Library

Resource

Sex Workers

are sex workers at risk for HIV?

Sex workers in the US may be at risk for HIV depending on the conditions of their workplace. Male, female and transgender sex workers who are most vulnerable to HIV are street-based workers, most of whom are poor or homeless, and likely to have had a history of sexual or physical abuse.1 Street-based sex workers are also commonly dependent on drugs or alcohol, and at a greater risk for violence from clients and police.2 Sex work off the street (in brothels, massage parlors, private homes or escort services) is less likely to result in HIV infection for the workers because they may exercise greater control over their working conditions and sexual transactions, including condom use. Little research has been done on rates of HIV infection among street-based sex workers across the US. In one study of drug-using female sex workers in Miami, FL, 22.4% of the women tested HIV+.3 In a study of male sex workers in Houston, TX, 26% reported testing HIV+.4

what places sex workers at risk?

Sex workers who are injection drug users (IDUs) are more likely to be HIV+ than those who do not inject drugs.2 Injection risks include sharing needles and injection equipment and being injected by someone else. IDU and other substance use (crack cocaine, methamphetamine, alcohol) can also impact sexual risks by compromising safe sexual behavior and communication.5 Persons who use crack cocaine are more likely to enter sex work and have large numbers of partners.6 The decision and ability to use condoms is a complex one that depends on many factors.7,8 Negotiating safer sex can be affected by money, if business is slow or clients offer more money for unprotected sex. Clients may use violence to enforce unsafe sex. Sex workers may use drugs before or with clients, which affects decision making and ability to use condoms. Sex workers may also be targeted by police if they are carrying condoms.5 In addition, sex workers, like many people, may choose not to use condoms with their boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses. Sex workers have elevated rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV.1 One study of female, male and transgender sex workers in San Francisco, CA, reported high rates of gonorrhoea (12.4%), chlamydia (6.8%), syphilis (1.8%) and herpes (34.3%).9 Active STDs increase the likelihood of acquiring HIV. Genital trauma caused by frequent or forced intercourse also increases HIV risk.1 Violence, and the trauma associated with it, is a concern for many sex workers. Violence can include physical, sexual and verbal abuse that sex workers experienced as children, and as adults from their clients and intimate partners. It can also include the violence many street-based sex workers witness daily. This history of violence leaves many sex workers with emotional trauma, and many may turn to drug use to deal with the harsh realities of their daily lives.10

what are barriers to prevention?

The illegality of sex work in the US drives the industry underground and leads to a strong distrust of both police and public health authorities among sex workers. To avoid arrest, street-based sex workers are often forced to change how they work to avoid police.11 For example, sex workers may take less time to negotiate sexual transactions prior to getting into a client’s car, and may even agree to engage in riskier sexual activities. Conducting HIV prevention outreach or education in this environment can be difficult. Desperation and poverty can often override HIV prevention concerns. Drug-addicted persons may turn to prostitution to earn money to pay for the high cost of illegal drugs. Transgender persons may use sex work to make money for hormones or surgery. Many homeless youth have no training or means of support, and rely on prostitution for survival. Attention to the more immediate concerns of food, housing, and addiction often takes priority over concerns of HIV infection.12

what is being done?

JEWEL (Jewelry Education for Women Empowering their Lives), was an economic empowerment and HIV prevention project for drug-using women involved in prostitution in Baltimore, MD. The JEWEL intervention used six 2-hour sessions that taught HIV prevention and the making, marketing and selling of jewelry. Women participants significantly reduced trading drugs or money for sex, the number of sex trade partners, and drug use, including daily crack use.13 The Health Project for Asian Women (HPAW) addressed Asian female sex workers at massage parlors in San Francisco, CA, with two interventions: Massage Parlor Owner Education Program and Health Educator Masseuse Counseling Program. HPAW staff escorted masseuses to health clinics, handed out safer sex kits and provided translation, referrals and advocacy services. Masseuses participated in a 3-session counseling intervention and massage parlor owners received an education session.14 A brief intervention for male sex workers in Houston, TX, consisted of two 1-hour sessions held a week apart. Almost two-thirds (63%) of the men who began the intervention completed it, and those that completed the intervention increased their condom use during paid anal sex.15 Breaking Free in St Paul, MN, helps primarily African American girls and women leave sex work. The program helps women in crisis stabilize, then begin an intense program of counseling and education to address the traumas associated with sex work. Breaking Free offers transitional and permanent housing, as well as an internship program to help women who may have never held a real job become employable.16 The St. James Infirmary in San Francisco, CA, a peer-based clinic for sex workers by sex workers, provides male, female and transgender sex workers with free medical services. They also offer HIV/STD screening and treatment, transgender health, harm reduction and peer counseling, psychiatric services, acupuncture, massage, support groups, food, clothing, and needle exchange. Staff conducts street and venue-based outreach to distribute safer sex supplies and offers HIV testing.9

what still needs to be done?

In the US over the past decade, there has been very little research conducted on HIV/AIDS in the sex worker population. Furthermore, past research focused largely on the role of sex workers as vectors of HIV/STDs for the general public. To prevent HIV among sex workers, it is essential not only to increase overall research efforts in this population, but to also acknowledge the greater context in which sex work is transacted, as well as the specific practice of sex workers. Researchers, public health and law enforcement officials need to hear from sex workers what they need to keep themselves safe, and work together to achieve those goals. Laws and police attitudes towards carrying condoms must be eased to allow sex workers to protect themselves. Violence against sex workers by clients, police, and other neighborhood community members must be criminalized, while sex workers should be encouraged and supported to report violent incidents. Street-based sex workers face a multitude of needs, from immediate concerns of housing, food and medical attention, to longer-range concerns such as mental health services, substance abuse treatment, violence prevention, job training and employment, HIV/STD prevention, quality health care, improved relationships with law enforcement and help leaving sex work. Increased funding and awareness is needed for public health programs that address this full range of issues sex workers face. PREPARED BY ROSHAN RAHNAMA, CAPS
Resource

Ley penal

¿Hay un papel para la ley penal dentro de la prevención del VIH?

¿por qué una ley penal?

Durante el transcurso de la epidemia del SIDA en EE.UU., se ha debatido constantemente la necesidad de leyes que castiguen a individuos que se saben VIH+ y exponen a otra persona al VIH (llamado a veces exposición intencional al VIH o con conocimiento). Gran parte del debate se ha polarizado entre la criminalización de toda exposición al VIH y ninguna criminalización. Una postura más razonable tal vez se encuentra entre los dos extremos. Las formas principales de transmisión del VIH (actividad sexual y consumo de drogas) ya son áreas controversiales en el campo legal así como en el de la salud pública. Las investigaciones, las normas sociales y los valores personales en torno al sexo y al consumo de drogas (y por lo tanto al VIH y a su prevención) varían muchísimo. No es de extrañarse que la discusión sobre el uso de la ley o derecho penal (criminal law) para castigar la exposición al VIH sea tan acalorada. Un análisis de leyes, casos y encuestas de opinión pública indica que existe apoyo para leyes que condenen por lo menos algunos comportamientos que exponen a otros al VIH, por ejemplo, leyes que imponen castigos adicionales por delitos violentos tales como violación o asalto cuando el agresor es VIH+. Sin embargo, la forma en que están redactadas las leyes actuales sobre la exposición al VIH podría perjudicar gravemente a las personas VIH+. La justificación de algunas de estas leyes se ha basado en percepciones erróneas sobre el riesgo de transmisión, lo cual puede criminalizar actos con poco o ningún riesgo de propagar el VIH. Asimismo, no existe evidencia de que el uso de la ley penal sea una estrategia eficaz para la prevención del VIH. La pregunta que surge es: ¿Cómo pueden colaborar con mayor armonía el derecho penal sobre la transmisión del VIH y los esfuerzos de salud pública para lograr mejores resultados en la comunidad?

