ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Enhanced screening and bacterial sexually-transmitted infection diagnoses after HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis initiation.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecipients of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) experience higher rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses than non-recipients. However, it is unclear if these observations reflect a causal relationship between PrEP initiation and acquisition of sexually transmitted infections (i.e., behavioral "risk compensation") or a diagnostic bias related to PrEP recipients screening more frequently than non-recipients.
methodsWe conducted a self-controlled case series study comparing rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses after versus before PrEP initiation among commercially-insured US males in the Merative MarketScan® Research Databases (2016-2019). We compared matched incidence rate ratio (IRR) estimates after versus before PrEP initiation to model-based expectations under a null hypothesis of no change in infection risk. We derived null expectations via a mathematical model reflecting changes in screening after PrEP initiation, estimating parameters under a Bayesian framework.
resultsIndividuals experienced increased rates of gonorrhea (IRR=3.47 [95% confidence interval: 2.57-4.72]) and chlamydia (IRR=3.59 [2.50-5.27]) diagnoses after PrEP initiation, with IRR estimates differing by anatomical site (IRR=1.23 [0.71-2.13] and 5.98 [3.63-10.29] for urogenital and extragenital diagnoses of either infection, respectively). After accounting for increased rates of screening after PrEP initiation, rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses only modestly exceeded expectations under the null hypothesis of no change in infection risk (8-14% greater-than-expected rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses, respectively). Overall, we estimated that 80-81% of observed increases in rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses after PrEP initiation, respectively, were attributable to increases in asymptomatic screening.
conclusionsOur findings suggest higher-frequency asymptomatic screening, rather than behavioral risk compensation, may account for increased rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses after PrEP initiation.
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.