M Kumi Smith1, Matthew Graham2, Carl A Latkin3, Vivian L Go4. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Health Education, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Population mixing patterns can greatly inform allocation of HIV prevention interventions such as treatment as prevention or preexposure prophylaxis. Characterizing contact patterns among subgroups can help identify the specific combinations of contact expected to result in the greatest number of new infections. SETTING: Baseline data from an intervention to reduce HIV-related risk behaviors in male persons who inject drugs (PWID) in the Northern Vietnamese province of Thai Nguyen were used for the analysis. METHODS: Egocentric network data were provided by PWID who reported any drug-injection equipment sharing in the previous 3 months. Age-dependent mixing was assessed to explore its epidemiological implications on risk of HIV transmission risk (among those HIV-infected) and HIV acquisition risk (among those not infected) in PWID. RESULTS: A total of 1139 PWID collectively reported 2070 equipment-sharing partnerships in the previous 3 months. Mixing by age identified the 30-34 and 35-39 years age groups as the groups from whom the largest number of new infections was transmitted, making them primary targets for treatment as prevention. Among the uninfected, 25-29, 30-35, and 35-39 years age groups had the highest HIV acquisition rate, making them the primary targets for preexposure prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Collection and analysis of contact patterns in PWID is feasible and can greatly inform infectious disease dynamics and targeting of appropriate interventions. Results presented also provide much needed empirical data on mixing to improve mathematical models of disease transmission in this population.
OBJECTIVES: Population mixing patterns can greatly inform allocation of HIV prevention interventions such as treatment as prevention or preexposure prophylaxis. Characterizing contact patterns among subgroups can help identify the specific combinations of contact expected to result in the greatest number of new infections. SETTING: Baseline data from an intervention to reduce HIV-related risk behaviors in male persons who inject drugs (PWID) in the Northern Vietnamese province of Thai Nguyen were used for the analysis. METHODS: Egocentric network data were provided by PWID who reported any drug-injection equipment sharing in the previous 3 months. Age-dependent mixing was assessed to explore its epidemiological implications on risk of HIV transmission risk (among those HIV-infected) and HIV acquisition risk (among those not infected) in PWID. RESULTS: A total of 1139 PWID collectively reported 2070 equipment-sharing partnerships in the previous 3 months. Mixing by age identified the 30-34 and 35-39 years age groups as the groups from whom the largest number of new infections was transmitted, making them primary targets for treatment as prevention. Among the uninfected, 25-29, 30-35, and 35-39 years age groups had the highest HIV acquisition rate, making them the primary targets for preexposure prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Collection and analysis of contact patterns in PWID is feasible and can greatly inform infectious disease dynamics and targeting of appropriate interventions. Results presented also provide much needed empirical data on mixing to improve mathematical models of disease transmission in this population.
Authors: Kate Shannon; Steffanie A Strathdee; Shira M Goldenberg; Putu Duff; Peninah Mwangi; Maia Rusakova; Sushena Reza-Paul; Joseph Lau; Kathleen Deering; Michael R Pickles; Marie-Claude Boily Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Susan P Buchbinder; David V Glidden; Albert Y Liu; Vanessa McMahan; Juan V Guanira; Kenneth H Mayer; Pedro Goicochea; Robert M Grant Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Jason Kessler; Julie E Myers; Kimberly A Nucifora; Nana Mensah; Christopher Toohey; Amin Khademi; Blayne Cutler; Scott Braithwaite Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Vivian F Go; Constantine Frangakis; Nguyen Le Minh; Carl Latkin; Tran Viet Ha; Tran Thi Mo; Teerada Sripaipan; Wendy W Davis; Carla Zelaya; Pham The Vu; David D Celentano; Vu Minh Quan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Susan J Little; Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond; Christy M Anderson; Jason A Young; Joel O Wertheim; Sanjay R Mehta; Susanne May; Davey M Smith Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kathryn E Lancaster; Irving F Hoffman; Brett Hanscom; Tran Viet Ha; Kostyantyn Dumchev; Hepa Susami; Scott Rose; Vivian F Go; Sarah A Reifeis; Katie R Mollan; Michael G Hudgens; Estelle M Piwowar-Manning; Paul Richardson; Sergii Dvoriak; Zubairi Djoerban; Tetiana Kiriazova; Oleksandr Zeziulin; Samsuridjal Djauzi; Chu Viet Ahn; Carl Latkin; David Metzger; David N Burns; Jeremy Sugarman; Steffanie A Strathdee; Susan H Eshleman; William Clarke; Deborah Donnell; Lynda Emel; Lisa E Sunner; Laura McKinstry; Nirupama Sista; Erica L Hamilton; Jonathan P Lucas; Bui D Duong; Nguyen Van Vuong; Riza Sarasvita; William C Miller Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Kimberly Page; Jennifer L Evans; Judith A Hahn; Peter Vickerman; Stephen Shiboski; Meghan D Morris Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.240