Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34242092›Full record

ArticleAIDS patient care and STDs2021

Loss to Follow-Up and Re-Engagement in HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Care in the United States, 2013-2019.

Jun Tao, Madeline C Montgomery, Robert Williams, Prasad Patil, Brooke G Rogers, Collette Sosnowy, Matthew Murphy, Alexandra Zanowick-Marr, Michaela Maynard, Siena C Napoleon and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS patient care and STDs, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jun TaoDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Madeline C MontgomeryDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4528-1964
Robert WilliamsDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Prasad PatilDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Brooke G RogersDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8569-9556
Collette SosnowyDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Matthew MurphyDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Alexandra Zanowick-MarrDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6104-394X
Michaela MaynardDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Siena C NapoleonDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Christina ChuDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0255-3632
Alexi AlmonteDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Amy S NunnDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Philip A ChanDepartment of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Brown University · USBoston University · US

Funding

The Brown Initiative in HIV and AIDS Clinical Research for Minority CommunitiesR25MH083620 · NIMH · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI NUNN, AMY STEWART · 2008 to 2025
$3.7M
Characterizing the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care continuum for African American and Hispanic/Latino men who have sex with menR01MH114657 · NIMH · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI CHAN, PHILIP ANDREW, NUNN, AMY STEWART · 2017 to 2021
$3.4M
Peer-driven intervention promoting pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake among African American and Hispanic/Latino men who have sex with menK01MH119960 · NIMH · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI TAO, JUN · 2020 to 2023
$665k
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH119960NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH114657NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH083620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retention in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care is critical for effective PrEP implementation. Few studies have reported long-term lost to follow-up (LTFU) and re-engagement in PrEP care in the United States. Medical record data for all cisgender patients presenting to the major Rhode Island PrEP clinic from 2013 to 2019 were included. LTFU was defined as no PrEP follow-up appointment within 98 days. Re-engagement in care was defined as individuals who were ever LTFU and later attended a follow-up appointment. Recurrent event survival analysis was performed to explore factors associated with PrEP retention over time. Of 654 PrEP patients, the median age was 31 years old [interquartile range (IQR): 25, 43]. The majority were male (96%), White (64%), non-Hispanic (82%), and insured (97%). Overall, 72% patients were ever LTFU and 27% of those ever LTFU re-engaged in care. Female patients were 1.37 times [crude hazard ratio (cHR): 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-2.18] more likely to be LTFU than male patients, and a 1-year increase in age was associated with a 1% lower hazard of being LTFU (cHR: 0.99; CI: 0.98-0.99). Being either heterosexual (aHR: 2.25, 95% (CI): 1.70-2.99] or bisexual (aHR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.15-4.82) was associated with a higher hazard of loss to follow-up compared with having same-sex partners only. The majority of PrEP users were LTFU, especially at the first 6 months of PrEP initiation. Although a significant number were re-engaged in care, targeted interventions are needed to improve retention in PrEP care. This study characterized the natural projection of loss to follow-up and re-engagement in HIV PrEP care using a longitudinal clinic cohort data and explored associated factors for guiding future interventions to improve retention in PrEP care.

Indexed as

Anti-HIV AgentsHIV InfectionsPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSexual and Gender MinoritiesAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLost to Follow-UpMaleUnited StatesAnti-HIV Agentscare retentionhuman immunodeficiency viruspre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)prevention

Identifiers

PMID34242092
PMCPMC8262386
OpenAlexW3181335172

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.