Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2024 May 8;21(5):e1004328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004328

Sexual behaviour and incidence of sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) using daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): Four-year follow-up of the Amsterdam PrEP (AMPrEP) demonstration project cohort

Mark A M van den Elshout 1,*,#, Eline S Wijstma 1,#, Anders Boyd 1,2,3,4, Vita W Jongen 1,2, Liza Coyer 1, Peter L Anderson 5, Udi Davidovich 1,6, Henry J C de Vries 1,3,7, Maria Prins 1,3,4, Maarten F Schim van der Loeff 1,3,4,, Elske Hoornenborg 1,; on behalf of the Amsterdam PrEP Project team in the HIV Transmission Elimination AMsterdam Initiative (H-TEAM)
Editor: Marie-Louise Newell8
PMCID: PMC11111007  PMID: 38718068

Abstract

Background

An increasing number of countries are currently implementing or scaling-up HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care. With the introduction of PrEP, there was apprehension that condom use would decline and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) would increase. To inform sexual health counselling and STI screening programmes, we aimed to study sexual behaviour and STI incidence among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women who use long-term daily or event-driven PrEP.

Methods and findings

The Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project (AMPrEP) was a prospective, closed cohort study, providing oral daily PrEP and event-driven PrEP to MSM and transgender women from 2015 to 2020. Participants could choose their PrEP regimen and could switch at each three-monthly visit. STI testing occurred at and, upon request, in-between 3-monthly study visits. We assessed changes in numbers of sex partners and condomless anal sex (CAS) acts with casual partners over time using negative binomial regression, adjusted for age. We assessed HIV incidence and changes in incidence rates (IRs) of any STI (i.e., chlamydia, gonorrhoea, or infectious syphilis) and individual STIs over time using Poisson regression, adjusted for age and testing frequency.

A total of 367 participants (365 MSM) commenced PrEP and were followed for a median 3.9 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 3.4–4.0). Median age was 40 years (IQR = 32–48), 315 participants (85.8%) self-declared ethnicity as white and 280 (76.3%) had a university or university of applied sciences degree. Overall median number of sex partners (past 3 months) was 13 (IQR = 6–26) and decreased per additional year on PrEP (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 0.86/year, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83–0.88). Overall median number of CAS acts with casual partners (past 3 months) was 10 (IQR = 3–20.5) and also decreased (aRR = 0.92/year, 95% CI = 0.88–0.97). We diagnosed any STI in 1,092 consultations during 1,258 person years, resulting in an IR of 87/100 person years (95% CI = 82–92). IRs of any STI did not increase over time for daily PrEP or event-driven PrEP users. Two daily PrEP users, and no event-driven PrEP users, were diagnosed with HIV during their first year on PrEP. Study limitations include censoring follow-up due to COVID-19 measures and an underrepresentation of younger, non-white, practically educated, and transgender individuals.

Conclusions

In this prospective cohort with a comparatively long follow-up period of 4 years, we observed very low HIV incidence and decreases in the numbers of casual sex partners and CAS acts over time. Although the STI incidence was high, it did not increase over time.

Trial registration

The study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5413) https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/22706


Mark A. M. van den Elshout, Eline S. Wijstma and colleagues assess sexual behaviour and incidence of sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men using long-term daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) over a four-year period.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is medication that almost 100% effectively prevents HIV when taken as prescribed: daily or before and after sex.

  • Information on how people use PrEP, their sexual behaviour, and how often they acquire sexually transmitted infections (STI), can be used to tailor PrEP care to the needs of PrEP users.

  • Since people can benefit from PrEP for several years (i.e., for as long as they are vulnerable to HIV), it is important to study the outcomes of PrEP use over longer periods of time.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • Between 2015 and 2020, 365 men who have sex with men and 2 transgender women who were at risk for HIV in the Netherlands were provided oral PrEP and followed up every 3 months.

  • We examined how participants use PrEP (daily or before and after sex), participants’ sexual behaviour, and how often they tested positive for STIs or HIV, and whether these outcomes changed over 4 years of PrEP use.

  • Over 4 years, most participants used PrEP correctly, and only 2 acquired HIV. The numbers of sex partners and anal sex acts without a condom with casual partners decreased over time, and STIs occurred frequently, but did not increase over time.

What do these findings mean?

  • Our findings indicate that PrEP effectively prevents HIV over longer time periods and support structural implementation of PrEP with easy access.

  • Our findings support regular counselling and STI testing as part of PrEP care.

  • Young, non-white, practically educated, and transgender individuals were underrepresented in the study population; this should be considered when applying these findings to broader populations of PrEP users.

Introduction

Since the publication of results from the iPrEX study in 2010 [1], data on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use to prevent HIV have been accumulating through various randomised clinical trials (RCTs), demonstration studies, and implementation projects. PrEP has shown to be acceptable, safe, and highly effective in preventing HIV acquisition, provided adherence is good, especially among men who have sex with men (MSM) [2,3]. As such, PrEP plays a pivotal role in achieving the UNAIDS goal of zero new HIV infections [4,5], and is being rolled out in an increasing number of countries [6].

With the introduction of PrEP, there was apprehension that condom use would decline and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) would increase. In 2018, a systematic review of 17 PrEP cohort studies among MSM reported increases in condomless sex among PrEP users and increased STIs diagnoses, but the median follow-up time of included studies was only 6 months (range 3 to 18 months) [7]. One of the larger studies to date reported stable STI incidence, despite increased receptive condomless sex acts, with a median follow-up of 22 months [8]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies with longer follow-up time evaluating behavioural trends and STI incidence rates among MSM on PrEP. However, since many PrEP users are expected to use PrEP for several years, such information would be needed to inform policy makers and clinicians of current and future PrEP programmes. Therefore, we prospectively assessed sexual behaviour and incidence rates of HIV and other STIs, including hepatitis C virus (HCV), among MSM on PrEP for up to 4 years. We also assessed switching between the daily and event-driven regimen, PrEP discontinuation, and adherence to PrEP.

Methods

Study design

The Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project (AMPrEP) was an open-label demonstration study conducted between 3 August 2015 and 1 December 2020 that included MSM and transgender women. Participants were offered a free-of-charge oral coformulation of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil 200/245 mg (TDF/FTC) to be used as daily or event-driven PrEP. The study design, aim, and procedures have been described previously [9], and analyses of the first 24 months of follow-up and HCV incidence have been published before [10,11]. Briefly, participants attended 3-monthly study visits at the Centre for Sexual Health of the Public Health Service of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Eligible were MSM and transgender women without HIV, who were ≥18 years old and had, in the 6 months prior to screening, a substantial likelihood to acquire HIV sexually [9]. Switching between daily PrEP and event-driven PrEP was allowed at each 3-monthly study visit. All AMPrEP participants provided samples for HIV, HCV, and STI testing at each study visit. We requested participants to also provide blood for dried blood spots (DBSs) to measure adherence at the 3 or 6 and 12, 24, and 48 months study visits. We tested for HCV every 12 months until December 2016 and every 6 months thereafter [11,12].

Measures

Sociodemographic, psychosocial, clinical, and behavioural characteristics were collected via questionnaires. Sociodemographics collected at inclusion in AMPrEP were age, gender identity, self-declared ethnicity, place of residency, education level [13], employment status, income level, living situation, relationship status, and sexual preference. Behavioural and clinical characteristics included history of condomless anal sex (CAS) and bacterial STIs in the 6 months prior to inclusion. Self-reported number of sex partners and anal sex acts, including partner type and condom use, were recorded three-monthly. Participants self-reported half-yearly whether they engaged in chemsex, defined as the use of γ-hydroxybutyrate/γ-butyrolactone, methamphetamine or mephedrone prior to or during sex.

Psychosocial determinants were measured yearly. Sexual compulsivity was measured using the sexual compulsivity scale [14], with a score ≥24 being indicative of a greater impact of sexual thoughts on daily functioning and of an inability to control sexual thoughts or behaviours [15]. Sexual satisfaction was measured using the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (NSSS) on a scale from 20 to 100 [16]. Symptoms of depression or anxiety were assessed using the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) score, where a score of <60 indicated symptoms of depression or anxiety [17]. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [18] and Drug Use Disorder Identification Test (DUDIT) [19] questionnaires were used to assess problematic alcohol and drug use, respectively; scores ≥8 are interpreted as indicative of alcohol-related or drug-related problems [20].

Outcomes

We assessed the number of sex partners, number of anal sex acts, and number of CAS acts with casual partners in the past 3 months at each study visit.

