Self-reported sexual behavior and HIV testing history.

<p>Self-reported sexual behavior and HIV testing history.</p

Circumcision Status and Incident HSV-2 Infection, Genital Ulcer Disease, and HIV Infection

Objective: We assessed the protective effect of medical male circumcision (MMC) against HIV, HSV-2, and GUD incidence. Design: 2784 men aged 18–24 years living in Kisumu, Kenya were randomly assigned to circumcision (n=1391) or delayed circumcision (n=1393), and assessed by HIV and HSV-2 testing and medical examinations during follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Methods: Cox regression estimated the risk ratio (RR) of each outcome (incident HIV, GUD, HSV-2) for circumcision status and multivariable models estimated HIV risk associated with HSV-2, GUD and circumcision status as time-varying covariates. Results: HIV incidence was 1.42 per 100 person-years. Circumcision was 62% protective against HIV [RR=0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 - 0.67], and did not change when controlling for HSV-2 and GUD [RR=0.39; 95% CI: 0.23 - 0.69]. GUD incidence was halved among circumcised men [RR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 - 0.73]. HSV-2 incidence did not differ by circumcision status [RR=0.94; 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.25]. In the multivariable model, HIV seroconversions were tripled [RR=3.44; 95% CI: 1.52 - 7.80] among men with incident HSV-2 and 7 times greater [RR=6.98; 95% CI: 3.50 - 13.9] for men with GUD. Conclusion: Contrary to findings from the South African and Ugandan trials, the protective effect of MMC against HIV was independent of GUD and HSV-2 and MMC had no effect on HSV-2 incidence. Determining the causes of GUD is necessary to reduce associated HIV risk, and to understand how circumcision confers protection against GUD and HIV

Assessment of eligibility, randomization, and follow-up.

<p>HIVST, HIV self-testing.</p

Reasons given during ACASI for taking the study pills in FEM-PrEP, by study arm, n (%).

<p>Reasons given during ACASI for taking the study pills in FEM-PrEP, by study arm, n (%).</p

Promoting Partner Testing and Couples Testing through Secondary Distribution of HIV Self-Tests: A Randomized Clinical Trial

<div><p>Background</p><p>Achieving higher rates of partner HIV testing and couples testing among pregnant and postpartum women in sub-Saharan Africa is essential for the success of combination HIV prevention, including the prevention of mother-to-child transmission. We aimed to determine whether providing multiple HIV self-tests to pregnant and postpartum women for secondary distribution is more effective at promoting partner testing and couples testing than conventional strategies based on invitations to clinic-based testing.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>We conducted a randomized trial in Kisumu, Kenya, between June 11, 2015, and January 15, 2016. Six hundred antenatal and postpartum women aged 18–39 y were randomized to an HIV self-testing (HIVST) group or a comparison group. Participants in the HIVST group were given two oral-fluid-based HIV test kits, instructed on how to use them, and encouraged to distribute a test kit to their male partner or use both kits for testing as a couple. Participants in the comparison group were given an invitation card for clinic-based HIV testing and encouraged to distribute the card to their male partner, a routine practice in many health clinics. The primary outcome was partner testing within 3 mo of enrollment. Among 570 participants analyzed, partner HIV testing was more likely in the HIVST group (90.8%, 258/284) than the comparison group (51.7%, 148/286; difference = 39.1%, 95% CI 32.4% to 45.8%, <i>p <</i> 0.001). Couples testing was also more likely in the HIVST group than the comparison group (75.4% versus 33.2%, difference = 42.1%, 95% CI 34.7% to 49.6%, <i>p <</i> 0.001). No participants reported intimate partner violence due to HIV testing. This study was limited by self-reported outcomes, a common limitation in many studies involving HIVST due to the private manner in which self-tests are meant to be used.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Provision of multiple HIV self-tests to women seeking antenatal and postpartum care was successful in promoting partner testing and couples testing. This approach warrants further consideration as countries develop HIVST policies and seek new ways to increase awareness of HIV status among men and promote couples testing.</p><p>Trial Registration</p><p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02386215" target="_blank">NCT02386215</a>.</p></div

Qualitative adherence composite scores, corresponding TFV and TFV-DP concentrations, and estimated doses per interval [7].

