Summary
Background
The level of proof for HIV transmission risk thru condomless intercourse in serodifferent ecstatic couples with the HIV-clear companion taking virally suppressive antiretroviral remedy (ART) is diminutive compared with the proof available for transmission risk in heterosexual couples. The goal of the 2nd part of the PARTNER see (PARTNER2) became once to provide honest estimates of transmission risk in ecstatic serodifferent partnerships.
Programs
The PARTNER see became once a most likely observational see performed at 75 internet sites in 14 European worldwide locations. The famous part of the see (PARTNER1; Sept 15, 2010, to Would perchance perchance 31, 2014) recruited and adopted up each heterosexual and ecstatic serodifferent couples (HIV-clear companion taking suppressive ART) who reported condomless intercourse, whereas the PARTNER2 extension (to April 30, 2018) recruited and adopted up ecstatic couples totally. At see visits, files collection incorporated sexual behaviour questionnaires, HIV checking out (HIV-opposed companion), and HIV-1 viral load checking out (HIV-clear companion). If a seroconversion came about in the HIV-opposed companion, anonymised phylogenetic evaluation became once performed to evaluate HIV-1 pol and env sequences in each partners to title linked transmissions. Couple-years of notice-up were eligible for inclusion if condomless intercourse became once reported, use of pre-publicity prophylaxis or post-publicity prophylaxis became once not reported by the HIV-opposed companion, and the HIV-clear companion became once virally suppressed (plasma HIV-1 RNA <200 copies per mL) at essentially the most cowl discuss over with (all over the previous year). Incidence price of HIV transmission became once calculated as the collection of phylogenetically linked HIV infections that came about at some level of eligible couple-years of notice-up divided by eligible couple-years of notice-up. Two-sided 95% CIs for the incidence price of transmission were calculated the use of precise Poisson programs.
Findings
Between Sept 15, 2010, and July 31, 2017, 972 ecstatic couples were enrolled, of which 782 supplied 1593 eligible couple-years of notice-up with a median notice-up of 2·0 years (IQR 1·1–3·5). At baseline, median age for HIV-clear partners became once 40 years (IQR 33–46) and couples reported condomless intercourse for a median of 1·0 years (IQR 0·4–2·9). For the length of eligible couple-years of notice-up, couples reported condomless anal intercourse a complete of 76 088 times. 288 (37%) of 777 HIV-opposed men reported condomless intercourse with other partners. 15 fresh HIV infections came about at some level of eligible couple-years of notice-up, but none were phylogenetically linked within-couple transmissions, ensuing in an HIV transmission price of zero (better 95% CI 0·23 per 100 couple-years of notice-up).
Interpretation
Our results present a identical level of proof on viral suppression and HIV transmission risk for ecstatic men to that previously generated for heterosexual couples and suggest that the risk of HIV transmission in ecstatic couples thru condomless intercourse when HIV viral load is suppressed is effectively zero. Our findings make stronger the message of the U=U (undetectable equals untransmittable) marketing campaign, and the advantages of early checking out and treatment for HIV.
Funding
Nationwide Institute for Nicely being Study.
Introduction
Early proof of a strong hyperlink between the HIV viral load of an HIV-clear companion and the risk of transmission to an HIV-opposed companion got right here from observational evaluate in serodifferent heterosexual couples.
,
,
,
,
Proof from a randomised see of risk of HIV transmission in the context of virally suppressive antiretroviral remedy (ART) in heterosexual couples became once supplied by the HPTN 052 trial,
which reported a 96% bargain in linked transmissions in couples assigned to early (immediate) ART compared with couples assigned to delayed remedy. Persisted notice-up in HPTN 052 from 2011 to 2016, finally contributors were supplied ART, showed sturdiness of the scheme of ART; alternatively, totally 2% of couples were men who occupy intercourse with men (MSM).
Self-reported condom use became once additionally high; contributors reported not the use of condoms for a complete of totally 63·4 couple-years of notice-up.
Proof earlier than this see
To verify outdated proof on the scheme of antiretroviral remedy (ART) on risk of HIV transmission, we searched PubMed for articles printed in English from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 7, 2018, the use of the MeSH terms “HIV an infection” and “transmission” and “antiretroviral remedy” or “ART” and “men who occupy intercourse with men” or “ecstatic or heterosexual” or “serodiscordant” or “serodifferent”. Old evaluate, including one randomised controlled trial and a lot of observational evaluate, supplied estimates of risk of HIV transmission thru sexual intercourse in the context of virally suppressive ART. The majority of the proof became once in heterosexual serodifferent couples and variable ranges of condom use were reported in loads of evaluate. Some proof on transmission risk in ecstatic men became once supplied in the first part of the PARTNER see and in the Opposites Entice see, but notice-up in these evaluate became once not ample to exclude a famous better limit of risk around the see estimates of zero transmissions in ecstatic men.
Added worth of this see
The 2nd part of the PARTNER see fills the hole in the proof atrocious for risk of HIV transmission in serodifferent ecstatic couples in which the HIV-clear companion is on virally suppressive ART and condoms have to not musty. By the end of notice-up, 15 fresh HIV infections had came about at some level of eligible couple-years of notice-up, but none were phylogenetically linked within-couple transmissions. Thus, the linked HIV transmission price at some level of eligible couple-years became once zero, no matter 76 000 stories of condomless anal intercourse, with a low better 95% CI limit of 0·23 per 100 couple-years of notice-up. Our findings present a level of proof on viral suppression and HIV transmission risk thru condomless intercourse for ecstatic men equivalent to that already reported for heterosexual couples.
Implications of your complete available proof
The outcomes from the PARTNER evaluate to boot to proof from other evaluate in serodifferent couples demonstrate that the risk of transmission of HIV thru condomless intercourse in the context of virally suppressive ART is effectively zero for every ecstatic men and heterosexual couples. These results make stronger the U=U (undetectable equals untransmittable) message, to boot to promoting the advantages of early checking out and treatment.
The famous part of the PARTNER see (PARTNER1) estimated the dangers for various kinds of intercourse and in a broader population. The see reported no linked transmissions in 888 serodifferent couples (548 heterosexual and 340 ecstatic couples) who reported condomless penetrative intercourse at some level of 1238 couple-years of notice-up when the HIV-clear companion became once on virally suppressive ART.
PARTNER1 reported on 439 couple-years of notice-up in serodifferent ecstatic couples, with zero transmissions reported. Nonetheless, attributable to the decrease collection of couple-years of notice-up collected for ecstatic couples than for heterosexual couples, the better 95% CI limit for the transmission price for ecstatic men became once quite high (0·84 per 100 couple-years of notice-up), almost double that for heterosexual couples (0·46 per 100 couple-years of notice-up). These results equated to an better limit of risk of 1 an infection per 119 couple-years of notice-up for ecstatic couples compared with one an infection per 217 couple-years of notice-up for heterosexual couples and became once arguably inadequate to provide the level of proof required to make stronger ART as a in point of fact effective HIV prevention intervention in MSM.
The Opposites Entice observational see
additionally reported zero cases of HIV transmission in MSM couples at some level of 232 couple-years of notice-up when condomless anal intercourse became once reported, the HIV-clear companion became once virally suppressed, and the HIV-opposed companion did not use pre-publicity prophylaxis (PrEP), with a pretty high better 95% CI limit of 1·59 per 100 couple-years of notice-up for transmission price.
The famous goal of the 2nd part of the PARTNER see (PARTNER2) became once to invent a identical level of proof for transmission risk thru condomless anal intercourse between men with suppressive ART (defined as HIV-1 RNA viral load <200 copies per mL) to that generated for heterosexual couples in PARTNER1.
Programs
Be taught about invent and contributors
The PARTNER see became once an observational multicentre see of serodifferent couples who earlier than enrolment were not continuously the use of condoms, and in which the HIV-clear companion became once on ART. Share 1 of the see recruited and adopted up each heterosexual and ecstatic serodifferent couples from Sept 15, 2010, to Would perchance perchance 31, 2014.
From June 1, 2014, to July 31, 2017, the 2nd part of the see recruited ecstatic male serodifferent couples totally. The programs for the PARTNER see and results of the first part had been printed previously.
,
From Sept 15, 2010, to July 31, 2017, we recruited serodifferent ecstatic male couples from 75 scientific internet sites in 14 European worldwide locations. Taking part sanatorium workers requested HIV-clear sufferers on ART if they had fresh condomless intercourse with an HIV-opposed companion and if they wished to utilize part in a transmission see. Serodifferent couples (HIV-clear men on ART with their HIV-opposed male companion) were eligible to utilize part if each partners were broken-down 18 years or older; the partners reported having penetrative intercourse with every other without condoms in the month earlier than enrolment; the HIV-clear companion anticipated to remain on ART; the partners anticipated to occupy intercourse collectively again in the upcoming months; and each partners agreed to utilize part. Companions signed separate steered consent forms, which incorporated companion identification by title. Put collectively-up ended on April 30, 2018. Put collectively-up became once stopped if the partnership ended, the couple moved away, or if both companion withdrew consent, but not for adjustments in use of condoms or ART.
The protocol,
all steered consent forms, and participant files affords were submitted to and permitted by the ethics committee (institutional overview board [IRB] or self sustaining ethics committee [IEC]) at every scientific set. Ethics approval became once received in-country for all internet sites all in favour of the see. Furthermore, any amendments to the see protocol were submitted and permitted by every set’s ethics committee (IRB or IEC).
Procedures
Be taught about procedures had been described previously.
Data were mild at baseline after which every 4–6 months at some level of see visits. Detailed files became once received at baseline and every notice-up discuss over with thru self-performed questionnaires on sociodemographics; self-reported adherence to ART; frequency and kind of sexual intercourse between the partners (since closing discuss over with); symptoms and diagnoses of different sexually transmitted infections (STIs); use of PrEP or post-publicity prophylaxis (PEP); and injection drug use. HIV-opposed partners were requested if they had condomless intercourse with anyone besides their HIV-clear companion in the see since their closing discuss over with and HIV serostatus of different partners if identified.
For the HIV-clear companion, ART regimen, CD4 cell rely, and fresh and fresh plasma HIV-1 RNA load were recorded on a scientific case chronicle produce at baseline and at every discuss over with. The HIV-opposed companion became once requested to verify for HIV every 6–12 months; a blended HIV antigen–antibody take a look at became once prompt to enlarge diagnostic sensitivity in early an infection. Plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load became once measured in the HIV-clear companion in response to routine care every 6–12 months the use of the native diagnostic laboratory. Results were incorporated in the case chronicle forms and submitted after every companion discuss over with by the see crew to the see centre.
If an HIV-opposed companion grew to develop into HIV-clear, HIV-1
pol
and
env
sequences were received from the seroconverted companion’s HIV-1 RNA recovered from plasma and from the HIV-clear companion on virally suppressive ART’s cellular HIV-1 DNA recovered from peripheral blood mononuclear cells.
Pol
and
env
sequences were generated by Sanger sequencing (on a ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer, Thermo Fisher, Warrington, UK)
complemented by deep sequencing of plasma HIV-1 RNA by Illumina (on a MiSeq, Illumina, Essex, UK) in a subset with available plasma samples.
All sequencing checking out became once performed on the University of Liverpool (Liverpool, UK). Maximum likelihood and Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo inferences and their relevant statistical make stronger were determined with RAxML-HCP2 version 8 and MrBayes version 3.2.6, respectively, as previously described.
,
Statistical evaluation
The famous evaluation became once estimation of the incidence price of HIV transmission thru condomless anal intercourse, calculated as the collection of phylogenetically linked HIV infections (ie, transmission from the HIV-clear see index companion) that came about at some level of eligible couple-years of notice-up divided by eligible couple-years of notice-up. Couple-years of notice-up were intervals of time defined by HIV assessments and corresponding questionnaires on sexual behaviour in the HIV-opposed companion. These couple-years were eligible for inclusion in the evaluation for this see if couples had condomless intercourse at some level of the duration (reported on the end of the time duration by the HIV-opposed companion, or by the HIV-clear companion if the HIV-opposed companion did not full the build a query to); PEP or PrEP became once not reported by the HIV-opposed companion at some level of the duration; essentially the most cowl plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load in the HIV-clear companion became once measured to be not up to 200 copies per mL and all over the previous 12 months at all functions measured in the duration; and notice-up came about earlier than April 30, 2018 (the censoring date). Couple-years of notice-up may perchance very well be ineligible for one or more causes; the collection of famous explanation for ineligibility became once prioritised in the next converse: (1) PEP or PrEP musty; (2) HIV-opposed companion (or the HIV-clear companion if the HIV-opposed companion did not reply) reported no condomless intercourse; (3) most cowl viral load of HIV-clear companion more than 200 copies per mL; (4) files on sexual behaviour missing; (5) no viral load available in the previous year for each day in the time duration; and (6) no HIV take a look at from the HIV-opposed companion on the end of the time duration or later in time. Two-sided 95% CIs for the incidence price of transmission were calculated the use of precise Poisson programs. Missing files were not imputed and the evaluation became once performed totally on the available files. Data were analysed the use of SAS version 9.4.