We assessed the number of diagnoses of chlamydia, gonorrhoea, infectious syphilis (stage 1, 2, and recent latent syphilis), HCV, and HIV. We calculated incidence rates (IRs) as the number of visits with a diagnosis (including repeat infections) divided by the person years (PY) of follow-up. Diagnoses were laboratory-confirmed infections from samples taken during study visits or additional visits at the Centre for Sexual Health during follow-up. We defined any STI as having one or more bacterial STIs (i.e., chlamydia, gonorrhoea, or infectious syphilis) at a visit. We stratified chlamydia and gonorrhoea infections by anatomical site (i.e., anal, urogenital, or pharyngeal) and defined any anal STI as having anal chlamydia or anal gonorrhoea. In calculating PY for IRs of bacterial STI, we assumed that infection occurred at the date of positive test and follow-up time recontinued after infection. We defined incident HCV infections according to clinical practice guidelines [21] and distinguished between primary infections and reinfections. In calculating PY for IRs of HCV, we assumed that the infection occurred midway between the last negative and first positive test. Follow-up time stopped after infection and continued after confirmed sustained virologic response. In calculating PY for IRs of HIV, we assumed that infection occurred midway between the last negative and first positive test, and follow-up time stopped after infection.

We evaluated the number and rates of any switch between regimens as well as switch from daily PrEP to event-driven PrEP and vice versa. We also evaluated the number and rate of PrEP discontinuations, which were defined as one of the following: (a) a duration between study visits lasting at least 9 months without self-reporting continuing PrEP elsewhere during this period; (b) reporting not having taken PrEP for at least 3 months (regardless of visit attendance); (c) attending a formal study exit visit without self-reporting continuation of PrEP elsewhere; or (d) being lost to follow-up. Loss to follow-up was defined as not attending a study visit in the 9 months prior to 15 March 2020 (i.e., the start of the COVID-19 lockdown measures in the Netherlands), while not having completed the 48-month visit. Finally, we calculated the proportion of participants who still used PrEP at 48 months after enrolment among those who could have reached 48 months of follow-up before censoring.

We calculated median levels of intracellular tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) in DBSs and corresponding IQRs among daily PrEP users and report the proportion of daily PrEP users with good adherence (TFV-DP ≥700 fmol/punch) [22]. We do not report these outcomes for event-driven PrEP users, since TFV-DP does not indicate prevention-effective adherence to event-driven PrEP [23].

Laboratory methods

Laboratory methods were described previously [10,24]. For DBS analyses of intracellular TFV-DP, the 48 month samples were measured using a 50:50 methanol:water extraction. Results were divided by 1.138 in order to compare them with the previous 70:30 extractions.

Statistical methods

We excluded participants without any follow-up study visits. Follow-up began at PrEP initiation (i.e., “baseline”) and continued until 48 months of individual follow-up, last study visit, HIV diagnosis, or 15 March 2020, whichever occurred first. We excluded periods between PrEP discontinuation (as described above) and PrEP re-initiation from follow-up time. We presented analyses for both the overall study population and stratified on daily PrEP or event-driven PrEP. PrEP regimen was included as a time-updated variable.

To analyse changes in sexual behaviour, we report the median and interquartile ranges (IQR) of sexual behaviour outcomes for each study visit. We modelled the year-on-year change in mean sexual behaviour outcomes (excluding baseline visits) using a mixed-effects negative binomial regression model with a random intercept and random slope across individuals to account for between-individual variability at baseline and during follow-up, respectively, and robust standard errors to ensure variance corresponded to individuals. We report relative ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used a Wald χ2 test to test for changes over time. We provide unadjusted estimates and estimates adjusted for age at baseline. We initially modelled age as a categorical variable based on its nonlinear association with sexual behaviour outcomes. Following peer-review, we modelled age as restricted cubic splines with 4 knots at the 5th, 35th, 65th, and 95th percentiles, to minimise loss of information.

We calculated STI IRs per 100PY of follow-up and corresponding 95% CI based on a Poisson distribution. To obtain insight into regimen choice, regimen switching, and STI incidence, we calculated the IR difference between daily PrEP and event-driven PrEP users among all participants and, after peer-review, additionally for the subset of participants who ever switched PrEP regimens. We report two-sided p-values for the IR difference. To analyse changes in bacterial STI incidence, we calculated STI IRs per 100PY for each 3-monthly follow-up period. Because we were interested in the STI incidence within yearly intervals, and there was lack of evidence that STI incidence varied jointly across 3-monthly intervals within a given year (p = 0.22), we modelled the change in STI IRs in years 2, 3, and 4 compared to the first year on PrEP. We used Poisson regression with a gamma-distributed frailty, and added a random intercept across individuals. We report incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and corresponding 95% CI per year, and used a Wald χ2 test to test for changes compared to the first year on PrEP. We provide unadjusted estimates and estimates adjusted for age at baseline and individual yearly STI testing frequency (time-updated). We initially modelled age and STI testing frequency as categorical variables based on their nonlinear association with any STI incidence. Following peer-review, we modelled both variables as restricted cubic splines with 4 knots at the 5th, 35th, 65th, and 95th percentiles, to minimise loss of information. We did not model change in HIV incidence rates over time owing to the low number of infections.

To analyse changes in PrEP use, we calculated regimen switch rates per 100PY and 95% CI based on a Poisson distribution, and calculated linear change in switch rates per year as switch rate ratio. We calculated the total number of PrEP discontinuations (including discontinuations after re-initiating) and median time until first discontinuing PrEP. We evaluated factors associated with time until first stopping PrEP using multivariable Cox regression. The factors were selected a priori [25,26] and related to: sociodemographics (age, education level, and place of residence), sexual behaviour and STI (number of CAS acts with casual partners, any bacterial STI in the past 3 months), and mental wellbeing. We included education level and place of residency as time-fixed variables and all other variables as time-updated. Data from (half-)yearly questionnaires were carried backwards for study visits that occurred in the past 6 and 12 months, respectively.

In sensitivity analyses, we re-ran the models on STI incidence and sexual behaviour using follow-up time including periods between PrEP discontinuation and re-initiation as periods with missing data. Additionally, we re-ran the models on STI incidence and sexual behaviour among participants who never switched PrEP regimens.

We defined significance at a p-value <0.05. All statistical analyses were performed in STATA version 17.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, United States of America). The study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5413). This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 STROBE checklist).

Role of the funders

The study funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, nor in writing of the manuscript.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the ethics board of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (NL49504.018.14). Participants gave written informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

Results

Participant characteristics and duration of follow-up

Between 3 August 2015 and 31 May 2016, 376 participants were enrolled. Of these, 9 (2.4%) were excluded from analyses because they did not attend any follow-up visits. Of the 367 included participants, 365 were MSM and 2 identified as transgender women. Median age at baseline was 40 years (IQR = 32–48), 315/367 (85.8%) self-declared to be white and 280/367 (76.3%) had a university/university of applied sciences degree (Table 1). The median follow-up time was 3.9 years (IQR = 3.4–4.0), totalling 1258PY of observation. Of 282 participants who could have reached 48 months of follow-up before censoring, 192 (68%) still used PrEP after 48 months.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of 367 AMPrEP participants with follow-up, overall and by PrEP regimen chosen at baseline, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2018.

