| Literature DB >> 34216285 |
Hannah Fraser1, Annick Borquez2, Jack Stone3, Daniela Abramovitz2, Kimberly C Brouwer2, David Goodman-Meza4, Matthew Hickman3, Thomas L Patterson2, Jay Silverman2, Laramie Smith2, Steffanie A Strathdee2, Natasha K Martin3,2, Peter Vickerman5.
Abstract
Tijuana, Mexico, has a concentrated HIV epidemic among overlapping key populations (KPs) including people who inject drugs (PWID), female sex workers (FSW), their male clients, and men who have sex with men (MSM). We developed a dynamic HIV transmission model among these KPs to determine the extent to which their unmet prevention and treatment needs is driving HIV transmission. Over 2020-2029 we estimated the proportion of new infections acquired in each KP, and the proportion due to their unprotected risk behaviours. We estimate that 43.7% and 55.3% of new infections are among MSM and PWID, respectively, with FSW and their clients making-up < 10% of new infections. Projections suggest 93.8% of new infections over 2020-2029 will be due to unprotected sex between MSM or unsafe injecting drug use. Prioritizing interventions addressing sexual and injecting risks among MSM and PWID are critical to controlling HIV in Tijuana.Entities:
Keywords: Female sex workers; Mathematical modelling; Men who have sex with men; Mexico; People who inject drugs
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34216285 PMCID: PMC8560668 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-021-03361-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Behav ISSN: 1090-7165
Summary of key parameter ranges used for different population groups
| Prior distribution | Distribution | p-value (if applicable) | Data information | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (i) Injecting drug use | ||||
| Number of injections in the past year among PWID | ||||
| Female PWID-FSW; Male PWID; Male PWID-Clients | 1440 (IQR: 1080–1440) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| PWID-MSM | RR: 1.3 (95%CI: 1.0–1.7) | Log-normal | 0.0369 (χ2 test) | ECIV; (RR compared to male PWID) |
| Female PWID non-FSW | RR: 0.9 (95%CI: 0.8–1.0) | Log-normal | 0.0179 (χ2 test) | ECIV; (RR compared to male PWID) |
| Proportion of PWID who have ever shared syringes in the past 6 months | ||||
| Female PWID non-FSW; Male PWID only | 67.9% (63.3–72.5%) | Truncated normal | ECIV | |
| PWID-client | OR: 14.2 (95%CI: 1.91–104.9) | Log-normal | < 0.0001 (χ2 test) | ECIV; (OR compared to male PWID) |
| PWID-MSM | OR: 3.0 (95%CI: 1.0–10.29) | Log-normal | 0. 0691 (χ2 test) | ECIV; (OR compared to male PWID) |
| PWID-FSW | OR: 1.5 (95%CI: 1.0–2.26) | Log-normal | 0.0471 (χ2 test) | ECIV; (OR compared to male PWID) |
| Proportion who shared at last injection (if shared in the past 6 months) – same estimate used for all PWID groups | 45.9% (38.7–53.2%) | Truncated normal | ECIV | |
| (ii) Men who have sex with men | ||||
| Proportion of MSM with at least one main male partner in last year | 62.3% (95%CI: 55.4 – 69.2%) | Truncated normal | Proyecto H | |
| Number of main male partners per year (among those that have them in last year) | 2 (IQR: 1–2) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Frequency of sex acts in past year with each main partner | 25.2 (IQR: 10.2–78) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Consistency of condom use for main partners of MSM | 60.8% (52.3–69.2%) | Truncated normal | Proyecto H | |
| Proportion of MSM with at least one casual male partner in last year | 60.3% (53.2–67.2%) | Truncated normal | Proyecto H | |
| Number of casual male partners per year (among those that have them in last year) | 6 (IQR: 0–24) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Frequency of sex acts in past year with each casual partner | 1.1 (IQR: 1–2) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Consistency of condom use for casual partners of MSM | 77.9% (71.1–84.8%) | Truncated normal | Proyecto H | |
| (iii) Commercial sex – Female sex workers and their clients | ||||
| Number of commercial sex contacts per year | ||||
| FSW-PWID | 180 (IQR: 72–360) | Triangular | MAPA and MMS | |
| FSW non-PWID | 120 (IQR: 60–240) | Triangular | MAPA and MMS | |
| Clients | 12 (IQR: 6–24) | Triangular | Sexo Seguro | |
| Consistency of condom use in last commercial sex act amongb | ||||
| Non-PWID FSW reported with clients | 85.5% (82.0–89.0%) | Normal | MAPA | |
| PWID FSW reported with clients | RR: 0.8 (95%CI: 0.6–0.9) | Truncated log-normal | < 0.001 (χ2 test) | MAPA; (RR compared to non-PWID FSW) |
| Clients reported with FSW (vaginal sex) | 54.8% (48.3–61.3%) | Normal | Sexo Seguro | |
| Clients reported with FSW (anal sex) | 45.8% (32.7–58.9%) | Normal | Sexo Seguro | |
| Proportion of commercial sex acts that are vaginal | ||||
| FSW with client non-PWID | 84.5% (81.7–87.4%) | Truncated normal | Sexo Seguro | |
| FSW with client PWID | RR 0.9 (95%CI: 0.8–1) | Log normal | 0.0325 (χ2 test) | Sexo Seguro |
| (iv) Heterosexual main partnerships | ||||
| Percentage of each key population with a main partner—included in Supplementary materials as different for each group | ||||
| Frequency of vaginal sex acts in past year among | ||||