By pattern size calculation, the PARTNER2 see became once designed to evaluate whether or not the risk of transmission in the context of virally suppressive ART became once below an acceptably low level, defined as one an infection per 500 couple-years of notice-up, equivalent to an better limit for the two-sided 95% CI of the price of within-couple HIV transmission of 0·2 per 100 couple-years of notice-up. In the absence of linked infections, we determined that we wished 1770 eligible couple-years of notice-up to construct such an better limit of the two-sided 95% CI. On the premise of findings from PARTNER1, we deliberate to recruit 450 couples over 27 months in PARTNER2. Assuming a retention price of 85%, this may occupy allowed us to glean 2082 couple-years of notice-up thru PARTNER1 and PARTNER2, of which 85% were predicted to be eligible (fixed with duration in-between results
) for the principle evaluation.
Role of the funding provide
The funders of the see had no position in see invent, files collection, files evaluation, files interpretation, or writing of the chronicle. The corresponding creator had elephantine receive admission to to your complete files in the see and had final accountability for the resolution to post for e-newsletter.
Results
Between Sept 15, 2010, and July 31, 2017, 972 ecstatic couples were recruited (477 couples at some level of PARTNER1). By the end of notice-up on April 30, 2018, a complete of 2072 couple-years of notice-up had been accrued (556 couple-years of notice-up at some level of PARTNER1), with an estimated dropout price of 25 per 100 couple-years of notice-up. Reasons for chucking up the sponge of the see were the couple broke up (213 [43%] of 499 couples), one or each partners moved away (33 [7%]), consent became once withdrawn (54 [11%]), the 2-year see consent expired (21 [4%]), or the couple became once no longer eligible (ten [2%]). The explanation for chucking up the sponge of the see became once not available for 168 (34%) couples. 479 couple-years of notice-up were ineligible for inclusion in the evaluation for the next causes: no condomless intercourse reported (153 [32%] of 479 couple-years of notice-up); use of PEP or PrEP (115 [24%]); HIV viral load files not available (86 [18%]); missing files on whether or not condomless intercourse became once reported (91 [19%]); viral load in the HIV-clear companion more than 200 copies per mL (19 [4%]); or no HIV take a look at available in the HIV-opposed companion (15 [3%]).
1593 (77%) couple-years of notice-up were eligible and contributed by 782 couples, with 439 couple-years of notice-up contributed by 340 couples at some level of PARTNER1. Except otherwise acknowledged, the next results give consideration to the 782 couples who supplied eligible couple-years of notice-up. Median eligible years of notice-up per couple became once 2·0 years (IQR 1·1–3·5). 1523 (96%) of the eligible couple-years of notice-up were at some level of intervals in which essentially the most cowl measure of plasma HIV-1 RNA in the HIV-clear companion became once not up to 50 copies per mL; the ideal 70 (4%) were at some level of intervals in which essentially the most cowl measure became once between 50 and 200 copies per mL.
Baseline characteristics of the contributors who contributed to eligible couple-years of notice-up are confirmed in
. Median age became once 38 years (IQR 31–45) in HIV-opposed contributors and 40 years (33–46) in HIV-clear partners. Three trans men were incorporated, one HIV opposed and two HIV clear. 19 (2%) of 782 HIV-clear and 33 (4%) of 782 HIV-opposed men reported that they were bisexual. HIV-opposed men reported having condomless intercourse with their HIV-clear partners for a median 1·0 years (IQR 0·4–2·9) earlier than see enrolment.
Desk 1Baseline characteristics of couples eligible for the principle evaluation
Data are median (IQR) or n/N (%). NA=not acceptable. ART=antiretroviral remedy. Denominators for percentages are all contributors in that workers who contributed to eligible couple-years of notice-up and supplied a response to that build a query to (missing files are excluded).
At baseline, HIV-clear partners had been on ART for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 1·8–9·3). Self-reported adherence to ART became once high, with 739 (98%) of 753 HIV-clear partners reporting adherence of 90% or more at see entry. 698 [93%] of 747 HIV-clear partners accurately self-reported at baseline whether or not their viral load became once undetectable or not. This became once an underestimate by the HIV-clear contributors: 97% had undetectable viral load (<50 copies per mL) and 99% had viral load of not up to 200 copies per mL. 730 [93%] of 781 HIV-clear partners had a CD4 rely of more than 350 cells per μL at baseline.
For the length of all couple-years of notice-up, very few (37 [5%] of 779) of the HIV-clear partners reported that they left out ART for more than four consecutive days. For 1461 (92%) of 1593 eligible couple-years of notice-up, adherence became once more than 90% (not reported for 96 [6%] couple-years of notice-up) in response to the HIV-clear companion. Most HIV-clear partners were on ART regimens containing three or more medicine (1470 [92%] couple-years of notice-up), with fewer HIV-clear partners taking regimens containing two medicine (73 [5%] couple-years of notice-up), or ART monotherapy (34 [2%] couple-years of notice-up). For the ideal 1% (16 couple-years of notice-up), the HIV-clear partners were both in a blinded scientific trial workers or the ART regimen became once unknown. For a quarter (396 [25%]) of eligible couple-years of notice-up, the HIV-clear partners were taking protease-inhibitor essentially based regimens, for 47% (754 couple-years of notice-up) they were taking non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-essentially based regimens, for 26% (408 couple-years of notice-up) they were taking integrase inhibitors, and for the ideal 2% (35 couple-years of notice-up) they were taking other or not reported regimens.
For the length of notice-up (
), 185 (24%) of 779 HIV-opposed men and 214 (27%) of 779 HIV-clear men reported an STI since their closing discuss over with. Couples reported having condomless intercourse 6090 times at some level of eligible intervals when an STI became once cowl. 288 (37%) of 777 HIV-opposed partners reported condomless intercourse with other partners. Few HIV-opposed partners (28 [4%] of 775) reported injecting medicine at some level of notice-up. In complete, couples reported having condomless anal intercourse roughly 76 088 times at some level of eligible couple-years of notice-up (
). The median collection of times couples had condomless intercourse became once 43 times per year (IQR 19–75). Condomless intercourse became once reported 2–10 times per 4-month duration in 657 (41%) of 1593 eligible couple-years of notice-up, 21–40 times per 4-month duration in 408 (26%) eligible couple-years of notice-up, and between 11 and 20 times per 4-month duration in 332 (21%) eligible couple-years of notice-up (
).
Desk 2Characteristics at some level of all notice-up of couples eligible for the principle evaluation
Data are median (IQR) or n/N (%), except othewise specified. Denominators for percentages are all contributors in that workers who contributed to eligible couple-years of notice-up and supplied a response to that build a query to (missing files are excluded), except otherwise specified. Missing files have to not up to 1% for all variables. STIs=sexually transmitted infections. LGV=lymphogranuloma venereum. NA=not acceptable. CYFU=couple-years of notice-up. ART=antiretroviral remedy.