Total (N = 367) Event-driven PrEP (n = 98) Daily PrEP (n = 269) p-valuea
Baseline characteristic N (%) n (%) n (%)
Age (years), median [IQR] 40 [32–48] 44 [35–52] 38 [30–47] <0.001
≤34 121 (33.0) 23 (23.5) 98 (36.4) 0.016
35–44 111 (30.3) 28 (28.6) 83 (30.9)
≥45 135 (36.8) 47 (48.0) 88 (32.7)
Gender
Male 365 (99.5) 97 (99.0) 268 (99.6) 0.463
Transgender female 2 (0.5) 1 (1.0) 1 (0.4)
Self-declared ethnicity
White 315 (85.8) 87 (88.8) 228 (84.8) 0.329
Non-white 52 (14.2) 11 (11.2) 41 (15.2)
Residence
Amsterdam 223 (60.8) 64 (65.3) 159 (59.1) 0.282
Other 144 (39.2) 34 (34.7) 110 (40.9)
Education level
No university/university of applied sciences degree 87 (23.7) 16 (16.3) 71 (26.4) 0.045
University/university of applied sciences degree 280 (76.3) 82 (83.7) 198 (73.6)
Employed
Yes 283 (78.0) 75 (76.5) 208 (78.5) 0.216
No 18 (5.0) 8 (8.2) 10 (3.8)
Other (retired, volunteer, disabled, student) 62 (17.1) 15 (15.3) 47 (17.7)
Monthly net income level (n = 16 missing)
≤€1,700 97 (27.6) 25 (25.8) 72 (28.4) 0.538
€1,701–€2,950 150 (42.7) 39 (40.2) 111 (43.7)
>€2,950 104 (29.6) 33 (34.0) 71 (28.0)
In steady relationship (n = 4 missing)
No 204 (56.2) 46 (47.4) 158 (59.4) 0.042
Yes 159 (43.8) 51 (52.6) 108 (40.6)
Living situation
Alone 195 (53.1) 57 (58.2) 138 (51.3) 0.040
With partner 117 (31.9) 34 (34.7) 83 (30.9)
With parents/flatmates 55 (15.0) 7 (7.1) 48 (17.8)
Sexual preference (n = 1 missing)
Exclusively homosexual 289 (79.0) 77 (79.4) 212 (78.8) 0.906
Not exclusively homosexual 77 (21.0) 20 (20.6) 57 (21.2)
Bacterial STI diagnosed at PrEP initiation
Any STI (n = 2 missing) 72 (19.7) 16 (16.3) 56 (21.0) 0.323
Any anal chlamydia or gonorrhoea (n = 12 missing) 45 (12.7) 9 (9.6) 36 (13.8) 0.292
Any chlamydia (n = 9 missing) 36 (10.1) 6 (6.2) 30 (11.5) 0.138
Anal chlamydia (n = 13 missing) 24 (6.8) 4 (4.3) 20 (7.7) 0.341
Urogenital chlamydia (n = 11 missing) 14 (3.9) 1 (1.0) 13 (5.0) 0.124
Pharyngeal chlamydia (n = 13 missing) 8 (2.3) 1 (1.0) 7 (2.7) 0.454
Any gonorrhoea (n = 8 missing) 35 (9.8) 9 (9.3) 26 (9.9) 0.855
Anal gonorrhoea (n = 12 missing) 24 (6.8) 5 (5.3) 19 (7.3) 0.516
Urogenital gonorrhoea (n = 11 missing) 3 (0.8) 1 (1.0) 2 (0.8) 1.000
Pharyngeal gonorrhoea (n = 12 missing) 18 (5.1) 5 (5.2) 13 (5.0) 0.965
Syphilis (stage 1 or 2) (n = 9 missing) 5 (1.4) 1 (1.0) 4 (1.5) 1.000
Number of anal sex partners (past 3 months), median [IQR] 12 [6–25] 9.5 [5–20] 13 [7–25] 0.008
Number of anal sex acts (past 3 months), median [IQR] 22 [11–36] 20.5 [8–35] 22 [12–37] 0.109
Number of CAS acts (past 3 months), median [IQR] 11 [4–23] 8 [3–18] 12 [4–23] 0.070
Number of CAS acts with casual partners (past 3 months), median [IQR] 6 [2–14] 4 [1–9] 7 [3–15] 0.0007
Position during CAS (past 3 months)
None 26 (7.1) 11 (11.2) 15 (5.6) 0.264
Top only 62 (16.9) 15 (15.3) 47 (17.5)
Bottom only 62 (16.9) 18 (18.4) 44 (16.4)
Versatile 217 (59.1) 54 (55.1) 163 (60.6)
Chemsex (past 3 months) (n = 5 missing) 155 (42.8) 43 (44.8) 112 (42.1) 0.648
AUDIT (n = 4 missing)
Score <8 (not indicative of problematic alcohol use) 263 (72.5) 73 (75.3) 190 (71.4) 0.470
Score ≥8 (indicative of problematic alcohol use) 100 (27.6) 24 (24.7) 76 (28.9)
DUDIT (n = 2 missing)
Score <8 (not indicative of problematic drug use) 230 (63.0) 67 (69.1) 163 (60.8) 0.149
Score ≥8 (indicative of problematic drug use) 135 (37.0) 30 (30.9) 105 (39.2)
Depressive or anxiety symptoms
MHI-5 score ≥60 (no symptoms) 291 (79.2) 76 (77.6) 215 (79.9) 0.619
MHI-5 score <60 (symptoms) 76 (20.7) 22 (22.5) 54 (20.1)
Sexual Satisfaction Scale 45 (39–48) 45 (39–49) 44 (37–48) 0.111
Sexual Compulsivity Scale (n = 1 missing)
Score <24 (not indicative of compulsive sexual behaviour) 283 (77.3) 79 (80.6) 204 (76.1) 0.363
Score ≥24 (indicative of compulsive sexual behaviour) 83 (22.7) 19 (19.4) 64 (23.9)

a Two-sided p-values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson’s χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables.

AMPrEP, Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project; AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test; DUDIT, Drug Use Disorder Identification Test; IQR, interquartile range; MHI-5, 5-item Mental Health Inventory; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis; STI, sexually transmitted infection.

Sexual behaviour

Overall median number of sex partners (past 3 months) was 13 (IQR = 6–26), overall median number of anal sex acts was 18 (IQR = 9–34), and overall median number of CAS acts with casual partners was 10 (IQR = 3–20.5) (S1 Table). Numbers of sex partners and anal sex acts decreased with each additional year on PrEP, adjusted for age (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.86/year [95% CI 0.83–0.88] and 0.88/year [95% CI 0.85–0.91], respectively; Table 2). These changes were also statistically significant when stratified by PrEP regimen (Table 2 and Fig 1). Number of CAS acts with casual partners in the past 3 months also decreased with each additional year on PrEP, when adjusted for age at baseline (aRR 0.92/year [95% CI 0.88–0.97]), also when stratified by regimen (Table 2 and Fig 1). Numbers of sex partners, anal sex acts, and CAS acts with casual partners were higher in daily PrEP users compared to event-driven PrEP users (S1 Table).

Table 2. Four-year outcomes of sexual behaviour per year on PrEP among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

Crude Adjustedb
No. of visits with data RR (95% CI) p-Value aRR (95% CI) p-Valuec
Number of sexual partnersa
Overall 5,105 0.89 [0.86–0.91] <0.0001 0.86 [0.83–0.88] <0.0001
Daily 3,787 0.91 [0.88–0.94] <0.0001 0.87 [0.84–0.91] <0.0001
Event-driven 1,318 0.85 [0.81–0.90] <0.0001 0.82 [0.77–0.88] <0.0001
Number of anal sex actsa
Overall 5,112 0.91 [0.88–0.93] <0.0001 0.88 [0.85–0.91] <0.0001
Daily 3,791 0.93 [0.90–0.96] <0.0001 0.90 [0.87–0.93] <0.0001
Event-driven 1,321 0.85 [0.80–0.90] <0.0001 0.84 [0.79–0.89] <0.0001
Number of CAS acts with casual partnersa
Overall 5,108 0.97 [0.94–1.01] 0.17 0.92 [0.88–0.97] 0.0006
Daily 3,787 1.00 [0.96–1.04] 0.96 0.94 [0.89–0.99] 0.018
Event-driven 1,321 0.93 [0.87–1.00] 0.067 0.90 [0.82–0.98] 0.013

aIn the past 3 months.

bAdjusted for age at enrolment modelled as restricted cubic splines with 4 knots, and including a random intercept and random slope at the participant-level.

cp-Value based on the Wald test.

AMPrEP, Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project; CAS, condomless anal sex; CI, confidence interval; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis; (a)RR, (adjusted) rate ratio.

Fig 1. Sexual behaviour of 367 AMPrEP participants during the first 4 years on PrEP, AMPrEP, the Netherlands, 2015–20.

Fig 1

Panel A shows median (IQR) number of sex partners, panel B shows median number of anal sex acts, and panel C shows median number of CAS acts with casual partners in the past 3 months. Lines represent medians per study visit. Shaded regions represent interquartile ranges. AMPrEP, Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project; CAS, condomless anal sex; IQR, interquartile range; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Results from sensitivity analyses assessing behaviour over time since initiating PrEP while including periods without PrEP use or follow-up were largely the same (S2 Table).

Incidence of bacterial sexually transmitted infections

We diagnosed one or more bacterial STIs in 1,092 consultations among 289/367 participants, during 1258PY: 891 during 914PY among daily PrEP users and 201 during 344PY among event-driven PrEP users (Table 3). IR of any STI was 87/100PY (95% CI = 82–92). This was higher for daily PrEP users (97/100PY; 95% CI = 91–104) compared to event-driven PrEP users (59/100PY; 95% CI = 51–67; p < 0.0001; Fig 2 and Tables 3 and S3). Results were similar when the analysis was restricted to PrEP users who ever switched PrEP regimens (S4 Table). Compared to the first year, IRs of any STI were lower in the second (aIRR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65–0.91) and third (aIRR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.66–0.92) years, also for chlamydia and gonorrhoea (Fig 3 and S5 Table), adjusted for age and STI testing frequency. This decrease was not seen in the fourth year (aIRR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.75–1.06). When stratified by regimen, similar findings were observed among daily PrEP users, but IRs were stable over yearly intervals among event-driven PrEP users (Fig 3 and S5 Table). Sensitivity analyses assessing STI incidence since initiating PrEP and ignoring gaps in follow-up (S6 Table) and assessing STI incidence among participants who never switched PrEP regimens (S7 Table), yielded comparable results.

