HIV transmission risk through anal intercourse: systematic review, meta-analysis and implications for HIV prevention
01 Aug 2010-International Journal of Epidemiology (Oxford University Press)-Vol. 39, Iss: 4, pp 1048-1063
TL;DR: It was demonstrated that it would require unreasonably low numbers of AI HIV exposures per partnership to reconcile the summary per-act and per-partner estimates, suggesting considerable variability in AI infectiousness between and within partnerships over time.
Abstract: Background The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infectiousness of anal intercourse (AI) has not been systematically reviewed, despite its role driving HIV epidemics among men who have sex with men (MSM) and its potential contribution to heterosexual spread. We assessed the per-act and per-partner HIV transmission risk from AI exposure for heterosexuals and MSM and its implications for HIV prevention.
Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on HIV-1 infectiousness through AI was conducted. PubMed was searched to September 2008. A binomial model explored the individual risk of HIV infection with and without highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).
Results A total of 62 643 titles were searched; four publications reporting per-act and 12 reporting per-partner transmission estimates were included. Overall, random effects model summary estimates were 1.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2–2.5)] and 40.4% (95% CI 6.0–74.9) for per-act and per-partner unprotected receptive AI (URAI), respectively. There was no significant difference between per-act risks of URAI for heterosexuals and MSM. Per-partner unprotected insertive AI (UIAI) and combined URAI–UIAI risk were 21.7% (95% CI 0.2–43.3) and 39.9% (95% CI 22.5–57.4), respectively, with no available per-act estimates. Per-partner combined URAI–UIAI summary estimates, which adjusted for additional exposures other than AI with a ‘main’ partner [7.9% (95% CI 1.2–14.5)], were lower than crude (unadjusted) estimates [48.1% (95% CI 35.3–60.8)]. Our modelling demonstrated that it would require unreasonably low numbers of AI HIV exposures per partnership to reconcile the summary per-act and per-partner estimates, suggesting considerable variability in AI infectiousness between and within partnerships over time. AI may substantially increase HIV transmission risk even if the infected partner is receiving HAART; however, predictions are highly sensitive to infectiousness assumptions based on viral load.
Conclusions Unprotected AI is a high-risk practice for HIV transmission, probably with substantial variation in infectiousness. The significant heterogeneity between infectiousness estimates means that pooled AI HIV transmission probabilities should be used with caution. Recent reported rises in AI among heterosexuals suggest a greater understanding of the role AI plays in heterosexual sex lives may be increasingly important for HIV prevention.
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The survey presents a contrasting picture of the epidemic in South Africa: it seems that new infections are going down, but one in five South Africans between 15 and 49 years old is HIV-positive.
Abstract: In June 2009, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) released its third national HIV prevalence survey. The survey presents a contrasting picture of the epidemic in South Africa: it seems that new infections are going down, but one in five South Africans between 15 and 49 years old is HIV-positive. The prevalence differs across South Africa's provinces, with the highest prevalence in KwaZulu-Natal (15.8%) and Mpumalanga (15.4%).
53 citations
TL;DR: A practical model of HIV acquisition is introduced, including both a personalized risk calculator for clinical management and a cost-effectiveness calculator for population-level decisions, to aid in patient education, clinical decision-making, and cost-Effectiveness evaluation.
Abstract: Background
Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can be clinically effective and cost-effective for HIV prevention in high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM). However, individual patients have different risk profiles, real-world populations vary, and no practical tools exist to guide clinical decisions or public health strategies. We introduce a practical model of HIV acquisition, including both a personalized risk calculator for clinical management and a cost-effectiveness calculator for population-level decisions.
53 citations
Cites result from "HIV transmission risk through anal ..."
...We modeled HIV acquisition as an independent risk per unprotected receptive anal intercourse act with an HIV positive partner, as in prior studies [17,40]....
[...]
TL;DR: Patients were more likely to be adherent to TVD-based regimens, older and male patients were also more adherent to treatment, and PEP regimen was associated with treatment adherence.
Abstract: Background
There is limited evidence on the efficacy of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for sexual exposures. We sought to determine the factors associated with adherence to treatment and describe the incidence of PEP failures in a Montreal clinic.
Methods
We prospectively assessed all patients consulting for PEP following sexual exposures from October 2000 to July 2014. Patients were followed at 4 and 16 weeks after starting PEP. Treatment adherence was determined by self-report at week 4. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the factors predicting adherence to treatment.
Results
3547 PEP consults were included. Patients were mainly male (92%), MSM (83%) and sought PEP for anal intercourse (72%). Seventy-eight percent (n = 2772) of patients received a prescription for PEP, consisting of Tenofovir/Emtracitabine (TVD) + Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV) in 74% of cases, followed by Zidovudine/Lamivudine (CBV) + LPV (10%) and TVD + Raltegravir (RAL) (8%). Seventy percent of patients were adherent to treatment. Compared to TVD+LPV, patients taking CBV+LPV were less likely to adhere to treatment (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.75), while no difference was observed for patients taking TVD+RAL (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83–1.59). First-time PEP consults, older and male patients were also more adherent to treatment. Ten treated patients seroconverted (0.37%) during the study period, yet only 1 case can be attributed to PEP failure (failure rate = 0.04%).
