| Literature DB >> 24812406 |
Subramanian Potty Rajaram1, Pradeep Banandur2, Usha K Thammattoor3, Tinku Thomas3, Mandar K Mainkar4, Ramesh Paranjape4, Rajatashurva Adhikary5, Thierry Duchesne6, Banadakoppa M Ramesh2, Shajy Isac7, Stephen Moses8, Michel Alary9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the Avahan HIV prevention programme for female sex workers (FSWs) in south India on reducing syphilis prevalence among their clients, by comparing rates of syphilis over time as reported in two large-scale surveys of FSWs' clients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24812406 PMCID: PMC4215352 DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2013-051301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sex Transm Infect ISSN: 1368-4973 Impact factor: 3.519
Comparison of the prevalence of syphilis*, HIV, CT and NG between round 1 and round 2 IBBAs among clients of FSWs by district and state
| Syphilis prevalence | HIV prevalence | CT prevalence | NG prevalence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 1 | Round 2 | |||||
| State/district | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | p Value | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | p Value | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | p Value | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | p Value |
| Andhra Pradesh | 6.1 (5.1 to 7.1) | 1.3 (0.8 to 1.8) | <0.001 | 6.5 (5.5 to 7.6) | 5.2 (4.2 to 6.2) | 0.074 | 1.2 (0.6 to 1.8) | 0.6 (0.3 to 0.9) | 0.062 | 0.4 (0.1 to 0.8) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| East Godavari | 7.1 (4.6 to 9.6) | 2.2 (0.8 to 3.7) | 0.001 | 9.1 (6.3 to 11.8) | 7.2 (4.7 to 9.8) | 0.345 | 1.2 (0.0 to 2.3) | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 0.817 | 0.0 (0.0 to 0.0) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Guntur | 11.2 (8.1 to 14.3) | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | <0.001 | 7.5 (4.9 to 10.1) | 5.9 (3.6 to 8.2) | 0.372 | 0.9 (0.0 to 2.1) | 0.3 (0.0 to 0.7) | 0.278 | 0.0 (0.0 to 0.0) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Hyderabad | 5.4 (3.2 to 7.6) | 2.3 (0.8 to 3.7) | 0.019 | 3.7 (1.9 to 5.5) | 5.3 (3.1 to 7.4) | 0.285 | 2.0 (0.4 to 3.5) | 1.5 (0.3 to 2.7) | 0.647 | 0.0 (0.0 to 0.0) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Vishakhapatnam | 3.2 (1.5 to 5.0) | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 0.026 | 8.0 (5.3 to 10.6) | 3.5 (1.7 to 5.2) | 0.006 | 0.5 (0.0 to 1.3) | 0.3 (0.0 to 0.7) | 0.666 | 1.8 (0.1 to 3.6) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Warangal | 3.5 (1.7 to 5.3) | 0.3 (0.0 to 0.7) | 0.001 | 4.5 (2.5 to 6.5) | 4.2 (2.3 to 6.2) | 0.857 | 1.2 (0.0 to 2.4) | 0.0 (NE) | NE | 0.6 (0.0 to 1.4) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Maharashtra | 5.0 (3.9 to 6.1) | 3.9 (2.9 to 4.8) | 0.126 | 7.6 (6.3 to 8.9) | 6.1 (4.9 to 7.2) | 0.078 | 2.7 (1.9 to 3.5) | 1.1 (0.6 to 1.6) | 0.001 | 0.7 (0.3 to 1.1) | 0.6 (0.2 to 1.0) | 0.682 |
| Mumbai | 3.3 (1.5 to 5.1) | 4.9 (2.7 to 7.0) | 0.277 | 8.6 (5.9 to 11.4) | 5.7 (3.3 to 8.0) | 0.112 | 4.3 (2.3 to 6.3) | 2.4 (0.9 to 4.0) | 0.150 | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 1.6 (0.3 to 2.9) | 0.466 |