Table 3. Four-year outcomes of incidence of STIs overall and by PrEP regimen, among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

Total Daily PrEP Event-driven PrEP
No. of participants with ≥1 positive test No. of positive tests PY IR per 100PY [95% CI] No. of participants with ≥1 positive test No. of positive tests PY IR per 100PY [95% CI] No. of participants with ≥1 positive test No. of positive tests PY IR per 100PY [95% CI] p-Valuea
Any STI b 289 1092 1,258 86.8 [81.8–92.1] 246 891 914 97.4 [91.3–104.0] 89 201 344 58.5 [50.9–67.2] <0.0001
Any anal STI c 241 758 1,258 60.3 [56.1–64.7] 208 630 914 68.9 [63.7–74.5] 66 128 344 37.2 [31.3–44.3] <0.0001
Chlamydia d 227 524 1,258 41.7 [38.2–45.4] 197 432 914 47.2 [43.0–51.9] 54 92 344 26.8 [21.8–32.8] <0.0001
Gonorrhoea d 234 615 1,258 48.9 [45.2–52.9] 195 505 914 55.2 [50.6–60.3] 61 110 344 32.0 [26.6–38.6] <0.0001
Infectious syphilis e 111 140 1,258 11.1 [9.4–13.1] 86 108 914 11.8 [9.8–14.3] 30 32 344 9.3 [6.6–13.2] 0.27
HIV 2 2 1,258 0.2 [0.0–0.6] 2 2 914 0.2 [0.1–0.9] 0 0 344 0.0 [0.0–1.1] 0.53
HCVf,g 15 17 1,186 1.4 [0.9–2.3] 14 15 870 1.7 [1.0–2.9] 2 2 315 0.6 [0.2–2.5] 0.17

aTwo-sided p-values for the crude incidence rate difference between daily and event-driven PrEP users were based on the Z-test.

bAny STI: chlamydia (any location), gonorrhoea (any location), infectious syphilis (stage 1, 2, and recent latent infection).

cAny anal STI: anal chlamydia or anal gonorrhoea.

dAt any anatomical location.

eSyphilis stage 1, stage 2, and recent latent infection.

fBased on ribonucleic acid (RNA) positivity and regardless of history of prior HCV infection of HCV antibody positivity.

gOne individual had a first HCV infection and HCV re-infection during follow-up.

AMPrEP, Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project; CI, confidence interval; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IR, incidence rate; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis; PY, person-years; STI, sexually transmitted infection.

Fig 2. Incidence of any syphilis, gonorrhoea, or chlamydia among 367 AMPrEP participants during the first 4 years on PrEP, AMPrEP, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

Fig 2

Lines represent incidence rates per 100 person-years, as calculated over the previous 3 months. Vertical bars represent 95% CIs. AMPrEP, Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project; CI, confidence interval; IR, incidence rate; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Incidence rate ratios per year on PrEP for any STI (A), chlamydia (B), gonorrhoea (C), and infectious syphilis (stage 1 and 2 and recent latent; D), adjusted for age and STI testing frequency, among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020. AMPrEP, Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project; IRR, incidence rate ratio; STI, sexually transmitted infection; NB, Year 1 is used as reference category; IRRs are adjusted for age at baseline and individual yearly STI testing frequency, modelled as restricted cubic splines with 4 knots. Due to a low number of newly detected infectious syphilis among event-driven PrEP users, we estimated the IRR per year on PrEP only for daily PrEP users. Vertical bars represent 95% CIs.

Incidence rates of HIV and HCV

Two daily PrEP users were diagnosed with HIV during follow-up, both in the first year since PrEP initiation, resulting in an IR of 0.2/100PY (95% CI = 0.0–0.6; Table 3). We have already reported on these cases in more detail [10,27]. In brief, one participant had discontinued PrEP several months before HIV diagnosis and the other participant was a daily PrEP user whose adherence to PrEP was confirmed to be adequate [27]. No diagnosis of HIV was observed among event-driven PrEP users (IR = 0.0/100PY, 95% CI = 0.0–1.1; Table 3).

The 17 incident HCV infections were diagnosed among 15 participants during 1186PY of follow-up (IR = 1.4/100PY, 95% CI = 0.9–2.3; Table 3). Ten were primary infections and 7 reinfections (S3 Table). Daily PrEP users accounted for 15 of these infections (IR = 1.7/100PY, 95% CI = 1.0–2.9) and event-driven PrEP users for 2 (IR = 0.6/100PY, 95% CI = 0.2–2.5; Table 3). IRs of HCV decreased over time: year 1, n = 6 (IR = 1.8/100PY, 95% CI = 0.8–3.9); year 2, n = 8 (IR = 2.5/100PY, 95% CI = 1.3–5.2); year 3, n = 2 (IR = 0.7/100PY, 95% CI = 0.2–2.7); year 4, n = 1 (IR = 0.4/100PY, 95% CI = 0.1–2.6; S5 Table).

Regimen switching

Overall, 137/367 (37%) participants switched PrEP regimens 254 times: 141 times from daily PrEP to event-driven PrEP and 113 times from event-driven PrEP to daily PrEP use. The rate of any switch was highest in the first year (26.1/100PY) and decreased over time (IRR 0.87/year [95% CI 0.78–0.98], p = 0.019) to 17.2/100PY in the fourth year (S8 Table and Fig 4). The rate of switching from event-driven to daily PrEP was higher than vice versa, especially in the first year (S8 Table).

Fig 4. Transitions through PrEP regimens during up to 4 years on PrEP among AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

Fig 4

At baseline, numbers on the bars indicate the percentage of participants who intended to use daily or event-driven PrEP. At all follow-up visits, numbers on the bars indicate the percentage of participants who reported having used daily or event-driven PrEP in the past 3 months. AMPrEP, Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Discontinuation of PrEP use

We observed 112 PrEP stops among 98/367 (27%) participants; 31 stops were subsequently followed by a restart. A total of 43 participants had a formal study exit visit and another 43 were lost to follow-up. We registered 17 gaps of more than 9 months between study visits, and 9 participants reported not having used PrEP for a period of at least 3 months, despite continuing study participation. Median time until the first stop among those who stopped was 21 (IQR = 12–35) months. Overall rate of stopping was 8.3/100PY (95% CI = 6.9–10.0). In multivariable analysis, younger age (p = 0.036), fewer CAS acts with casual partners (p = 0.039), not having a university/university of applied sciences degree (p = 0.030) and an MHI-5 score of <60 (p = 0.036) were associated with earlier stopping (S9 Table). Being diagnosed with an STI in the past 3 months was not associated with stopping (adjusted HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.14–1.64, p = 0.24; S9 Table).

Intracellular TFV-DP concentrations

Among daily PrEP users, median TFV-DP concentration at 3 or 6 months was 1,263 fmol/punch (IQR = 1,000–1,619; n = 240), at 12 months 1,299 fmol/punch (IQR = 1,021–1,627; n = 259), at 24 months 1,288 fmol/punch (IQR = 1,005–1,617; n = 223), and at 48 months 1,693 fmol/punch (IQR = 1,310–2,252; n = 127). At 12 months, 93% (n = 240/259) of participants had a TFV-DP concentration ≥700 fmol/punch, at 24 months 90% (n = 200/223), and at 48 months 94% (n = 120/127).

Discussion

Over the first 4 years of PrEP use among participants of this prospective demonstration cohort in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, the number of CAS acts with casual partners and the total number of sex partners decreased over time. STI incidence was high, but stable over time. Therefore, these findings do not confirm apprehensions of increasing STIs in the first 4 years following PrEP initiation. Incidence of HIV was very low and the 2 incident infections occurred during the first year on PrEP. Objectively measured adherence among daily PrEP users remained well above the protective threshold during study follow-up for the large majority of participants. Retention at 48 months was high (68%). Thus, effectiveness of PrEP continues beyond the previously reported 2-year results in our and other demonstration studies [8,10,28].

