4.4 Review

Hormonal contraceptive use and female-to-male HIV transmission: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence

期刊

AIDS
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 493-505

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835ad539

关键词

contraception; female-to-male HIV transmission; HIV; hormonal; prevention of mother-to-child transmission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To systematically review epidemiologic evidence assessing whether hormonal contraception alters the risk of HIV transmission from an HIV-positive woman to an HIV-negative male partner. Design: Systematic review. Methods: We included articles published or in press through December 15, 2011. We assessed studies with direct evidence on hormonal contraception use and HIV transmission, and summarized studies with indirect evidence related to genital or plasma viral load. Results: One study provided direct evidence on oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) or injectable contraception and female-to-male HIV transmission; both injectables [Cox-adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-3.58; marginal structural model (MSM) adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) 3.01, 95% CI 1.47-6.16] and OCPs (Cox adjHR 2.09, 95% CI 0.75-5.84; MSM adjOR 2.35, 95% CI 0.79-6.95) generated elevated point estimates, but only estimates for injectables were significant. Findings from 11 indirect studies assessing various hormonal contraception methods and viral genital shedding or setpoint were mixed, and seven of eight studies indicated no adverse effect of various hormonal contraception methods on plasma viral load. Conclusion: The only direct study on OCPs or injectable contraception and female-to-male HIV transmission suggests increased risk with the use of injectables. Given the potential for confounding in observational data, the paucity of direct evidence on this subject, and mixed indirect evidence, additional evidence is needed. (C) 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins AIDS 2013, 27:493-505

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据