Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional survey examines PrEP formulation preferences in a cohort, highlighting implications for clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To gain a better understanding of PrEP-users' preference for long-acting vs. oral PrEP formulation. METHODS: From April 2023 to January 2024, participants who were prescribed PrEP completed an anonymous, structured, self-administered, cross-sectional survey as part of their routine PrEP care in a hospital setting in Madrid, Spain. Inclusion criteria were attendance at the clinic for PrEP care and the ability to understand the Spanish language. Eligibility was not restricted by age. A convenience sample of 200 participants was used. The ethics committee approved a waiver of written consent. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: A sample of 201 participants completed the survey, of which 193 (96.5%) were male and most were 30-39 years old (48.8%). The response rate was estimated to be more than 90%. Among participants, 74.9% preferred LA-PrEP (53.9% preferred a subcutaneous (SC) injection every 6 months and 21.0% preferred an intramuscular (IM) injection every 2 months). Participants reported that LA-PrEP is more practical, indicating fewer visits to the clinic as a primary reason (67.4%). 29.4% of participants were aware of IM LA-PrEP, 10.0% of SC LA-PrEP and 10.4% were familiar with both. Respondents who selected LA-PrEP were more often under 40 years of age (p = 0.016) compared to those who preferred oral PrEP (73.7% vs. 61.2%, respectively). Limitations included the use of a cross-sectional design, a homogeneous sample and the use of one study location, among others. CONCLUSION: LA-PrEP is the preferred form of PrEP for the majority of respondents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soler‐Carracedo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: