O19.2 Pre-exposure prophylaxis and risk compensation: evidence of decreased condom use at three-month follow-up among predominantly gay male participants in the vicprep study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Introduction</h3> Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) decreases HIV risk among uninfected people, but risk compensation may affect prevention benefits. PrEP trials and extensions found no decrease in condom use, but included extensive prevention education. We investigated condom use in the VicPrEP study, the first implementation study of PrEP in routine practice in Australia. <h3>Methods</h3> Enrollment commenced in June 2014, with capacity for 115 at risk HIV negative gay/bisexual men, transgender people and heterosexual serodiscordant couples seeking to conceive. Participants are recruited from three GP clinics, one sexual health clinic, and one hospital clinic in Melbourne. Participants consent to using daily Truvada for at least one year, and complete baseline and three-monthly clinical evaluations and self-report behavioural surveys. <h3>Results</h3> At 31 March 2015, 92 participants completed baseline surveys, and 76 completed three-month follow-up; all gay/bisexual men (mean age 37.7 years; 67.4% university educated; 75.0% Australian born). In the past three months half had regular partners (Baseline: 48.9%, Follow-up: 55.8%; ns); nearly all had casual partners (Baseline: 90.2%, Follow-up: 88.2%; ns). Mean frequency of intercourse in the past three months remained stable for regular partners (Baseline: 19.0, Follow-up: 18.9; ns), and decreased for casual partners (Baseline: 19.1, Follow-up: 16.0; p = 0.056). Condom use was assessed on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always), and decreased with regular partners (Baseline: mean 2.0 [SD 1.6], Follow-up: mean 1.7 [SD 1.3]; p = 0.048), and casual partners (Baseline: mean 3.0 [SD 1.3], Follow-up: mean 2.5 [SD 1.4]; p = 0.002). Serosorting, viral load sorting, strategic positioning and withdrawal remained unchanged with regular and casual partners. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This is the first study documenting a decrease in condom use amongst HIV-negative gay/bisexual men using PrEP. Findings highlight the potential for risk compensation to reduce benefits of PrEP when implemented in routine practice, if adherence is insufficient. This underscores the continued importance of promoting sexual risk reduction practices, including condom use. <h3>Disclosure of interest statement</h3> The VicPrEP study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health and study drug was supplied by Gilead. John de Wit receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Government Department of Health, the NSW Ministry of Health, the Victorian Department of Health, Queensland Health, Western Australian Department of Health, Gay Men9s Health SA, ACT Health, Tasmanian Council on AIDS, Hepatitis and Related Diseases, the Netherlands Institute of Public Health and Environment (RIVM), AIDS Fonds, The Netherlands, and UNESCO Bangkok. He has received lecture sponsorship from BMS Australia, is a board member of ACON Health Inc and a member of the Steering Committee of the HIV in Europe initiative. Dean Murphy receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and a research grant from the Victorian Department of Health. Luxi Lal has no interests to disclose. Jennifer Audsley has no interests to disclose. Norman Roth has received honoraria for Advisory Boards and/or educational events from ViiV, MSD, Gilead and Bristol Myers Squibb. Richard Moore has received financial assistance for education from Gilead, Viiv and Merck. BK Tee has no interests to disclose. Tim Read works at Melbourne Sexual Health Centre which receives study payments from Gilead. Edwina Wright receives funding from a research grant from NIH, research funding from the Victorian Department of Health and unrestricted research funds from Gilead, Abbott, Janssen Cilag, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. She has also received funding that has been used for research purposes only from ViiV, Merck, Gilead, and Abbott for consultancy work, payment for lectures from ViiV and payment for developing educational resources for ViiV, MSD and Gilead.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».