ArticleAIDS (London, England)2020
Reported preexposure prophylaxis use among male sex partners of HIV-positive men: 2016-2018.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences Between Rural and Urban America that Inform HIV Prevention Messaging.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Loss to Follow-Up and Re-Engagement in HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Care in the United States, 2013-2019.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the proportion of US HIV-positive men who report a male HIV-negative/unknown status (HIV-discordant) sexual partner taking preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and the use of multiple HIV prevention strategies within partnerships.
designThe Medical Monitoring Project is a complex sample survey of US adults with diagnosed HIV.
methodsWe used data collected during June 2016 to May 2018 among sexually active HIV-positive men who had at least one HIV-discordant male partner (N = 1871) to estimate the weighted prevalence of reporting at least one partner taking PrEP. Among HIV-discordant partnerships (N = 4029), we estimated PrEP use, viral suppression among HIV-positive partners, and condomless anal sex. We evaluated significant (P < 0.05) differences between groups using prevalence ratios with predicted marginal means.
resultsTwenty-eight percent of sexually active HIV-positive MSM reported at least one HIV-discordant male partner taking PrEP. Twenty percent of HIV-discordant partners were reported to be taking PrEP; 73% were taking PrEP or the HIV-positive partner was virally suppressed. PrEP use was lower among black and Hispanic partners compared with white partners (12% and 19% vs. 27%). Fewer black than white MSM were in partnerships in which PrEP was used or the HIV-positive partner had sustained viral suppression (69% vs. 77%). Condomless anal intercourse was more prevalent in partnerships involving PrEP use and in partnerships involving either PrEP use or sustained viral suppression among the HIV-positive partner.
conclusionPrEP use was reported among one in five partners, with disparities between black and white partners. Increasing PrEP use and decreasing racial/ethnic disparities could reduce disparities in HIV incidence and help end the US HIV epidemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.