10 research outputs found

    Quantifying HIV transmission flow between high-prevalence hotspots and surrounding communities: a population-based study in Rakai, Uganda

    Get PDF
    Background International and global organisations advocate targeting interventions to areas of high HIV prevalence (ie, hotspots). To better understand the potential benefits of geo-targeted control, we assessed the extent to which HIV hotspots along Lake Victoria sustain transmission in neighbouring populations in south-central Uganda. Methods We did a population-based survey in Rakai, Uganda, using data from the Rakai Community Cohort Study. The study surveyed all individuals aged 15–49 years in four high-prevalence Lake Victoria fishing communities and 36 neighbouring inland communities. Viral RNA was deep sequenced from participants infected with HIV who were antiretroviral therapy-naive during the observation period. Phylogenetic analysis was used to infer partial HIV transmission networks, including direction of transmission. Reconstructed networks were interpreted through data for current residence and migration history. HIV transmission flows within and between high-prevalence and low-prevalence areas were quantified adjusting for incomplete sampling of the population. Findings Between Aug 10, 2011, and Jan 30, 2015, data were collected for the Rakai Community Cohort Study. 25 882 individuals participated, including an estimated 75·7% of the lakeside population and 16·2% of the inland population in the Rakai region of Uganda. 5142 participants were HIV-positive (2703 [13·7%] in inland and 2439 [40·1%] in fishing communities). 3878 (75·4%) people who were HIV-positive did not report antiretroviral therapy use, of whom 2652 (68·4%) had virus deep-sequenced at sufficient quality for phylogenetic analysis. 446 transmission networks were reconstructed, including 293 linked pairs with inferred direction of transmission. Adjusting for incomplete sampling, an estimated 5·7% (95% credibility interval 4·4–7·3) of transmissions occurred within lakeside areas, 89·2% (86·0–91·8) within inland areas, 1·3% (0·6–2·6) from lakeside to inland areas, and 3·7% (2·3–5·8) from inland to lakeside areas. Interpretation Cross-community HIV transmissions between Lake Victoria hotspots and surrounding inland populations are infrequent and when they occur, virus more commonly flows into rather than out of hotspots. This result suggests that targeted interventions to these hotspots will not alone control the epidemic in inland populations, where most transmissions occur. Thus, geographical targeting of high prevalence areas might not be effective for broader epidemic control depending on underlying epidemic dynamics. Funding The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the Division of Intramural Research of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the World Bank, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Johns Hopkins University Center for AIDS Research, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    The safety and acceptance of the PrePex device for non-surgical adult male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. A non-randomized observational study.

    No full text
    To assess the safety and acceptance of the PrePex device for medical male circumcision (MMC) in rural Uganda.In an observational study, HIV-uninfected, uncircumcised men aged 18 and older who requested elective MMC were informed about the PrePex and dorsal slit methods and offered a free choice of their preferred procedure. 100 men received PrePex to assess preliminary safety (aim 1). An additional 329 men, 250 chose PrePex and 79 chose Dorsal slit, were enrolled following approval by the Safety Monitoring Committee (aim 2). Men were followed up at 7 days to assess adverse events (AEs) and to remove the PrePex device. Wound healing was assessed at 4 weeks, with subsequent weekly follow up until completed healing.The PrePex device was contraindicated in 5.7% of men due to a tight prepuce or phimosis/adhesions. Among 429 enrolled men 350 (82.0%) got the PrePex device and 79 (18.0%) the dorsal slit procedure. 250 of 329 men (76.0%) who were invited to choose between the 2 procedures chose Prepex. There were 9 AEs (2.6%) with the PrePex, of which 5 (1.4%) were severe complications, 4 due to patient self-removal of the device leading to edema and urinary obstruction requiring emergency surgical circumcision, and one due to wound dehiscence following device removal. 71.8% of men reported an unpleasant odor prior to PrePex removal. Cumulative rates of completed wound healing with the PrePex were 56.7% at week 4, 84.8% week 5, 97.6% week 6 and 98.6% week 7, compared to 98.7% at week 4 with dorsal slit (p<0.0001).The PrePex device was well accepted, but healing was slower than with dorsal slit surgery. Severe complications, primarily following PrePex self-removal, required rapid access to emergency surgical facilities. The need to return for removal and delayed healing may increase Program cost and client burden

    Figure 2 shows photographs of selected adverse events with the PrePex device.

    No full text
    <p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0100008#pone-0100008-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2a</a>, device self removal with edema and superficial ulceration on day 2 post placement. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0100008#pone-0100008-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2b</a>, device self removal with edema on day 1 post placement. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0100008#pone-0100008-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2C</a>, wound dehiscence on day 17 post device placement. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0100008#pone-0100008-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2d</a>, self removal of the device with edema and necrosis on day 9.</p

    Quantifying HIV transmission flow between high-prevalence hotspots and surrounding communities: a population-based study in Rakai, Uganda

    No full text
    International audienceBackground: International and global organisations advocate targeting interventions to areas of high HIV prevalence (ie, hotspots). To better understand the potential benefits of geo-targeted control, we assessed the extent to which HIV hotspots along Lake Victoria sustain transmission in neighbouring populations in south-central Uganda.Methods: We did a population-based survey in Rakai, Uganda, using data from the Rakai Community Cohort Study. The study surveyed all individuals aged 15-49 years in four high-prevalence Lake Victoria fishing communities and 36 neighbouring inland communities. Viral RNA was deep sequenced from participants infected with HIV who were antiretroviral therapy-naive during the observation period. Phylogenetic analysis was used to infer partial HIV transmission networks, including direction of transmission. Reconstructed networks were interpreted through data for current residence and migration history. HIV transmission flows within and between high-prevalence and low-prevalence areas were quantified adjusting for incomplete sampling of the population.Findings: Between Aug 10, 2011, and Jan 30, 2015, data were collected for the Rakai Community Cohort Study. 25 882 individuals participated, including an estimated 75·7% of the lakeside population and 16·2% of the inland population in the Rakai region of Uganda. 5142 participants were HIV-positive (2703 [13·7%] in inland and 2439 [40·1%] in fishing communities). 3878 (75·4%) people who were HIV-positive did not report antiretroviral therapy use, of whom 2652 (68·4%) had virus deep-sequenced at sufficient quality for phylogenetic analysis. 446 transmission networks were reconstructed, including 293 linked pairs with inferred direction of transmission. Adjusting for incomplete sampling, an estimated 5·7% (95% credibility interval 4·4-7·3) of transmissions occurred within lakeside areas, 89·2% (86·0-91·8) within inland areas, 1·3% (0·6-2·6) from lakeside to inland areas, and 3·7% (2·3-5·8) from inland to lakeside areas.Interpretation: Cross-community HIV transmissions between Lake Victoria hotspots and surrounding inland populations are infrequent and when they occur, virus more commonly flows into rather than out of hotspots. This result suggests that targeted interventions to these hotspots will not alone control the epidemic in inland populations, where most transmissions occur. Thus, geographical targeting of high prevalence areas might not be effective for broader epidemic control depending on underlying epidemic dynamics.Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the Division of Intramural Research of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the World Bank, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Johns Hopkins University Center for AIDS Research, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    corecore