PrEP programme policies select for people who are behaviourally susceptible for HIV and therefore these people are prone to acquire other STIs. As AMPrEP was initiated in 2015, before the European Medicine Agency approved TDF/FTC for PrEP in July 2016, there was no other formal way to acquire PrEP in the Netherlands at the time. The lack in PrEP availability likely resulted in inclusion of a group of early PrEP adopters. After generic PrEP became available in the Netherlands in 2017, a limited but growing number of general practitioners (GPs) started prescribing PrEP. The Dutch national PrEP pilot, offering PrEP at a reduced price and free PrEP-care at public health services to a maximum of 8,500 people, started in July 2019 [29]. AMPrEP participants were allowed to exit the study and enter the national PrEP pilot whenever they preferred to. Alternatively, they could be referred to their GP, but PrEP care through GPs in the Netherlands remains insufficiently accessible [30].

We assessed multiple sexual behaviour measures. We considered the number of CAS acts with casual partners as the most relevant factor in the context of HIV acquisition. The rate of this behaviour decreased over 4 years of follow-up in both daily PrEP and event-driven PrEP users, with expectedly higher numbers among daily PrEP users. The total number of sex partners also decreased over time, as previously observed by Molina and colleagues [8]. Grant and colleagues noted, in a double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, a reduction of sex partners with whom participants had receptive intercourse over a median follow-up of 1.2 years, and suggested that the services around PrEP use (e.g., counselling) or taking the pill itself could serve as a reminder of HIV risk and contribute to choosing this “safer behaviour” [1]. Reyniers and colleagues suggest a broader paradigm of improved sexual health brought about by PrEP, through empowering its users to more actively engage in their sexual health [31]. AMPrEP participants had the opportunity to reflect on their sexual activity with nurses and physicians during each three-monthly consultation. This paradigm of sexual empowerment, leading to more considered sexual decisions, could explain why we observed reduced numbers of sex partners and CAS acts with casual partners over time in our cohort. An alternative explanation could be that sexual behaviour changes over time and that participants enrolled in this study when their need for PrEP was particularly high.

AMPrEP and the Be-PrEP-ared project in Belgium were, to the best of our knowledge, the first prospective demonstration projects to offer participants the choice between daily PrEP and event-driven PrEP, including the option to switch between regimens. We observed a high and stable incidence of STIs, similar to other early PrEP studies [3234]. We noted this especially among daily PrEP users, as well as higher numbers of sex partners and CAS acts compared to event-driven PrEP users, in agreement with an earlier, pooled analyses of AMPrEP and Be-PrEP-ared over the first 28 months [35]. Daily PrEP appears to be used during periods with more frequent sexual contacts or less condom use, coinciding with an increase in the chance to acquire HIV and STIs. This suggests that PrEP users are capable of deciding which regimen to use, depending on their sexual behaviour.

The low HIV incidence is likely a direct result of high PrEP adherence, as demonstrated by high median levels of TFV-DP around the level of perfect adherence. These levels were also well above the protective thresholds at all time points up to 4 years after PrEP initiation in the majority of participants. A subgroup of participants was included in a nested RCT assessing the effect of an app providing visualised feedback to increase adherence, as reported previously [24,36], which could have possibly been a contributing factor to adherence. The absence of any HIV infection after 1 year on PrEP provides further evidence that PrEP use can be sustainable and efficacious in preventing HIV over the longer course. This finding is in line with other studies with less follow-up time [8,28]. The stable, high STI rates are comparable to those in contemporaneous studies ranging from 75 to 98 per 100PY [34,3739], although differences in methods could explain some of the variation between estimates. Post-exposure prophylaxis using doxycycline can effectively prevent bacterial STIs [40], and could, in the future, be considered for specific PrEP users. This is currently being adopted in some countries (e.g., the United States [41]), but not in the Netherlands, and long-term effects on antimicrobial resistance remain unknown [42,43].

HCV prevalence was high among participants initiating PrEP in AMPrEP [12] as described in previous analyses of our cohort, but during follow-up its incidence decreased over time, parallel to the decrease seen in the Dutch population with HIV since direct-acting antivirals for HCV became widely available in 2015 [44].

In our cohort, a substantial proportion of participants switched PrEP regimens once or multiple times, especially during the first year of PrEP use. The rate of switching from event-driven to daily PrEP was higher than vice versa. Previous qualitative research suggested recurring side-effects at re-initiation of PrEP during event-driven use, and difficulties in adhering to an irregular regimen, as reasons for this shift [45]. Retention to PrEP remained high over 4 years and the vast majority of the daily PrEP users had high adherence levels at each measurement. The majority of participants that stopped using PrEP did so because of low self-perceived need for PrEP, as reported previously [25,45]. However, stopping was also associated with younger age, not having a university/university of applied sciences degree and with having signs of depression/anxiety in our study. Furthermore, there can be discordance between self-perceived and actual need for PrEP [46]. This can leave ex-PrEP users vulnerable to HIV, as supported by reports of high HIV incidence among people who discontinued PrEP [47], stressing the importance of low-threshold access to PrEP and adherence and persistence counselling so PrEP users may discontinue PrEP well-informed. PrEP providers should make an effort to confirm that those who are lost to follow-up are using alternative HIV prevention strategies, or are invited into PrEP care again, if necessary.

A major strength of this study is the long follow-up time of up to 4 years. In real-world settings, many are likely to use PrEP for several years and very little data were available on long-term (i.e., longer than 2 years) PrEP use. Second, AMPrEP was a prospective, observational cohort, enabling a prospective assessment of outcome measures in which STI diagnoses made in-between study visits were included. Third, AMPrEP was among the first 2 demonstration projects allowing participants to choose between daily PrEP and event-driven PrEP use, adapt their PrEP use to match their need of protection, allowing an independent and long-term assessment of both regimens and inter-regimen switching behaviour.

We acknowledge some limitations. The AMPrEP cohort officially closed at 1 December 2020, but due to COVID-19 measures, we censored data after 15 March 2020, to exclude effects on sexual behaviour and STI incidence resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we were not able to include up to 5 years of follow-up nor the official end-of-study visits. Second, this cohort presumably included a high proportion of early adopters. Participants were relatively old, and mostly identified as men, white, and were university/university of applied sciences educated and they are unlikely to represent the broader population of MSM and transgender women who could benefit from PrEP. We were only able to include 2 transgender women.

This study’s results support implementation of low-threshold PrEP services that make minimum demands on the user, have minimum criteria for access, and offer regular counselling, STI testing, and treatment. Future PrEP studies should aim to include a more representative sample for the population susceptible to HIV.

In conclusion, oral PrEP is a very effective HIV prevention strategy over a long period of use. We observed decreasing numbers of sex partners and CAS acts, and no increase in STI incidence over time. People susceptible to HIV should be empowered to choose their preferred HIV prevention strategies, including PrEP.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Sexual behaviour among 367 AMPrEP participants using daily versus event-driven PrEP over 4 years in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s001.docx (15.8KB, docx)
S2 Table. Four-year outcomes of sexual behaviour per year since PrEP initiation among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s002.docx (15.1KB, docx)
S3 Table. Four-year outcomes of incidence of STIs overall and by PrEP regimen, among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s003.docx (24.1KB, docx)
S4 Table. Four-year outcomes of incidence of STIs overall and by PrEP regimen, among 142 AMPrEP participants who ever switched their PrEP regimen, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s004.docx (19.4KB, docx)
S5 Table. Incidence rate ratio for STIs per additional year on PrEP over 4 years of PrEP use among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s005.docx (30.7KB, docx)
S6 Table. Incidence rate ratio for STIs per additional year since initiating PrEP (i.e., including gaps in PrEP use or AMPrEP participation) over 4 years among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s006.docx (40.6KB, docx)
S7 Table. Incidence rate ratio for STIs per additional year on PrEP over 4 years of PrEP use, among 225 AMPrEP participants who never switched PrEP regimens, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s007.docx (29.4KB, docx)
S8 Table. PrEP regimen switch rates during up to 4 years of PrEP use, among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s008.docx (14.5KB, docx)
S9 Table. Factors associated with an earlier time until first stopping PrEP among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s009.docx (15.6KB, docx)
S1 Annex. Acknowledgements of the H-TEAM consortium.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s010.docx (26.1KB, docx)
S1 STROBE checklist. Statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004328.s011.docx (50.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank all AMPrEP participants, members of the advisory board, and community engagement group. Additionally, we thank Roel Achterbergh, Ertan Ersan, Michelle Kroone, Dominique Loomans, Kees de Jong, Ilya Peters, Princella Felipa, Myra van Leeuwen, Jason Schouten, Kenneth Yap, Hanne Zimmermann, and all members of the H-TEAM consortium (S1 Annex).

