OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reassess the effectiveness of condoms in reducing heterosexual transmission of HIV. METHODS: Medline, Scopus, and the ISI Web of Science databases were searched up to June 2014. Eligible studies were synthesized using random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with 10,676 HIV serodiscordant heterosexual couples were analyzed. The risk of HIV transmission was considerably lower among couples that were always using condoms compared to never-users (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.43) or inconsistent users (RR: 0.23, 0.13-0.40). The protective effect was slightly higher when the male rather than the female partner was infected (RR: 0.31, 0.20-0.48; vs. RR: 0.44, 0.24-0.80), and very high in Asian settings (RR: 0.06, 0.01-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Though imperfect, condoms reduce HIV transmission by more than 70% when used consistently by HIV serodiscordant heterosexual couples. Social, cultural and biological differences need to be studied further to inform projection modelers and policy makers.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reassess the effectiveness of condoms in reducing heterosexual transmission of HIV. METHODS: Medline, Scopus, and the ISI Web of Science databases were searched up to June 2014. Eligible studies were synthesized using random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with 10,676 HIV serodiscordant heterosexual couples were analyzed. The risk of HIV transmission was considerably lower among couples that were always using condoms compared to never-users (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.43) or inconsistent users (RR: 0.23, 0.13-0.40). The protective effect was slightly higher when the male rather than the female partner was infected (RR: 0.31, 0.20-0.48; vs. RR: 0.44, 0.24-0.80), and very high in Asian settings (RR: 0.06, 0.01-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Though imperfect, condoms reduce HIV transmission by more than 70% when used consistently by HIV serodiscordant heterosexual couples. Social, cultural and biological differences need to be studied further to inform projection modelers and policy makers.
Authors: Foteini Giannou; Georgios K Nikolopoulos; Katerina Pantavou; Vassiliki Benetou; Maria Kantzanou; Vana Sypsa; Leslie D Williams; Samuel R Friedman; Angelos Hatzakis Journal: Curr HIV Res Date: 2017 Impact factor: 1.581
Authors: Louisa Degenhardt; Jason Grebely; Jack Stone; Matthew Hickman; Peter Vickerman; Brandon D L Marshall; Julie Bruneau; Frederick L Altice; Graeme Henderson; Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar; Sarah Larney Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elizabeth M Irungu; Kenneth Ngure; Kenneth K Mugwanya; Merceline Awuor; Annabelle Dollah; Fernandos Ongolly; Nelly Mugo; Elizabeth Bukusi; Elizabeth Wamoni; Josephine Odoyo; Jennifer F Morton; Gena Barnabee; Irene Mukui; Jared M Baeten; Gabrielle O'Malley Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2020-03-24
Authors: Michael Farrell; Natasha K Martin; Emily Stockings; Annick Bórquez; Javier A Cepeda; Louisa Degenhardt; Robert Ali; Lucy Thi Tran; Jürgen Rehm; Marta Torrens; Steve Shoptaw; Rebecca McKetin Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: James M McMahon; Janie Simmons; Jessica E Haberer; Sharon Mannheimer; Natalie M Leblanc; Leilani Torres; Robert Quiles; Guillermo Aedo; Anabel Javier; Amy Braksmajer; Graham Harriman; Nicole Trabold; Enrique R Pouget; Ann Kurth; Martez D R Smith; Judith Brasch; Eric J Podsiadly; Peter L Anderson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.692