Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28060881›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Individual HIV Risk versus Population Impact of Risk Compensation after HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Initiation among Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Samuel M Jenness, Akshay Sharma, Steven M Goodreau, Eli S Rosenberg, Kevin M Weiss, Karen W Hoover, Dawn K Smith, Patrick Sullivan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel M JennessDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8840-105X
Akshay SharmaDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Steven M GoodreauDepartment of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Eli S RosenbergDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Kevin M WeissDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Karen W HooverDivision of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Dawn K SmithDivision of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Patrick SullivanDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Emory University · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

University of Washington/Fred Hutch Center for AIDS ResearchP30AI027757 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Kenneth Sherr · 1988 to 2026
$104.9M
Virology and Molecular Biomarkers CoreP30AI050409 · NIAID · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Carlos del Rio · 2002 to 2026
$74.0M
Using Sexual Network Transmission Models to Explain HIV Disparities Between BlackR21HD075662 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GOODREAU, STEVEN M. · 2013 to 2014
$418k
NCHHSTP CDC HHS U38 PS004646NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027757NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050409NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD075662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRisk compensation (RC) could reduce or offset the biological prevention benefits of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among those at substantial risk of infection, including men who have sex with men (MSM). We investigated the potential extent and causal mechanisms through which RC could impact HIV transmission at the population and individual levels.

methodsUsing a stochastic network-based mathematical model of HIV transmission dynamics among MSM in the United States, we simulated RC as a reduction in the probability of condom use after initiating PrEP, with heterogeneity by PrEP adherence profiles and partnership type in which RC occurred. Outcomes were changes to population-level HIV incidence and individual-level acquisition risk.

resultsWhen RC was limited to MSM highly/moderately adherent to PrEP, 100% RC (full replacement of condoms) resulted in a 2% relative decline in incidence compared to no RC, but an 8% relative increase in infection risk for MSM on PrEP. This resulted from confounding by indication: RC increased the number of MSM indicated for PrEP as a function of more condomless anal intercourse among men otherwise not indicated for PrEP; this led to an increased PrEP uptake and subsequent decline in incidence.

conclusionsRC is unlikely to decrease the prevention impact of PrEP, and in some cases RC may be counterintuitively beneficial at the population level. This depended on PrEP uptake scaling with behavioral indications. Due to the increased acquisition risk associated with RC, however, clinicians should continue to support PrEP as a supplement rather than replacement of condoms.

Indexed as

Homosexuality, MalePre-Exposure ProphylaxisAnti-HIV AgentsHIV InfectionsHumansIncidenceMaleModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentSexual PartnersUnited StatesUnsafe SexAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID28060881
PMCPMC5218403
OpenAlexW2570457968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.