You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 94, Issue 6
  • Does HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use lead to a higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections? A case-crossover study of men who have sex with men in Los Angeles, California

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Behaviour
Original article
Does HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use lead to a higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections? A case-crossover study of men who have sex with men in Los Angeles, California
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 20 August 2018
    Error in the calculation of person-time in the before-PrEP period by Beymer et al.
    • S.H. Hulstein, Mr Department of Infectious Diseases, GGD Amsterdam

    Error in the calculation of person-time in the before-PrEP period by Beymer et al.

    S.H. Hulstein, E. Hoornenborg,  M.F. Schim van der Loeff

    Department of Infectious Diseases, GGD Amsterdam

    Studies on STI incidence and PrEP use are often hampered by the absence of STI incidence data in the period before PrEP; Beymer et al.1  set out to improve on this. They report on the STI incidence before and after initiation of PrEP in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) at the Los Angeles LGBT Center, California, US. We fear that there are some flaws in the analysis, which may affect the conclusions.

    The analysis was based on 275 men who were tested at least once in the period before PrEP was started, and at least once after PrEP was started. The reported persontime in the before- PrEP period was just over half the person-time after PrEP initiation (93.60 versus 168.93), but the numbers of tests before and after PrEP initiation were not very different: 755 and 908, respectively. This discrepancy could not be explained by differences in their frequency of STI testing, which were reported to be similar in the before- and after-PrEP period. An explanation  is that the person-time before the first STI visit was not taken into account. This would mean that the person-time in the before-PrEP period was underestimated, in turn leading to an artificially high before-PrEP STI incidence....

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.