Conclusion
PEP regimen was associated with treatment adherence. Patients were more likely to be adherent to TVD-based regimens. Ten patients seroconverted after taking PEP; however, only 1 case was a PEP failure as the remaining patients continued to engage in high-risk behavior during follow-up. One month PEP is an effective preventive measure to avoid HIV infection.
52 citations
TL;DR: This review describes antiretroviral exposure in anatomic sites of transmission, and places these findings in context with the prevention of HIV and the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylactic strategies.
Abstract: The incidence of HIV remains alarmingly high in many parts of the world. Prophylactic use of antiretrovirals, capable of concentrating in the anatomical sites of transmission, may reduce the risk of infection after an unprotected sexual exposure. To date, orally and topically administered antiretrovirals have exhibited variable success in preventing HIV transmission in large-scale clinical trials. Antiretroviral mucosal pharmacokinetics may help explain the outcomes of these investigations. Penetration and accumulation of antiretrovirals into sites of transmission can influence dosing strategies and pre-exposure prophylaxis clinical trial design. Antiretroviral tissue distribution varies widely within and between drug classes, attributed in part to their physicochemical properties and tissue-specific drug transporter expression. Nucleoside(-tide) reverse transcriptase inhibitors, the CCR5 antagonist maraviroc, and the integrase inhibitor raltegravir demonstrate the highest penetration into the male and female reproductive tracts and colorectal tissue relative to blood. This review describes antiretroviral exposure in anatomic sites of transmission, and places these findings in context with the prevention of HIV and the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylactic strategies.
52 citations
Cites background from "HIV transmission risk through anal ..."
...Receptive anal intercourse is an efficient mode of HIV transmission not only for men who have sex with men (MSM), but also for heterosexuals, where its prevalence is increasing yet may be underreported [68, 69]....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors estimated the proportion of HIV incidence among men who have sex with men attributable to infection with the two most common bacterial STIs, Nei and Staphylococcus aureus.
Abstract: BackgroundSexually transmitted infections (STIs) are associated with an increased risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition and transmission. We estimated the proportion of HIV incidence among men who have sex with men attributable to infection with the 2 most common bacterial STIs, Nei
52 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice?
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis.
Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4
Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted?
A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …
45,105 citations
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health
and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature,
research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used
to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A
workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting
of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid
authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based
on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social
sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open
to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the
conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE,
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index
to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved
and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group
discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity,
study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a
checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational
studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference
attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses
of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy,
methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should
improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers,
and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are
explored.
17,663 citations
TL;DR: The problem of making a combined estimate has been discussed previously by Cochran and Yates and Cochran (1937) for agricultural experiments, and by Bliss (1952) for bioassays in different laboratories as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: When we are trying to make the best estimate of some quantity A that is available from the research conducted to date, the problem of combining results from different experiments is encountered. The problem is often troublesome, particularly if the individual estimates were made by different workers using different procedures. This paper discusses one of the simpler aspects of the problem, in which there is sufficient uniformity of experimental methods so that the ith experiment provides an estimate xi of u, and an estimate si of the standard error of xi . The experiments may be, for example, determinations of a physical or astronomical constant by different scientists, or bioassays carried out in different laboratories, or agricultural field experiments laid out in different parts of a region. The quantity xi may be a simple mean of the observations, as in a physical determination, or the difference between the means of two treatments, as in a comparative experiment, or a median lethal dose, or a regression coefficient. The problem of making a combined estimate has been discussed previously by Cochran (1937) and Yates and Cochran (1938) for agricultural experiments, and by Bliss (1952) for bioassays in different laboratories. The last two papers give recommendations for the practical worker. My purposes in treating the subject again are to discuss it in more general terms, to take account of some recent theoretical research, and, I hope, to bring the practical recommendations to the attention of some biologists who are not acquainted with the previous papers. The basic issue with which this paper deals is as follows. The simplest method of combining estimates made in a number of different experiments is to take the arithmetic mean of the estimates. If, however, the experiments vary in size, or appear to be of different precision, the investigator may wonder whether some kind of weighted meani would be more precise. This paper gives recommendations about the kinds of weighted mean that are appropriate, the situations in which they
4,335 citations
TL;DR: The viral load is the chief predictor of the risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV-1, and transmission is rare among persons with levels of less than 1500 copies of HIV -1 RNA per milliliter.
Abstract: Background and Methods We examined the influence of viral load in relation to other risk factors for the heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). In a community-based study of 15,127 persons in a rural district of Uganda, we identified 415 couples in which one partner was HIV-1–positive and one was initially HIV-1–negative and followed them prospectively for up to 30 months. The incidence of HIV-1 infection per 100 person-years among the initially seronegative partners was examined in relation to behavioral and biologic variables. Results The male partner was HIV-1–positive in 228 couples, and the female partner was HIV-1–positive in 187 couples. Ninety of the 415 initially HIV-1–negative partners seroconverted (incidence, 11.8 per 100 person-years). The rate of male-to-female transmission was not significantly different from the rate of female-to-male transmission (12.0 per 100 person-years vs. 11.6 per 100 person-years). The incidence of seroconversion was highest among ...
2,897 citations
TL;DR: A theoretical strategy of universal voluntary HIV testing and immediate treatment with ART, combined with present prevention approaches, could have a major effect on severe generalised HIV/AIDS epidemics.
1,948 citations