Abbreviations

AMPrEP

Amsterdam PrEP demonstration project

a(I)RR

adjusted(incidence) rate ratio

AUDIT

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

CAS

condomless anal sex

CI

confidence interval

DBS

dried blood spot

DUDIT

Drug Use Disorder Identification Test

GP

general practitioner

HCV

hepatitis C virus

IR

incidence rate

IRR

incidence rate ratio

IQR

interquartile range

MHI-5

Mental Health Inventory-5

MSM

men who have sex with men

NSSS

New Sexual Satisfaction Scale

PrEP

pre-exposure prophylaxis

PY

person years

RCT

randomised clinical trial

RR

relative ratio

STI

sexually transmitted infection

TDF/FTC

tenofovir disoproxil / emtricitabine

TFV-DP

tenofovir diphosphate

Data Availability

Data are available upon reasonable request. The AMPrEP data are owned by the Public Health Service of Amsterdam. Original data can be requested by submitting a study proposal to the steering committee of AMPrEP. The proposal format can be obtained from datamanagersoz@ggd.amsterdam.nl. Request for further information can also be submitted through the same email address. The AMPrEP steering committee verifies each proposal for compatibility with general objectives, ethical approval and informed consent forms of the AMPrEP study and potential overlap with ongoing studies. There are no restrictions to obtaining the data and all data requests will be processed in a similar way.

Funding Statement

The AMPrEP study received funding as part of the H-TEAM initiative from ZonMw (grant number: 522002003), the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), GGD research funds and the H-TEAM. The study drug and an unrestricted research grant for AMPrEP was provided by Gilead Sciences. The H-TEAM initiative is supported by the Aidsfonds Netherlands (grant number: 2013169), Stichting Amsterdam-Dinner Foundation, Gilead Sciences Europe Ltd (grant number: PA-HIV-PREP-16-0024), Gilead Sciences (protocol numbers: CONL-276-4222,CO-US-276-1712), Janssen Pharmaceuticals (reference number: PHNL/JAN/0714/0005b/1912fde), M.A.C. AIDS Fund and ViiV Healthcare (PO numbers: 3000268822, 3000747780). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99. Epub 2010/11/26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011205 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3079639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Murchu EO, Marshall L, Teljeur C, Harrington P, Hayes C, Moran P, et al. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical effectiveness, safety, adherence and risk compensation in all populations. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e048478. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, Baggaley R, O’Reilly KR, Koechlin FM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973–83. Epub 2016/05/06. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001145 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4949005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van Sighem A, van der Valk M. Moving towards zero new HIV infections: The importance of combination prevention. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2022;25:100558. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100558 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ending inequalities and getting on track to end AIDS by 2030 [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS; 2022. A summary of the commitments and targets within the United Nations General Assembly’s 2021 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2022/political-declaration_summary-10-targets.
  • 6.AVAC. PrEPWatch 2023 [accessed 17-01-2024]. Available from: www.prepwatch.org.
  • 7.Traeger MW, Schroeder SE, Wright EJ, Hellard ME, Cornelisse VJ, Doyle JS, et al. Effects of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus infection on sexual risk behavior in men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(5):676–686. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Molina J-M, Ghosn J, Assoumou L, Delaugerre C, Algarte-Genin M, Pialoux G, et al. Daily and on-demand HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil (ANRS PREVENIR): a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2022;9(8):e554–e562. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(22)00133-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hoornenborg E, Achterbergh RC, van der Loeff MFS, Davidovich U, van der Helm JJ, Hogewoning A, et al. Men who have sex with men more often chose daily than event-driven use of pre-exposure prophylaxis: baseline analysis of a demonstration study in Amsterdam. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21(3):e25105. Epub 2018/04/01. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25105 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5878413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hoornenborg E, Coyer L, Achterbergh RC, Matser A, van der Loeff MFS, Boyd A, et al. Sexual behaviour and incidence of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men using daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis in AMPrEP: 2 year results from a demonstration study. Lancet HIV. 2019;6(7):e447–e455. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30136-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hoornenborg E, Coyer L, Boyd A, Achterbergh RCA, van der Loeff MFS, Bruisten S, et al. High incidence of HCV in HIV-negative men who have sex with men using pre-exposure prophylaxis. J Hepatol. 2020;72(5):855–864. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.11.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hoornenborg E, Achterbergh RCA, Schim van der Loeff MF, Davidovich U, Hogewoning A, de Vries HJC, et al. MSM starting preexposure prophylaxis are at risk of hepatitis C virus infection. AIDS. 2017;31(11):1603–10. Epub 2017/06/29. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001522 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Government of the Netherlands. 2023 [accessed 05-02-2024]. Available from: https://www.government.nl/topics/secondary-vocational-education-mbo-and-tertiary-higher-education/tertiary-higher-education.
  • 14.Grov C, Parsons JT, Bimbi DS. Sexual compulsivity and sexual risk in gay and bisexual men. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39(4):940–949. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9483-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kalichman SC, Johnson JR, Adair V, Rompa D, Multhauf K, Kelly JA. Sexual sensation seeking: Scale development and predicting AIDS-risk behavior among homosexually active men. J Pers Assess. 1994;62(3):385–397. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6203_1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Štulhofer A, Buško V, Brouillard P. Development and bicultural validation of the new sexual satisfaction scale. J Sex Res. 2010;47(4):257–268. doi: 10.1080/00224490903100561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kelly MJ, Dunstan FD, Lloyd K, Fone DL. Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods. BMC Psychiatry. 2008;8(1):10. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-8-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG. AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Guidelines for use in primary care, Geneva. World Health Organization. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Berman AH, Bergman H, Palmstierna T, Schlyter F. Evaluation of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in criminal justice and detoxification settings and in a Swedish population sample. Eur Addict Res. 2005;11(1):22–31. doi: 10.1159/000081413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Achterbergh RCA, Hoornenborg E, Boyd A, Coyer L, Meuzelaar SJA, Hogewoning AA, et al. Changes in mental health and drug use among men who have sex with men using daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis: Results from a prospective demonstration project in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;26:100505. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100505 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.European Association For The Study Of The Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol. 2014;60(2):392–420. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 22.Grant RM, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu A, Amico KR, Mehrotra M, et al. Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, sexual practices, and HIV incidence in men and transgender women who have sex with men: a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(9):820–9. Epub 2014/07/30. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70847-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jongen VW, Hoornenborg E, van den Elshout MAM, Boyd A, Zimmermann HML, Coyer L, et al. Adherence to event-driven HIV PrEP among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: analysis based on online diary data, 3-monthly questionnaires and intracellular TFV-DP. J Int AIDS Soc. 2021;24(5):e25708. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.van den Elshout MAM, Hoornenborg E, Achterbergh RCA, Coyer L, Anderson PL, Davidovich U, et al. Improving adherence to daily PrEP among MSM in Amsterdam by providing feedback via a mobile application. AIDS. 2021. Epub 2021/05/19. doi: 10.1097/qad.0000000000002949 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Coyer L, van den Elshout MAM, Achterbergh RCA, Matser A, Schim van der Loeff MF, Davidovich U, et al. Understanding pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimen use: Switching and discontinuing daily and event-driven PrEP among men who have sex with men. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;29:100650. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Koppe U, Marcus U, Albrecht S, Jansen K, Jessen H, Gunsenheimer-Bartmeyer B, et al. Barriers to using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and sexual behaviour after stopping PrEP: a cross-sectional study in Germany. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hoornenborg E, Prins M, Achterbergh RCA, Woittiez LR, Cornelissen M, Jurriaans S, et al. Acquisition of wild-type HIV-1 infection in a patient on pre-exposure prophylaxis with high intracellular concentrations of tenofovir diphosphate: a case report. Lancet HIV. 2017;4(11):e522–e8. Epub 2017/09/19. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30132-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Grulich AE, Jin F, Bavinton BR, Yeung B, Hammoud MA, Amin J, et al. Long-term protection from HIV infection with oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in gay and bisexual men: findings from the expanded and extended EPIC-NSW prospective implementation study. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(8):e486–e494. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00074-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Staritsky L, Visser M, Van Aar F, Op de Coul E, Heijne J, van Wees D, et al. Sexually transmitted infections in the Netherlands in 2020. National Institute for Public Health and the. Environment. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kayaert L, Sarink D, Visser M, van Wees D, Willemstein I, Op de Coul E, et al. Sexually transmitted infections in the Netherlands in 2022. National Institute for Public Health and the. Environment. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Reyniers T, Nöstlinger C, Vuylsteke B, De Baetselier I, Wouters K, Laga M. The impact of PrEP on the sex lives of MSM at high risk for HIV infection: Results of a Belgian cohort. AIDS Behav. 2021;25:532–541. doi: 10.1007/s10461-020-03010-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10013):53–60. Epub 2015/09/14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00056-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4700047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, Pialoux G, Cotte L, Charreau I, et al. On-Demand Preexposure Prophylaxis in Men at High Risk for HIV-1 Infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2237–46. Epub 2015/12/02. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506273 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vuylsteke B, Reyniers T, De Baetselier I, Nöstlinger C, Crucitti T, Buyze J, et al. Daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men in Belgium: results of a prospective cohort measuring adherence, sexual behaviour and STI incidence. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(10):e25407. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jongen VW, Reyniers T, Ypma ZM, Schim van der Loeff MF, Davidovich U, Zimmermann HM, et al. Choosing event-driven and daily HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis–data from two European PrEP demonstration projects among men who have sex with men. J Int AIDS Soc. 2021;24(8):e25768. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.van den Elshout MAM, Hoornenborg E, Coyer L, Anderson PL, Davidovich U, de Vries HJC, et al. Determinants of adherence to daily PrEP measured as intracellular tenofovir diphosphate concentrations over 24 months of follow-up among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect. 2022;99(5):303–310. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2022-055499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sullivan AK, Saunders J, Desai M, Cartier A, Mitchell HD, Jaffer S, et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and its implementation in the PrEP Impact Trial in England: a pragmatic health technology assessment. Lancet HIV. 2023;10(12):e790–e806. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(23)00256-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Traeger MW, Cornelisse VJ, Asselin J, Price B, Roth NJ, Willcox J, et al. Association of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis With Incidence of Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Individuals at High Risk of HIV Infection. JAMA. 2019;321(14):1380–90. Epub 2019/04/10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2947 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, Anderson PL, Doblecki-Lewis S, Bacon O, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal-and community-based sexual health services. Jama Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mårdh O, Plachouras D. Using doxycycline for prophylaxis of bacterial sexually transmitted infections: considerations for the European Union and European Economic Area. Euro Surveill. 2023;28(46):2300621. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2023.28.46.2300621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2023. Guidelines for the Use of Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial STI Prevention. [accessed 29-01-2024]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/guidelines-for-doxycycline.htm.
  • 42.Kong FYS, Kenyon C, Unemo M. Important considerations regarding the widespread use of doxycycline chemoprophylaxis against sexually transmitted infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2023;78(7):1561–1568. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkad129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gestels Z, Manoharan-Basil SS, Kenyon C. Doxycycline post exposure prophylaxis could select for cross-resistance to other antimicrobials in various pathogens: an in silico analysis. Int J STD AIDS. 2023;34(13):962–968. doi: 10.1177/09564624231190108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Smit C, Boyd A, Rijnders BJ, van de Laar TJ, Leyten EM, Bierman WF, et al. HCV micro-elimination in individuals with HIV in the Netherlands 4 years after universal access to direct-acting antivirals: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(2):e96–e105. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(20)30301-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zimmermann HM, Eekman SW, Achterbergh RC, van der Loeff MFS, Prins M, de Vries HJ, et al. Motives for choosing, switching and stopping daily or event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis–a qualitative analysis. Int J STD AIDS. 2019;22(10):e25389. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Blumenthal J, Jain S, Mulvihill E, Sun S, Hanashiro M, Ellorin E, et al. Perceived versus calculated HIV risk: implications for pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake in a randomized trial of men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;80(2):e23. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Spinelli MA, Laborde N, Kinley P, Whitacre R, Scott HM, Walker N, et al. Missed opportunities to prevent HIV infections among pre-exposure prophylaxis users: a population-based mixed methods study, San Francisco, United States. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(4):e25472. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Louise Gaynor-Brook

