within the last 6 months (63%). Seventy-three percent of respondents deemed it essential to know patients' history of adherence to interpreting an HIV RNA test, regardless of its timing. When applying the U = U concept to daily clinical decisions, we observed an overall cautious attitude among physicians. Concerns mainly regarded the timing of the last HIV RNA test to the exposure event, especially in the absence of details on the patient's adherence. Wider diffusion and application of the U = U message are needed.

Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of the oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir (with or without emtricitabine) on preventing HIV-negative partners of HIV infected patients to become infected through sexual contacts. PrEP is already available in the United States and now is approved by European Medicine Agency. In this setting we would like to gauge physicians’ knowledge, acquaintance with and attitude to include PrEP in their clinical practice. A cross sectional survey was conducted among Italian physicians expert on antiretroviral therapy. Out of 146 physicians, 35% of participants declared to be familiar with PrEP but only 46% of them believed that, currently, there are not enough reasons to make it available in Italy. 51% of physicians have already been attracted to prescribe it and 63.4% have been openly asked about PrEP. The main concerns noticed were: the risk of acquire other sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) (70% of physicians feared that PrEP could favor STDs spread), the potential harmful of PrEP if not adequately implemented and, especially the risk of possible side effects if not properly used. Nevertheless, 55.9% of participants believed that Health Authorities face an ethical obligation to make PrEP available as part of the strategies to protect from HIV transmission and half of the respondents asked for further researches to better define the role for PrEP. Attitudes regarding PrEP impact on Italian National Health Organization were also very interesting: 57.5% of participants did not believe that investing in PrEP would be an appropriate use of healthcare resources, while 70.6% affirmed that PrEP’s financial coverage should not be funded by the Italian National System of Health (SSN). This survey showed a high awareness of PrEP potential among Italian physicians coupled with a great deal of skepticism about how and if implementing it in clinical practice.