HIV postexposure prophylaxis-in-pocket: long-term follow-up of individuals with low-frequency, high-risk HIV exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV preexposure prophylaxis and postexposure prophylaxis are two major biomedical HIV prevention modalities. The utility of these prevention tools for individuals with infrequent high-risk HIV exposures remains uncertain. HIV postexposure prophylaxis-in-pocket ('PIP') may be an effective HIV prevention tool in such situations. Here, we present long-term follow-up of a cohort of patients initiated on PIP for HIV prevention. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical characteristics of patients initiated on PIP as a primary HIV prevention tool between 1 January 2016 to 31 May 2019 at the Toronto General Hospital HIV Prevention Clinic and St. Michael's Hospital HIV Clinic, both in Toronto, Canada. Patients were referred for consideration of a biomedical HIV prevention modality. Individuals with a low frequency of high-risk exposures to HIV were initiated on PIP after counselling, and were followed at regular intervals. Demographic and clinical data was collected with a standardized form. RESULTS: In total, 79 patients were initiated on PIP as a primary HIV prevention modality and followed for a mean duration of 14.8 months combining for a total of 97.3 patient-years. Twenty-one (26.6%) patients used their PIP, and 32 courses of PIP were taken during the study period. Transitions between HIV prevention modalities included 13 (16.5%) patients who transitioned from PrEP to PIP, and 22 (27.8%) patients who transitioned from PIP to PrEP. No HIV seroconversions were detected during the course of this study. CONCLUSION: PIP is helpful HIV prevention modality for individuals with a low frequency of high-risk HIV exposures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".