¿cuáles son las leyes?

Aunque en EE.UU. no existen leyes federales sobre la exposición al VIH, el Congreso ha proporcionado apoyo explícito a esfuerzos estatales. En 1990, la ley de Ryan White CARE (que provee fondos para la atención del SIDA) requirió que cada estado certificara que sus leyes criminales eran “adecuadas para enjuiciar a cualquier individuo infectado con VIH” que con conocimiento exponga al VIH a otra persona. (Este requisito fue eliminado en el 2000 cuando todos los estados certificaron que tenían dichas leyes.) Los gobiernos estatales han respondido de tres maneras generales para convertir en delito la exposición al VIH por una persona que se sabe infectada: 1) Adoptar leyes específicas sobre el VIH; 2) Depender de leyes que regulan las enfermedades de transmisión sexual (ETS) y 3) Aplicar estatutos penales generales contra el asalto o la imprudencia temeraria.1 Leyes específicas al VIH: Desde mayo del 2005, 24 estados tienen leyes que castigan específicamente la exposición al VIH como delito por separado, pero estas leyes varían significativamente. Muchas abarcan la actividad sexual, el uso de jeringas compartidas y la donación de sangre. Con menos frecuencia, mencionan otras actividades como morder y escupir que tienen poco o ningún riesgo de propagar el VIH. La mayoría de estas leyes no requieren que la persona VIH+ llegue a infectar a otro, sino que simplemente realice con conocimiento algún acto que pudiera poner a otra persona en riesgo de contraer el VIH. Los castigos por violar la ley varían entre un año en prisión, como mínimo, hasta la condena perpetua como máximo.2,3 Doce de estos estados también tienen leyes que identifican específicamente la exposición al VIH como una razón para aumentar la condena por un delito existente (por ejemplo, asalto sexual o prostitución). Otros tres estados tienen estas leyes de condena aumentada pero no tienen leyes que identifiquen la exposición al VIH como delito por separado. La amplia gama de conductas y los posibles castigos muestran la complejidad para crear leyes sobre la exposición al VIH. Si bien las leyes más ambiguas permiten mayor flexibilidad, las más específicas pueden impedir la aplicación inadecuada. Es especialmente difícil encontrar el equilibrio en un campo como el VIH/SIDA, en el cual el conocimiento sobre el virus, la transmisión y la prevención avanza y cambia constantemente. Leyes sobre las ETS y estatutos generales: Seis estados de EE.UU. se apoyan en leyes existentes sobre las ETS y 17 estados carecen de regulaciones tanto para VIH como para ETS por lo que aplican leyes penales generales.4 Sin embargo los casos de VIH no siempre se encajan fácilmente en los estatutos generales. Por ejemplo, la definición legal general del asalto como el contacto físico no deseado, escasamente contempla la naturaleza del consentimiento involucrado en conductas que pueden resultar en una exposición al VIH.

¿por qué hacer uso de la ley?

El derecho penal refleja el interés de la sociedad por proteger a las personas contra daños graves.5 En el caso de la exposición al VIH, las leyes penales se pueden aplicar para impedir que las personas VIH+ realicen actos que pudieran exponer a otros al VIH y posiblemente hacerles daño. Estos actos potencialmente dañinos son similares a otros actos prohibidos por dichas leyes. Las leyes penales se usan a veces para reflejar las normas de la comunidad sobre el comportamiento socialmente aceptable. Algunas leyes sobre la exposición al VIH requieren que la persona VIH+ revele su condición a su pareja antes de realizar cualquier actividad de alto riesgo. De esta manera, la ley sirve para establecer una norma de conducta para cierto grupo en particular y podría compartir las metas de las políticas de salud pública.6 Las leyes penales se pueden emplear para alentar que las personas VIH+ dejen de participar en actividades de alto riesgo que exponen a otros al VIH.7 Sin embargo, actualmente no existe evidencia publicada de que las leyes penales hayan logrado otra meta que no sea el castigo en el contexto de la exposición intencional al VIH.

¿cuáles son las preocupaciones?

Actualmente, ningún estudio ha comprobado que la criminalización de la transmisión del VIH sea un método eficaz de prevención del VIH.7 Además, muchas personas desconocen las leyes vigentes sobre el VIH en su estado, lo que impide que éstas influyan en su comportamiento. Entre quienes conocen dichas leyes, los estatutos podrían aumentar el estigma contra una enfermedad ya muy temida y muy malentendida. Además, la amenaza de un juicio penal puede desalentar a las personas a recibir pruebas, consejería y tratamiento del VIH.8 De esta manera, las leyes penales podrían contrarrestar los esfuerzos de salud pública porque las personas que desconocen su condición de VIH podrían ser más propensas a participar en comportamientos de alto riesgo y por lo tanto aumentar la propagación del VIH.9 Existen preocupaciones también sobre el estigma y la discriminación en las condenas por la exposición al VIH. Bajo algunas de las leyes penales más extremas sobre la exposición al VIH, las sentencias pueden ser tan largas como de 10 a 25 años. Algunas personas enjuiciadas por haber expuesto a otros al VIH han recibido estas extensas condenas aunque la víctima no resultara infectada.10 Muchas leyes castigan el fallo de revelar la condición de VIH+ a la pareja sexual, sin embargo las personas VIH+ pueden tomar medidas para evitar el contagio del VIH sin señalar su condición. Además, muchos factores pueden influir en la capacidad de la persona para revelar su infección de VIH en el contexto de su relación de pareja. Una encuesta de personas VIH+ encontró que el 42% de los hombres homosexuales, el 19% de los heterosexuales y el 17% de las mujeres reportaron haber tenido sexo sin revelar su condición de VIH.11 Asimismo, los estudios muestran que la revelación de la condición de VIH no se asocia necesariamente con el uso de condones u otra actividad para reducir el riesgo.12

¿cómo encontrar equilibrio?

