Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39964676›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in HIV and AIDS2025

HIV diagnosis during acute infection: implications of long-acting preexposure prophylaxis and other evolving challenges.

Tamara Elliott, Daniel Bradshaw, Sarah Fidler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in HIV and AIDS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Tamara ElliottImperial College London, department of infectious disease, Faculty of Medicine.
Daniel BradshawImperial College London, department of infectious disease, Faculty of Medicine.
Sarah FidlerImperial College London, department of infectious disease, Faculty of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTests for HIV may perform differently in some circumstances such as with preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or other HIV prevention agents. Testing algorithms may not account for this, with a risk of false negative or positive HIV results. In this review we have explored the challenges of HIV testing in these special circumstances. RECENT

findingsLong-acting injectable PrEP using cabotegravir or lenacapavir has been studied in large randomized controlled trials (HPTN083/084 and PURPOSE1/2 respectively). Injectable PrEP was significantly more efficacious than oral PrEP, but infections still occurred risking the emergence of HIV drug-resistance. HIV diagnostic test results were atypical in those receiving injectable PrEP, with low or undetectable HIV viral loads, delayed or diminished antibody, and HIV detection assays reverting from reactive to unreactive; so-called long acting early viral inhibition (LEVI) syndrome. In these cases, missed or delayed HIV diagnoses could be reduced with the use of HIV nucleic acid amplification tests in addition to routine testing, but this remains unfeasible in many settings. SUMMARY: Finding HIV testing strategies that are affordable and practical in low- and middle-income countries that can accurately diagnose HIV in the context of HIV prevention is of high importance, but more research is needed in this area.

Indexed as

Anti-HIV AgentsChemopreventionHIV InfectionsPre-Exposure ProphylaxisHumansAnti-HIV AgentsHIV preexposure prophylaxisHIV preventionHIV testing

Identifiers

PMID39964676
PMCPMC11970600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.