Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26001026›Full record

ArticleAIDS care2015

Acceptability of drug detection monitoring among participants in an open-label pre-exposure prophylaxis study.

Kimberly A Koester, Albert Liu, Christopher Eden, K Rivet Amico, Vanessa McMahan, Pedro Goicochea, Sybil Hosek, Kenneth H Mayer, Robert M Grant

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pre-exposure Prophylaxis as HIV Prevention in High Risk Adolescents.Journal of pediatrics and pediatric medicine · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kimberly A Koestera Center for AIDS Prevention Studies , University of California , San Francisco , CA , USA.
Albert Liub San Francisco Department of Public Health , San Francisco , CA , USA.
Christopher Edenc Gladstone Institutes of Virology and Immunology , San Francisco , CA , USA.
K Rivet Amicod Center for Health Intervention, and Prevention, University of Connecticut, Storrs , CT , USA.
Vanessa McMahanc Gladstone Institutes of Virology and Immunology , San Francisco , CA , USA.
Pedro Goicocheac Gladstone Institutes of Virology and Immunology , San Francisco , CA , USA.
Sybil Hoseke Department of Psychiatry , Stroger Hospital of Cook County , Chicago , IL , USA.
Kenneth H Mayerf Department of Medicine , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health , Boston , MA , USA.
Robert M Grantc Gladstone Institutes of Virology and Immunology , San Francisco , CA , USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men SupplementU01AI064002 · NIAID · J. DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES · PI GRANT, ROBERT M. · 2005 to 2011
$41.3M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI064002NIAID NIH HHS UO1 AI64002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the world of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) research, there is emerging interest in providing study participants with pharmacokinetic results from drug level testing to guide adherence counseling. The iPrEx randomized control trial was the first study to produce meaningful results of PrEP in humans. In the iPrEx open-label extension (OLE) study, blood plasma samples collected in the first 12 weeks of study participation were tested for the presence of tenofovir/emtricitabine--the drugs which compromise PrEP. Study clinicians shared results (detectable/undetectable) with participants at their 24-week visit. We evaluated the acceptability of receiving these results among a subset of iPrEx OLE participants. We conducted in-depth interviews (n = 59) with participants (those with and those without drug detected) enrolled in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco to assess their experiences with receiving drug detection feedback. Incorporating drug detection results into the clinical study visit was well received and no negative reactions were expressed. For about half of participants, receiving their drug detection lab result was useful while for others it was not important. In a few cases, no drug detected results led to increased efforts to take PrEP consistently and in most cases enhanced open discussion of missed doses. Participants reported a desire for greater specificity, particularly quantitative drug levels needed for protection. We recommend exploring strategies to increase the salience of drug level results, including using feedback to target adherence counseling, and reducing the time between specimen collection, testing, and receipt of results. Future studies should evaluate the feasibility and impact of providing more specific quantitative drug levels using biomarkers of longer term PrEP exposure, i.e., hair/dried blood spots.

Indexed as

Medication AdherencePatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAnti-HIV AgentsBostonChicagoEmtricitabineFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSan FranciscoTenofovirAnti-HIV AgentsEmtricitabineTenofoviradherencedrug detection monitoringHIVpre-exposure prophylaxisqualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID26001026
PMCPMC6107916
OpenAlexW1875187054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.