MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903569589 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(18)30254-8

Informal PrEP: an emerging need for nomenclature

2018· letter· en· W2903569589 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julien Brisson, Vardit Ravitsky, Bryn Williams–Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusPre-exposure prophylaxisPublic healthMedicineMen who have sex with menFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MEDLINEPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different expressions are used to describe the process of informal access to antiretroviral drugs (eg, via the Internet or acquaintances) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): “informal use”,1Zablotska IB Prestage G de Wit J Grulich AE Mao L Holt M The informal use of antiretrovirals for preexposure prophylaxis of HIV infection among gay men in Australia.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013; 62: 334-338Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar “informal PrEP”,2Brisson J Ethical public health issues for the use of informal PrEP.Glob Public Health. 2017; 13: 1382-1387Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar “off-label PrEP”,3Haire BG Preexposure prophylaxis-related stigma: strategies to improve uptake and adherence—a narrative review.HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2015; 7: 241-249PubMed Google Scholar “non-prescribed PrEP”,4Buttram ME Kurtz SP Preliminary evidence of HIV seroconversion among HIV-negative men who have sex with men taking non-prescribed antiretroviral medication for HIV prevention in Miami, Florida, USA.Sex Health. 2016; 14: 193-195Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar “DIY PrEP”,5Paparini S Nutland W Rhodes T Nguyen VK Anderson J DIY HIV prevention: formative qualitative research with men who have sex with men who source PrEP outside of clinical trials.PloS One. 2018; 13: e0202830Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar and “wild PrEP”.2Brisson J Ethical public health issues for the use of informal PrEP.Glob Public Health. 2017; 13: 1382-1387Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar This lack of consistent nomenclature makes it difficult to develop an accurate understanding of the nature of the process and its public health implications. To improve consistency for future research and public health initiatives, this process should be referred to as informal PrEP. Informal use implies that PrEP could have been used incorrectly. Since only a few countries have approved Truvada (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine; Gilead, Foster City, CA, USA) as PrEP, people have developed different techniques to access the molecules that make up Truvada, such as purchasing generic antiretroviral drugs online. However, although users might be using so-called informal channels, they might still be using PrEP correctly, with the supervision of a health-care professional, and be frequently tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. In Canada and South Africa, for example, physicians were prescribing Truvada as PrEP before its official local approval. Characterised as off-label, this terminology is misleading since physicians can prescribe Truvada as PrEP based on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. In many countries, people can obtain a physician's prescription for Truvada by asking for postexposure prophylaxis but using this treatment as PrEP, making the expression non-prescribed inaccurate. Informal PrEP has various public health implications, which have already been addressed in the published literature.2Brisson J Ethical public health issues for the use of informal PrEP.Glob Public Health. 2017; 13: 1382-1387Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar Additional research is needed to empirically assess its implications, both nationally and globally, and to understand the dynamics of its use. A consistent nomenclature would, we argue, facilitate such research and enable meta-analyses across different studies and jurisdictions. The term informal PrEP represents most accurately the process across its different public health dynamics. Although the term is not totally value-free, it is arguably less value-laden than other terms. Moreover, informal PrEP could better describe the fact that many people use PrEP correctly following the CDC guidelines but might be unable to access it through formal measures (eg, for financial reasons or policy barriers). Adherence and rigorous medical surveillance through testing are essential for PrEP to work in HIV prevention, even more so for users of informal PrEP. A standard nomenclature can help support both research and advocacy for health policies to enable access to PrEP through formal channels (eg, a physician) that can ensure safety (eg, quality control of the drugs, and health monitoring). JB reports grants, and a PhD scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. VR and BW-J declare no competing interests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207