Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29229609›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2017

Recent advances in pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.

Monica Desai, Nigel Field, Robert Grant, Sheena McCormack

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Use of preexposure prophylaxis and condom purchasing decisions.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

4 authors.

Monica DesaiHIV and STI Department, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
Nigel FieldCentre for Molecular Epidemiology and Translational Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Robert GrantUniversity of California School of Medicine; Gladstone Institutes; San Francisco AIDS Foundation, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA.
Sheena McCormackMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/23Medical Research Council MRC_UU_12023/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)-the use of antiretroviral drugs by non-infected people to prevent the acquisition of HIV-is a promising preventive option, important public health questions remain. Daily oral emtricitabine (FTC)-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is highly efficacious in preventing the acquisition of HIV in people at risk as a result of a range of different types of sexual exposure. There is good evidence of efficacy in women and men, and when men who have sex with men use event based dosing. Studies have been conducted in several countries and epidemics. Because adherence to this treatment varies greatly there are questions about its public health benefit. Oral FTC-TDF is extremely safe, with minimal impact on kidney, bone, or pregnancy outcomes, and there is no evidence that its effectiveness has been reduced by risk compensation during open label and programmatic follow-up. It is too early to assess the impact of this treatment on the incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) at a population level. Many challenges remain. Access to pre-exposure prophylaxis is limited and disparities exist, including those governed by race and sex. Different pricing and access models need to be explored to avoid further widening inequalities. The optimal combination prevention program needs to be defined, and this will depend on local epidemiology, service provision, and cost effectiveness. This review updates the evidence base for pre-exposure prophylaxis regarding its effectiveness, safety, and risk compensation.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnti-Retroviral AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisEmtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug CombinationFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHIVHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPre-Exposure ProphylaxisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Retroviral AgentsEmtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug Combination

Identifiers

PMID29229609
PMCPMC6020995

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.