ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2025
HIV-1 testing in the context of expanding PrEP modalities.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Expanding access to a choice-based multi-method PrEP market for HIV prevention.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMultiple effective antiretroviral-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) modalities for HIV-1 prevention are now available or under investigation but their safe rollout requires implementable HIV-1 testing strategies that accurately identify rare cases of HIV-1 acquisition. Current PrEP testing guidelines and testing algorithms in PrEP studies are varied, using single or combinations of rapid antibody-based diagnostic testing, qualitative or quantitative nucleic acid testing, and/or sample collection for retrospective analyses with sensitive research assays for HIV-1 nucleic acid detection. The objective of this commentary is to summarize current and alternative HIV testing approaches for PrEP implementation to guide best practices for individual programmes. DISCUSSION: Diagnosing HIV-1 in PrEP users is challenging because (1) rarity of breakthrough HIV-1 in individuals on PrEP that increases the risk of a false-positive test; (2) modification of acute HIV infection by PrEP; and (3) PrEP delivery in community settings with inadequate testing infrastructure. Current best practices indicate the use of rapid diagnostic tests or self-testing as recommended by national testing algorithms and the World Health Organization (WHO). The use of nucleic acid testing such as plasma HIV-1 RNA polymerase chain reaction may allow earlier detection of HIV-1 but feasibility and risk of false positive are downsides. Sensitive tests to detect single-copy HIV-1 RNA in plasma and integrated proviral DNA in blood mononuclear cells may be important methods to resolve ambiguous HIV-1 diagnosis in research settings. Delayed diagnoses could lead to drug resistance emergence under long-acting PrEP selection, whereas single unconfirmed false-positive tests could create diagnostic challenges in users of long-acting PrEP. The cost, feasibility and positive predictive value of HIV tests are important considerations for PrEP programmes.
conclusionsOptimal strategies to detect HIV-1 acquisition among users of different PrEP modalities are evolving. While new guidance from the WHO recommends HIV-1 testing by serological assays or self-testing with PrEP use, feasible plans for clinical management of rare cases of breakthrough on PrEP and ambiguous diagnoses are still needed. The data from PrEP studies and scale-up will help us assess the value of different tests and testing approaches for their inclusion in HIV detection algorithms across PrEP modalities.
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.