Article

Outside sexual partnerships and risk of HIV acquisition for HIV uninfected partners in African HIV serodiscordant partnerships.

Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, 98104, USA.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 09/2011; 59(1):65-71. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e318237b864
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As African countries scale-up couples HIV testing, little is known about sexual behaviors and HIV risk for HIV-uninfected partners in known HIV-serodiscordant relationships.
We conducted a prospective study of 3380 HIV-serodiscordant partnerships from 7 African countries. Self-reported sexual behavior data were collected quarterly from HIV-uninfected partners.
The proportion of HIV-uninfected partners reporting sex with their known primary HIV-infected partner decreased during follow-up (from 93.5% in the prior month at baseline to 73.2% at 24 months, P < 0.001). Simultaneously, an increasing proportion reported sex with an outside partner (from 3.1% to 13.9%, P < 0.001). A small proportion (<5%, stable throughout follow-up) reported sex with the infected partner and an outside partner in the same month (concurrent). Unprotected sex was more common with outside partners than with their primary known HIV-infected partners (risk ratio 4.6; 95% confidence interval: 4.2 to 5.2). HIV incidence was similar for those reporting sex only with their primary HIV-infected partner compared with those who reported an outside partner (2.87 vs. 3.02 per 100 person-years, P = 0.7), although those who had outside partners were more likely to acquire HIV that was virologically distinct from that of their primary partner (P < 0.001).
For uninfected members of HIV-serodiscordant couples, sex with the infected partner declined as sex with outside partners increased, likely reflecting relationship dissolution and risk shifting from a known infected partner. Risk-reduction messages for HIV-uninfected partners in serodiscordant partnerships should include strategies to reduce HIV acquisition from outside partners.

Full-text

Available from: Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, May 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
112 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intermittent dosing for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been proposed as an alternative to daily PrEP to reduce cost and patient drug exposure and to improve adherence. One possible dosing regimen is pre-intercourse PrEP, which requires anticipating sex in advance. We examined preferences for daily versus pre-intercourse PrEP and ability to anticipate sex among 310 HIV uninfected members of HIV serodiscordant heterosexual couples in Thika, Kenya, with high HIV knowledge and experience with daily PrEP use in a clinical trial setting. Preferences were evenly split between daily PrEP (47.4 %) and pre-intercourse PrEP (50.7 %). Participants were more likely to prefer daily PrEP if they reported unprotected sex during the prior month (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.48, 95 % CI 1.20-1.81) or <80 % adherence to study drug (aPR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.25-1.79), and were less likely to prefer daily PrEP if sex was usually planned, versus spontaneous (aPR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.61-0.96). A minority (24.2 %) reported anticipating sex >3 h in advance, with younger participants being less likely to do so (aPR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.23-0.83 for ages 18-29 vs. ≥40). Findings suggest that intermittent PrEP could be a popular option in this population, but that optimal adherence and sufficient drug levels might be challenging with a pre-intercourse regimen.
    AIDS and Behavior 05/2014; 18(9). DOI:10.1007/s10461-014-0804-1 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • AIDS (London, England) 05/2014; 28(8):1243-1245. DOI:10.1097/QAD.0000000000000217 · 6.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nigeria has the second highest number of new HIV infections annually. Therefore, it is important to explore new strategies for preventing new infections. The introduction of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for use by persons at high risk of HIV infection has new potential in preventing new HIV infections. The aim of this study is to explore the public opinion, community interest, and perceptions about the use and access to PrEP in Nigeria. METHODS: This formative study used a mixed method approach to collect data on public opinions and perceptions on appropriate target groups for PrEP access, community interest, perceptions about the use of PrEP as an HIV-prevention tool, how best to communicate with participants about PrEP, concerns about PrEP use by serodiscordant couples, and suggestions for the design and implementation of a PrEP demonstration project. Telephone and in-depth interviews were conducted, and focus group discussions and consultative meetings were held with critical stakeholders engaged in HIV-prevention, treatment, care, and support programmes in Nigeria. An online survey was also conducted. RESULTS: HIV serodiscordant couples were identified as the appropriate target group for PrEP use. Most respondents felt that PrEP use by key affected populations would help reduce the HIV incidence. Stigma was identified as a major concern and a potential barrier for the acceptance and use of PrEP by HIV serodiscordant couples. Electronic and print media were identified as important means for massive public education to prevent stigma and create awareness about PrEP. In a male dominated society such as Nigeria, HIV-negative male partners in serodiscordant relationships may resist enrolment in PrEP programmes. This may be complicated by the fact that the identified index partner in most serodiscordant relationships in Nigeria is an HIV-positive woman, who is often diagnosed during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: PrEP uptake and use by HIV serodiscordant couples in Nigeria may face notable but surmountable challenges. Much depends on the appropriateness of actions taken by multiple players. Motivation of HIV-negative male partners to use PrEP and establishment of effective public education programmes in addressing stigma are essential.
    BMC Public Health 04/2015; 14(1):349. DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1690-9 · 2.32 Impact Factor