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
TL;DR: Pre-exposure prophylaxis may be most effective at a population level if targeted toward MSM and transgender women who report receptive anal intercourse without a condom, even if they perceive their partners to be HIV negative.
Abstract: Summary Background For maximum effect pre-exposure prophylaxis should be targeted to the subpopulations that account for the largest proportion of infections (population-attributable fraction [PAF]) and for whom the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent infection is lowest. We aimed to estimate the PAF and NNT of participants in the iPrEx (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Initiative) trial. Methods The iPrEx study was a randomised controlled efficacy trial of pre-exposure prophylaxis with coformulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in 2499 men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women. Participants aged 18 years or older who were male at birth were enrolled from 11 trial sites in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, and the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a pill with active pre-exposure prophylaxis or placebo, taken daily. We calculated the association between demographic and risk behaviour during screening and subsequent seroconversion among placebo recipients using a Poisson model, and we calculated the PAF and NNT for risk behaviour subgroups. The iPrEx trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00458393. Findings Patients were enrolled between July 10, 2007, and Dec 17, 2009, and were followed up until Nov 21, 2010. Of the 2499 MSM and transgender women in the iPrEx trial, 1251 were assigned to pre-exposure prophylaxis and 1248 to placebo. 83 of 1248 patients in the placebo group became infected with HIV during follow-up. Participants reporting receptive anal intercourse without a condom seroconverted significantly more often than those reporting no anal sex without a condom (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 5·11, 95% CI 1·55–16·79). The overall PAF for MSM and transgender women reporting receptive anal intercourse without a condom was 64% (prevalence 60%). Most of this risk came from receptive anal intercourse without a condom with partners with unknown serostatus (PAF 53%, prevalence 54%, AHR 4·76, 95% CI 1·44–15·71); by contrast, the PAF for receptive anal intercourse without a condom with an HIV-positive partner was 1% (prevalence 1%, AHR 7·11, 95% CI 0·70–72·75). The overall NNT per year for the cohort was 62 (95% CI 44–147). NNTs were lowest for MSM and transgender women self-reporting receptive anal intercourse without a condom (NNT 36), cocaine use (12), or a sexually transmitted infection (41). Having one partner and insertive anal sex without a condom had the highest NNTs (100 and 77, respectively). Interpretation Pre-exposure prophylaxis may be most effective at a population level if targeted toward MSM and transgender women who report receptive anal intercourse without a condom, even if they perceive their partners to be HIV negative. Substance use history and testing for STIs should also inform individual decisions to start pre-exposure prophylaxis. Consideration of the PAF and NNT can aid in discussion of the benefits and risks of pre-exposure prophylaxis with MSM and transgender women. Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
127 citations
TL;DR: A comprehensive characterization of the rectal mucosal immune environment for the phenotype and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines by CD4 and CD8 T cells, global transcriptomic analyses, and the composition of microbiota in HIV-negative MSM shows that compared with men who had never engaged in anal intercourse, the Rectal mucosa of MSM engaging in CRAI has a distinct phenotype.
119 citations
TL;DR: The MOT modelling results, comprehensive review and critical assessment of data in a country can contribute to a more strategically focused HIV response, and improved epidemiological and behavioural data by risk population are needed.
Abstract: Objective An increasing number of countries have been estimating the distribution of new adult HIV infections by modes of transmission (MOT) to help prioritise prevention efforts. We compare results from studies conducted between 2008 and 2012 and discuss their use for planning and responding to the HIV epidemic. Methods The UNAIDS recommended MOT model helps countries to estimate the proportion of new HIV infections that occur through key transmission modes including sex work, injecting drug use (IDU), men having sex with men (MSM), multiple sexual partnerships, stable relationships and medical interventions. The model typically forms part of a country-led process that includes a comprehensive review of epidemiological data. Recent revisions to the model are described. Results Modelling results from 25 countries show large variation between and within regions. In sub-Saharan Africa, new infections occur largely in the general heterosexual population because of multiple partnerships or in stable discordant relationships, while sex work contributes significantly to new infections in West Africa. IDU and sex work are the main contributors to new infections in the Middle East and North Africa, with MSM the main contributor in Latin America. Patterns vary substantially between countries in Eastern Europe and Asia in terms of the relative contribution of sex work, MSM, IDU and spousal transmission. Conclusions The MOT modelling results, comprehensive review and critical assessment of data in a country can contribute to a more strategically focused HIV response. To strengthen this type of research, improved epidemiological and behavioural data by risk population are needed.
112 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the evolutionary-functional level of analysis, outlining hypotheses capable of explaining why women have higher levels of disgust than men and present four hypotheses for sexual disgust and six for pathogen disgust, along with testable predictions.
Abstract: Women have consistently higher levels of disgust than men. This sex difference is substantial in magnitude, highly replicable, emerges with diverse assessment methods, and affects a wide array of outcomes—including job selection, mate choice, food aversions, and psychological disorders. Despite the importance of this far-reaching sex difference, sound theoretical explanations have lagged behind the empirical discoveries. In this article, we focus on the evolutionary-functional level of analysis, outlining hypotheses capable of explaining why women have higher levels of disgust than men. We present four hypotheses for sexual disgust and six for pathogen disgust, along with testable predictions. Discussion focuses on additional new hypotheses and on future research capable of adjudicating among these competing, but not mutually exclusive, hypotheses.
110 citations
TL;DR: The efficacy of single-dose azithromycin may be considerably lower than 1 week of doxycycline for treating rectal chlamydia, and robust randomized controlled trials are urgently required.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: There are increasing concerns about treatment failure following treatment for rectal chlamydia with 1 g of azithromycin. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the efficacy of 1 g of azithromycin as a single dose or 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily for 7 days for the treatment of rectal chlamydia. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Register and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to the end of April 2014. Studies using 1 g of azithromycin or 7 days of doxycycline for the treatment of rectal chlamydia were eligible. Gender, diagnostic test, serovar, symptomatic status, other sexually transmitted infections, follow-up time, attrition and microbial cure were extracted. Meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled (i) azithromycin and doxycycline efficacy and (ii) efficacy difference. RESULTS: All eight included studies were observational. The random-effects pooled efficacy for azithromycin (based on eight studies) was 82.9% (95% CI 76.0%-89.8%; I(2) = 71.0%; P < 0.01) and for doxycycline (based on five studies) was 99.6% (95% CI 98.6%-100%; I(2) = 0%; P = 0.571), resulting in a random-effects pooled efficacy difference (based on five studies) of 19.9% (95% CI 11.4%-28.3%; I(2) = 48.5%; P = 0.101) in favour of doxycycline. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of single-dose azithromycin may be considerably lower than 1 week of doxycycline for treating rectal chlamydia. However, the available evidence is very poor. Robust randomized controlled trials are urgently required.
109 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