Sexual risk, nitrite inhalant use, and lack of circumcision associated with HIV seroconversion in men who have sex with men in the United States.
ABSTRACT Men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to account for the largest number of new HIV infections in the United States, but limited data exist on independent risk factors for infection beyond the early 1990s. The HIV Network for Prevention Trials Vaccine Preparedness Study enrolled 3257 MSM in 6 US cities from 1995 to 1997. HIV seroincidence was 1.55 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval: 1.23-1.95) over 18 months of follow-up. On multi-variable analysis using time-dependent covariates, independent risk factors for HIV seroconversion were increased number of reported HIV-negative male sex partners (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.14 per partner, population attributable risk (PAR) = 28%), nitrite inhalant use (AOR = 2.2, PAR = 28%), unprotected receptive anal sex with an HIV unknown serostatus partner (AOR = 2.7, PAR = 15%) or HIV-positive partner (AOR = 3.4, PAR = 12%), protected receptive anal sex with an HIV-positive partner (AOR = 2.2, PAR = 11%), lack of circumcision (AOR = 2.0, PAR = 10%), and receptive oral sex to ejaculation with an HIV-positive partner (AOR = 3.8, PAR = 7%). Having a large number of male sex partners, nitrite inhalant use, and engaging in receptive anal sex explained the majority of infections in this cohort and should be targeted in prevention strategies for MSM.
- SourceAvailable from: Marina Tolou-Shams[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Primary care may be an effective venue for delivering behavioral interventions for sexual safety among HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM); however, few studies show efficacy for such an approach. We tested the efficacy of the Treatment Advocacy Program (TAP), a 4-session, primary-care-based, individual counseling intervention led by HIV-positive MSM "peer advocates" in reducing unprotected sex with HIV-negative or unknown partners (HIV transmission risk). We randomized 313 HIV-positive MSM to TAP or standard care. HIV transmission risk was assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months (251 participants completed all study waves). We conducted intent-to-treat analyses using general estimating equations to test the interaction of group (TAP vs. standard care) by follow-up period. At study completion, TAP participants reported greater transmission risk reduction than did those receiving standard care, χ2(2, N = 249) = 6.6, p = .04. Transmission risk among TAP participants decreased from 34% at baseline to about 20% at both 6 and 12 months: Transmission risk ranged from 23% to 25% among comparison participants. TAP reduced transmission risk among HIV-positive MSM, although results are modest. Many participants and peer advocates commented favorably on the computer structure of the program. We feel that the key elements of TAP-computer-based and individually tailored session content, delivered by peers, in the primary care setting-warrant further exploration.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 10/2010; 78(6):952-63. DOI:10.1037/a0020759 · 4.85 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study investigated protective effects of circumcision in a sample of immigrant Latino men who have sex with men (MSM). A survey in Portuguese, Spanish, or English was administered with computer-assisted self-interview technology with audio enhancement (A-CASI) to 482 MSM from Brazil (n=146), Colombia (n=169), and the Dominican Republic (n=167), living in the New York metropolitan area. Logistic regression revealed that after controlling for age, income, education, having had syphilis, having done sex work, and preferring the receptive role in anal intercourse, uncircumcised men were almost twice as likely to be HIV-positive as circumcised men. Follow-up analyses revealed, however, that the protective effects occurred only among the group of Colombian men.Journal of LGBT Health Research 09/2008; 3(4):29-36. DOI:10.1080/15574090802263421
- International Journal of Epidemiology 05/2008; 37(2):353-5. DOI:10.1093/ije/dym203 · 9.20 Impact Factor