| Female PWID non-FSW with males | 48 (IQR: 5–48) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| FSW (PWID and non-PWID) with males | 48 (IQR: 20–48) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| Male PWID with females | 48 (IQR: 20–48) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| Male Clients with females | 60 (IQR: 24–120) | Triangular | Hombre Seguro | |
| MSM with females | 24 (IQR: 6–60) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Frequency of anal sex acts in past year amonga | ||||
| All females with males | 0 (IQR: 0–5) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| Males (non-MSM) with females | 0—6 | Uniform | ECIV/Hombre Seguro | |
| MSM with females | 6 (IQR: 0.96–19.5) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Consistency of condom use in last sex act for main partnerships | Range over max and min for different surveys | |||
| Vaginal sex | 8.7–28.3% | Uniform | ||
| Anal sex | 4–32.3% | Uniform | ||
| (iv) Heterosexual casual partnerships | ||||
| Percentage of each key population with at least one casual partner – included in Supplementary materials as different for each group | ||||
| Number of casual partners in past year | ||||
| Female PWID non-FSW with males | 2 (IQR: 2-4) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| FSW PWID with males | 6 (IQR: 4–20) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| Male PWID with females | 4 (IQR: 4–6) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| MSM with females | 12 (IQR: 6–24) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Clients with females | 9 (IQR: 6–12) | Triangular | Sexo Seguro | |
| Frequency of vaginal sex acts in past year among | ||||
| Female PWID non-FSW with males | 0.75 (IQR: 0–2.5) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| FSW PWID with males | 1.25 (IQR: 0.007–8) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| Male PWID with females | 0.833 (IQR: 0–6) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| MSM with females | 1 (IQR: 1–1.5) | Triangular | Proyecto H | |
| Clients with females | 1.3 (IQR: 1–3) | Triangular | Sexo Seguro | |
| Frequency of anal sex acts in past year amonga | ||||
| All females with all males | 0 (IQR: 0–0.25) | Triangular | ECIV | |
| All males with all females | 0–1 | Uniform | Range over male surveys | |
| Consistency of condom use in last sex act for casual partnerships | Take range over all surveys | |||
| Vaginal sex | 23.3–60.3% | Uniform | ||
| Anal sex | 5.2–88.7% | Uniform | ||
This is included to give a summary with full details of the data used to calibrate the model and prior parameter ranges in the supplementary materials Note that for normal and log-normal distributions the mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are given; for triangular distributions the median and interquartile range were used to create the distribution (unless otherwise stated); for uniform distributions a range was taken over the data
aTo determine frequency of anal sex acts in the past year the rates between males and females are both sampled and then the average of the two is used in the model
bCondom use estimates for commercial sex were averaged across reported use by FSW and clients
Fig. 1HIV prevalence projections and available data estimates for a PWID; b FSW; c MSM and d clients in Tijuana, Mexico. The model was calibrated to HIV prevalence data amongst PWID, FSW and MSM (denoted by circles [mean] and vertical lines [95% confidence intervals]), as well as ART coverage data for all four key populations. Pale grey lines show the model projections for each of the runs, solid black lines show the median of the model runs, dashed black lines show the interquartile range of model runs, and dot-dashed lines show the 95% credibility intervals. Note survey acronyms used in figures: ECII – El Cuete II; ECIII – El Cuete III; EC IV – El Cuete IV; MS – Mujer Segura; MAPA – Salud de MAPA
Fig. 2Relative size of each key population, proportion of new infections that occur in each key population and contribution of each key population to HIV transmission over 2020–2029 in Tijuana, Mexico. Blue boxes denote the size of each key population group as a percentage of the total key population size. Orange boxes denote the percentage of new infections occurring within each key population over 2020–2029. Yellow boxes denote the proportion of new HIV infections occurring among KP that will be prevented if all risk behaviours of each key population are fully protected over 2020–2029. Boxes in the figure show the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers indicate the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles
Fig. 3The percentage of new HIV infections occurring among KP that will be prevented if different risk behaviours are fully protected in Tijuana over 2020–2029. Boxes show the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers indicating the 2.5th-97.5th percentiles over the 5000 baseline model fits. The different scenarios are fully protecting either injecting HIV transmission risk, sex between men, commercial sex; heterosexual sex within main and casual partnerships
Fig. 4Percentage of new HIV infections occurring in each KP that will be prevented if different risk behaviours are fully protected over 2020–2029 in Tijuana. Boxes show the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers indicating the 2.5th-97.5th percentiles