| Parbhani | 3.2 (1.5 to 4.9) | 3.0 (1.4 to 4.7) | 0.884 | 5.0 (2.8 to 7.1) | 3.3 (1.5 to 5.1) | 0.239 | 2.7 (1.1 to 4.3) | 0.0 (NE) | NE | 0.5 (0.0 to 1.2) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Pune | 6.0 (3.7 to 8.3) | 3.2 (1.5 to 4.9) | 0.061 | 6.5 (4.1 to 8.9) | 6.9 (4.5 to 9.4) | 0.800 | 2.5 (1.0 to 4.0) | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 0.103 | 0.3 (0.0 to 0.7) | 0.5 (0.0 to 1.2) | 0.567 |
| Yevatmal | 7.5 (4.9 to 10.1) | 4.5 (2.5 to 6.5) | 0.073 | 10.5 (7.5 to 13.5) | 8.3 (5.6 to 11.0) | 0.270 | 1.3 (0.2 to 2.3) | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 0.735 | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 0.3 (0.0 to 0.7) | 0.177 |
| Tamil Nadu | 3.8 (2.7 to 4.9) | 4.6 (3.4 to 5.8) | 0.341 | 2.7 (1.8 to 3.6) | 5.9 (4.6 to 7.2) | <0.001 | 0.8 (0.3 to 1.3) | 0.4 (0.1 to 0.8) | 0.188 | 0.0 (NE) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Chennai | 4.4 (2.4 to 6.4) | 11.8 (8.6 to 14.9) | <0.001 | 2.2 (0.8 to 3.7) | 12.0 (8.9 to 15.2) | <0.001 | 1.5 (0.3 to 2.7) | 0.0 (NE) | NE | 0.0 (NE) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Madurai | 3.0 (1.3 to 4.7) | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 0.043 | 2.2 (0.8 to 3.7) | 3.7 (1.9 to 5.6) | 0.216 | 0.0 (NE) | 0.8 (0.0 to 1.6) | NE | 0.0 (NE) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Salem | 4.0 (2.1 to 6.0) | 1.0 (0.0 to 1.9) | 0.005 | 3.5 (1.7 to 5.4) | 2.0 (0.6 to 3.3) | 0.173 | 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) | 0.5 (0.0 to 1.2) | 0.393 | 0.0 (NE) | 0.0 (NE) | NE |
| Karnataka | 3.9 (3.1 to 4.7) | 1.8 (1.2 to 2.3) | <0.001 | 4.2 (3.4 to 5.0) | 3.3 (2.6 to 4.1) | 0.124 | 2.3 (1.7 to 2.8) | NA | NA | 0.6 (0.3 to 0.9) | NA | NA |
| Bangalore Urban | 4.5 (2.8 to 6.1) | 0.8 (0.1 to 1.6) | <0.001 | 2.4 (1.2 to 3.5) | 1.9 (0.9 to 3.0) | 0.587 | 3.1 (1.8 to 4.4) | NA | NA | 0.6 (0.0 to 1.2) | NA | NA |
| Belgaum | 3.9 (2.0 to 5.8) | 2.0 (0.5 to 3.4) | 0.122 | 6.6 (4.2 to 9.0) | 3.0 (1.3 to 4.6) | 0.014 | 1.2 (0.2 to 2.3) | NA | NA | 0.0 (0.0 to 0.0) | NA | NA |
| Bellary | 6.0 (3.7 to 8.3) | 2.7 (1.0 to 4.4) | 0.030 | 5.4 (3.3 to 7.6) | 6.8 (4.3 to 9.3) | 0.415 | 1.7 (0.4 to 2.9) | NA | NA | 0.5 (0.0 to 1.1) | NA | NA |
| Shimoga | 2.1 (0.8 to 3.5) | 1.5 (0.2 to 2.8) | 0.527 | 2.4 (0.9 to 3.8) | 1.9 (0.5 to 3.2) | 0.630 | 0.7 (0.0 to 1.5) | NA | NA | 0.5 (0.0 to 1.1) | NA | NA |
| Mysore | 2.9 (1.3 to 4.6) | 2.4 (0.9 to 3.8) | 0.609 | 5.4 (3.3 to 7.6) | 4.0 (2.1 to 5.9) | 0.331 | 4.0 (2.1 to 5.9) | NA | NA | 1.4 (0.3 to 2.5) | NA | NA |
p Value based on Pearson χ2 test.
*A subject was considered as having active syphilis when both the rapid plasma reagin and Treponema pallidum haemaglutination assay tests were positive.
†These p values are given for the comparisons between non-Karnataka districts, as NG and CT were not available in Karnataka in round 2. CT prevalence in non-Karnataka districts was 1.7% in round 1 (0.4% for NG).
CT, Chlamydia trachomatis; FSW, female sex worker; IBBA, integrated behavioural and biological assessment survey; NA, not available; NE, not estimated; NG, Neisseria gonorrhoeae.
