Differences between men who have sex with men that use drugs and engage in chemsex and those who do not engage in chemsex in the French ANRS-PREVENIR cohort: the need to rethink harm reduction services.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Luis Sagaon-Teyssier, Maxime Hoyer, Cécile Donadille, Abdourahmane Sow, Lambert Assoumou, Jade Ghosn, Dominique Costagliola, Bruno Spire, Jean-Michel Molina, Christel Protiere, Perrine Roux
{"title":"Differences between men who have sex with men that use drugs and engage in chemsex and those who do not engage in chemsex in the French ANRS-PREVENIR cohort: the need to rethink harm reduction services.","authors":"Luis Sagaon-Teyssier, Maxime Hoyer, Cécile Donadille, Abdourahmane Sow, Lambert Assoumou, Jade Ghosn, Dominique Costagliola, Bruno Spire, Jean-Michel Molina, Christel Protiere, Perrine Roux","doi":"10.1186/s13011-025-00661-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An increasing number of studies are exploring the profiles of men who have sex with men (MSM) in the context of the sexualized use of drugs (chemsex). However, less attention has been paid to MSM who use drugs but do not engage in chemsex. We do not know to what extent the latter are different from the former, or whether they require similar harm reduction services. This study aimed to compare both populations in terms of their sexual risk practices, health, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used longitudinal data from the ongoing French cohort study ANRS-PREVENIR, which comprises 3076 MSM receiving PrEP. Analyses were conducted on MSM who engaged in chemsex, MSM who used drugs but did not engage in chemsex, and MSM who did not use drugs. Only persons with available data from at least one follow-up visit between M0 and M36 were included, representing 19,375 visits. We built a three-category outcome: (i) MSM who did not use drugs (non-DU), (ii) MSM who used drugs but did not engage in chemsex (DU), and (iii) MSM who engaged in chemsex (CX). A multinomial logistic functional form was used to estimate odds-ratios and 95% confidence intervals, using the DU category as a reference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 2493 cohort participants, at baseline, 62.8%, 22.5%, and 14.6% of the participants were classified in the non-DU, DU, and CX categories, respectively. Compared to DU, non-DU were less likely to (i) declare fisting/BDSM practices, (ii) have a moderately risky sex life, ii) report lifetime PrEP use. Compared to DU, CX also had lower alcohol consumption, and were less likely to have (i) a tertiary education qualification, and (ii) a main partner; in contrast, CX were more likely to be depressed. CX were more likely to report fisting/BDSM practices, but less likely not to use PrEP and to report suboptimal PrEP adherence compared to DU participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences between the DU and CX populations were observed; the latter were more likely to (i) have at-risk sexual practices, (ii) suffer from depression, and (iii) have optimal PrEP adherence. It is essential to provide suitable mental health services to people who engage in chemsex, and to implement tailored sexual health and harm reduction services to MSM who use drugs but who do not engage in chemsex.</p>","PeriodicalId":22041,"journal":{"name":"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy","volume":"20 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379418/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-025-00661-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of studies are exploring the profiles of men who have sex with men (MSM) in the context of the sexualized use of drugs (chemsex). However, less attention has been paid to MSM who use drugs but do not engage in chemsex. We do not know to what extent the latter are different from the former, or whether they require similar harm reduction services. This study aimed to compare both populations in terms of their sexual risk practices, health, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use.

Methods: We used longitudinal data from the ongoing French cohort study ANRS-PREVENIR, which comprises 3076 MSM receiving PrEP. Analyses were conducted on MSM who engaged in chemsex, MSM who used drugs but did not engage in chemsex, and MSM who did not use drugs. Only persons with available data from at least one follow-up visit between M0 and M36 were included, representing 19,375 visits. We built a three-category outcome: (i) MSM who did not use drugs (non-DU), (ii) MSM who used drugs but did not engage in chemsex (DU), and (iii) MSM who engaged in chemsex (CX). A multinomial logistic functional form was used to estimate odds-ratios and 95% confidence intervals, using the DU category as a reference.

Results: Among the 2493 cohort participants, at baseline, 62.8%, 22.5%, and 14.6% of the participants were classified in the non-DU, DU, and CX categories, respectively. Compared to DU, non-DU were less likely to (i) declare fisting/BDSM practices, (ii) have a moderately risky sex life, ii) report lifetime PrEP use. Compared to DU, CX also had lower alcohol consumption, and were less likely to have (i) a tertiary education qualification, and (ii) a main partner; in contrast, CX were more likely to be depressed. CX were more likely to report fisting/BDSM practices, but less likely not to use PrEP and to report suboptimal PrEP adherence compared to DU participants.

Conclusions: Differences between the DU and CX populations were observed; the latter were more likely to (i) have at-risk sexual practices, (ii) suffer from depression, and (iii) have optimal PrEP adherence. It is essential to provide suitable mental health services to people who engage in chemsex, and to implement tailored sexual health and harm reduction services to MSM who use drugs but who do not engage in chemsex.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在法国anrs - previr队列中,与使用药物并进行化学性交的男性发生性行为的男性与不进行化学性交的男性之间的差异:需要重新考虑减少伤害的服务。
背景:越来越多的研究正在探索在性化药物使用(chemsex)的背景下男男性行为(MSM)的概况。然而,很少有人关注那些吸毒但不参与化学性行为的男同性恋者。我们不知道后者在多大程度上不同于前者,也不知道它们是否需要类似的减少伤害服务。本研究旨在比较两种人群的性风险行为、健康状况和暴露前预防(PrEP)使用情况。方法:我们使用了正在进行的法国队列研究anrs - previr的纵向数据,其中包括3076名接受PrEP的男男性行为者。分析了从事化学性行为的男男性行为者、使用药物但未使用化学性行为的男男性行为者和不使用药物的男男性行为者。仅包括在M0至M36期间至少有一次随访数据的人,共19,375次随访。我们建立了一个三类结果:(i)不使用药物的男同性恋者(non-DU), (ii)使用药物但不进行化学性交的男同性恋者(DU),以及(iii)进行化学性交的男同性恋者(CX)。使用多项逻辑函数形式来估计比值比和95%置信区间,使用DU类别作为参考。结果:在2493名队列参与者中,基线时,62.8%、22.5%和14.6%的参与者分别被归类为非DU、DU和CX类别。与DU相比,非DU更不可能(i)宣布握拳/BDSM实践,(ii)有中等风险的性生活,(ii)报告终生使用PrEP。与DU相比,CX的饮酒量也较低,并且不太可能拥有(i)高等教育资格和(ii)主要伴侣;相比之下,CX更容易抑郁。与DU参与者相比,CX更有可能报告握拳/BDSM实践,但不使用PrEP和报告不理想的PrEP依从性的可能性更小。结论:DU种群与CX种群存在差异;后者更有可能(i)有危险的性行为,(ii)患有抑郁症,(iii)有最佳的PrEP依从性。必须为从事化学性行为的人提供适当的心理健康服务,并为使用毒品但不从事化学性行为的男男性行为者提供量身定制的性健康和减少伤害服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses research concerning substance abuse, with a focus on policy issues. The journal aims to provide an environment for the exchange of ideas, new research, consensus papers, and critical reviews, to bridge the established fields that share a mutual goal of reducing the harms from substance use. These fields include: legislation pertaining to substance use; correctional supervision of people with substance use disorder; medical treatment and screening; mental health services; research; and evaluation of substance use disorder programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信