Richard Steen1, Jan A C Hontelez, Andra Veraart, Richard G White, Sake J de Vlas. 1. aDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands bCentre for Health Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa cCreating 010, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam dNijmegen International Center for Health System Analysis and Education, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands eLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High rates of partner change in 'upstream' sex work networks have long been recognized to drive 'downstream' transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We used a stochastic microsimulation model (STDSIM) to explore such transmission dynamics in a generalized African HIV epidemic. METHODS: We refined the quantification of sex work in Kisumu, Kenya, from the 4-cities study. Interventions with sex workers were introduced in 2000 and epidemics projected to 2020. We estimated the contribution of sex work to transmission, and modelled standard condom and STI interventions for three groups of sex workers at feasible rates of use and coverage. RESULTS: Removing transmission from sex work altogether would have resulted in 66% lower HIV incidence (range 54-75%) and 56% lower prevalence (range 44-63%) after 20 years. More feasible interventions reduced HIV prevalence from one-fifth to one-half. High rates of condom use in sex work had the greatest effect, whereas STI treatment contributed to HIV declines at lower levels of condom use. Interventions reaching the 40% of sex workers with most clients reduced HIV transmission nearly as much as less targeted approaches attempting to reach all sex workers. Declines were independent of antiretroviral therapy rollout and robust to realistic changes in parameter values. CONCLUSION: 'Upstream' transmission in sex work remains important in advanced African HIV epidemics even in the context of antiretroviral therapy. As in concentrated Asian epidemics, feasible condom and STI interventions that reach the most active sex workers can markedly reduce the size of HIV epidemics. Interventions targeting 'transactional' sex with fewer clients have less impact.
BACKGROUND: High rates of partner change in 'upstream' sex work networks have long been recognized to drive 'downstream' transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We used a stochastic microsimulation model (STDSIM) to explore such transmission dynamics in a generalized African HIV epidemic. METHODS: We refined the quantification of sex work in Kisumu, Kenya, from the 4-cities study. Interventions with sex workers were introduced in 2000 and epidemics projected to 2020. We estimated the contribution of sex work to transmission, and modelled standard condom and STI interventions for three groups of sex workers at feasible rates of use and coverage. RESULTS: Removing transmission from sex work altogether would have resulted in 66% lower HIV incidence (range 54-75%) and 56% lower prevalence (range 44-63%) after 20 years. More feasible interventions reduced HIV prevalence from one-fifth to one-half. High rates of condom use in sex work had the greatest effect, whereas STI treatment contributed to HIV declines at lower levels of condom use. Interventions reaching the 40% of sex workers with most clients reduced HIV transmission nearly as much as less targeted approaches attempting to reach all sex workers. Declines were independent of antiretroviral therapy rollout and robust to realistic changes in parameter values. CONCLUSION: 'Upstream' transmission in sex work remains important in advanced African HIV epidemics even in the context of antiretroviral therapy. As in concentrated Asian epidemics, feasible condom and STI interventions that reach the most active sex workers can markedly reduce the size of HIV epidemics. Interventions targeting 'transactional' sex with fewer clients have less impact.
Authors: João Filipe G Monteiro; Sandro Galea; Timothy Flanigan; Maria de Lourdes Monteiro; Samuel R Friedman; Brandon D L Marshall Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: William M Miller; William C Miller; Clare Barrington; Sharon S Weir; Sanny Y Chen; Michael E Emch; Audrey E Pettifor; Gabriela Paz-Bailey Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2017-12
Authors: Chris Beyrer; Anna-Louise Crago; Linda-Gail Bekker; Jenny Butler; Kate Shannon; Deanna Kerrigan; Michele R Decker; Stefan D Baral; Tonia Poteat; Andrea L Wirtz; Brian W Weir; Françoise Barré-Sinoussi; Michel Kazatchkine; Michel Sidibé; Karl-Lorenz Dehne; Marie-Claude Boily; Steffanie A Strathdee Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R Scott McClelland; Barbra A Richardson; Peter Cherutich; Kishorchandra Mandaliya; Grace John-Stewart; Benard Miregwa; Katherine Odem-Davis; Walter Jaoko; Davies Kimanga; Julie Overbaugh Journal: AIDS Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Sharmistha Mishra; Marie-Claude Boily; Sheree Schwartz; Chris Beyrer; James F Blanchard; Stephen Moses; Delivette Castor; Nancy Phaswana-Mafuya; Peter Vickerman; Fatou Drame; Michel Alary; Stefan D Baral Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Isidore T Traore; Nicolas Meda; Noelie M Hema; Djeneba Ouedraogo; Felicien Some; Roselyne Some; Josiane Niessougou; Anselme Sanon; Issouf Konate; Philippe Van De Perre; Philippe Mayaud; Nicolas Nagot Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Francois Rerolle; Jerry O Jacobson; Paul Wesson; Emily Dantzer; Andrew A Lover; Bouasy Hongvanthong; Jennifer Smith; John M Marshall; Hugh J W Sturrock; Adam Bennett Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 4.379