Resolve 1Price of within-couple HIV transmission thru condomless intercourse in response to sexual behaviour reported by the HIV-opposed companion
STI=sexually transmitted an infection. NA=not acceptable. *Estimated the use of the exact Poisson manner. †Numerator is the collection of HIV-opposed men all over the eligible couples ever reporting that particular sexual act and denominator is the workers-particular collection of HIV-opposed contributors who contributed eligible couple-years of notice-up. ‡Refers to STIs (excluding HIV) self-reported by the HIV-opposed companion.
reveals files on incidence of the sorts of condomless penetrative intercourse (with the HIV-clear companion) reported by the HIV-opposed companion. By definition, couples contributing eligible couple-years of notice-up reported anal intercourse without condoms at some level of notice-up. Total, 577 (75%) of 773 HIV-opposed partners reported that they had receptive anal intercourse without ejaculation at some level of notice-up, 436 (56%) of 776 reported receptive anal intercourse with their companion ejaculating within, and 709 (91%) of 777 reported insertive anal intercourse.
15 of the on the origin HIV-opposed partners grew to develop into HIV-1 clear at some level of eligible notice-up, but there had been no within-couple phylogenetically linked transmissions. 13 of the 15 other folks supplied files about their presumed provide of HIV an infection, of whom ten (77%) reported fresh condomless intercourse with men besides their see companion. Samples mild from the two partners of each of these 15 couples for sequencing were a median of 0 months apart (IQR 0·0–5·9). Viral sequences were recovered successfully from all couples (15 [100%] of 15 couples for
pol
genes and 13 (87%) of 15 for
env
genes). All fresh infections were phylogenetically unrelated to the on the origin HIV-clear companion’s virus (
and
). Viral haplotypes derived from deep sequencing files of plasma samples from HIV-opposed partners from 5 (33%) of the 15 couples confirmed the inability of linkage, since all viral haplotypes in the seroconverter samples were phylogenetically unrelated to the virus from their partners. All 15 partners who were the on the origin HIV-clear companion had subtype B an infection in response to
pol
gene subtyping; six of the 15 seroconverting partners bought non-B infections (subtypes C, A1, CRF29_BF, CRF60_BC, and two partners bought CRF14_BG infections, respectively).
Resolve 2Phylogenetic tree of pol and env sequences from 9 couples with subtype B an infection
Bayesian Markov Chain Monte-Carlo inference (012313+I+G+F). Branch size is proportional to the genetic distance and line weight is proportional to the posterior probability. (A) Companions’ (on the origin HIV-clear partners and seroconverters) sequences are in blue and stumbled on phylogenetically unlinked to viruses recovered from their putative transmitters, with a median pairwise genetic distance of 0·069 (IQR 0·057–0·076) and pairwise genetic distances consistently bigger than 0·040. Certain alter sequences comprised replicate sequences from see partners and sequences from confirmed transmission pairs received in a separate see.
The clear alter sequences demonstrate pairwise genetic distance 0·004 (IQR <0·000 to 0·007) and continuously carefully linked on monophyletic clusters with posterior probabilities more than 0·98 (red and orange clusters in the phylogenetic tree). Withhold an eye on sequences comprised the ten closest sequences identified thru BLAST searches of GenBank. (B) Companions' (on the origin HIV-clear partners and seroconverters) sequences are in blue and stumbled on phylogenetically unlinked to viruses recovered from their putative transmitters, with a median pairwise genetic distance of 0·14 (IQR 0·125–0·169). Certain alter sequences comprised replicate sequences from see partners (in red). The clear alter sequences demonstrate pairwise genetic distance 0·001 (IQR <0·001 to 0·014) and continuously linked on monophyletic clusters with posterior probabilities equal to 1·00 (red clusters in the phylogenetic tree). Withhold an eye on sequences comprised the ten closest sequences identified thru BLAST searches of GenBank.
With out a linked transmissions, the estimated price for transmission thru condomless anal intercourse when the clear companion on ART had HIV viral load not up to 200 copies per mL became once zero, with an better 95% CI limit of 0·23 per 100 couple-years of notice-up (such as at least one transmission per 435 years of condomless intercourse).
stories the rates of within-couple HIV transmission per 100 eligible couple-years of notice-up by sexual behaviour reported by the HIV-opposed companion. For receptive anal intercourse with ejaculation the better 95% CI limit became once 0·57 per 100 couple-years of notice-up (such as at least one transmission per 175 years of condomless intercourse).
affords the better bounds of the 95% CI around the estimate of zero transmissions for ecstatic men and heterosexual couples accomplished by the end of PARTNER1
and for ecstatic men by the end of PARTNER2.
and PARTNER2
There had been fewer eligible couple-years of notice-up at some level of intervals when the HIV-clear companion (135 couple-years of notice-up) or the HIV-opposed companion (116 couple-years of notice-up) reported an STI, but no linked transmissions were reported. The better 95% CI limit to the transmission estimate for intervals with an STI in the HIV-opposed companion became once 3·17 per 100 couple-years of notice-up. Easiest 8 couple-years of notice-up of condomless intercourse were reported when the HIV-clear companion became once in the first 6 months of taking ART.
Six extra seroconversions in HIV-opposed partners took put originate air eligible couple-years of notice-up. Reasons for the ineligibility of the couple-years in which these seroconversions came about were no questionnaire containing sexual behaviour on the end of the duration by the HIV-opposed or HIV-clear companion (n=3); HIV-opposed companion reported no condomless intercourse with the HIV-clear companion (n=1); use of PEP reported at some level of the duration when the infections came about (n=1); and no HIV viral load size for the HIV-clear companion in the previous year (n=1). The six newly infected partners were closing seen 2 months, 6 months (n=2), 9 months, 13 months, and 16 months earlier than seroconversion became once recorded, respectively. Phylogenetic evaluation showed that these transmissions were not linked to the HIV-clear companion on virally suppressive ART.
19·3 couple-years of notice-up were not eligible attributable to viral load in the HIV-clear companion being increased than 200 copies per mL for on the least 1 day at some level of the duration (fluctuate 202–170 000 copies per mL), but all other requirements were met. For the length of couple-years of notice-up with viral load increased than 200 copies per mL, other folks reported having condomless intercourse a complete of 810 times with zero phylogenetically linked transmissions. For the bulk of for the time being, essentially the most cowl viral load in the HIV-clear companion became once not up to 200 copies per mL (12·3 couple-years of notice-up, estimated 513 intercourse acts), for 4·5 couple-years of notice-up essentially the most cowl viral load became once between 200 and 1000 copies per mL (estimated 180 intercourse acts), and totally for a minority of days essentially the most cowl viral load became once increased than 100 000 copies per mL (0·23 couple-years of notice-up, estimated 31 intercourse acts).
Discussion
Our findings present conclusive proof that the risk of HIV transmission thru anal intercourse when HIV viral load is suppressed is effectively zero. Among the many 782 serodifferent ecstatic couples adopted for nearly 1600 eligible couple-years of notice-up, which incorporated more than 76 000 stories of condomless intercourse, we stumbled on zero cases of within-couple HIV transmission. In the absence of ART, on the premise of the frequency and kind of intercourse, for receptive condomless anal intercourse acts on my own roughly 472 transmissions (95% CI 83–714) would had been anticipated.
