Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22786505›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for preventing HIV in high-risk individuals.

Charles I Okwundu, Olalekan A Uthman, Christy An Okoromah

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Efficacy of a Small-Group Intervention for Post-Incarcerated Black Men Who Have Sex with Men and Women (MSMW).Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2018
    Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Development of An Acceptance Based PrEP Intervention (Journal of contextual behavioral science · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Charles I OkwunduCentre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa. ciokwundu@sun.ac.za
Olalekan A Uthman
Christy An Okoromah

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than 30 years into the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, infection rates remain alarmingly high, with over 2.7 million people becoming infected every year. There is a need for HIV prevention strategies that are more effective. Oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in high-risk individuals may be a reliable tool in preventing the transmission of HIV.

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of oral antiretroviral chemoprophylaxis in preventing HIV infection in HIV-uninfected high-risk individuals. SEARCH

methodsWe revised the search strategy from the previous version of the review and conducted an updated search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE in April 2012. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of any antiretroviral agent or combination of antiretroviral agents in preventing HIV infection in high-risk individuals DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data concerning outcomes, details of the interventions, and other study characteristics were extracted by two independent authors using a standardized data extraction form. Relative risk with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the measure of effect. MAIN

resultsWe identified 12 randomised controlled trials that meet the criteria for the review. Six were ongoing trials, four had been completed and two had been terminated early. Six studies with a total of 9849 participants provided data for this review. The trials evaluated the following: daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC) versus placebo; TDF versus placebo and daily TDF-FTC versus intermittent TDF-FTC. One of the trials had three study arms: TDF, TDF-FTC and placebo arm. The studies were carried out amongst different risk groups, including HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men, serodiscordant couples and other high risk men and women.Overall results from the four trials that compared TDF-FTC versus placebo showed a reduction in the risk of acquiring HIV infection (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.86; 8918 participants). Similarly, the overall results of the studies that compared TDF only versus placebo showed a significant reduction in the risk of acquiring HIV infection (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.63, 4027 participants). There were no significant differences in the risk of adverse events across all the studies that reported on adverse events. Also, adherence and sexual behaviours were similar in both the intervention and control groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFinding from this review suggests that pre-exposure prophylaxis with TDF alone or TDF-FTC reduces the risk of acquiring HIV in high-risk individuals including people in serodiscordant relationships, men who have sex with men and other high risk men and women.

Indexed as

PremedicationAdenineAdministration, OralAnti-HIV AgentsDeoxycytidineDrug Therapy, CombinationEmtricitabineFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleOrganophosphonatesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRiskRisk-TakingTenofovirAdenineAnti-HIV AgentsDeoxycytidineEmtricitabineOrganophosphonatesTenofovir

Identifiers

PMID22786505
PMCPMC11324012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.