| Literature DB >> 18978360 |
Oskari Heikinheimo1, Pekka Lähteenmäki.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 15 million women, many of reproductive age, were infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at the end of 2007. As the HIV epidemic evolves, heterosexual intercourse is increasingly risky: the risk of infection in exposed young women is 4- to 7-fold higher than in young men and nearly half a million newborns annually have HIV. This review aims to show the effect of contraceptive choices on risk of HIV and on the course of disease in women with HIV.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18978360 PMCID: PMC2639085 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmn049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Reprod Update ISSN: 1355-4786 Impact factor: 15.610
Factors associated with increased risk of HIV acquisition in women
| Partner/male-associated factors |
| Advanced stage of HIV infection ( |
| High circulating HIV load ( |
| Uncircumcised partner ( |
| Female-associated factors |
| Young age at coital debut ( |
| Age <25 years ( |
| Age >45 years ( |
| ≥4 sex partners ( |
| Practice of anal sex ( |
| Not living with partner ( |
Inflammatory conditions associated with increased risk of HIV acquisition in women
| Risk factor | Increase in the risk of HIV transmission | References |
|---|---|---|
| Cervical ectopy | 4.9 | |
| Pelvic inflammatory disease | 6.3 | |
| Ulcerative genital infection | 2.9–3.0 | |
| Specific diagnosis of | ||
| Bacterial vaginosis | 1.4–2.8 | |
| Vaginal candidiasis | 2–3.3 | |
| 1.3–3.6 | ||
| 1.8–5.2 | ||
| Herpes simplex virus-2 (seroprevalent) | 2.8–4.4 | |
| HSV-2 (seroincident) | 4.6–8.6 | |
| 1.6–5.8 | ||
| 1.2–4.8 | ||
Prospective cohort studies involving assessment of the effect of oral contraceptives on the risk of HIV acquisition among HIV-negative women
| References | Nos | Study site | Population studied | Incidence of HIV/100 woman-years | Risk [95% CI] of HIV acquisition; OCs versus non-hormonal methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1211 ever users of OCs versus 159 other methods | Tanzania | Family planning clinic attendees | 3.5 in ever users of OCs versus 2.6 in non-users | 1.01 (0.45–2.28) | |
| 421 OC users among 5117 women followed | Uganda | Community-based, women aged 15–49 | 2.5 users of OCs versus 1.5 in users of non-hormonal contraception | 1.12 [0.48–2.56] | |
| 1583 COC users versus 1412 users of non-hormonal contraception | Uganda and Zimbabwe | Family planning clinic attendees | 2.59 in users of COCs versus 2.55 in users of non-hormonal contraception | 0.99 [0.69–1.42] | |
| 94 COC users versus 3304 non-hormonal method | South Africa | Women attending cervical screening trial | 1.80 in users of COCs versus 2.16 in users of non-hormonal contraception | 0.65 [0.16–2.66] | |
| 269 OC users versus 568 users of non-hormonal methods | Kenya | Commercial sex workers | 11.88 in users of OCs versus 6.49 in users of non-hormonal contraception | 1.46 [1.00–2.13] |
aOf the on-going studies that have been reported in several publications (e.g. Martin Lavreys ; Baeten ), only the latest results are included.
Prospective cohort studies involving assessment of the effect of injectable contraceptives on the risk of HIV acquisition
| References | Nos | Study site | Population studied | Incidence of HIV/100 woman-years | Risk [95% CI] of HIV acquisition versus non-hormonal method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 129 DMPA users versus 1241 other methods | Tanzania | Family planning clinic attendees | 0.9 in DMPA users versus 4.1 in non-users | DMPA use 0.30 [0.07–1.26] | |
| 635 users of injectable contraception versus 4267 non-hormonal method | Uganda | Community-based, women aged 15–49 | 2.2 in sometime users of DMPA versus 1.5 in non-users | Injectable contraception use 0.84 [0.41–1.72] | |
| 1536 users of DMPA versus 1412 users of non-hormonal contraception | Uganda and Zimbabwe | Family planning clinic attendees | 3.11 in users of DMPA versus 2.55 in users of non-hormonal contraception | DMPA use 1.25 [0.89–1.78] | |
| 603 DMPA users, 199 NET-EN users versus 3304 users of non-hormonal method | South Africa | Women attending cervical screening trial | 2.62 in users of DMPA, 2.16 in NET-EN users versus 2.16 in users of non-hormonal contraception | DMPA use 0.96 [0.58–1.59], NET-EN 0.79 [0.31–2.02] | |
| 369 DMPA users versus 568 users of non-hormonal method | Kenya | Commercial sex workers | 14.13 in users of DMPA versus 6.49 in users of non-hormonal contraception | DMPA use 1.73 [1.28–2.34] | |
| 108 DMPA users, 192 NET-EN users versus 251 non-hormonal method | South Africa | Family planning clinic attendees | 1.1 in users of DMPA versus 7.5 in users of NET-EN versus 4.4 in users of non-hormonal contraception | DMPA use 0.46 [0.06–3.79], NET-EN 1.76 [0.64–4.84] |
aOf the on-going studies that have been reported in several publications (e.g. Martin , Lavreys ; Baeten ), only the latest results are included. DMPA, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate; NET-EN, norethindrone enanthate.
Prospective cohort studies involving assessment of the effect of intrauterine devices on the risk of HIV acquisition
| References | Nos | Study site | Population studied | Incidence of HIV/100 woman-years | Risk [95% CI] of HIV acquisition versus other methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 IUD users, 756 other methods | Kenya | Commercial sex workers | Data not available | Cu-IUD use 1.2 [0.4–3.9] | |
| 162 IUD users, 1208 other methods | Tanzania | Family planning clinic attendees | 2.7 in IUD users versus 3.4 in non-users | Cu-IUD use 0.80 [0.38–1.69] |