PERSPECTIVE article
Front. Microbiol.
Sec. Antimicrobials, Resistance and Chemotherapy
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1616111
This article is part of the Research TopicIntegrating Health: a One Health Approach to Antimicrobial Resistance and Sustainable PracticesView all 3 articles
Where we stand on doxyPEP depends on where we sit: a viewpoint
Provisionally accepted- 1Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
- 2The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- 3Toho University, Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
There is a striking variation in national doxycycline post exposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) guidelines for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Whilst some countries advocate doxyPEP for all men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) with certain risks, others restrict the use to research settings. In this viewpoint, we argue that part of the explanation for this divergence can be attributed to different underlying conceptual frameworks. For individuals and organizations dominated by biomedical individualist frameworks, the primary goal of STI services is reducing the incidence of STIs. We have good evidence that doxyPEP does this and therefore, particularly in the setting of increasing STI incidence, this framework regards it as logical to roll out doxyPEP as fast as possible. By way of contrast, if organizations and their members operate within an ecosocial framework then their primary goal is the optimization of the sexual and overall health of individuals and populations and not just reducing STI rates. This framework sees the prevalence of STIs as being driven by the connectivity of local sexual networks. Recent increases in STI prevalence are seen as being due to increased network connectivity. The intensive use of antimicrobials such as doxycycline to reduce this prevalence is seen as introducing a selection pressure for the emergence of resistance to tetracyclines and other antimicrobials in N. gonorrhoeae and other species. The differences in these two frameworks thus leads different individuals with access to the same evidence-base to very different conclusions as to the net risk-benefit of doxyPEP.
Keywords: DoxyPEP, Doxycycline, STI - science, Chlamydia, gonorrhoea
Received: 22 Apr 2025; Accepted: 04 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Kenyon, Vanbaelen, Kong, Kanesaka and Manoharan-Basil. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Chris Kenyon, Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.