Las leyes usadas para castigar la exposición al VIH varían ampliamente según el estado en los EE.UU. Aunque algunos aspectos de las leyes apoyen los esfuerzos de salud pública, otros pueden contradecirlos. Es necesario equilibrar la ley penal y las metas de salud pública de manera que ambas tengan la mayor eficacia posible. Es importante aumentar la conciencia de la existencia de estas leyes entre las organizaciones comunitarias y otras que atienden a personas VIH+. Ésto puede apoyar la meta de dichas leyes (impedir el comportamiento de riesgo) y permitir que los individuos VIH+ tengan una mayor voz en la creación de leyes que los afectan directamente. Los legisladores y formuladores de normas y políticas pueden tomar varias medidas para lograr esta justa medida. En los estados que no tienen leyes específicas sobre el VIH, no hace falta crearlas. Numerosos estados han podido tomar acción legal al respecto valiéndose de los estatutos generales. De hecho la ONUSIDA específicamente recomienda no destacar al VIH de esta manera.13 Para los estados que ya tienen leyes específicas sobre el VIH, los legisladores pueden encontrar el punto medio apoyando leyes que reflejen medidas de prevención y conocimientos exactos sobre la transmisión del VIH. Actualmente muchas leyes establecen conductas condenables sin considerar las normas de prevención emitidas por los CDC (tales como el uso del condón). Se podrían incorporar protecciones adicionales al formular leyes dirigidas únicamente a infractores persistentes después de que las medidas menos restrictivas de salud pública hayan fallado en lograr cambios de conducta.

¿Quién Lo Dice?

1. McKinney MM, Marconi K. Delivering HIV services to vulnerable populations: a review of CARE Act funded research. Public Health Reports. 2002;117:99-113. 2. Wolf LE, Vezina R. Crime and punishment: is there a role for criminal law in HIV prevention policy? Whittier Law Review. 2004;25: 821-886. 3. HIV Criminal Law and Policy Project. https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/. Accessed March 2005. 4. Sullivan KM, Field MA. AIDS and the coercive power of the state. Harvard Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law Review. 1988;23: 139-197. 5. Gostin LO. Public health law in a new century: part I: law as a tool to advance the community’s health. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000;283: 2837-2841. 6. Marks G, Burris S, Peterman TA. Reducing sexual transmission of HIV from those who know they are infected: the need for personal and collective responsibility. AIDS. 1999;13:297-306. 7. Lazzarini Z, Klitzman R. HIV and the law: integrating law, policy, and social epidemiology. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics. 2002;30:533-547. 8. Lazzarini Z, Bray S, Burris S. Evaluating the impact of criminal laws on HIV risk behavior. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics. 2002; 30:239-253. 9. Gostin LO, Hodge JG. The “names debate”: the case for national HIV reporting in the United States. Albany Law Review. 1998;61: 679-742. 10. In Brief: Maximum Sentence. AIDS Policy & Law. 1998;13:16. 11. Ciccarone DH, Kanouse DE, Collins RL, et al. Sex without disclosure of positive HIV serostatus in a US probability sample of persons receiving medical care for HIV infection. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93:949-954. 12. Stein MD, Freedberg KA, Sullivan LM, et al. Sexual ethics. Disclosure of HIV-positive status to partners. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1998;158:253-257. 13. United Nations Program on AIDS (UNAIDS). Handbook for Legislators on HIV/AIDS, Law and Human Rights. 1999:51.

Preparado por Leslie Wolf, JD, MPH y Richard Vezina, MPH, CAPS Traducción Rocky Schnaath Septiembre 2005. Hoja Informativa 57S

Resource

Cost effectiveness

Can cost-effectiveness analysis help in HIV prevention?

Why invest in HIV prevention?

HIV prevention is still our best hope for fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The estimated lifetime cost of care and treatment for just one HIV+ person is about $195,000.1 Given 40,000 new infections a year, it will cost more than $6 billion in future years to care for everyone who gets infected this year alone.2 By keeping people from becoming infected, HIV prevention not only saves lives and slows down the epidemic, it also reduces the number of persons who require expensive medical regimens to combat their HIV disease. The cost of the AIDS epidemic is incurred not only in dollars, but also in the suffering and death of friends, family and loved ones. The loss to society is untold. We lose productivity and creativity, as well as health and social service dollars. AIDS has a high cost to society because it predominantly affects young adults in their prime for work and childbearing. In 1998, HIV was the fifth leading cause of death in the US for persons aged 25-44, the leading cause of death for African American men aged 25-44 and the third leading cause of death for African American women in the same age group.3

What is cost-effectiveness analysis?

The term cost-effectiveness analysis refers to the economic analysis of an intervention. In HIV prevention, one measure of cost-effectiveness is the cost per HIV infection averted. This is affected by many factors: intervention cost, number of people reached, their risk behaviors and HIV incidence, and the effectiveness of the intervention in changing behavior. The purpose of cost-effectiveness analysis is to quantify how these factors combine to determine the overall value of a program. Cost-effectiveness analysis can determine if an intervention is cost-saving(cost per HIV infection averted is less than the lifetime cost of providing HIV/AIDS treatment and care) or cost-effective (cost per HIV infection averted compares favorably to other health care services such as smoking cessation or diabetes detection). Community-based organizations (CBOs), community planning groups (CPGs) and health departments often face the difficult task of choosing from a spectrum of HIV prevention strategies in order to best address the HIV prevention needs of the riskiest populations in their community. Knowing the cost-effectiveness of programs can help them decide how to save the most lives with the limited resources available.4 Cost-effectiveness analyses also break down the costs and resources needed to implement interventions—personnel, training, supplies, transportation, rent, overhead, volunteer services, etc. This can help CBOs decide if they can implement an intervention.

What are the limitations?

Cost-effectiveness is an important consideration but is only one of many factors that should be considered when making program decisions. Cost-effectiveness models do not take everything into account—sometimes they omit important but hard to quantify factors like family stability, freedom from HIV-related stigma and social justice. In addition to helping clients reduce their HIV risk, many interventions also help clients get into stable housing, out of abusive relationships or into drug treatment programs. These outcomes are not easily quantifiable in cost-effectiveness models. HIV prevention cost-effectiveness estimates cannot be generalized easily because the effectiveness of programs is determined by rates of infection and risk behaviors that may vary greatly across populations. Unlike a surgical procedure, which is likely to be as effective in Cleveland as it is in Dallas, HIV prevention programs can be more or less effective depending on the status of the epidemic in a community at risk.5 More and more, HIV prevention programs are being asked to “prove their worth” by showing they are cost-saving or cost-effective. Just because a program doesn’t save society money, doesn’t mean it’s not good or needed. A program that does not save money might still be cost-effective; or, it might not be cost-saving or cost-effective yet still be something that society wants and needs.

What programs are cost-effective?