Our results give equivalence of proof for ecstatic men as for heterosexual couples and demonstrate that the risk of HIV transmission when HIV viral load is suppressed is effectively zero for every anal and vaginal intercourse.
For ecstatic couples on the end of PARTNER1, the price of within-couple transmission became once zero, but this estimate became once less honest than that for heterosexual couples attributable to the decrease collection of couple-years of notice-up accrued (0·84 per 100 couple-years of notice-up, such as at least one transmission per 119 years of condomless intercourse in ecstatic couples
vs
0·46 per 100 couple-years of notice-up, or one an infection per 217 years of condomless intercourse in heterosexual couples).
By extending the see in PARTNER2 and rising the couple-years of notice-up collected in ecstatic men, the better sure of the 95% CI around the estimate of zero transmissions became once diminished compared with that reported by the end of PARTNER1. The better limit of the 95% CI is now 0·23 for anal intercourse, which is such as at least one transmission per 435 years of condomless intercourse, such that the proof for ecstatic men is now stronger than that for heterosexual couples in PARTNER1, thus reaching the goal of the PARTNER2 see.
Unlike other evaluate on HIV transmission, we totally recruited couples that had already chosen to not make use of condoms and in the principle evaluation we totally incorporated intervals when condoms were not musty and with no need of PrEP or PEP by the HIV-opposed companion. We stumbled on no linked transmissions across all kinds of sexual behaviour and at some level of intervals when the HIV-clear or HIV-opposed companion reported an STI. A quarter of HIV-clear and HIV-opposed partners reported having an STI at some level of notice-up, and even supposing there had been fewer couple-years of notice-up at some level of these intervals (116 couple-years of notice-up), no linked transmissions came about. Equivalent to our findings, no HIV transmissions came about at some level of intervals in which STIs were reported (21 couple-years of notice-up) in the Opposites Entice see.
We additionally reported on 19 couple-years of notice-up that were not eligible for inclusion in the principle evaluation for the explanation that HIV viral load of the HIV-clear companion became once increased than 200 copies per mL, but all other requirements for eligibility were met. For the length of this time, no linked transmissions came about no matter couples having intercourse 810 times without condoms.
One limitation of the see became once that the bulk couples had been having intercourse without condoms for more than 6 months earlier than see entry. Even supposing there is shrimp proof that some other folks is also more inclined to early acquisition of HIV an infection, we were unable to resolve risk of HIV transmission in very fresh partnerships. We additionally acknowledge that the bulk HIV transmission is in formative years (broken-down <25 years). In our see, recruited HIV-opposed partners were predominantly of white ethnicity (89%), with a median age of 38 years. Most HIV-clear partners had been on virally suppressive ART for a lot of years, so we had diminutive couple-years of notice-up at some level of the initial months of ART. Data from the Companions PrEP see suggest that a residual risk of HIV transmission persists at some level of the first 6 months of ART attributable to incomplete viral suppression in blood and genital compartments.
Nonetheless, in that see, all three ART-uncovered phylogenetically linked HIV transmission events in the first 6 months came about earlier than the HIV-clear companion accomplished full HIV viral suppression in blood. This observation means that residual transmission risk seen in the first 6 months became once linked to lack of suppression in blood in desire to any genital tract viraemia. It is therefore famous after starting ART to make use of preventive measures such as fixed condom use or PrEP
till viral load suppression in blood is fully and sustainably accomplished.
It is well recognised that HIV-clear other folks on ART with suppressed viral load in blood can occupy intermittent shedding and detectable HIV RNA in semen and other genital tract fluids. HIV RNA in semen has been detected in 6–8% of guys with suppressed HIV-1 RNA concentrations in blood in the absence of STIs.
,
In the Companions PrEP see, seminal HIV-1 RNA became once detected in 11%, 5%, and 6% of samples mild after 0–3 months, 4–6 months, and more than 6 months on ART, respectively.
Nonetheless, the scientific detection of minute amounts of HIV RNA in semen would not seem to correlate with risk of HIV transmission if plasma viral load is suppressed. This discovering is also for the explanation that virus cowl isn’t complete virus, isn’t replication competent, or is cowl at inadequate ranges to activate transmission.
In the Companions in Prevention see, no transmissions came about from other folks with detectable HIV genital viral load, but suppressed plasma viral load, to their HIV-opposed partners.
The effectiveness of ART in preventing HIV transmission is dependent on retaining elephantine virological suppression in plasma. In the HPTN 052 trial, the final risk bargain thru ART initiation became once 93%,
but of the eight linked companion infections identified after the index case started ART, transmissions came about at some level of a duration of detectable HIV viraemia in plasma in index cases.
Four transmissions came about quickly earlier than or after the index case started ART with viral load measurements on the closest timepoint ranging from 48 316 copies per mL to more than 750 000 copies per mL in the index case. The opposite four linked transmissions came about between 1062 and 2162 days after the index case started ART, all of whom had documented ART failure, and in the three cases who remained in notice-up, the closing HIV viral load size earlier than the estimated an infection date became once more than 200 copies per mL.
These findings emphasise the importance of peculiar monitoring to make certain HIV viral load stays suppressed and supporting HIV-clear other folks with long-time duration adherence. Our see mirrored fresh HIV viral load checking out practices in Europe with 6 monthly and even annual viral load checking out once other folks are established on ART with apt adherence, as in our cohort. As soon as an particular person is virally suppressed on ART, the risk of viral load rebound in the context of apt adherence is extraordinarily low. Data from the dapper UK CHIC cohort showed that rates of viral rebound in HIV-clear other folks on ART were low (7·8 per 100 person-years), and that 30% of oldsters with rebound accomplished virological resuppression with out a trade in ART regimen.
In ecstatic men older than 45 years, the price of viral rebound reached a plateau of 1% per year, suggesting that in high-earnings settings on the least, most other folks on ART isn’t going to occupy virological failure over their lifetime.
In our see, lawful self-files of viral load jam became once very high, with 93% of HIV-clear partners accurately self-reporting viral load jam at baseline. Contributors underestimated their suppressed viral load jam, alternatively, as 97% in point of fact had a suppressed viral load of not up to 50 copies per mL and 99% had a viral load of not up to 200 copies per mL.
No matter your complete considerations about skill dangers, there has not been a single verified case of HIV transmission in the context of full virally suppressive ART reported in the literature. Against this, there had been many dapper skill evaluate particularly designed to receive cases of HIV transmission when HIV-clear partners were virally suppressed that were unable to maintain out so.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
A case chronicle of that you just may perchance well most certainly also imagine HIV transmission in a serodifferent ecstatic couple no matter virally suppressive ART in the HIV-clear companion
became once printed in 2008, just a few months after the liberate of the Swiss Assertion.
