Adherence to event‐driven HIV PrEP among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: analysis based on online diary data, 3‐monthly questionnaires and intracellular TFV‐DP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis (edPrEP) with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) is highly effective for preventing HIV acquisition in men who have sex with men (MSM) and is preferred over daily PrEP by some MSM. However, it is largely unknown how well MSM adhere to edPrEP. We then aimed to assess PrEP protection during CAS among MSM using edPrEP and participating in the Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project (AMPrEP). METHODS: We analysed data from participants enrolled in AMPrEP who were taking edPrEP. We measured adherence through (1) a mobile application in which sexual behaviour and PrEP-use were recorded daily, (2) three-monthly self-completed questionnaires and (3) dried blood spot (DBS) samples collected around six, twelve and twenty-four months after PrEP initiation. We assessed the proportion of days with condomless anal sex (CAS) acts that were protected by PrEP, per partner type (i.e. steady partners, known casual partners, unknown casual partners), and the proportion of three-month periods during which PrEP was correctly used. Intracellular TFV-diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations were determined from DBS. Good adherence was defined as at least one tablet before and one tablet within 48 hours after a CAS act. RESULTS: Between 11 September 2015 and 6 October 2019, 182 of 376 MSM (48.4%) used edPrEP for at least one three-month period. Of the 8224 CAS days that were reported in the app during edPrEP-use, we observed good protection for most CAS days involving steady partners (n = 1625/2455, 66.9%), known casual partners (n = 3216/3472, 92.6%) and unknown casual partners (n = 2074/2297, 90.3%). Men reported consistently correct PrEP-use in 851 (81.4%) of the 1046 three-month periods of edPrEP-use. The median TFV-DP concentration was 591 fmol/sample (interquartile range = 270 to 896). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to edPrEP was high as determined from the online app and questionnaire. DBS measurements were consistent with two to three tablets per week on average.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".