Is on-Demand HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis a Suitable Tool for Men Who Have Sex With Men Who Practice Chemsex? Results From a Substudy of the ANRS-IPERGAY Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemsex-the use of psychoactive substances during sexual encounters-among men who have sex with men is a growing concern. On-demand HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) may be a suitable tool to prevent HIV transmission among "chemsexers." We used the open-label extension study of the ANRS-IPERGAY trial to describe chemsexers and their PrEP use. METHODS: Among the 361 men who have sex with men enrolled in ANRS-IPERGAY's open-label extension study, we selected the 331 with available data on drug use. A 2-monthly web questionnaire on sociobehavioral data was used to compare sexual behaviors between questionnaires where chemsex was reported and those where it was not. Using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression, we studied whether practicing chemsex was associated with correct PrEP use. RESULTS: Among the 331 participants, 30% reported chemsex practice at least once during follow-up and were considered chemsexers. Chemsex was reported in 16% of all questionnaires. Chemsexers were not significantly different from nonchemsexers regarding sociodemographic characteristics, although they reported greater use of anxiolytics and more sensation-seeking. Reporting chemsex was associated with more high-risk sexual practices and a higher perception of risk. After adjustment for other potential correlates, chemsex remained associated with correct PrEP use [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 2.24 (1.37 to 3.66)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that chemsexers were more likely to report high-risk sexual practices but also had a higher perception of risk. They were also more likely to use PrEP correctly when practicing chemsex. Consequently, PrEP may be a suitable tool to reduce HIV-risk transmission among chemsexers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".