Nonetheless, this case see did not meet the compulsory conditions required for setting up that this became once a linked transmission in the context of virally suppressive ART. These conditions are documentation of fully virally suppressive ART at some level of which duration the couple had condomless intercourse collectively, a verifiable opposed HIV take a look at in the HIV-opposed companion firstly up of the documented duration of viral load suppression, and phylogenetic linkage of viruses from each partners.
On this case chronicle, there became once a lack of documentation of a opposed HIV take a look at in the HIV-opposed companion firstly up of the duration of viral load suppression in the HIV-clear companion, for the explanation that opposed outcome became once essentially based totally on the participant’s recollection of an undocumented, nameless HIV take a look at received 5 years earlier.
Since the HIV-opposed companion had intercourse with the index case at some level of the first weeks of ART, it’s miles therefore likely that HIV transmission came about earlier than viral load became once suppressed in the index case.
Data relating to the affect of viral load suppression on transmissibility has been unhurried to filter from the scientific neighborhood to the broader neighborhood. In 2016, Landovitz and colleagues
reported that of 1809 contributors in the ACTG A5257 see (a drug comparability see) who had been on ART for on the least 48 weeks, with 91% with HIV RNA not up to 50 copies per mL, 38% concept that they were highly infectious and the bulk (90%) concept that they were considerably infectious. This see became once reported 16 years after files from the Rakai Mission Be taught about,
5 years after the HPTN 052 trial,
and a pair of years after the PARTNER1 duration in-between results were launched.
To make stronger dissemination of the scientific files in this home, in 2016 the Prevention Access Campaign launched the U=U (undetectable equals untransmittable) marketing campaign, fixed with the assertion: a person residing with HIV who has undetectable viral load would not transmit HIV to their partners.
,
This assertion has been counseled to this level by more than 780 HIV organisations from 96 worldwide locations, including by main scientific and medical organisations.
Nonetheless, U=U is totally simple to use when HIV-clear other folks occupy receive admission to to checking out, effective treatment, viral load monitoring to ranges of not up to 200 copies per mL, and make stronger to attain and maintain viral suppression. Even in high-earnings settings there are differences in rates of viral suppression. As an illustration, the HIV Care Continuum in the USA indicated that of the 1·1 million other folks residing with HIV in 2014, 85% were identified, but totally 49% were virologically suppressed.
A sustained effort is required to enlarge rates of checking out and HIV evaluation with early initiation of ART and complete make stronger to maintain high ranges of adherence.
The outcomes from the PARTNER evaluate make stronger wider dissemination of the message of the U=U marketing campaign that risk of transmission of HIV in the context of virally suppressive ART is zero. This dissemination is compulsory to advertise the advantages of early checking out and treatment and to address stigma, discrimination, and criminalisation prison guidelines that continue to occupy an affect on HIV-clear other folks.
Contributors
AJR, ANP, and JL conceived the see and received funding. AJR drafted the manuscript and wrote the final version of the chronicle. VC analysed the files. TB, PV, SC, GMC, VE, and AMG contributed to the see invent, interpretation of the files, and writing of the chronicle. AMG and ABe performed the sequencing and phylogenetic evaluation. AJR, PV, OD, VE, NN, PC, AA, JG, JMP, FR, AR, ABl, RW, AVE, JdRG, AC, NHB, AL, MK, HJ, KB, JRB, FG, JL, GW, LO, MR, and H-JS supplied files for the see. All authors reviewed and permitted the final manuscript.
The PARTNER Be taught about Neighborhood
Excellent recruiting worldwide locations are listed first.Spain—Pompeyo Viciana, Nuria Espinosa, Luis Lopez-Cortes (Nicely being facility Virgen del Rocío, Seville); Felix Gutiérrez, Mar Masiá, Catalina Robledano (Nicely being facility Identical outdated de Elche and Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante); Pep Coll, Patricia Cobarsi, Aroa Nieto (Fight AIDS Foundation, Barcelona); Pep Coll (AIDS Study Institute-IrsiCaixa, BCN Checkpoint and Fight AIDS Foundation, Barcelona); Daniel Podzamczer, Juan Tiraboschi, Sandra Morenilla (Nicely being facility Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona); Michael Meulbroek, Antonio Carrillo, Jorge Saz (BCN Checkpoint, Barcelona); Vicente Estrada, Rocio Marquez, Raquel Sandoval (Nicely being facility Universitario San Carlos, Madrid); Antonio Antela, Elena Losada (Nicely being facility Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compestela); Agathe Leon, Lorna Leal, Eva Gonzalez Redondo (Nicely being facility Clinic – IDIBAPS/Nicely being facility Clinic-Fundació Clinic, Barcelona); Jorge del Romero Guerrero, Mar Vera García (Centro Sanitario Sandoval, IdISSC, Nicely being facility Clínico San Carlos, Madrid). UK—David Asboe, Serge Fedele (Chelsea and Westminster Nicely being facility NHS Foundation Belief, London); Nneka Nwokolo, Janey Sewell (56 Dean Aspect road, London); Richard Gilson (Mortimer Market Centre, London); Designate Gompels, Louise Jennings, Lana Ward (North Bristol NHS Belief, Southmead Nicely being facility, Bristol); Michael Brady (King’s Faculty Nicely being facility, London); Amanda Clarke, Sarah Kirk, Alyson Knott (Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Belief, Brighton and Sussex Scientific Faculty, Brighton); Julie Fox, Julianne Lwanga, Ming Lee (Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Belief, London); Clifford Leen, Sheila Morris, Dan Clutterbuck (NHS Lothian, Edinburgh); Sarah Fidler (St Mary’s Nicely being facility, London); Alison J Rodger, Thomas Fernandez, Janey Sewell (Royal Free London NHS Foundation Belief, London). Germany—Olaf Degen, Sindy Bartel, Anja Hüfner (University Scientific Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg); Tim Kümmerle, Clara Lehmann (Division I of Inside of Medication, University Nicely being facility of Cologne, Cologne); Johannes Bogner, Ulrich Seybold, Julia Roider (Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik IV, University Nicely being facility Munich, Munich); Norbert H Brockmeyer, Anja Potthoff, Adriane Skaletz-Rorowski (Division of Dermatology, Venerology, and Allergology, Center for Sexual Nicely being and Medication, WIR – Lunge In Ruhr, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum); Hans-Jürgen Stellbrink (ICH Be taught about Centre, Hamburg); Heiko Jessen, Arne Jessen, Slobodan Ruzicic (Praxis Jessen2 + Kollegen, Berlin); Jürgen Rockstroh, Karina Mohrmann, Christoph Boesecke (University Nicely being facility Bonn, Bonn); Ivanka Krznaric, Patrick