Immediate PrEP after PEP: Results from an Observational Nurse-Led PEP2PrEP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients who use post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) are at ongoing risk for HIV acquisition after completing PEP. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use immediately after PEP, some practitioners are hesitant to offer PEP-to-PrEP (PEP2PrEP). We began offering PEP2PrEP in the sexually transmitted infection clinic in Ottawa, Canada on August 5, 2018. During the first 16 months of PEP2PrEP, 61 patients requested PEP and 46 were initiated; 30 of these patients agreed to PEP2PrEP and 26 followed through. None of our PEP patients had confirmed HIV exposures; all fulfilled the initiation criterion of condomless anal sex with a male partner of unknown HIV-status. During the study, the number of PEP requests and initiations was statistical unchanged, yet the seroconversion rate among patients who used PEP decreased from 1.7% pre-PEP2PrEP to 0% post-PEP2PrEP. Regarding follow-up, most discontinuations occurred between the PrEP intake and 1-month follow-up visit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".