Article

Systematic review of orogenital HIV-1 transmission probabilities

Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
International Journal of Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 9.2). 08/2008; 37(6):1255-65. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn151
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective was to assess the risk of HIV transmission from orogenital intercourse (OI).
Systematic review of the literature on HIV-1 infectiousness through OI conducted according to MOOSE guidelines for reviews of observational studies. The PubMed database and bibliographies of relevant articles were searched to July 2007.
Of the titles, 56 214 were searched from which 10 potentially appropriate studies were identified; two additional studies were identified through bibliographies and one through discussion with experts. There were 10 included studies, providing estimates of transmission probabilities per-partner (n = 5), incidence per-partner (n = 3), per-study participant (n = 3, following initially seronegative individuals whose partners are of unknown serostatus) and per-act (n = 3). Only four of 10 studies reported non-zero estimates: two per-partner estimates (20%, 95% CI: 6-51, n = 10 and a model-based estimate, 1%, range 0.85-2.3%), one per-study participant estimate (0.37%, 95% CI: 0.10-1.34%) and one per-act estimate (0.04%, 95% CI: 0.01-0.17%). Upper bounds for the 95% CI for zero estimates tended to be relatively large due to the small study sample sizes: 9.0, 12.1 and 2.8% for per-partner; 4.7, 9.6 and 1.8 per 100 person-years for incidence per-partner; 4.4% per-study participant and 0.45 and 0.02% for per-act. Given the small number of studies, a meta-analysis was not considered appropriate.
There are currently insufficient data to estimate precisely the risk from OI exposure. The low risk of transmission evident from identified studies means that more and larger studies would be required to provide sufficient evidence to derive more precise estimates.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Richard Guy White, Jul 31, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
108 Views
  • Source
    • "Probability that a sex partner is infected 0.10 (high-risk partner) Tempalksi et al., 2009; 0.03 (low-risk partner) CDC, 2012b p 2 Probability that a non-sexual injection partner is infected 0.10 Tempalksi et al., 2009 a 1 Per contact probability of HIV transmission for vaginal sex 0.0006 Boily et al., 2009 a 2 Per contact probability of HIV transmission for anal sex 0.0073 Baggaley et al., 2010 a3 Per contact probability of HIV transmission for oral sex 0.0002 Baggaley et al., 2008 a 4 Per contact probability of HIV transmission for syringe sharing 0.0067 CDC, 2012a Measured parameters n1 Number of acts of unprotected vaginal sex All measured parameter values were derived from individual-level self-reported risk behavior "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Theories of health behavior change suggest that perceived susceptibility to illness precedes health-protective behavior. We used a cross-lagged panel design to explore the relationship between perceived susceptibility to AIDS, and HIV risk behavior pre-incarceration and postrelease in a sample of 499 jail inmates, a group at high risk for HIV. We also explored moderators of this relationship. HIV risk was calculated with a Bernoulli mathematical process model. Controlling for pre-incarceration HIV risk, perceived susceptibility to AIDS predicted less post-release HIV risk; the reverse relationship was not supported. Consistent with health behavior change theories, perceived susceptibility seemed to partially guide behavior. However, this relationship was not true for everyone. African-Americans and individuals high in borderline personality features exhibited no relationship between perceived susceptibility and changes in HIV risk. This suggests that targeted interventions are needed to use information about risk level to prevent HIV contraction.
  • Source
    • "G . H . Pelto et al . 12 of HIV positive partners is associated with low risk ( Baggaley et al . 2008 ) . The potential importance of premastication as a risk factor for HIV in infants and young children appears to be likely to be negligible . There is better evidence to suggest that saliva trans - fer between mothers and their children is a cause of child infections with H . pylori ( Taylor & Blaser 1991 ; Sinha et al . 2001 ) . The ev"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Premastication of foods for infants was a crucial behavioural adaptation to neoteny that ensured nutritional adequacy during the period of complementary feeding throughout the course of human evolution until recent times.While the paps and gruels of agricultural systems provided an alternative and modern food technology appears to make it unnecessary, we argue that, in addition to its role in nutrition, premastication also played a crucial role in supporting infant health. Its abandonment, particularly in poor communities, has placed children at increased risk of inadequate nutrition and decreased ability to confront infections associated with the introduction of complementary foods.We present two empirical studies. Section I is a cross-cultural study of the ethnographic literature in order to estimate prevalence in non-Western societies.One-third of ethnographies in the worldwide sample with data on infant feeding report premastication. Section II presents the results of a qualitative study in China, conducted in order to provide data on the likelihood that this percent is incorrect due to under-reporting.The finding that 63% of Chinese university students received premasticated food as infants, whereas none of eight ethnographic studies performed in Han China identified premastication in their reports, provides support for the conclusion that the cross-cultural study grossly underestimates its prevalence in non-Western societies. Section III is a discussion of potential benefits and risks of infant exposure to maternal saliva.We conclude with the argument for a concerted research effort to determine whether premastication can solve not only the 'weanling dilemma' in poor countries but also some of the health problems among the better-off.
    Maternal and Child Nutrition 01/2010; 6(1):4-18. DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8709.2009.00200.x · 2.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In relation to the risk of HIV through the exchange of vaginal secretions and menstrual blood, group members seemed to have little information about the risks, possibly as a result of the ambiguous information offered by current prevention advice (Gerbert et al. 1999; Funari 2003; Baggaley, White and Boily 2008). Participants indicated being aware of – but did not use – physical barriers such as dental dams, latex gloves and male condoms. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to better understand STI/HIV-related vulnerability among self-identified lesbians and bisexual young women aged 18-26 years in two neighbourhoods in Rio de Janeiro. Based on ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews, the paper analyses their life experiences and trajectories. Findings reveal that sexual identities and ties attributed to sexual interactions with women and men have an important role in influencing perceptions of vulnerability. The notion of STI and HIV risk is not well developed among women who have sex with women. It emerges largely in practices with bisexual female partners and those of the opposite sex, since in these the potential for HIV transmission (through contact with semen) is recognized. Sexually transmitted infection and HIV-related risk with male partners is seen as small by the women in the study, since such relationships are seen as 'occasional' and generally speaking occur with someone they know well. The value given to trust and the lack of alignment between sexual identities and sexual practices reinforces the need for approaches to STI and HIV prevention and care that prioritise the sexual history and practices of women and their sexual identities within specific contexts.
    Culture Health & Sexuality 10/2009; 12(1):115-24. DOI:10.1080/13691050903180471 · 1.55 Impact Factor
Show more