A variety of intervention strategies for injection drug users were shown to be cost-effective: needle exchange (typically $4,000-40,000 per HIV infection averted, or HIA), HIV testing and counseling ($5,000-10,000 per HIA) and drug treatment ($40,000 per HIA which may not include important benefits like crime reduction).6 Project LIGHT, a randomized, controlled multisite HIV prevention trial, tested a seven-session small group intervention based on cognitive-behavioral therapy. Project LIGHT found the multi-session intervention to be more effective at reducing sexual risk than a comparison 1-hour videotape session. However, the seven-session intervention was also more expensive to implement. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the multi-session intervention was not only more effective than the videotape session in reducing risk, but also was more cost-effective.7 Safer Choices, a school-based HIV, STD and pregnancy prevention program, achieved a 15% increase in condom use and an 11% increase in contraceptive use among sexually active students. By preventing cases of HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, pelvic inflammatory disease and pregnancies, Safer Choices saved $2.65 in medical and social costs for every dollar spent on the program.8 The Mpowerment Project is a community-level HIV prevention intervention run by and for young gay and bisexual men. Mpowerment took place in a mid-sized city with low HIV prevalence and used community building and peer influence to alter the norms of the gay community. The program proved to be cost-effective even with resource- intensive components such as personnel, renting a community space and running social events. Mpowerment was estimated to avert 5-6 HIV infections over 5 years, with cost per HIA of $14,600-18,300.9 In the developing world, where the need for aggressive HIV prevention efforts is profound, interventions have been found to be very cost-effective. This is because the epidemic is very severe, and because program costs (such as personnel) are low in these countries. Estimates of cost-effectiveness include: STD control and condom promotion in commercial sex workers ($8-10 per HIA), female condom promotion in high-risk women (cost-saving), voluntary counseling and testing (about $70 per HIA in HIV-discordant couples, $300 overall), community STD control ($350 per HIA), and mother-to-child transmission reduction with nevirapine ($300-500 per HIA).10

What does cost-effective analysis show?

  • All other things being equal, interventions targeted to high-seroprevalence areas tend to be more cost-effective than interventions that are not targeted.
  • Low cost doesn’t mean cost-effective. If a client needs an intensive intervention, spending the money may be the most cost-effective choice in the long run.
  • Reaching more clients for the same money isn’t always the best thing to do. Giving everyone a brochure produces little behavior change, whereas working intensively to help high-risk clients use condoms correctly, communicate safer sex desires to their partners and learn to recognize and avoid high-risk situations can result in pronounced behavior change.113

What still needs to be done?

Cost-effectiveness analyses can help determine how to save the most lives with limited funding. Neglecting cost-effectiveness information may waste scarce prevention dollars, and thereby miss the opportunity to save lives.12 To this end, simpler cost-effectiveness models and improved technical assistance are needed to help public health decision-makers make better use of cost-effectiveness information.13

Says who?

1. Holtgrave DR, Pinkerton SD. Updates of cost of illness and quality of life estimates for use in economic evaluations of HIV prevention programs. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 1997;16:54-62. 2. Holtgrave DR, Pinkerton SD. The economics of HIV primary prevention. In JL Peterson & RJ DiClemente (eds). Handbook of HIV Prevention. New York: Plenum Press, 2000; 285-296. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mortality slide series.https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/slidesets/index.html. 4. Kahn JG. The cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention targeting: how much more bang for the buck? American Journal of Public Health. 1996;86:1709-1712. 5. Pinkerton SD, Johnson-Masotti AP, Holtgrave DR, et al. Using cost-effective league tables to compare interventions to prevent sexual transmission of HIV. AIDS. 2001;15:917-928. 6. Kahn JG. Economic evaluation of primary HIV prevention in intravenous drug users. In Holtgrave DR, ed. Handbook of Economic Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs. New York:Plenum Press, 1998. 7. Pinkerton SD, Holtgrave DR, Johnson-Masotti AP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the NIMH Multisite HIV Prevention intervention. AIDS and Behavior. 2002;6:83-96. 8. Wang LY, Davis M, Robin L, et al. Economic evaluation of Safer Choices. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2000;154:1017-1024. 9. Kahn JG, Kegeles SM, Hays R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the Mpowerment Project, a community-level intervention for young gay men. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2001;27:482-491. 10. Marseille EA, Hofmann PB, Kahn JG. HIV prevention should be funded before HAART in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet. In press 11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Compendium of HIV Prevention Interventions with Evidence of Effectiveness. November 1999. 12. Institute of Medicine. No time to lose – getting more from HIV prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. 13. Pinkerton SD, Holtgrave DR. A method for evaluating the economic efficiency of HIV behavioral risk reduction interventions. AIDS & Behavior. 1998;2:189-201.

Further reading:

DR Holtgrave (ed). Handbook of Economic Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs. New York: Plenum Publishers, 1998. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). Cost- effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Prepared by James G. Kahn*, Steven D. Pinkerton**, David R. Holtgrave*** *Institute for Health Policy Studies, UCSF; **Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Medical College of Wisconsin; ***Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University January 2002. Fact Sheet #12ER Special thanks to the reviewers of this Fact Sheet: Kim Compoc, Karin Coyle, Paul Farnham, Susan Fernyak, Celia Friedrich, Anne Haddix, Ana Johnson-Masotti, Susan Klein, Frank Laufer, Rani Marx, David Perlman, Katherine Phillips, Ron Stall, Mike Sweat, Gary Zarkin.

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National Prevention Information Network at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. © February 2002, University of California

Resource

Internet

How does the Internet affect HIV prevention?

why the Internet?

The Internet has become a remarkable social networking tool where people who once were unlikely to meet in the physical world are now only a few key strokes away. It is not surprising that many persons with access to the Internet have used it to find love, companionship and sex.1 In fact, using the Internet to find sexual partners is a widespread practice among men and women of all ages. About 16 million people say they have used websites to meet other people.2 Men who have sex with men (MSM)—whose sexual activities traditionally have been stigmatized—have benefited from the privacy of the Internet, with 40% of gay men reporting that they use the Internet to find sexual partners.3 In online interviews, gay men reported that the Internet has helped them find social support, access resources safely and anonymously, and develop significant personal relationships.4 The Internet is important to the HIV prevention field. It is a powerful medium to deliver health and risk-reduction information. Many individuals who engage in risk-taking behaviors use the Internet to meet their sexual partners, and the Internet itself may facilitate such risk-taking behaviors.

does the Internet contribute to risk?

Whether or not the Internet’s unique qualities contribute to risk-taking behaviors is not fully understood. We know that people who use the Internet to meet sexual partners have been found to engage in more risky sexual behavior, be more likely to report a history of STDs, and have greater numbers of sexual partners than those who do not seek sexual partners online.3,5 In fact, as early as 1999, outbreaks of syphilis among MSM were traced to users of specific chatrooms,6 and there are also case reports of HIV transmission from sexual partners met online.7 It has been found, though, that men who engage in high-risk behaviors do so regardless of whether they meet their partners online or offline, such as in bars and clubs.8 Gay and bisexual men with “psychosocial vulnerabilities” (e.g., safer-sex burnout, depression, and social isolation) may be particularly prone to disengage, or avoid thinking about HIV, in the anonymity of a virtual world where they can meet sexual partners for engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors.9 Using the Internet to meet partners outside one’s regular sexual network may also create an environment where sexual mixing between high-risk and low-risk persons occurs.10 These new, expanded sexual networks can, in turn, increase the rate at which HIV and other STDs are transmitted.

can the Internet help in prevention?

