Reported Side Effects and Adherence of Daily HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Users in Ontario, Canada: An Analysis of the Ontario Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Side effects are a common concern of current and potential HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users, potentially leading to missed doses. We examined the relationship between reported side effects and adherence in the Ontario PrEP Cohort Study (ON-PrEP). In total, 600 predominantly gay (87.3%), White (65.8%), and male (95.0%) participants completed questionnaires assessing the presence and severity of five side effect categories (nausea, diarrhea, headache, abdominal pain, and “other”) as well as their adherence to daily PrEP (any missed doses in the previous 4 days). In total, 175 participants (29%) ever reported experiencing side effects: most commonly diarrhea (7.5% of study visits), and most were of mild severity. Lower incomes (p = 0.01), identifying as bisexual (p = 0.04), and baseline concern about side effects (p < 0.001) were associated with ever reporting side effects. The odds of reporting any side effects decreased by a factor of 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.25–0.80) with each additional year of PrEP use, however 1 in 10 participants still reported side effects after 1 year of use. The odds of reporting optimal adherence were 0.48 (0.28–0.83) times lower for participants reporting any side effects, 0.67 (0.51–0.89) times lower per additional side effect category reported, and 0.78 (0.65–0.97) times lower per incremental increase in side effect severity ratings. We found some evidence of interaction between side effect measures and duration of PrEP use, suggesting that these relationships were stronger for participants taking PrEP for longer. Clinicians should make efforts to ascertain patients’ experience of side effects and consider risk counseling and alternative PrEP regimens to promote adherence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".