Ingiliz (Centre of Infectiology, Berlin). Netherlands—Jan Prins, Hans-Erik Nobel, Annouschka Weijsenfeld (Division of Inside of Medication, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam); Kees Brinkman, Danielle Vos, Imke Hoijenga (OLVG, Amsterdam); Dominique Verhagen (Medisch Centrum Jan van Goyen, Amsterdam); Arne van Eeden, Loek Elsenburg (DC Klinieken, Amsterdam); Elisabeth Gisolf, Petra van Bentum (Rijnstate, Arnhem). Switzerland—Rainer Weber, Christina Grube, Dominique Braun (Division of Infectious Diseases and Nicely being facility Epidemiology, University Nicely being facility Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich); Gilles Wandeler, Hansjakob Furrer, Andri Rauch (Bern University Nicely being facility, University of Bern, Bern); Marcel Stoeckle, Philip Tarr, Manuel Battegay (Division of Infectious Diseases and Nicely being facility Epidemiology, University Nicely being facility Basel and University of Basel, Basel); Pietro Vernazza, Patrick Schmid, Manuela Rasi (Kantonsspital, St Gallen); Enos Bernasconi, Beatrice Bernasconi (Servizio Malattie Infettive, Ospedale Regionale Lugano, Lugano); Vanessa Christinet, Florent Jouinot, Camille Isambert (Checkpoint Vaud, Lausanne); Denise Borso, Markus Stratmann, Oliver Caviezel (Checkpoint Zurich, Zurich). Italy—Teresa Bini (San Paolo Nicely being facility, Milan); Andrea Antinori, Samanta Menichetti (Istituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome); Benedetto Maurizio Celesia, Maria Gussio (UOC Malattie Infettive Universita’ di Catania ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania); Cristina Mussini, Marianna Meschiari (Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena); Antonio Di Biagio, Lucia Taramasso (San Martino Nicely being facility, Genova). Austria—Armin Rieger, Veronique Touzeau-Romer (Scientific University of Vienna, Vienna); Maria Kitchen, Mario Sarcletti, Martin Gisinger (Scientific University Innsbruck, Innsbruck); Angela Oelinger, Maria Geit (Kepler University Nicely being facility, Linz). Denmark—Jan Gerstoft, Lene Pors Jensen, Anne Arentoft Bayer (Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen); Pia Handberg, Gitte Kronborg (University Nicely being facility of Copenhagen, Amager-Hvidovre); Lars Ostergaard (Aarhus University Nicely being facility, Skejby); Svend Stenvang Pedersen, Nete Bülow, Bente Ramskover (Odense Universitetshospital, Odense). France—Christian Pradier, Sophie Breaud (Université Côte d’Azur, CHU de Nice, Nice); Francois Raffi, Eric Billaud (Infectious Diseases Division, University Nicely being facility Resort-Dieu, and Inserm CIC 1413, University of Nantes, Nantes); Michel Ohayon, Daniel Gosset, Alexandre Fior (Le 190, Paris); Gilles Pialoux, Pelagie Thibaut, Julie Chas (Nicely being facility Tenon, Paris); Vincent Leclercq, Vincent Pechenot, Vincent Coquelin (AIDES, Paris). Sweden—Katarina Westling, Eeva-Maija Frisen (Karolinska University Nicely being facility Huddinge, Stockholm); Anders Blaxhult, Ronnie Set apart a build a query to to, Bernt Hildingsson-Lundh (Södersjukhuset, Venhälsan, Stockholm). Finland—Matti Ristola, Outi Debnam, Jussi Sutinen (Helsinki University Nicely being facility, Helsinki). Belgium—Stephane De Wit, Coca Necsoi (Saint-Pierre University Nicely being facility, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels); Linos Vandekerckhove (University Ziekenhuis, Gent); Jean-Christophe Goffard, Sophie Henrard (Université Libre de Bruxelles [ULB], CUB Hopital Erasme, Carrier de Médecine Interne – Centre de Référence SIDA, Brussels).Portugal—Nuno Janeiro (Nicely being facility de Santa Maria, Lisbon). Eire—Gráinne Cortney, Siobhan O’Dea (St James’s Nicely being facility, Dublin).
Declaration of pursuits
VE stories grants from MSD, within most fees and non-monetary make stronger from Gilead, and within most fees from Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. AMG has got funding from Cepheid and Janssen for participation in advisory boards and tutorial workshops unconnected to the submitted work, and is additionally employed as knowledgeable scientist at Roche Pharma Study and Early Growth; Roche Pharma became once not all in favour of the work. The University of Liverpool is the recipient of grant earnings from Gilead, Janssen, and ViiV for evaluate projects of which AMG is the predominant investigator. PC stories within most fees from Gilead, Janssen, Merck, and ViiV. AA stories grants and within most fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen-Cilag; grants, within most fees, and non-monetary make stronger from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare; within most fees from Merck; and non-monetary make stronger from AbbVie. AC stories within most fees and other from Gilead Sciences (conference saunter back and forth bursaries and consultancy fees), and within most fees and other from ViiV Healthcare (conference saunter back and forth bursaries and consultancy fees). FR has got evaluate funding or honoraria from or has consulted for Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and ViiV Healthcare. JRB stories grants from CHIP Copenhagen, at some level of the conduct of the see; and lecture honoraria from AbbVie, Gilead, Merck Interesting & Dohme, ViiV, Hexal, Janssen, and Roche. GW stories grants from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie. FG stories within most fees from Janssen-Cilag, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. KB stories within most fees from Viiv, Gilead, Merck, and Janssen; and grants from ViiV and Gilead. MK stories non-monetary make stronger from Gilead Sciences. MR stories within most fees from AbbVie, Gilead, GSK/ViiV, Janssen-Cilag, and MSD/Merck. HJ stories other make stronger from Gilead, Janssen, and ViiV, at some level of the conduct of the see. H-JS stories within most fees and other make stronger from Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag, and Merck Interesting & Dohme; and other from ViiV Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. All other authors repeat no competing pursuits.
Acknowledgments
The PARTNER2 see represents self sustaining evaluate funded by the Nationwide Institute for Nicely being Study (NIHR) below its Study for Patient Relief (RfPB) plan (PB-PG-1013-32069). The views expressed in this chronicle are those of the authors and never necessarily those of the Nationwide Nicely being Carrier, NIHR, or Division of Nicely being. Funding became once additionally got from a British HIV Affiliation (BHIVA) Study Award (2015) and the Danish Nationwide Study Foundation (grant 126). Unrestricted grant funding became once got from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead Sciences, Augustinus Fonden, and A P Møller Fonden. We acknowledge and thank all PARTNER see contributors who generously participated in this evaluate. We acknowledge Matthew Weait for his contribution to see invent in the house of HIV transmission and the regulation.
Supplementary Subject matter
References
-
- Quinn TC
- Wawer MD
- Sewankambo N
- et al.
Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus kind 1.
N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 921-929
-
- Castilla J
- Del Romero J
- Hernando V
- Marincovich B
- García S
- Rodríguez C
Effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral remedy in lowering heterosexual transmission of HIV.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005; 40: 96-101
-
- Melo MG
- Santos BR
- De Cassia Lira R
- et al.
Sexual transmission of HIV-1 amongst serodiscordant couples in Porto Alegre, southern Brazil.
Intercourse Transm Dis. 2008; 35: 912-915
-
- Attia S
- Egger M
- Müller M
- Zwahlen M
- Low N
Sexual transmission of HIV in response to viral load and antiretroviral remedy: systematic overview and meta-evaluation.
AIDS. 2009; 23: 1397-1404
-
- Donnell D
- Baeten JM
- Kiarie J
- et al.
Heterosexual HIV-1 transmission after initiation of antiretroviral remedy: a most likely cohort evaluation.
Lancet. 2010; 375: 2092-2098
-
- Cohen MS
- Chen YQ
- McCauley M
- et al.
Prevention of HIV-1 an infection with early antiretroviral remedy.
N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 493-505
-
- Cohen MS
- Chen YQ
- McCauley M
- et al.
Antiretroviral remedy for the prevention of HIV-1 transmission.
N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 830-839
-
- Rodger AJ
- Cambiano V
- Bruun T
- et al.
Sexual job without condoms and risk of HIV transmission in serodifferent couples when the HIV-clear companion is the use of suppressive antiretroviral remedy.
JAMA. 2016; 316: 171-181
-
- Bavinton B
- Pinto A
- Phanuphak N
- et al.
Viral suppression and HIV transmission in serodiscordant male couples: a world, skill, observational, cohort see.
Lancet HIV. 2018; 5: e438-e447
-
- Rodger A
- Bruun T
- Weait M
- et al.
Companions of oldsters on ART-a brand fresh overview of the dangers (the PARTNER see): invent and programs.
BMC Public Nicely being. 2012; 12: 296
-
- Geretti AM
- Conibear T
- Hill A
- et al.
Wonderful checking out of plasma HIV-1 RNA and Sanger sequencing of cellular HIV-1 DNA for the detection of drug resistance earlier than starting first-line antiretroviral remedy with etravirine or efavirenz.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69: 1090-1097
-
- Geretti AM
- Rodger AJ
- Lundgren J
HIV transmission at some level of condomless intercourse with a seropositive companion with suppressed an infection-reply.
JAMA. 2016; 316: 2045
-
- Beloukas A
- Magiorkinis E
- Magiorkinis G
- et al.
Assessment of phylogenetic sensitivity for reconstructing HIV-1 epidemiological relationships.
Virus Res. 2012; 166: 54-60
-
Rodger A, Bruun T, Cambiano V, et al. HIV transmission risk thru condomless intercourse if HIV clear companion on suppressive ART: PARTNER Be taught about. 21st Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); Boston, MA, USA; March 3–6, 2014. Abstract 153LB.
-
- Baggaley RF
- White RG
- Boily MC
HIV transmission risk thru anal intercourse: systematic overview, meta-evaluation and implications for HIV prevention.
Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39: 1048-1063
-
- Mujugira A
- Celum C
- Coombs RW
- et al.
HIV transmission risk persists at some level of the first 6 months of antiretroviral remedy.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016; 72: 579-584
-
- Brady M
- Rodger A
- Asboe D
- et al.
BHIVA/BASHH guidelines on the use of HIV pre-publicity prophylaxis (PrEP).
-
- Kalichman SC
- Di Berto G
- Eaton L
Human immunodeficiency virus viral load in blood plasma and semen: overview and implications of empirical findings.
Intercourse Transm Dis. 2008; 35: 55-60
-
- Lambert-Niclot S
- Tubiana R
- Beaudoux C
- et al.
Detection of HIV-1 RNA in seminal plasma samples from handled sufferers with undetectable HIV-1 RNA in blood plasma on a 2002–2011 see.
AIDS. 2012; 26: 971-975
-
- Mujugira A
- Coombs RW
- Heffron R
- et al.
Seminal HIV-1 RNA detection in heterosexual African men initiating antiretroviral remedy.
J Infect Dis. 2016; 214: 212-215
-
- Coombs RW
- Speck CE
- Hughes JP
- et al.
Affiliation between culturable human immunodeficiency virus kind 1 (HIV-1) in semen and HIV-1 RNA ranges in semen and blood: proof for compartmentalization of HIV-1 between semen and blood.
J Infect Dis. 1998; 177: 320-330
-
- Baeten J
- Kahle E
- Lingappa JR
- et al.
Genital HIV-1 RNA predicts risk of heterosexual HIV-1 transmission.
Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3: 77ra29
-
- Eshleman SH
- Hudelson SE
- Redd AD
- et al.
Medication as prevention: characterization of companion infections in the HIV Prevention Trials Community 052 Trial.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017; 74: 112-116
-
- O’Connor J
- Smith C
- Lampe FC
- et al.
Sturdiness of viral suppression with first-line antiretroviral remedy in sufferers with HIV in the UK: an observational cohort see.
Lancet HIV. 2017; 4: e295-e302
-
- Stürmer M
- Doerr HW
- Berger A
- Gute P
Is transmission of HIV-1 in non-viraemic serodiscordant couples that you just may perchance well most certainly also imagine?.
Antivir Ther. 2008; 13: 729-732
-
- Vernazza P
- Hirschel B
- Bernasconi E
- Flepp M
Les personnes séropositives ne souffrant d’aucune autre MST et suivant un traitment antirétroviral efficace ne transmettent pas le VIH par voie sexuelle.
Bull Med Suisses. 2008; 89: 165-169
-
- Vernazza P
- Hirschel B
HIV transmission looking–the poke for low risk events.
Antivir Ther. 2008; 13: 641-642
-
Landovitz RJ, Tran TT, Cohn SE, et al. Idea of infectiousness in HIV-infected other folks after initiating ART: ACTG A5257. 23rd Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); Boston, MA, USA; Feb 22–25, 2016. Abstract 55.
-
- The Lancet HIV
U=U taking off in 2017.
Lancet HIV. 2017; 4: e475
-
- Prevention Access Campaign
Undetectable=untransmittable.
-
- Services and products for Illness Withhold an eye on and Prevention
Figuring out the HIV Care Continuum.
Article Files
E-newsletter Historical previous
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 The Creator(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
User License
Inventive Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Accredited
For non-industrial capabilities:
- Be taught, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Textual stutter material & files mine
- Translate the article (within most use totally, not for distribution)
- Reuse parts or extracts from the article in other works
No longer Accredited
- Promote or re-use for industrial capabilities
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
30418-0&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
30418-0&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
30418-0&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}
Leave a comment
Sign in to post your comment or sign-up if you don't have any account.