FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2024278596> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2024278596 endingPage "520" @default.
• W2024278596 startingPage "519" @default.
• W2024278596 abstract "The authors of the study ‘High HIV incidence among MSM prescribed postexposure prophylaxis in Amsterdam, 2000–2009: indications for ongoing sexual risk behaviour’ [1] are to be commended for conducting a relevant, timely study elucidating the complexities of depending on postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) to reduce the acquisition and transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM). The study was well designed and included an appropriate comparison group with which to compare the HIV infection risk among PEP users. This study is particularly relevant, given the surge of recent studies demonstrating the potential of treatment as prevention for HIV/AIDS through the use of microbicides by vulnerable women, protection of uninfected partners through treatment of the infected partner, and prophylactic treatment of uninfected partners of discordant MSM couples [2–4]. These publications have generated euphoria about the ability of treatment to quell the epidemic of HIV. This study by Heuker et al. suggests that the euphoria needs to be tempered [1]. The investigators found that the risk of HIV infection among men possibly exposed to HIV who used PEP was almost four times higher than among a younger cohort of similar men concurrently followed in the Amsterdam Cohort Study of MSM. The authors correctly state that this finding probably reflects the higher level of risk activities among men using PEP rather than a failure of PEP. Of the 11 men who seroconverted, only two of the 359 (0.5%) seroconverted within a time frame compatible with the exposure for which PEP was taken, and therefore might reflect PEP failure. The eight seroconversions that occurred more than 3 months after the episode for which PEP was taken probably represent new exposures for which the individual did not take PEP. The authors correctly conclude that other intervention strategies must be used to supplement PEP among PEP users. Roland et al.[5] recently showed, in a population largely of MSM in San Francisco, that a program of ‘enhanced’ risk reduction counseling (five sessions) in conjunction with PEP following sexual exposure to HIV was marginally more effective in reducing unprotected sex acts in the following 12 months than was ‘standard’ risk reduction counseling (two sessions). Despite this extensive counseling of PEP recipients, their incidence of HIV seroconversion was 2.6 and 2.9% in the enhanced and standard groups, respectively. Both the Amsterdam cohort study and the San Francisco study strongly suggest that it is also reasonable to conclude that the success of PEP depends upon consistently employing PEP following every potential exposure to HIV. The alternative approach to prevention of HIV infection among MSM is to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP), as demonstrated by Grant et al.[4]. However, the success of PreP also depends on consistent use and the ability of the individual to correctly anticipate exposure, unless treatment is to be routinely taken without regard to anticipated exposure. Widespread use of both PEP and PreP will involve considerable expense. While it could be argued that such consistent widespread use would be cheaper in the long run than treating the infections avoided, the costs of these approaches are now, whereas the savings would be in the future. An important consideration would also be the issue of who should pay for the use of PEP and PreP. Many high-risk individuals are unlikely to have the resources to pay for sustained use of drugs. The following are just ‘back of the envelope’ calculations, but illustrate the real costs of using antiretroviral agents to prevent HIV infection. The current retail price of the most commonly prescribed antiretroviral combination used in studies of PEP and PreP, Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir), is about $40 (US) per tablet, or $1200 per month. Many participants in both the Amsterdam and the San Francisco PEP cohorts received several 28-day courses of PEP each year. The expense of PreP is astronomical. In the study by Grant et al.[4], the approximate cost of Truvada per participant during the 1.2-year follow-up in the study would be $16 800. The total retail drug supply cost for this 2500-person trial would have been $42 million. Therefore, the cost of preventing each of the 28 cases of HIV observed in the 1.2 years of the PreP study was $1.5 million. Is this the wisest use of limited healthcare resources? Although resistance to the drug regimen used for PEP in this study was not observed in the 11 seroconverters over the 6 months of follow-up in this study, it is likely that widespread use of PEP and PreP, if not consistently used, as will likely occur, will ultimately promote the emergence of resistant strains of HIV, as promiscuous use of antibiotics has led to the serious problem of resistant strains of gonorrhea, tuberculosis and malaria. In addition, whereas modern antiretroviral agents are generally much safer than the drugs available 20 years ago, many physicians have legitimate concerns about the risk/benefit of long-term use of antiretrovirals in asymptomatic HIV-uninfected individuals. In summary, this study contributes to the dialogue on treatment as prevention by presenting the realities of the use of PEP by men who continue to have unprotected intercourse and depend on treatment to avoid infection. Acknowledgement Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest." @default.
• W2024278596 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2024278596 creator A5030784114 @default.
• W2024278596 creator A5073586334 @default.
• W2024278596 date "2012-02-20" @default.
• W2024278596 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2024278596 title "Treatment as prevention" @default.
• W2024278596 cites W2045302709 @default.
• W2024278596 cites W2103920597 @default.
• W2024278596 cites W2137287128 @default.
• W2024278596 cites W2146634980 @default.
• W2024278596 cites W2152505869 @default.
• W2024278596 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/qad.0b013e32834fa17e" @default.
• W2024278596 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22156975" @default.
• W2024278596 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2024278596 type Work @default.
• W2024278596 sameAs 2024278596 @default.
• W2024278596 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2024278596 countsByYear W20242785962012 @default.
• W2024278596 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2024278596 hasAuthorship W2024278596A5030784114 @default.
• W2024278596 hasAuthorship W2024278596A5073586334 @default.
• W2024278596 hasBestOaLocation W20242785961 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C142462285 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C201903717 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C2776939746 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C2776983459 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C2777931914 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C2778283251 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C2779496540 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C2993143319 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C3013748606 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C61511704 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C72563966 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConcept C761482 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C119599485 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C120665830 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C121332964 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C126322002 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C127413603 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C142462285 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C144024400 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C149923435 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C201903717 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C203014093 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C2776939746 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C2776983459 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C2777931914 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C2778283251 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C2779496540 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C29456083 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C2993143319 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C3013748606 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C61511704 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C71924100 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C72563966 @default.
• W2024278596 hasConceptScore W2024278596C761482 @default.
• W2024278596 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2024278596 hasLocation W20242785961 @default.
• W2024278596 hasLocation W20242785962 @default.
• W2024278596 hasOpenAccess W2024278596 @default.
• W2024278596 hasPrimaryLocation W20242785961 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W1632477623 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W2117303720 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W2546668150 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W2733885492 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W2888490071 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W2898225236 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W2911549609 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W2922471158 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W3080106733 @default.
• W2024278596 hasRelatedWork W3139231613 @default.
• W2024278596 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2024278596 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2024278596 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2024278596 magId "2024278596" @default.
• W2024278596 workType "article" @default.