OBJECTIVES: To compare the potential impact of rectal (RMB), vaginal (VMB) and bi-compartment (RVMB) (applied vaginally and protective during vaginal and anal intercourse) microbicides to prevent HIV in various heterosexual populations. To understand when a RMB is as useful than a VMB for women practicing anal intercourse (AI). METHODS: Mathematical model was used to assess the population-level impact (cumulative fraction of new HIV infections prevented (CFP)) of the three different microbicides in various intervention scenarios and prevalence settings. We derived the break-even RMB efficacy required to reduce a female's cumulative risk of HIV infection by the same amount than a VMB. RESULTS: Under optimistic coverage (fast roll-out, 100% uptake), a 50% efficacious VMB used in 75% of sex acts in population without AI may prevent ∼33% (27, 42%) new total (men and women combined) HIV infections over 25 years. The 25-year CFP reduces to ∼25% (20, 32%) and 17% (13, 23%) if uptake decreases to 75% and 50%, respectively. Similar loss of impact (by 25%-50%) is observed if the same VMB is introduced in populations with 5%-10% AI and for RR(RAI)=4-20. A RMB is as useful as a VMB (ie, break-even) in populations with 5% AI if RR(RAI)=20 and in populations with 15%-20% AI if RR(RAI)=4, independently of adherence as long as it is the same with both products. The 10-year CFP with a RVMB is twofold larger than for a VMB or RMB when AI=10% and RR(RAI)=10. CONCLUSIONS: Even low AI frequency can compromise the impact of VMB interventions. RMB and RVMB will be important prevention tools for heterosexual populations.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the potential impact of rectal (RMB), vaginal (VMB) and bi-compartment (RVMB) (applied vaginally and protective during vaginal and anal intercourse) microbicides to prevent HIV in various heterosexual populations. To understand when a RMB is as useful than a VMB for women practicing anal intercourse (AI). METHODS: Mathematical model was used to assess the population-level impact (cumulative fraction of new HIV infections prevented (CFP)) of the three different microbicides in various intervention scenarios and prevalence settings. We derived the break-even RMB efficacy required to reduce a female's cumulative risk of HIV infection by the same amount than a VMB. RESULTS: Under optimistic coverage (fast roll-out, 100% uptake), a 50% efficacious VMB used in 75% of sex acts in population without AI may prevent ∼33% (27, 42%) new total (men and women combined) HIV infections over 25 years. The 25-year CFP reduces to ∼25% (20, 32%) and 17% (13, 23%) if uptake decreases to 75% and 50%, respectively. Similar loss of impact (by 25%-50%) is observed if the same VMB is introduced in populations with 5%-10% AI and for RR(RAI)=4-20. A RMB is as useful as a VMB (ie, break-even) in populations with 5% AI if RR(RAI)=20 and in populations with 15%-20% AI if RR(RAI)=4, independently of adherence as long as it is the same with both products. The 10-year CFP with a RVMB is twofold larger than for a VMB or RMB when AI=10% and RR(RAI)=10. CONCLUSIONS: Even low AI frequency can compromise the impact of VMB interventions. RMB and RVMB will be important prevention tools for heterosexual populations.
Authors: Susan Allen; Jareen Meinzen-Derr; Michele Kautzman; Isaac Zulu; Stanley Trask; Ulgen Fideli; Rosemary Musonda; Francis Kasolo; Feng Gao; Alan Haworth Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: A Buvé; M Caraël; R J Hayes; B Auvert; B Ferry; N J Robinson; S Anagonou; L Kanhonou; M Laourou; S Abega; E Akam; L Zekeng; J Chege; M Kahindo; N Rutenberg; F Kaona; R Musonda; T Sukwa; L Morison; H A Weiss; M Laga Journal: AIDS Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: J Todd; I Cremin; N McGrath; J-B Bwanika; A Wringe; M Marston; I Kasamba; P Mushati; T Lutalo; V Hosegood; B Zaba Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Charlene S Dezzutti; Lisa C Rohan; Lin Wang; Kevin Uranker; Cory Shetler; Marilyn Cost; J D Lynam; David Friend Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Jocelyn Elmes; Romain Silhol; Kristen L Hess; Lukyn M Gedge; Ashley Nordsletten; Roisin Staunton; Peter Anton; Barbara Shacklett; Ian McGowan; Que Dang; Adaora A Adimora; Dobromir T Dimitrov; Sevgi Aral; Senad Handanagic; Gabriela Paz-Bailey; Marie-Claude Boily Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: Rebecca F Baggaley; Dobromir Dimitrov; Branwen N Owen; Michael Pickles; Ailsa R Butler; Ben Masse; Marie-Claude Boily Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2012-12-24 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: Priya Srinivasan; Jining Zhang; Amy Martin; Kristin Kelley; Janet M McNicholl; Robert W Buckheit; James M Smith; Anthony S Ham Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jennifer F Klot; Judith D Auerbach; Fulvia Veronese; Gina Brown; April Pei; Charles R Wira; Thomas J Hope; Souleymane M'boup Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.205