Choosing event‐driven and daily HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis – data from two European PrEP demonstration projects among men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Daily and event-driven PrEP are both efficacious in reducing the risk for HIV infection. However, the practice of event-driven PrEP (edPrEP) is less well studied, in particular when provided as an alternative to daily PrEP. We studied regimen preferences and switches, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence. METHODS: We analysed pooled data from two prospective cohort studies among MSM: Be-PrEP-ared, Belgium and AMPrEP, the Netherlands. In both projects, participants could choose between daily and edPrEP at three-monthly study visits, when they were also screened for sexually transmitted infections including hepatitis C (HCV). We assessed the proportion choosing each regimen, and the determinants of choosing edPrEP at baseline. Additionally, we compared the incidence rates (IRs) of HCV, syphilis and chlamydia or gonorrhoea between regimens using Poisson regression. The study period was from 3 August 2015 until 24 September 2018. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We included 571 MSM, of whom 148 (25.9%) chose edPrEP at baseline. 31.7% of participants switched regimen at least once. After 28 months, 23.5% used edPrEP. Older participants (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.38 per 10 years, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15 to 1.64) and those unemployed (aOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.75) were more likely to initially choose edPrEP. IR of HCV and syphilis did not differ between regimens, but the IR of chlamydia/gonorrhoea was higher among daily users (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.94). CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of participants chose edPrEP at baseline and at 28 months this proportion was similar. Although the IR of HCV and syphilis were similar in the two regimens, the lower incidence of chlamydia and gonorrhoea among edPrEP users may suggest that less frequent STI testing of this group could be considered.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".