Syphilis prevalence among clients of FSWs, from IBBA round 1 and round 2 data, by individual characteristics
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) |
| Age of respondent | |||
| <25 | 2.6 (1.9 to 3.3) | 1.4 (0.9 to 1.9) | 2.1 (1.6 to 2.5) |
| 25–34 | 4.6 (3.8 to 5.4) | 2.4 (1.9 to 3.0) | 3.5 (3.0 to 3.9) |
| ≥35 | 7.3 (6.2 to 8.4) | 4.1 (3.2 to 4.9) | 5.7 (5.0 to 6.4) |
| Can read and write | |||
| No | 7.3 (6.1 to 8.5) | 3.2 (2.3 to 4.0) | 5.3 (4.6 to 6.1) |
| Yes | 3.9 (3.4 to 4.4) | 2.5 (2.0 to 2.9) | 3.2 (2.8 to 3.5) |
| Marital status | |||
| Currently married | 5.9 (5.2 to 6.6) | 2.9 (2.4 to 3.4) | 4.4 (3.9 to 4.8) |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 8.8 (4.8 to 12.8) | 4.7 (2.0 to 7.5) | 6.6 (4.2 to 9.0) |
| Never married | 2.7 (2.1 to 3.3) | 2.0 (1.4 to 2.6) | 2.4 (2.0 to 2.8) |
| Age at first sex | |||
| <20 | 4.8 (4.1 to 5.5) | 2.7 (2.2 to 3.2) | 3.8 (3.4 to 4.2) |
| 20–24 | 4.7 (3.9 to 5.5) | 2.3 (1.8 to 2.9) | 3.5 (3.0 to 4.0) |
| ≥25 | 5.0 (3.2 to 6.7) | 3.7 (2.0 to 5.3) | 4.4 (3.1 to 5.6) |
| Age at first paid sex | |||
| <20 | 4.5 (3.7 to 5.3) | 2.5 (1.9 to 3.2) | 3.6 (3.1 to 4.1) |
| 20–24 | 5.0 (4.3 to 5.7) | 2.6 (2.0 to 3.1) | 3.8 (3.4 to 4.3) |
| ≥25 | 4.9 (3.6 to 6.2) | 2.9 (2.1 to 3.7) | 3.7 (3.0 to 4.4) |
| Typology of FSWs | |||
| Public place | 4.2 (3.5 to 5.0) | 2.9 (2.3 to 3.5) | 3.6 (3.1 to 4.0) |
| Brothel | 5.4 (4.6 to 6.3) | 3.6 (2.8 to 4.4) | 4.6 (4.0 to 5.2) |
| Home | 4.5 (3.3 to 5.7) | 0.8 (0.2 to 1.4) | 2.9 (2.2 to 3.7) |
| Other | 4.9 (2.5 to 7.4) | 1.3 (0.5 to 2.1) | 2.3 (1.4 to 3.1) |
| Consistent condom use with FSW | |||
| No | 5.4 (4.7 to 6.1) | 3.9 (3.2 to 4.7) | 4.8 (4.3 to 5.3) |
| Yes | 3.6 (2.9 to 4.4) | 1.8 (1.4 to 2.2) | 2.5 (2.1 to 2.9) |
| Anal sex with a man/transgender in past 6 months | |||
| No | 4.7 (4.2 to 5.2) | 2.4 (2.0 to 2.8) | 3.6 (3.3 to 3.9) |
| Yes | 6.3 (4.1 to 8.5) | 4.1 (2.8 to 5.4) | 4.9 (3.7 to 6.0) |
| Circumcised | |||
| No | 4.8 (4.3 to 5.4) | 2.7 (2.3 to 3.1) | 3.8 (3.5 to 4.1) |
| Yes | 4.5 (3.2 to 5.7) | 2.1 (1.3 to 3.0) | 3.3 (2.6 to 4.1) |
| HIV infection status | |||
| Negative | 4.1 (3.6 to 4.5) | 1.6 (1.3 to 1.9) | 2.8 (2.6 to 3.1) |
| Positive | 17.1 (13.4 to 20.9) | 22.2 (17.8 to 26.6) | 19.5 (16.7 to 22.4) |
FSW, female sex worker; IBBA, integrated behavioural and biological assessment survey.