7 Dec 2023

Dear Dr van den Elshout,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Four years of PrEP use; sexual behaviour and STIs in the AMPrEP demonstration project cohort among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Dec 11 2023 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email me at lgaynor@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Louise Gaynor-Brook

17 Jan 2024

Dear Dr. van den Elshout,

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript "Four years of PrEP use; sexual behaviour and STIs in the AMPrEP demonstration project cohort among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands" (PMEDICINE-D-23-03584R1) to PLOS Medicine. The paper has been reviewed by two subject experts and a statistician; their comments are included below and can also be accessed here: [LINK]

As you will see, the reviewers were very positive about the paper and the importance of these follow-up data, but they raised a number of questions about specific study details and presentation. After discussing the paper with the editorial team and an academic editor with relevant expertise, I’m pleased to invite you to revise the paper in response to the reviewers’ comments. We plan to send the revised paper to some of all of the original reviewers*, and of course we cannot provide any guarantees at this stage regarding publication.

When you upload your revision, please include a point-by-point response that addresses all of the reviewer and editorial points, indicating the changes made in the manuscript and either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file and a version with changes marked should as a marked up manuscript. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper.

We ask that you submit your revision by Feb 7th. However, if this deadline is not feasible, please contact me by email, and we can discuss a suitable alternative.

Don’t hesitate to contact me directly with any questions (hvanepps@plos.org). If you reply directly to this message, please be sure to ‘Reply All’ so your message comes directly to my inbox.

Kind regards,

Heather

Heather Van Epps, PhD

Executive Editor

[on behalf of]

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

*Please note: If your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Editorial comments:

1. Because you have allowed participants to switch between daily PrEP and event-driving (intermittent) PrEP (the IR quoted are then based on person-years of observations on that regimen), individuals can contribute to both regimens for different periods of exposure time. This potentially makes interpretation of the data somewhat less intuitive. Might it be possible to explore more what happened within individuals when switching - eg what was incidence of STI in the daily PrEP versus incidence in event-driven PrEP in the same person? This might allow you to confirm the suggestion (in the discussion) that people adjust their regimen based on self-perceived need for PrEP.

2. Regarding point #4 raised by Reviewer 3 (“Is PrEP now available through GP in Amsterdam and thus, some participants may choose to seek a GP rather than continuing to have scheduled visits with blood sample drawn at each visit after a few years?”), we felt it might be useful to include some detail about the Dutch healthcare system to make it clear how these therapies are dispensed. It is my understanding that the Netherlands do indeed have general practitioners (although perhaps not referred to as ‘GPs’), but this differs in other health systems, so it would be useful to include some contextual detail in the paper around this point.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1 (statistics):

See attachment

Michael Dewey

Reviewer #2:

This is a well-written manuscript describing 4 years of follow-up of the PrEP demonstration project conducted in Amsterdam. Other published PrEP data have substantially smaller numbers, do not include 2-1-1 PrEP, and/or have shorter follow-up periods, so this represents a substantial contribution to the published literature on PrEP. The important limitation that this was largely in older, white, well-educated men is commented on in the limitations section of the manuscript.

Major comments:

1. Although the manuscript is focused on "risk compensation," the value of the manuscript really resides in reporting on a large cohort of MSM taking PrEP. Risk compensation is concept that some would not feel is important to track, given the high effectiveness of HIV PrEP and the possibility now for the use of doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (Doxy-PEP).

2. It appears that the rate of switching from event-driven to daily was substantially higher than the converse, but that is not clear from the results section (which only capture the number who switched, without regard to the size of the two subgroups). This also is not commented upon in the discussion, which could strengthen the manuscript.

Minor comments:

1. It would be useful for the authors to cite the STI rates in comparable contemporaneous studies globally.

2. There is no mention of Doxy-PEP, despite the high STI rates.

3. The authors collected data on sexual satisfaction, but that was not included in the manuscript. That would be of great interest, as this is another potential contribution of HIV PrEP to well-being.

4. It appears (from table S8) that mental health was also significantly associated with stopping PrEP, but this is not mentioned in the results or conclusions.

Reviewer #3:

This is a very timely and important article with up to 4-year data on HIV incidence, sexual behavioral change and STI incidence in PrEP users in Amsterdam. This study shows that PrEP users are already at high-risk for bacterial and viral STI before starting PrEP, and that incidence rates do not rise while on PrEP, which does not suggest a risk compensation behavior as stated by many physicians and advocates who are fighting against PrEP.

I have minor comments in order to improve the manuscript:

1. Line 129 : « We defined any STI as having one or more bacterial STIs (i.e., chlamydia, gonorrhoea or infectious syphilis) at a visit » : did you recommend a « test-of-cure » after the treatment of an STI to ensure that a new episode was really a re-infection rather than the same previous infection that was not (correctly) treated?