Absolutely. The anonymity of online communication may make it easier to disclose HIV status or discuss safer sex and condom use before meeting in person.11 A study of Latino MSM found they were significantly more likely to engage in sexual negotiation and serostatus disclosure on the Internet than in person. For HIV+ persons, disclosing HIV status online also helps avoid abuse, discrimination or rejection by partners.12 The Internet also provides a way to find sex partners who like the same things and are willing to take the same amount of risk. It may afford more opportunities to chat with a potential partner before having sex. In online ads, individuals can clearly state that they’re looking for partners who agree to safer sex (such as condom use), and they can more easily avoid meeting those who do not. Similarly, online sex-seeking allows HIV+ persons to disclose their status and find partners of the same serostatus (often called serosorting), especially if they intend not to use condoms.8 Just like in the physical world, however, one cannot be fully trusted to give or even know their accurate HIV status, so serosorting may not be a foolproof HIV prevention strategy, and it also risks transmitting other STDs.

what’s being done?

Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), researchers, and health departments—occasionally with the support of online service providers—are using the Internet in creative ways to increase HIV-related awareness and knowledge, and to positively influence attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Researchers have used the Internet to recruit participants and to collect data. Internet-based programs have also been used to help people anonymously disclosure their HIV/STD status to past sexual partners. Commonly, CBOs have used e-mail distribution lists or sent outreach workers into popular online meeting venues (such as chat rooms and hook-up sites) to promote their programs, answer questions, deliver educational and safer-sex materials, and encourage dialogue about HIV prevention. A handful of CBOs with dedicated funding created HIV-prevention websites tailored for their communities.13 Launched in 2002, PowerOn is a comprehensive site providing access to HIV/AIDS education, support, and referrals to 200 local prevention agencies for the gay, bisexual and transgender community in Seattle/King County, WA. Early PowerOn users showed particular interest in pages about Negotiating Safety Agreements and Putting on a Condom.14 Wrapp.net provides HIV prevention interventions and resources for MSM in the rural US. One NIMH-funded intervention presented a conversation between an HIV+ and an HIV- gay man who recently engaged in risk behavior. A randomized controlled trial found it was well accepted and improved participants’ HIV risk-reduction knowledge, safer-sex attitudes, beliefs about what will happen as a result of engaging in certain behaviors, and beliefs about how well they can perform a given task.15 Once computerized online interventions are developed, they can operate cost-effectively around the clock, can be easily modified whenever changes are necessary, and quality control standards can be readily established with little opportunity for human error. Community members with Internet access can use such programs at their convenience and with little risk to their personal privacy. Many health departments are exploring using the Internet for partner notification, disclosure assistance and referrals.16 InSPOT.org, developed by ISIS, Inc., is a website where men diagnosed with HIV /STDs can send electronic cards to sexual partners to inform them of a potential exposure, conveniently and without intervention by a provider. Cards can be sent anonymously, with or without a personal message. A survey of MSM in San Francisco found that 19% had heard of InSPOT, 5% of those used it to notify a partner and 4% received an e-card. Popular website owners can also participate in HIV prevention and education activities. Craigslist.org agreed to add a health message and link to the San Francisco City Clinic website for users entering the “men seeking men” and the “casual encounters” pages. This addition did not result in a decline in the number of postings or visitors. Manhunt agreed to place ads on the dangers of crystal meth use and the rise in syphilis cases. Gay.com accepted a request to integrate sexual health messages by linking to “Ask Dr. K,” a question-and-answer sexual-health forum.17

what needs to be done?

New interventions to address the HIV risks associated with the Internet need to be developed and evaluated. Programs that help people think about their motives for seeking partners online, and Web-based, health-related screening and referral tools may be promising approaches. It is crucial to conduct further evaluations of the efficacy of current online prevention programs before any such interventions and approaches can be deemed successful and worth replicating. Social policies to help prevent Internet-facilitated HIV transmission are also necessary and may come from legislation or from voluntary changes enacted by website operators. Cooperative efforts between online providers, law makers, researchers, program planners and, most importantly, community members could create structural changes to prevent further Internet-facilitated HIV transmissions.18 Options for policy changes include: public-health warnings on websites; changes to the way hookup sites are advertised; encouraging research to measure behavior change from online interventions and the development of tools on dating or hookup sites that facilitate the discussion of HIV and safer sex; and incentives for website operators to cooperate with public-health and other HIV-prevention efforts.

Says who?

1. Chiasson MA, Parsons JT, Tesoriero JM, et al. HIV behavioral research online.Journal of Urban Health. 2006;83:73-85. 2. Madden M, Lenhart A. Online dating. Report prepared by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. March 2006. 3. Liau A, Millett G, Marks G. Meta-analytic examination of online sex-seeking and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2006;33:576-584. 4. Rebchook G, Curotto A, Kegeles S. Exploring the sexual behavior and Internet use of chatroom-using men who have sex with men through qualitative and quantitative research. Presented at the 2003 National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta, GA. 5. McFarlane M, Bull SS, Rietmeijer CA. The Internet as a newly emerging risk environment for sexually transmitted diseases. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000;284:443-446. 6. Klausner JD, Wolf W, Fischer-Ponce L, et al. Tracing a syphilis outbreak through cyberspace. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000;284:447-449. 7. Tashima K, Alt E, Harwell J, et al. Internet sex-seeking leads to acute HIV infection: a report of two cases. International Journal of STD and AIDS. 2003;14:285-286. 8. Bolding G, Davis M, Hart G, et al. Gay men who look for sex on the Internet: is there more HIV/STI risk with online partners? AIDS. 2005;19:961-968. 9. McKirnan D, Houston E, Tolou-Shams M. Is the Web the culprit? Cognitive escape and Internet sexual risk among gay and bisexual men. AIDS and Behavior. 2006. 10. Wohlfeiler D, Potterat JJ. Using gay men’s sexual networks to reduce sexually transmitted disease (STD)/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2005;32:S48-52. 11. Carballo-Dieguez A, Miner M, Dolezal C, et al. Sexual negotiation, HIV-status disclosure, and sexual risk behavior among Latino men who use the internet to seek sex with other men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2006;35:473-481. 12. Davis M, Hart G, Bolding G, et al. Sex and the Internet: gay men, risk reduction and serostatus. Culture, Health and Sexuality. 2006;8:161-174. 13. Curotto A, Rebchook G, Kegeles S. Opening a virtual door into a vast real world: Community-based organizations are reaching out to at-risk MSM with creative, online programs. Paper presented at: STD/HIV Prevention and the Internet; August 27, 2003; Washington D.C. 14. Weldon JN. The Internet as a tool for delivering a comprehensive prevention intervention for MSM Internet sex seekers. Paper presented at: 2003 National HIV Prevention Conference; July 27-30, 2003, 2003; Atlanta, GA. depts.washington.edu/poweron/ 15. Bowen AM, Horvath K, Williams ML. A randomized control trial of Internet-delivered HIV prevention targeting rural MSM. Health Education Research. 2006.www.wrapp.net 16. Mimiaga MJ, Tetu A, Novak D, et al. Acceptability and utility of a partner notification system for sexually transmitted infection exposure using an internet-based, partner-seeking website for men who have sex with men. Presented at the International AIDS Conference, Toronto, Canada. 2006. Abstr #THPDC02. 17. Klausner JD, Levine DK, Kent CK. Internet-based site-specific interventions for syphilis prevention among gay and bisexual men. AIDS Care, 2004;16:964-970. 18. Levine D, Klausner JD. Lessons learned from tobacco control: A proposal for public health policy initiatives to reduce the consequences of high-risk sexual behavior among men who have sex with men and use the Internet. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2005;2:51-58.
Prepared by Greg Rebchook PhD, Alberto Curotto PhD, CAPS and Deb Levine, ISIS January 2007. Fact Sheet #63E Special thanks to the following reviewers of this fact sheet: Anne Bowen, Cari Courtenay-Quirk, Jonathan Elford, Charles King, Jeff Klausner, Mary McFarlane, Greg Millett, Frank Strona. Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the University of California San Francisco should be cited as the source. Fact Sheets are also available in Spanish. To receive Fact Sheets via e-mail, send an e-mail to [email protected] with the message “subscribe CAPSFS first name last name.” ©January 2007, University of CA.
Resource

Mother-to-child transmission (MTCT)

Is Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission Preventable?

Prepared by Sarah A. Gutin, MPH* *CAPS, Community Health Systems- School of Nursing, UCSF Fact Sheet #34ER – September 2015 Special thanks to the following reviewers of this Fact Sheet: Yvette Cuca, Carol Dawson Rose, Shannon Weber In 2012, there were 2.3 million new HIV infections globally1. A large proportion of people newly diagnosed with HIV worldwide are in their reproductive years and these men and women are likely to want children in the future2-4. Addressing the sexual and reproductive health and rights of this population is critical to addressing the spread of HIV because HIV infection in childbearing women is the main cause of HIV infection in children5. Treatment for those who are already infected is also central to stopping the spread of HIV to infants and to uninfected sexual partners. How does transmission occur? Perinatal transmission of HIV, also called vertical transmission, occurs when HIV is passed from an HIV-positive woman to her baby during pregnancy, labor and delivery or breastfeeding. For an HIV-positive woman not taking HIV medications, the chance of passing the virus to her child ranges from about 15 to 45% during pregnancy, labor and delivery. If she breastfeeds her infant, there is an additional 35 to 40% chance of transmission6. Is the risk of perinatal transmission always the same? No. Global societal and economic inequities create a wide gap between women in developing nations and women in developed nations with regard to HIV prevention, voluntary counseling and testing and access to drugs which treat HIV infection and can prevent perinatal transmission. Developed countries- In many developed countries, pediatric HIV has been virtually eliminated7. In the US in 1994, the Public Health Service recommended HIV counseling and voluntary testing and AZT therapy for all pregnant women after the clinical trial known as “076” showed that AZT reduced rates of MTCT by two-thirds. Since then, a combination of interventions that includes treatment with ART to control the virus and make it undetectable, cesarean delivery, and avoidance of breastfeeding has helped further reduce perinatal transmission in the US, from an estimated 1,500 cases in 1992 to an estimated 162 perinatal infections in 20108. Although the estimated number of perinatal HIV infections in the US continues to decline, women of color, especially black/African American women are disproportionately affected by HIV infection and as a result, perinatal HIV infection is highest among blacks/African Americans (63%), followed by Hispanics/Latinas (22%)8. Although effective interventions have led to a significant reduction in the number of perinatal infections in the US, perinatal transmission still occurs. To close the final gap, the CDC has proposed a new framework to eliminate mother-to-child HIV transmission (EMCT) in the US8. This framework focuses on key areas including: comprehensive reproductive health care (that includes both family planning (FP) and preconception care) and comprehensive case-finding  of pregnancies in HIV-infected women that is conducted through comprehensive clinical care  and case management services for women and infants; case review and community action; continuous quality research in prevention and long-term monitoring of HIV-exposed infants; and thorough data reporting for HIV surveillance at the state and local health department levels8,9. Developing countries- Unfortunately, perinatal transmission of HIV continues to plague many developing countries despite recent prevention acceleration. In 2008, an estimated 1.4 million pregnant women in low and middle-income countries were living with HIV, of whom about 90% were in sub-Saharan African countries7. In 2012, UNAIDS reported that approximately 210,000 children became HIV infected1. Can perinatal transmission of HIV be reduced? Yes. Perinatal transmission encompasses a variety of highly effective interventions that have huge potential to improve maternal and child health. Advances in treatment and new classes of drugs have provided the opportunity to greatly reduce rates of perinatal transmission worldwide. Also, perinatal transmission can be reduced by preventing unintended pregnancies.  Preventing unintended pregnancies is one of the most effective ways to prevent HIV infection in infants and stop spread of the epidemic to children10. For that reason, preventing unintended pregnancies among women living with HIV and offering family planning to delay, space or end childbearing is one of the four WHO pillars in the comprehensive approach to preventing perinatal transmission7. However, we have still not addressed the root cause of perinatal transmission, mainly heterosexual HIV transmission. The best way to prevent perinatal HIV transmission is to prevent HIV transmission in the mother and father. In order to reduce perinatal transmission, all pregnant women should have access to free or low-cost prenatal care and voluntary HIV testing and counseling. If a pregnant woman is HIV-positive, she should have access to lifelong ART to treat HIV and improve her own health and to decrease the chances of HIV infection in her infant. In June 2013, the WHO published updated guidelines on the diagnosis of HIV, the care of people living with HIV(PLHIV) and the use of ART for treating and preventing HIV infection1. In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services recommends that all HIV-infected pregnant women should be given ART during pregnancy to prevent perinatal transmission of HIV, regardless of whether ART is indicated for the woman’s own health11. Perinatal transmission can be reduced to less than 2% if a woman is on ART, has a low or undetectable viral load, follows the recommended treatment regimen and does not breastfeed7,8. Careful management during labor and delivery can also help reduce perinatal transmission, for example by avoiding unnecessary instrumentation and not prematurely rupturing membranes12. Also, although universal prenatal HIV testing is the standard in the US, if prenatal care has not been provided, the patient has HIV, or her HIV status is undocumented, it is critical for hospitals to determine a laboring patient’s HIV status upon admission. Even without the use of ART during the pregnancy, the use of ART during labor and for the infant can reduce the risk of perinatal transmission to between 6 to 13%13. It is therefore recommended that rapid HIV testing be performed in Labor and Delivery units on pregnant women with no HIV test during their pregnancy or with risk factors for infection since their last test14. In developing countries, perinatal transmission has been a priority since 1998, following the success of short-course zidovudine and single-dose nevirapine clinical trials7. In recent years, single-dose nevirapine as the primary antiretroviral medicine option for HIV-positive pregnant women to prevent transmission to their infants has been phased out, in favor of more effective and simplified triple ART regimens1.  The WHO now recommends that all pregnant and breastfeeding women with HIV, regardless of CD4 count or clinical stage, should initiate a triple ART regimen which should be maintained for the duration of perinatal transmission risk, which includes pregnancy, delivery and throughout the breastfeeding period (this is known as Option B). In countries were more than one percent of the population has HIV (these are known as generalized epidemics) and where there is often limited access to tests that indicate the severity of HIV illness (such as CD4 testing), limited partner testing, long duration of breastfeeding and high rates of fertility, the WHO recommends that women meeting treatment eligibility criteria should continue lifelong ART (this strategy is referred to as Option B+)12. There are many benefits to lifelong treatment for all pregnant and breastfeeding women and these include increased coverage of those needing ART for their own health, a reduction in the number of women stopping and starting ART during repeat pregnancies, early protection against perinatal transmission in future pregnancies, reduced risk of infecting a partner who is HIV-negative and decreased risk of medication failure or the development of resistance12. The ultimate goal is to find the most effective and sustainable regimens for HIV treatment and the prevention of perinatal transmission worldwide. Economics, politics, poor infrastructure, access to healthcare and medications, stigma and cultural norms all pose significant challenges to providing this standard of care everywhere and not all PLHIV have equal access to treatment. What are the barriers to the prevention of perinatal transmission? Pregnant women face many difficult decisions, including decisions around HIV testing, treatment options and infant feeding. Understanding the barriers that women face and addressing barriers at various levels can help in realizing the full potential of prevention of perinatal transmission programs. A recent review article found that barriers to the prevention of perinatal transmission often fell into three broad categories that included the individual, their partners and community, and health systems15. At the individual level, studies suggest that a lower maternal education level, younger maternal age, and poor knowledge of HIV transmission and ART are associated with not receiving and/or not taking ART in order to treat and prevent the spread of HIV15. Additionally, a woman’s male partner(s), extended family, greater community and health care setting all influence her decision and ability to take advantage of prevention of perinatal transmission programs. Many qualitative studies have found that stigma regarding HIV status and fear of disclosure to partners and family members is a major barrier to the uptake of perinatal prevention interventions15. Women living with HIV also continue to report that stigma and discrimination, especially in health care settings, continue to be a barrier to accessing adequate information and services1. In various studies, PLHIV have reported negative staff attitudes and this has been cited as a barrier to returning to facilities for care15. In developing countries, health systems issues are also a barrier to greater prevention uptake. Key barriers that have been identified include a shortage of trained clinic staff, high patient volumes, long wait times, and brief and poor counseling sessions15. In addition, a lack of access or shortages of medications, including ART, as well as stock-outs of HIV test kits and condoms have been reported.  