| Literature DB >> 30033604 |
Christinah Mukandavire1, Josephine Walker1, Sheree Schwartz2, Marie-Claude Boily3, Leon Danon1,4, Carrie Lyons2, Daouda Diouf5, Ben Liestman2, Nafissatou Leye Diouf6, Fatou Drame5, Karleen Coly2, Remy Serge Manzi Muhire2, Safiatou Thiam7, Papa Amadou Niang Diallo8, Coumba Toure Kane6, Cheikh Ndour8, Erik Volz3, Sharmistha Mishra9, Stefan Baral3, Peter Vickerman1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Key populations including female sex workers (FSW) and men who have sex with men (MSM) bear a disproportionate burden of HIV. However, the role of focusing prevention efforts on these groups for reducing a country's HIV epidemic is debated. We estimate the extent to which HIV transmission among FSW and MSM contributes to overall HIV transmission in Dakar, Senegal, using a dynamic assessment of the population attributable fraction (PAF).Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990HIVzzm321990; clients; condom use; female sex workers; key populations; men who have sex with men; population attributable fraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30033604 PMCID: PMC6055131 DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int AIDS Soc ISSN: 1758-2652 Impact factor: 5.396
Figure 1Model schematic illustrating the (a) movement of individuals in and out of different sub‐populations (male and female low‐risk, clients, female sex workers (FSW), younger and older men who have sex with men (MSM), (b) stratification of the population with respect to HIV infection and (c) sexual interactions which can result in HIV transmission among female, male, FSW, their clients and MSM. Blue arrow in Figure 1c shows commercial sex and all other arrows show sex with main and casual partners.
Parameters used for female sex workers (FSW), their clients and men who have sex with men (MSM) in 2016
| Model parameter | FSW | Clients | Young MSM (<30 years) | Old MSM (≥30 years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size estimates (% of adult women or men) | 0.5% (0.3 to 0.9%) | 5.1% (1.8 to 12.1%) | 1.2% (0.8 to 2.3%) | |
| HIV‐1 prevalence | 5.9% (1.8 to 10.0%) | 1.2% (0.5 to 2.4%) | 28.6% (19.8 to 37.5%) | 37.0% (14.8 to 59.2%) |
| Level of viral suppression in individuals living with HIV | 73.7% (60.9 to 84.2%) | NA | 35.4% (23.9 to 48.2%) | |
| Frequency of partners per year | ||||
| Commercial (FSW/Clients) | 516.4 (368.2 to 691.2) | 69.6 (62.4 to 78.0) | – | – |
| Main heterosexual | 0.58 (0.47 to 0.73) | 1.9 (1.3 to 2.6) | 0.88 (0.39 to 1.5) | 0.88 (0.39 to 1.5) |
| Casual heterosexual | 0.96 (0.48 to 1.6) | 0.6 (0.15 to 1.4) | 2.3 (0.55 to 5.1) | 2.3 (0.55 to 5.1) |
| Main (MSM sex) | – | – | 0.71 (0.59 to 0.83) | 0.71 (0.59 to 0.83) |
| Casual (MSM sex) | – | – | 5.4 (2.5 to 9.2) | 4.8 (1.3 to 9.2) |
| % of commercial sex acts that are anal | 4.1% (2.1 to 6.5%) | 5.1% (3.8 to 6.5%) | ||
| Frequency of vaginal sex acts per year | ||||
| Main heterosexual partners | 98.3 (78.5 to 117.5) | 97.3 (73.6 to 124.6) | 65.3 (56.2 to 74.4) | 65.3 (56.2 to 74.4) |
| Casual heterosexual partners | 6.2 (4.2 to 8.2) | 3.8 (2.1 to 5.9) | 4.5 (2.6 to 6.4) | 4.5 (2.6 to 6.4) |
| Frequency of anal sex acts per year | ||||
| Main heterosexual partners | 9.9 (3.6 to 15.6) | 6.6 (3.4 to 11.1) | 5.2 (1.6 to 9.4) | 5.2 (1.6 to 9.4) |
| Casual heterosexual partners | 0.49 (0.12 to 1.2) | 0.33 (0.097 to 0.75) | 0.52 (0.04 to 1.0) | 0.52 (0.04 to 1.0) |
| Frequency of anal sex for men with men per year (MSM sex) | ||||
| Main partnerships of MSM | – | – | 105.6 (91.0 to 120.6) | 105.6 (91.0 to 120.6) |
| Casual partnerships of MSM | – | – | 7.6 (6.7 to 8.2) | 15.2 (13.2 to 16.4) |
NA denotes not available.