2. Line 209 : « The median follow-up time was 3.9 years (IQR=3.4-4.0) ». The title states that these are the 4-year results, but a significant proportion of individuals did not reach 4 years of follow-up. The title is thus misleading. I suggest that the « 4 years » be removed from the title for more consistency with the results presented herein.

Discussion:

3. Do you have data on condom use ? Were some of the CAS protected with PrEP and with condom? Were some of the CAS protected with condom with no PrEP use in the event-driven users?

4. Do you have some thoughts about lost-to-follow-up ? are they real LTFU ? or did they move to another city and were still taking PrEP? Is PrEP now available through GP in Amsterdam and thus, some participants may choose to seek a GP rather than continuing to have scheduled visits with blood sample drawn at each visit after a few years? This should be discussed more thoroughly.

5. Line 356 : « However, there can be discordance between self-perceived and actual need for PrEP » : I totally agree with this statement, and I think some targeted interventions are needed for those who discontinue PrEP in order to make sure that they do not actually need it. This should be discussed more thoroughly.

6. Line 379 : « implementation of low-threshold PrEP services » : can you explain what is meant by « low thershold PrEP services »?

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

-----------------------------------------------------------

General editorial requests:

1. Please upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

2. Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

3. We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

-----------------------------------------------------------

To submit your revised manuscript:

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

Attachment

Submitted filename: vandenelshout.pdf

pmed.1004328.s012.pdf (57.7KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

Louise Gaynor-Brook

16 Mar 2024

Dear Dr. van den Elshout,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Four years of PrEP use; sexual behaviour and STIs in the AMPrEP demonstration project cohort among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands" (PMEDICINE-D-23-03584R2) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by one reviewer. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me on lgaynor@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Mar 25 2024 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Senior Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

Thank you for your patience with a longer assessment process than we anticipated, and apologies for the delay in providing you with an editorial decision. The list below appears rather lengthy, but some of these points are more minor points which should not require a substantial amount of time to attend to.

General comments:

Throughout the paper, please adapt reference call-outs to the following style: "... every year [1,2]." (noting the absence of spaces within the square brackets).

To help us extend the reach of your research, please provide any Twitter handle(s) that would be appropriate to tag, including your own, your coauthors’, your institution, funder, or lab.

Data availability:

Please note that a study author cannot be the contact person for data requests. Please confirm that the email address provided (amprep@ggd.amsterdam.nl) is independent of the study authors.

Title: Please revise your title according to PLOS Medicine's style. Please place the study design in the subtitle (ie, after a colon). We suggest “Sexual behaviour and incidence of sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women using daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis: Four-year follow-up of the Amsterdam Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (AMPrEP) demonstration project cohort” or similar

Abstract:

Please structure your abstract using the PLOS Medicine headings (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions), combining the Methods and Findings sections into one section.

Please define STI at first use.

Abstract Methods and Findings:

Please ensure that all numbers presented in the abstract are present and identical to numbers presented in the main manuscript text.

Please provide brief demographic details of the study population (e.g. sex, age, ethnicity, etc)

Please include the study design, and the years during which follow-up took place.

Please define IQR at first use.

Please include the important dependent variables that are adjusted for in the analyses.

Please define CI at first use.

Please include the actual numbers of relevant outcomes.

Please include a summary of adverse events if these were assessed in the study.

In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe 2-3 of the main limitations of the study's methodology.

Abstract Conclusions:

Please begin your Abstract Conclusions with "In this study, we observed ..." or similar, to summarize the main findings from your study, without overstating your conclusions. Please emphasize what is new and address the implications of your study, being careful to avoid assertions of primacy.

Please remove the subsection on funding.

Author Summary:

At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

In the final bullet point of ‘What Do These Findings Mean?’, please describe the main limitations of the study in non-technical language.

Introduction:

Line 72 - please define STI at first use.

Methods:

Please refer to your prospective early in the Methods section, and please indicate if/when reported analyses differed from those that were planned. Changes in the analysis-- including those made in response to peer review comments-- should be identified as such in the Methods section of the paper, with rationale. If a reported analysis was performed based on an interesting but unanticipated pattern in the data, please be clear that the analysis was data-driven.

Please include your Ethics statement in the Methods section.

Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 Checklist)." The STROBE guideline can be found here: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/ When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers which will no longer correspond to the appropriate sections after copy-editing.

Results:

Please include a table showing the baseline characteristics of the study population as Table 1 in the main manuscript.

Please ensure that all numbers presented in the main text are identical to numbers presented in tables e.g. line 222 - aRR of CAS acts with casual partners does not appear to correspond with Table 1. Line 271 - IR for diagnosis of HIV during follow-up and Table 2/S4.

Please define the length of follow up (eg, in mean, SD, and range).

Where aRR are presented, please specify the comparison group and indicate which factors are adjusted for.

Line 245 - “STI incidence did not vary between 3-monthly periods within each year of PrEP use” - please indicate where data are shown.

Line 271 - please refer to Table 2 where these data are also shown.

Please report your results to the same number of decimal places in both the tables and manuscript text.

Line 294 - “Discontinuation of PrEP use” - please indicate where data are shown.

Line 305 - “Intracellular TFV-DP concentrations” - please indicate where data are shown.

Discussion:

Please present and organize the Discussion as follows: a short, clear summary of the article's findings; what the study adds to existing research and where and why the results may differ from previous research; strengths and limitations of the study; implications and next steps for research, clinical practice, and/or public policy; one-paragraph conclusion.

Lines 348, 394 - please temper assertions of primacy by adding ‘to the best of our knowledge’ or similar.

Please remove all subheadings within your Discussion e.g. Limitations and other considerations

Please remove the information on competing interests, funding and data sharing from the

end of the main text. In the event of publication, this information will appear in the article

metadata, via entries in the submission form.

Tables:

When a p value is given, please specify the statistical test used to determine it in the table legend of each table (including in the supplementary material).

Please report your results to the same number of decimal places in both the tables and manuscript text.

Please define all abbreviations used in the table legend of each table (including in the supplementary material).

References:

Please ensure that journal name abbreviations match those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/journals), and are appropriately formatted and capitalised.

Please also see https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references for further details on reference formatting.

Where website addresses are cited, please specify the date of access.

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all my points.

Michael Dewey

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Louise Gaynor-Brook

10 Apr 2024

Dear Dr van den Elshout, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Prof. Marie-Louise Newell, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Sexual behaviour and incidence of sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) using daily and event-driven pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): Four-year follow-up of the Amsterdam PrEP (AMPrEP) demonstration project cohort" (PMEDICINE-D-23-03584R3) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Sincerely, 

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD 

Senior Editor 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Sexual behaviour among 367 AMPrEP participants using daily versus event-driven PrEP over 4 years in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s001.docx (15.8KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Four-year outcomes of sexual behaviour per year since PrEP initiation among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s002.docx (15.1KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Four-year outcomes of incidence of STIs overall and by PrEP regimen, among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s003.docx (24.1KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Four-year outcomes of incidence of STIs overall and by PrEP regimen, among 142 AMPrEP participants who ever switched their PrEP regimen, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s004.docx (19.4KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Incidence rate ratio for STIs per additional year on PrEP over 4 years of PrEP use among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s005.docx (30.7KB, docx)
    S6 Table. Incidence rate ratio for STIs per additional year since initiating PrEP (i.e., including gaps in PrEP use or AMPrEP participation) over 4 years among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s006.docx (40.6KB, docx)
    S7 Table. Incidence rate ratio for STIs per additional year on PrEP over 4 years of PrEP use, among 225 AMPrEP participants who never switched PrEP regimens, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s007.docx (29.4KB, docx)
    S8 Table. PrEP regimen switch rates during up to 4 years of PrEP use, among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s008.docx (14.5KB, docx)
    S9 Table. Factors associated with an earlier time until first stopping PrEP among 367 AMPrEP participants, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015–2020.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s009.docx (15.6KB, docx)
    S1 Annex. Acknowledgements of the H-TEAM consortium.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s010.docx (26.1KB, docx)
    S1 STROBE checklist. Statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004328.s011.docx (50.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: vandenelshout.pdf

    pmed.1004328.s012.pdf (57.7KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. The AMPrEP data are owned by the Public Health Service of Amsterdam. Original data can be requested by submitting a study proposal to the steering committee of AMPrEP. The proposal format can be obtained from datamanagersoz@ggd.amsterdam.nl. Request for further information can also be submitted through the same email address. The AMPrEP steering committee verifies each proposal for compatibility with general objectives, ethical approval and informed consent forms of the AMPrEP study and potential overlap with ongoing studies. There are no restrictions to obtaining the data and all data requests will be processed in a similar way.


    Articles from PLOS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES