Partners of people on ART - a New Evaluation of the risks (The PARTNER study): design and methods

Matti A Ristola on työryhmän The PARTNER study group jäsenPeer reviewe

Providing Universal Access While Avoiding Antiretroviral Resistance: Ethical Tensions in HIV Treatment

The provision of effective antiretroviral therapy is an ethical imperative, and global access to antiretroviral drugs is an important aspect of this. The other less recognised aspect of effective HIV management is in ensuring that HIV does not become resistant to the drugs used in treatment (and increasingly also in prevention), as multi-drug resistant HIV poses a major threat to the sustainability of current responses to HIV control. In resource-constrained environments, the rapid scale up of access to life-saving anti-HIV treatment was achieved using a public health approach that standardised antiretroviral regimens, minimised laboratory monitoring, and devolved responsibilities from clinicians where necessary. In recent years demand for antiretroviral treatment has increased due to new understandings of the clinical importance of early treatment, but global investment has declined. Exponential growth of the population using antiretrovirals without careful monitoring increases the risk of significant antiretroviral drug resistance. In this chapter, I consider the example of single-drug interventions to prevent parent-to-child HIV transmission, and how the implementation of that strategy increased health risks for mothers. I argue that while global antiretroviral scale up must continue, laboratory monitoring at individual and national levels needs to improve to maintain treatment effectiveness, and protocols for moving people from failing regimens need to be strengthened

Risk of HIV transmission through condomless sex in serodifferent gay couples with the HIV-positive partner taking suppressive antiretroviral therapy (PARTNER): final results of a multicentre, prospective, observational study

Background The level of evidence for HIV transmission risk through condomless sex in serodifferent gay couples with the HIV-positive partner taking virally suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART) is limited compared with the evidence available for transmission risk in heterosexual couples. The aim of the second phase of the PARTNER study (PARTNER2) was to provide precise estimates of transmission risk in gay serodifferent partnerships. Methods The PARTNER study was a prospective observational study done at 75 sites in 14 European countries. The first phase of the study (PARTNER1; Sept 15, 2010, to May 31, 2014) recruited and followed up both heterosexual and gay serodifferent couples (HIV-positive partner taking suppressive ART) who reported condomless sex, whereas the PARTNER2 extension (to April 30, 2018) recruited and followed up gay couples only. At study visits, data collection included sexual behaviour questionnaires, HIV testing (HIV-negative partner), and HIV-1 viral load testing (HIV-positive partner). If a seroconversion occurred in the HIV-negative partner, anonymised phylogenetic analysis was done to compare HIV-1 pol and env sequences in both partners to identify linked transmissions. Couple-years of follow-up were eligible for inclusion if condomless sex was reported, use of pre-exposure prophylaxis or post-exposure prophylaxis was not reported by the HIV-negative partner, and the HIV-positive partner was virally suppressed (plasma HIV-1 RNA <200 copies per mL) at the most recent visit (within the past year). Incidence rate of HIV transmission was calculated as the number of phylogenetically linked HIV infections that occurred during eligible couple-years of follow-up divided by eligible couple-years of follow-up. Two-sided 95% CIs for the incidence rate of transmission were calculated using exact Poisson methods. Findings Between Sept 15, 2010, and July 31, 2017, 972 gay couples were enrolled, of which 782 provided 1593 eligible couple-years of follow-up with a median follow-up of 2·0 years (IQR 1·1–3·5). At baseline, median age for HIV-positive partners was 40 years (IQR 33–46) and couples reported condomless sex for a median of 1·0 years (IQR 0·4–2·9). During eligible couple-years of follow-up, couples reported condomless anal sex a total of 76 088 times. 288 (37%) of 777 HIV-negative men reported condomless sex with other partners. 15 new HIV infections occurred during eligible couple-years of follow-up, but none were phylogenetically linked within-couple transmissions, resulting in an HIV transmission rate of zero (upper 95% CI 0·23 per 100 couple-years of follow-up). Interpretation Our results provide a similar level of evidence on viral suppression and HIV transmission risk for gay men to that previously generated for heterosexual couples and suggest that the risk of HIV transmission in gay couples through condomless sex when HIV viral load is suppressed is effectively zero. Our findings support the message of the U=U (undetectable equals untransmittable) campaign, and the benefits of early testing and treatment for HIV

Predicting Partner HIV Testing and Counseling Following a Partner Notification Intervention

Provider-assisted methods of partner notification increase testing and counseling among sexual partners of patients diagnosed with HIV, however they are resource-intensive. The sexual partners of individuals enrolled in a clinical trial comparing different methods of HIV partner notification were analyzed to identify who was unlikely to seek testing on their own. Unconditional logistic regression was used to identify partnership characteristics, which were assigned a score based on their coefficient in the final model, and a risk score was calculated for each participant. The risk score included male partner sex, relationship duration 6–24 months, and index education > primary. A risk score of ≥ 2 had a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 78% in identifying partners unlikely to seek testing on their own. A risk score to target partner notification can reduce the resources required to locate all partners in the community while increasing the testing yield compared to patient-referral