| Literature DB >> 23457467 |
Andrew N Phillips1, Valentina Cambiano, Fumiyo Nakagawa, Alison E Brown, Fiona Lampe, Alison Rodger, Alec Miners, Jonathan Elford, Graham Hart, Anne M Johnson, Jens Lundgren, Valerie C Delpech.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is interest in expanding ART to prevent HIV transmission, but in the group with the highest levels of ART use, men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM), numbers of new infections diagnosed each year have not decreased as ARTcoverage has increased for reasons which remain unclear.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23457467 PMCID: PMC3574102 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055312
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Comparison of model outputs with surveillance data.
(a) Number of people diagnosed with HIV by year. Data points (black squares) from new HIV diagnoses database 1, (b) Number seen for HIV care by year. Data from SOPHID 1, (c) Number of deaths in people with HIV. Data from HPA death reporting system and Office of National Statistics data 1, (d) Number on ART. Observed data from SOPHID 1, (e) Median CD4 count at diagnosis. Observed data from HPA CD4 laboratory surveillance 1. (f) Proportion of men on ART with Viral load <500 copies/mL. Observed Data (black squares) from SOPHID 10. Model: median and 90% interval (dark and light grey lines, respectively). For details and further comparisons with data see Supporting Information S2.
Figure 2Estimated trends in HIV incidence and sexual behaviour.
(A) HIV incidence, (B) proportion of men having more than one condomless sex partner in the past year.
Summary of estimated difference in HIV incidence according to counter-factual scenarios.
| Scenario | Mean incidence 2006–10 (/100 prs) | % difference(vs actual) | 95% confidence interval | p-value |
| Actual | 0.53 | – | – | – |
| No ART | 0.89 | +68% | +62%–+74% | p<0.0001 |
| No condoms | 2.78 | +425% | +406%–+442% | p<0.0001 |
| ART at diagnosis | 0.36 | −32% | −27%–−37% | p<0.0001 |
| Higher test rate | 0.40 | −25% | −20%–−28% | p<0.0001 |
| Higher test rate and ART at diagnosis | 0.20 | −62% | −58%–−66% | p<0.0001 |
scenario in which no ART was introduced, but sexual risk behaviour change still occurred (this is in order to separate the direct effect of ART on incidence via lower viral load from its effect on increased condomless sex).
scenario in which in 2000 all condom use had ceased but levels of anal sex remained the same. This was done by assuming that levels of sexual risk behaviour increase such that the proportion of men with a condomless sexual partner is set to the reported levels of sex, including condom-protected sex.
scenario in which policy from 2000 was to initiate ART in all people with diagnosed HIV.
scenario in which testing rates were much higher from 2000, such that by 2010 68% of all men were tested each year (49% per 3 months, with targeting of men having condomless sex in the past 6 months) compared with the figure of 25% used in modelling (6% per 3 months).
scenario with both higher rates of testing and ART initiation at diagnosis.
Figure 3Reconstruction of incidence for counter-factual situations; (a) a scenario in which ART was never introduced, but patterns of sexual risk behaviour changes still occurred, (b) a scenario in which all condom use ceased in 2000, but with levels of anal sex as observed, (c) a scenario in which ART was provided at diagnosis from 2000, (d) a scenario in which testing rates increased (such that the proportion testing in the past year was 68% in 2010 compared with 25% as modelled for the actual incidence), and (e) a scenario of both higher testing and ART at diagnosis.