Poor access to healthcare overall (long distances to facilities) and poor integration of services also contributes to low ART uptake. What about breastfeeding? Breastfeeding is usually the healthiest choice for both infants and mothers. However, HIV transmission can occur during breastfeeding, with chances of transmission increasing the longer the infant is breastfed. In the countries with the highest perinatal HIV rates, it is estimated that more than half of the children newly infected with HIV acquire it during the breastfeeding period1. However, the risk of transmitting HIV to infants through breastfeeding is low in the presence of ART12. Therefore, providing ART to mothers throughout the breastfeeding period is a critical step needed to further reduce rates of perinatal transmission1. It is recommended that HIV-positive mothers do not breastfeed when formula feeding is safe, well accepted and readily available. In the US, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that HIV-infected women refrain from breastfeeding regardless of their ART status to avoid postnatal transmission of HIV to their infants through breast milk16,17. However, formula feeding requires clean water for mixing formula. Many women in developing countries do not have access to clean water or sanitation and cannot afford formula, and therefore cannot avoid breastfeeding. In developing countries where breastfeeding is the norm, formula feeding may also alert a woman’s family or community that she is HIV-positive, which may result in stigma or other negative repercussions. Therefore, the WHO recommends that when breastfeeding is unavoidable, mothers should take ART while breastfeeding and that infants should receive 6 weeks of prophylaxis with once-daily nevirapine12. The WHO further recommends that mothers known to be infected with HIV (and whose infants are HIV uninfected or of unknown status) should exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months of life, introducing appropriate complementary foods thereafter, and continue breastfeeding for the first 12 months of life. It is recommended that breastfeeding should only stop when a nutritionally adequate and safe diet without breast-milk can be provided12. Access to ARVs during this extended breastfeeding period is critical12. What’s being done? Primary prevention of HIV among men and women of childbearing age: Various tools are now available to prevent HIV infections in men and women of childbearing age. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which is a special course of HIV treatment that aims to prevent people from becoming infected with HIV, has been found to protect against HIV-1 infection in heterosexual men and women and reduce HIV transmission by 67 to 75%18,19. PrEP is intended for people at-risk of becoming infected with HIV, for example in the case of couples where one partner is HIV-positive and the other is HIV-negative. In countries with generalized HIV epidemics, voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV-negative male partners in relationships with a positive partner has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV-acquisition in men by between 38% to 66%20. Using ART to decrease the chance of HIV transmission, a concept known as treatment as prevention, has also recently been found to be very efficacious, with studies in heterosexual populations showing that adherence to ART is very effective at preventing transmission of HIV to HIV-negative partners21-23. Couples-testing with treatment for infected partners in discordant partnerships is also a promising approach. Integrating couples counseling and partner testing into routine clinic and community services  can increase the number of couples in which the status of both partners is known and can help identifying sero-discordant couples24. Preventing unintended pregnancies and Safer Conception Options: Preventing unintended pregnancies among women living with HIV (WLHIV) is a powerful prevention strategy. One study found that even modest reductions in the numbers of pregnancies among WLHIV could avert HIV-positive births at the same rates as the use of ART for PMTCT25. One targeted approach to strengthening FP programs is to integrate FP within HIV services. In Kenya, a recent cluster-randomized trial tried to determine whether integrating FP services into HIV care was associated with increased use of more effective contraceptive methods such as sterilization, IUDs, implants, injectables and oral contraceptives. Women seen at integrated sites were significantly more likely to use more effective methods of FP at the end of the study26. This makes the case for integrating FP within HIV care. Reducing the unmet need for FP will reduce new HIV infections among children and improve overall maternal and infant health. For HIV-positive or serodiscordant couples who would like to have children, there are many options available to make conception safer. When offering preconception care, HIV-positive couples will have specific needs, many of which can be addressed during their routine HIV care. When offering preconception counseling for HIV-positive women, the CDC recommends that health care providers should discuss a variety of topics, including: reproductive options and actively assessing women’s pregnancy intentions on an ongoing basis; Counseling on safe sexual practices that prevent HIV transmission to sexual partners, protect women from acquiring sexually transmitted diseases, and reduce the potential to acquire more virulent or resistant strains of HIV;  Using ART to attain a stable, maximally suppressed maternal viral load prior to conception to decrease the risk of perinatal transmission and of HIV transmission to an uninfected partner; and encouraging sexual partners to receive counseling and HIV testing and, if infected, to seek appropriate HIV care11. For couples who want to conceive, in which one or both are HIV-positive, the positive partner should be on ART and have achieved maximal suppression of HIV infection. ART for the positive partner may not be fully protective against sexual transmission of HIV and so the administration of PrEP for the HIV-negative partner may offer an additional tool to reduce the risk of transmission. For discordant couples, when the positive partner is a woman, the safest conception option is artificial insemination. In discordant couples where the positive partner is male,the safest conception option is the use of donor sperm from an HIV-uninfected male with artificial insemination. When the use of donor sperm is unacceptable, the use of sperm preparation techniques together with either intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilization is an option11. Preventing HIV transmission from WLHIV to infants: Increasing access to ART for WLHIV is critical to saving the lives of women and their children. The number of pregnant WLHIV receiving ART for their own health has increased from 25% in 2009 to 60% in 20121. One of the greatest success stories has been in Malawi where a policy of providing lifelong ART to all pregnant and breastfeeding women (irrespective of CD4 count or clinical status– a strategy referred to as Option B+) was enacted in 2011. Since then, Malawi increased the estimated coverage of women in need of ART from 13% in 2009 to 86% in 2012. The implementation of Option B+ has resulted in a 748% increase in the number of pregnant and breastfeeding women starting ART, from 1,257 in the second quarter of 2011 to 10,663 in the third quarter of 201227. As a result of Option B+, the perinatal transmission rate for women on ART is expected to be reduced, from approximately 40% without intervention to less than 5%. By decentralizing treatment services and offering lifelong HIV treatment to all pregnant and breastfeeding women, Malawi has been able to increase ART coverage both during pregnancy and the breastfeeding period1. Providing treatment, care and support to WLHIV and their children and families: Increasing access to ART for pregnant women living with HIV for their own health is critical to saving the lives of women and their children. Even developing countries, which at first lagged behind in reducing the number of children newly infected with HIV, have made great gains in recent years. In 2013, UNAIDS reported that in 7 high burden countries where access to treatment has increased, the rates of HIV transmission to children has fallen by 50% or more1. What still needs to be done? HIV is a preventable disease. Perinatal transmission is best prevented by effective, accessible and sustainable HIV prevention, access to HIV testing, early diagnosis and linkage to treatment programs for women, men and their children, access to family planning and abortion services to prevent unintended pregnancies, and access to an ongoing supply of ARVs to improve the health of women and their children. Structural interventions are also needed that increase access to health centers, improve health care infrastructure, provide food supplementation, and HIV treatments. Women are the key to the HIV response and the number of women acquiring HIV has to be reduced. All women have a right to be treated for HIV infection, not simply because they are bearing a child. All women living with HIV who are eligible for ART need to have access to it. Unfortunately, too many women are still lost along the prevention cascade and never get the care or treatment they need and deserve. Providing women with access to high quality healthcare for themselves and their families, whether they are HIV-positive or not, is imperative.