<p>Qualitative adherence composite scores, corresponding TFV and TFV-DP concentrations, and estimated doses per interval [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0125458#pone.0125458.ref007" target="_blank">7</a>].</p

Effects of HIV self-testing intervention within 3 mo.

<p>Effects of HIV self-testing intervention within 3 mo.</p

Characteristics of participants.

In Kenya, adolescents spend much of their formative years in boarding secondary schools, which presents a challenging environment for antiretroviral (ART) adherence support among adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV). We examined the experiences of ALHIV, caregivers of adolescents, and school nurses regarding navigating ART adherence in boarding secondary schools. Between July and November 2022, we conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) among ALHIV attending boarding schools in Nairobi, Kenya, and caregivers of ALHIV, and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with school nurses. Clinic records were used to identify ALHIV and caregivers, who were invited to participate based on their availability. We categorized boarding schools into national, county, and sub-county levels and selected two schools from each category. We obtained permission from head teachers and invited school nurses to take part in virtual IDIs. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. We conducted two FGDs with 11 caregivers, two FGDs with 18 adolescents, and 7 IDIs with school nurses. Most of the ALHIV reported having disclosed their HIV status to a school nurse or teacher during admission. School nurse friendliness, being understanding, fair, and confidential were qualities associated with ALHIV willingness to confide in them. Strategies ALHIV used to adhere to medication included: waiting until students were engaged in other activities, waking up early, stepping away from others, and stating their drugs were for different ailments. Caregivers were nervous about school-based adherence counseling, fearing it could lead to inadvertent disclosure of adolescents’ HIV status and stigmatization by fellow students. All school nurses reported lacking appropriate training in HIV adherence counseling for adolescents. ALHIV have devised innovative strategies to navigate pill-taking and enlist quiet support while operating in stigmatized school environments. Establishment of a strong school nurse-adolescent rapport and building nurses’ skills are key to improving school-based support for ALHIV.</div

Reasons given during ACASI for taking the study pills in FEM-PrEP, by site, n (%).

<p>Reasons given during ACASI for taking the study pills in FEM-PrEP, by site, n (%).</p

Circumcision Status and Incident HSV-2 Infection, Genital Ulcer Disease, and HIV Infection

Objective: We assessed the protective effect of medical male circumcision (MMC) against HIV, HSV-2, and GUD incidence. Design: 2784 men aged 18–24 years living in Kisumu, Kenya were randomly assigned to circumcision (n=1391) or delayed circumcision (n=1393), and assessed by HIV and HSV-2 testing and medical examinations during follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Methods: Cox regression estimated the risk ratio (RR) of each outcome (incident HIV, GUD, HSV-2) for circumcision status and multivariable models estimated HIV risk associated with HSV-2, GUD and circumcision status as time-varying covariates. Results: HIV incidence was 1.42 per 100 person-years. Circumcision was 62% protective against HIV [RR=0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 - 0.67], and did not change when controlling for HSV-2 and GUD [RR=0.39; 95% CI: 0.23 - 0.69]. GUD incidence was halved among circumcised men [RR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 - 0.73]. HSV-2 incidence did not differ by circumcision status [RR=0.94; 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.25]. In the multivariable model, HIV seroconversions were tripled [RR=3.44; 95% CI: 1.52 - 7.80] among men with incident HSV-2 and 7 times greater [RR=6.98; 95% CI: 3.50 - 13.9] for men with GUD. Conclusion: Contrary to findings from the South African and Ugandan trials, the protective effect of MMC against HIV was independent of GUD and HSV-2 and MMC had no effect on HSV-2 incidence. Determining the causes of GUD is necessary to reduce associated HIV risk, and to understand how circumcision confers protection against GUD and HIV