The United States has the fastest growing prison population in the world, and elevated incarceration rates, substance use, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence are fueling each other. Yet without a national guideline mandated for HIV care within the prison system, standards for state and federal prisons vary greatly.

To reappraise pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) eligibility criteria towards the men who have sex with men (MSM) with highest HIV-risk, we assessed PrEP need (i.e. HIV-risk) using Amsterdam Cohort Studies data from 2011–2017 for all non-PrEP using MSM. Outcomes were incident HIV-infection and newly-diagnosed anal STI. Determinants were current PrEP eligibility criteria (anal STI and condomless sex (CAS)) and additional determinants (age, education, group sex, alcohol use during sex and chemsex). We used targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of determinants on outcomes, and calculated population attributable fractions (PAFs) with 95% CI using RRs from TMLE. Among 810 included MSM, 22 HIV-infections and 436 anal STIs (n = 229) were diagnosed during follow-up. Chemsex (RR = 5.8 (95% CI 2.0–17.0); PAF = 55.3% (95% CI 43.3–83.4)), CAS with a casual partner (RR = 3.3 (95% CI 1.3–8.7); PAF = 38.0% (95% CI 18.3–93.6)) and anal STI (RR = 5.3 (95% CI 1.7–16.7); PAF = 22.0 (95% CI −16.8 to 100.0)) were significantly (P < 0.05) associated with and had highest attributable risk fractions for HIV. Chemsex (RR = 2.0 (95% CI 1.6–2.4); PAF = 19.5 (95% CI 10.6–30.6)) and CAS with a casual partner (RR = 2.5 (95% CI 2.0–3.0); PAF = 28.0 (95% CI 21.0–36.4)) were also significantly associated with anal STI, as was younger age (16–34/≥35; RR = 1.7 (95% CI 1.4–2.1); PAF = 15.5 (95% CI 6.4–27.6)) and group sex (RR = 1.3 (95% CI 1.1–1.6); PAF = 9.0 (95% CI −2.3 to 23.7)). Chemsex should be an additional PrEP eligibility criterion.

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD), Black, and Latinx communities have long borne a disproportionate share of the U.S. HIV epidemic, yet these same key demographics are continually underrepresented in national PrEP prescriptions. Black, Latinx, and TGD individuals are also more likely to be uninsured, meaning that a proposed federal program to cover PrEP for people without insurance could provide significant benefit to potential PrEP users from these populations. However, coverage of PrEP costs alone will not end disparities in uptake. This commentary provides additional context and recommendations to maximize effectiveness of a national PrEP program for TGD, Black, and Latinx populations in the US.

Using an implementation science framework, we detail how a national system for covering both standard and telemedicine laboratory testing would support a national PrEP program. Implementation strategies that will facilitate success include minimizing provider burden through uncomplicated billing systems and minimizing patient burden through centralized, online access systems. We anticipate that providing telemedicine and in-person laboratory testing options will optimize PrEP care by making it less burdensome, leading to cost-effective healthcare and improved population health.

It has been speculated that some drugs can be used against SARS-CoV-2. As for antiretrovirals, the follow-up of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak may help to understand the potential protective effect of PrEP against SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to identify associations between oral PrEP use and COVID-19-related symptoms self-reporting. Phone call interviews or digital investigation (through WhatsApp® or e-mail) about oral PrEP regular use, social distancing, exposure to suspected or confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related symptoms. Among 108 individuals, the majority were cisgender, white and gay men. Although most of the individuals engaged in social distancing (68.52%), they kept on taking PrEP (75.93%). Few people have had contact with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 (12.04%), but some had COVID-19-related symptoms the month before the interview (27.78%) including rhinorrheoa (56.67%), cough (53.33%), asthaenia (50.00%) and headache (43.33%). Also, oral PrEP was associated with lower self-reporting COVID-19-symptoms (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07–0.96, P = 0.04; h = 0.92) even after controlling confounders as social distancing, age, body-mass index and morbidities . In our sample, the regular use of oral PrEP was associated with lower self-reporting of COVID-19-related symptoms during the outbreak in São Paulo, Brazil.