Acceptability and tolerability of and adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among Toronto gay and bisexual men: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Preexposure prophylaxis is efficacious at preventing HIV infection, but concerns persist about adherence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We assessed preexposure prophylaxis acceptability, adherence and clinical outcomes in a pilot demonstration project. Methods: HIV-uninfected adult gay and bisexual men who scored 10 or higher on a validated HIV risk score (HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM) and reported condomless receptive anal sex were sequentially enrolled into a 1-year open-label single-arm pilot study of daily oral therapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in Toronto. The primary outcome was acceptability of preexposure prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were preexposure prophylaxis adherence (4-d recall, pill count and dried blood spot analysis), HIV seroconversion, STIs and adverse events. Results: Of the 86 men screened, 52 were enrolled. Participants were mostly young (median age 33 yr [interquartile range (IQR) 28–37 yr) white (38 [73%]) gay (49 [94%]) men. Preexposure prophylaxis acceptability was high: all participants reported their experience as “good” or “very good.” The median adherence rate was high, at 100% (IQR 95%–100%) by self-report and 96.9% (IQR 93.4%–98.4%) by pill count. Dried blood spot analysis suggested that doses were taken 4–7 days/week at 88.7% (173/195) of month 3–12 visits. No cases of HIV seroconversion occurred, but 25 participants (48%) experienced at least 1 bacterial STI, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 32.8, 32.8, 8.2 and 8.2 for chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis and lymphogranuloma venereum, respectively. No adverse events led to discontinuation of prophylaxis, but the estimated glomerular filtration rate declined by 0.22 mL/min per month. Interpretation: Preexposure prophylaxis was associated with high adherence and acceptability and no HIV infections in this study. Frequent STIs and clinically unapparent toxic renal effects reinforce the need for ongoing vigilance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".