Multilevel logistic regression model of determinants of syphilis prevalence among clients of FSWs, IBBA round 1 and round 2
| Characteristics | Without programme variable and interaction terms | With programme variable and interaction terms | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed part of the model | AOR | p Value | 95% CI | AOR | p Value | 95% CI |
| Constant | 0.01 | <0.001 | 0.01 to 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.030 | 0.01 to 0.03 |
| IBBA round | ||||||
| Round 1 | ||||||
| Round 2 | 0.49 | <0.001 | 0.38 to 0.62 | 0.33 | 0.066 | 0.10 to 1.08 |
| Age of respondent (years) | ||||||
| <25 | ||||||
| 25–34 | 1.43 | 0.009 | 1.09 to 1.88 | 1.47 | 0.006 | 1.12 to 1.92 |
| ≥35 | 2.32 | <0.001 | 1.76 to 3.04 | 2.31 | <0.001 | 1.76 to 3.03 |
| Can read and write | ||||||
| No | ||||||
| Yes | 0.66 | <0.001 | 0.54 to 0.81 | 0.65 | <0.001 | 0.53 to 0.80 |
| Typology of FSWs | ||||||
| Public place-based | 1.14 | 0.436 | 0.83 to 1.56 | 0.94 | 0.734 | 0.67 to 1.33 |
| Brothel-based | 1.34 | 0.092 | 0.95 to 1.88 | 1.11 | 0.575 | 0.78 to 1.58 |
| Home-based | ||||||
| Other | 1.09 | 0.733 | 0.67 to 1.77 | 1.27 | 0.449 | 0.69 to 2.33 |
| Anal sex with a man/transgender in past 6 months | ||||||
| No | ||||||
| Yes | 1.58 | 0.002 | 1.18 to 2.11 | 1.53 | 0.005 | 1.14 to 2.06 |
| Consistent condom use with FSWs | ||||||
| No | ||||||
| Yes | 0.80 | 0.034 | 0.64 to 0.98 | 0.85 | 0.141 | 0.69 to 1.05 |
| HIV infection status | ||||||
| Negative | ||||||
| Positive | 6.88 | <0.001 | 5.51 to 8.59 | 4.14 | <0.001 | 3.04 to 5.64 |
| Baseline syphilis prevalence | 1.19 | <0.001 | 1.10 to 1.30 | 1.18 | <0.001 | 1.10 to 1.26 |
| Programme indicators | ||||||
| FSW programme coverage at baseline | 1.00 | 0.685 | 0.99 to 1.01 | |||
| Difference in coverage between the two rounds | 1.00 | 0.327 | 1.00 to 1.01 | |||
| Interaction between round and | ||||||
| Difference in coverage between the two rounds | 0.98 | 0.023 | 0.97 to 0.99 | |||
| Baseline HIV prevalence | 0.85 | 0.003 | 0.76 to 0.94 | |||
| Status of HIV | 3.57 | <0.001 | 2.26 to 5.64 | |||
| Typology of FSWs | ||||||
| Public place-based | 4.61 | 0.003 | 1.67 to 12.72 | |||
| Brothel-based | 4.04 | 0.006 | 1.48 to 11.04 | |||
| Other | 2.33 | 0.186 | 0.67 to 8.12 | |||
AOR, adjusted OR; FSW, female sex worker; IBBA, integrated behavioural and biological assessment survey.
Changes in syphilis prevalence among clients of FSWs between the study rounds at different levels of the independent variables having a significant statistical interaction with the study round
| Factors having a significant interaction with the round | AOR | 95% CI | p Value | p Value of the interaction term |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline syphilis prevalence | 0.003 | |||
| Minimum value (2.13%) | 0.78 | 0.53 to 1.16 | 0.220 | |
| 25th Centile (3.23%) | 0.65 | 0.48 to 0.89 | 0.007 | |
| 50th Centile (4.04%) | 0.57 | 0.44 to 0.75 | <0.001 | |
| 75th Centile (5.97%) | 0.42 | 0.32 to 0.55 | <0.001 | |
| Maximum (11.22%) | 0.18 | 0.09 to 0.37 | <0.001 | |
| Difference in covered value | 0.023 | |||
| Minimum (−5.9%) | 0.92 | 0.59 to 1.43 | 0.711 | |
| 25th Centile (17.9%) | 0.61 | 0.47 to 0.80 | <0.001 | |
| 50th Centile (26.4%) | 0.53 | 0.41 to 0.67 | <0.001 | |
| 75th Centile (42.6%) | 0.40 | 0.30 to 0.53 | <0.001 | |
| Maximum* (106.3%) | 0.13 | 0.06 to 0.31 | <0.001 | |
| HIV infection status | <0.001 | |||
| Negative | 0.35 | 0.27 to 0.47 | <0.001 | |
| Positive | 1.24 | 0.81 to 1.89 | 0.322 | |
| Typology of FSWs | ||||
| Public place-based | 0.54 | 0.38 to 0.76 | <0.001 | 0.003 |
| Brothel-based | 0.65 | 0.45 to 0.93 | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Home-based | 0.12 | 0.05 to 0.30 | <0.001 | |
| Other | 0.27 | 0.12 to 0.62 | 0.002 | 0.186 |
*Coverage can be>100% because the denominator of this indicator is based on the estimate of the size of the FSW population at any moment in the district, whereas the number of women actually covered in the district might be higher than the denominator in places with high turnover of FSWs (mean duration of FSWs in the district of <1 year).
AOR, adjusted OR; FSW, female sex worker.