Says who?

1. UNAIDS. AIDS by the numbers. Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. 2. Kanniappan S, Jeyapaul MJ, Kalyanwala S. Desire for motherhood: exploring HIV-positive women’s desires, intentions and decision-making in attaining motherhood. AIDS care 2008;20(6):625-30 doi: 10.1080/09540120701660361[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 3. Beyeza-Kashesya J, Kaharuza F, Mirembe F, et al. The dilemma of safe sex and having children: challenges facing HIV sero-discordant couples in Uganda. African health sciences 2009;9(1):2-12 4. Cooper D, Moodley J, Zweigenthal V, et al. Fertility intentions and reproductive health care needs of people living with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa: implications for integrating reproductive health and HIV care services. AIDS and behavior 2009;13 Suppl 1:38-46 doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9550-1[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 5. UNAIDS. We Can Prevent mothers fom dying and babies from becoming infected with HIV. Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. 6. De Cock KM, Fowler MG, Mercier E, et al. Prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission in resource-poor countries: translating research into policy and practice. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2000;283(9):1175-82 7. WHO. PMTCT Strategic Vision 2010-2015: Preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV to reach the UNGASS and Millenium Development Goals. Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. 8. CDC. HIV Among Pregnant Women, Infants, and Children in the United States. Atlanta, 2012. 9. Nesheim S, Taylor A, Lampe MA, et al. A framework for elimination of perinatal transmission of HIV in the United States. Pediatrics 2012;130(4):738-44 doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-0194[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 10. Nakayiwa S, Abang B, Packel L, et al. Desire for children and pregnancy risk behavior among HIV-infected men and women in Uganda. AIDS and behavior 2006;10(4 Suppl):S95-104 doi: 10.1007/s10461-006-9126-2[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 11. Department of Health and Human Services Panel on Treatment of HIV-Infected Pregnant Women and Prevention of Perinatal Transmission. Recommendations for Use of Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant HIV-1-Infected Women for Maternal Health and Interventions to Reduce Perinatal HIV Transmission in the United States. In: Bureau HA, ed. Washington, DC, 2014. 12. WHO. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: Recommendations for a public health approach. Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. 13. Kourtis AP, Lee FK, Abrams EJ, et al. Mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1: timing and implications for prevention. The Lancet infectious diseases 2006;6(11):726-32 doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70629-6[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 14. Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control 2006;55(RR-14):1-17; quiz CE1-4 15. Gourlay A, Birdthistle I, Mburu G, et al. Barriers and facilitating factors to the uptake of antiretroviral drugs for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2013;16(1):18588 doi: 10.7448/IAS.16.1.18588[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 16. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric A. HIV testing and prophylaxis to prevent mother-to-child transmission in the United States. Pediatrics 2008;122(5):1127-34 doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2175[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 17. Panel on Treatment of HIV-Infected Pregnant Women and Prevention of Perinatal Transmission. Recommendations for Use of Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant HIV-1-Infected Women for Maternal Health and Interventions to Reduce Perinatal HIV Transmission in the United States. Secondary Recommendations for Use of Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant HIV-1-Infected Women for Maternal Health and Interventions to Reduce Perinatal HIV Transmission in the United States. Available at http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/lvguidelines/PerinatalGL.pdf. 18. Celum C, Baeten JM. Tenofovir-based pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: evolving evidence. Current opinion in infectious diseases 2012;25(1):51-7 doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32834ef5ef[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 19. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. The New England journal of medicine 2012;367(5):399-410 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1108524[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 20. Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2009(2):CD003362 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 21. Donnell D, Baeten JM, Kiarie J, et al. Heterosexual HIV-1 transmission after initiation of antiretroviral therapy: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet 2010;375(9731):2092-8 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60705-2[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 22. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. The New England journal of medicine 2010;363(27):2587-99 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011205[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 23. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. The New England journal of medicine 2011;365(6):493-505 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105243[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 24. Medley A, Baggaley R, Bachanas P, et al. Maximizing the impact of HIV prevention efforts: Interventions for couples. AIDS care 2013 doi: 10.1080/09540121.2013.793269[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 25. Sweat MD, O’Reilly KR, Schmid GP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nevirapine to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission in eight African countries. Aids 2004;18(12):1661-71 26. Grossman D, Onono M, Newmann SJ, et al. Integration of family planning services into HIV care and treatment in Kenya: a cluster-randomized trial. Aids 2013;27 Suppl 1:S77-85 doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000035[published Online First: Epub Date]|. 27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Impact of an innovative approach to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV–Malawi, July 2011-September 2012. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2013;62(8):148-51
Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the University of California San Francisco should be cited as the source. Fact Sheets are also available in Spanish. To receive Fact Sheets via e-mail, send an e-mail to [email protected] with the message “subscribe CAPSFS first name last name.” ©2009, University of CA. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to CAPS.web@ucsf. edu.