Alternative IBBA survey from 2014 suggests lower HIV prevalence of 13.3% (9.7 to 17.4%).
Uncertainty range widened based on different estimates from the 2016 survey and earlier surveys.
The rest are vaginal.
Figure 2Modelled condom use trends for (a) female sex workers (FSW) and (b) men who have sex with men (MSM). (a) FSW condom use with commercial partners for vaginal intercourse. Assume condom use for anal intercourse is half that of vaginal intercourse for all years. (b) MSM condom use with regular and casual male partners. We assume some bias in reporting so all rates have been multiplied by a bias factor of 0.7 to 1.0 – lower bound of 0.7 chosen to give overall lower bound of 0.5, as seen in figure.
Figure 3A comparison of model fits with HIV prevalence estimates from 1985 to 2020 for (a) female sex workers (FSW) (b) clients of FSW, (c) younger men who have sex with men (MSM) (<30 years old), (d) older MSM (≥30 years old) and (e) female and (f) male overall adult populations. Continuous black line shows median projections from all the model fits, with dashed lines and grey shaded areas showing 95% credibility intervals. Red points and lines show data with 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4Ten‐year population attributable fraction (PAF) for sex between men (blue), commercial sex (red), heterosexual sex for men who have sex with men (MSM) (purple), non‐commercial sex for female sex workers (FSW) and their clients (grey), and sex between low‐risk groups (green). The PAF is estimated as the proportion of all HIV infections prevented over 10 years from 1995, 2005 or 2015 if the HIV transmission risk due to a specific type of sexual behaviour is removed. The box plots signify the uncertainty (middle line is median, limits of boxes are the 25% and 75% percentiles and whiskers are 2.5% and 97.5% percentile range) in the PAF estimates due to uncertainty in the model parameters.
Population attributable fraction for sex between men and commercial sex. The population attributable fraction is defined as the proportion of HIV infections prevented if the HIV transmission risk due to sex between men or commercial sex was removed from 1995, 2005 or 2015 for 1 or 10 years
| 1995 | 2005 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAF (1 year) | |||
| Sex between men | 36.2% (21.5% to 52.5%) | 28.9% (13.3% to 42.8%) | 51.4% (27.3% to 66.7%) |
| Commercial sex | 19.8% (8.3% to 38.7%) | 21.6% (8.8% to 36.9%) | 13.8% (5.1% to 31.1%) |
| PAF (10 years) | |||
| Sex between men | 42.1% (23.7% to 59.0%) | 44.6% (20.5% to 61.4%) | 64.1% (37.4% to 79.4%) |
| Commercial sex | 20.6% (7.3% to 38.7%) | 20.3% (7.6% to 40.1%) | 13.6% (4.8% to 35.0%) |
Figure 5Projections of the impact of removing existing levels of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and condom use on HIV prevalence trends for (a) female sex workers (FSW), (b) all men who have sex with men (MSM) and (c) overall general population prevalence. Figures show baseline (median with 95% credibility intervals) trends, and median trends with no effect of ART (median‐blue) or no condom use (median‐orange).
Figure 6Effect of changes in antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage or susceptibility to infection (due to pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or increases in condom use) from 2017 to 2030 on overall projected HIV incidence per 1000‐person years in 2030. The plots show median and 95% credibility intervals of the projections. Scenarios included are additive on top of the previous scenarios from left to right, firstly including baseline projections, then projections with scale‐up of ART coverage in men who have sex with men (MSM) from 2017 such that 74% of MSM living with HIV are virally suppressed by 2020 (same as female sex workers (FSW)), reduce susceptibility of MSM by 33% and then 66% (similar to increase condom use or PrEP coverage in MSM), reducing susceptibility of FSW by 33%, scale‐up ART coverage in low risk such that 74% are virally suppressed by 2020 and reduce susceptibility of low‐risk groups by 33%.