4.1 Article

The future role of rectal and vaginal microbicides to prevent HIV infection in heterosexual populations: implications for product development and prevention

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 87, 期 7, 页码 646-653

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050184

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [5 U01 AI068615-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To compare the potential impact of rectal (RMB), vaginal (VMB) and bi-compartment (RVMB) (applied vaginally and protective during vaginal and anal intercourse) microbicides to prevent HIV in various heterosexual populations. To understand when a RMB is as useful than a VMB for women practicing anal intercourse (AI). Methods Mathematical model was used to assess the population-level impact (cumulative fraction of new HIV infections prevented (CFP)) of the three different microbicides in various intervention scenarios and prevalence settings. We derived the break-even RMB efficacy required to reduce a female's cumulative risk of HIV infection by the same amount than a VMB. Results Under optimistic coverage (fast roll-out, 100% uptake), a 50% efficacious VMB used in 75% of sex acts in population without AI may prevent similar to 33% (27, 42%) new total (men and women combined) HIV infections over 25 years. The 25-year CFP reduces to similar to 25% (20, 32%) and 17% (13, 23%) if uptake decreases to 75% and 50%, respectively. Similar loss of impact (by 25%-50%) is observed if the same VMB is introduced in populations with 5%-10% AI and for RRRAI=4-20. A RMB is as useful as a VMB (ie, break-even) in populations with 5% AI if RRRAI=20 and in populations with 15%-20% AI if RRRAI=4, independently of adherence as long as it is the same with both products. The 10-year CFP with a RVMB is twofold larger than for a VMB or RMB when AI=10% and RRRAI=10. Conclusions Even low AI frequency can compromise the impact of VMB interventions. RMB and RVMB will be important prevention tools for heterosexual populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据