Appropriate usage of post-exposure prophylaxis-in-pocket for HIV prevention by individuals with low-frequency exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PEP-In-Pocket (Post-Exposure Prophylaxis-In-Pocket, or “PIP”) is a biobehavioural HIV prevention strategy wherein patients are proactively identified and given a prescription for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) medications to self-initiate in case of high-risk exposures. We evaluated this strategy in a prospective observational study at two hospital-based clinics in Toronto, Canada. HIV-negative adults using PIP underwent chart review and completed quarterly electronic questionnaires over 12 months. The primary objective was to quantify appropriate PIP initiation, defined as starting PIP within 72 h of a high-risk exposure. Secondary objectives were to quantify HIV seroconversions, changes in sexual risk behaviour, sexual satisfaction, and satisfaction with the PIP strategy. From 11/2017 to 02/2020, 43 participants enrolled and completed ≥1 questionnaire. PIP was self-initiated on 27 occasions by 15 participants, of which 24 uses (89%) were appropriate, 2 were unnecessary, and 1 was for an unknown exposure. Chart review identified no inappropriate non-use. Over 32 person-years of testing follow-up, we observed zero HIV seroconversions. Sexual risk declined modestly over follow-up, with a HIRI-MSM (HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM) change of −0.39 (95% CI = −0.58, −0.21 per 3 months, p < .001). Sexual satisfaction was stable over time. At 12 months, 31 (72%) remained on PIP, 8 (19%) had transitioned to pre-exposure prophylaxis and 4 (9%) were lost-to-follow-up. Among participants who remained on PIP and completed questionnaires at 12 months, 24/25 (96%) strongly/somewhat agreed that PIP decreased their anxiety about contracting HIV and 25/25 (100%) strongly/somewhat agreed that they would recommend PIP to a friend. PIP is a feasible HIV prevention strategy in carefully selected individuals at modest HIV risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".