Suppr超能文献

基于人群的生物医学性传播感染控制干预措施以减少艾滋病毒感染。

Population-based biomedical sexually transmitted infection control interventions for reducing HIV infection.

作者信息

Ng Brian E, Butler Lisa M, Horvath Tara, Rutherford George W

机构信息

School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16(3):CD001220. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001220.pub3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is closely related to the sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Similar risk behaviours, such as frequent unprotected intercourse with different partners, place people at high risk of HIV and STIs, and there is clear evidence that many STIs increase the likelihood of HIV transmission. STI control, especially at the population or community level, may have the potential to contribute substantially to HIV prevention.This is an update of an existing Cochrane review. The review's search methods were updated and its inclusion and exclusion criteria modified so that the focus would be on one well-defined outcome. This review now focuses explicitly on population-based biomedical interventions for STI control, with change in HIV incidence being an outcome necessary for a study's inclusion.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of population-based biomedical STI interventions on the incidence of HIV infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science/Social Science, PsycINFO, and Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), for the period of 1 January1980 - 16 August 2010. We initially identified 6003 articles and abstracts. After removing 776 duplicates, one author (TH) removed an additional 3268 citations that were clearly irrelevant. Rigorously applying the inclusion criteria, three authors then independently screened the remaining 1959 citations and abstracts. Forty-six articles were chosen for full-text scrutiny by two authors. Ultimately, four studies were included in the review.We also searched the Aegis database of conference abstracts, which includes the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), the International AIDS Conference (IAC), and International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS) meetings from their inception dates (1993, 1985 and 2001, respectively) through 2007. We manually searched the web sites of those conferences for more recent abstracts (up to 2010, 2010 and 2009, respectively)  In addition to searching the clinical trials registry at the US National Institutes of Health, we also used the metaRegister of Controlled Trials.We checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the above methods.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving one or more biomedical interventions in general populations (as opposed to occupationally or behaviourally defined groups, such as sex workers) in which the unit of randomisation was either a community or a treatment facility and in which the primary outcome was incident HIV infection. The term "community" was interpreted to include a group of villages, an arbitrary geographical division, or the catchment population of a group of health facilities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors (BN, LB, TH) independently applied the inclusion criteria to potential studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion. Trials were examined for completeness of reporting. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials. One trial evaluated mass treatment of all individuals in a particular community. The other three trials evaluated various combinations of improved syndromic STI management in clinics, STI counselling, and STI treatment.In the mass treatment trial in rural southwestern Uganda, after three rounds of treatment of all community members for STIs, the adjusted rate ratio (aRR) of incident HIV infection was 0.97 (95% CI 0.81 - 1.2), indicating no effect of the intervention. The three STI management intervention studies were all conducted in rural parts of Africa. One study, in northern Tanzania, showed that the incidence of HIV infection in the intervention groups (strengthened syndromic management of STIs in primary care clinics) was 1.2% compared with 1.9% in the control groups (aRR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 - 0.79), corresponding to a 42% reduction (95% CI 21.0% - 58.0%) in HIV incidence in the intervention group. Another study, conducted in rural southwestern Uganda, showed that the aRR of behavioural intervention and STI management compared to control on HIV incidence was 1.00 (95% CI 0.63 - 1.58). In the third STI management trial, in eastern Zimbabwe, there was no effect of the intervention on HIV incidence (aRR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.92 - 1.8). These are consistent with data from the mass treatment trial showing no intervention effect. Overall, pooling the data of the four studies showed no significant effect of any intervention (rate ratio [RR] = 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 - 1.2).Combining the mass treatment trial and one of the STI management trials, we find that there is a significant 12.0% reduction in the prevalence of syphilis for those receiving a biomedical STI intervention (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 - 0.96). For gonorrhoea, we find a statistically significant 51.0% reduction in its prevalence in those receiving any of these interventions (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.77). Finally, for chlamydia, we found no significant difference between any biomedical intervention and control (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 - 1.4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We failed to confirm the hypothesis that STI control is an effective HIV prevention strategy. Improved STI treatment services were shown in one study to reduce HIV incidence in an environment characterised by an emerging HIV epidemic (low and slowly rising prevalence), where STI treatment services were poor and where STIs were highly prevalent; Incidence was not reduced in two other settings. There is no evidence for substantial benefit from a presumptive treatment intervention for all community members. There are, however, other compelling reasons why STI treatment services should be strengthened, and the available evidence suggests that when an intervention is accepted it can substantially improve quality of services provided.

摘要

背景

性传播感染(STIs)的传播与人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)的性传播密切相关。相似的风险行为,如频繁与不同性伴进行无保护性行为,会使人们面临感染HIV和性传播感染的高风险,并且有明确证据表明许多性传播感染会增加HIV传播的可能性。控制性传播感染,尤其是在人群或社区层面,可能对预防HIV有很大帮助。这是对现有Cochrane综述的更新。更新了综述的检索方法,修改了纳入和排除标准,以便重点关注一个明确界定的结果。本综述现在明确聚焦于基于人群的生物医学性传播感染控制干预措施,HIV发病率的变化是纳入研究的必要结果。

目的

确定基于人群的生物医学性传播感染干预措施对HIV感染发病率的影响。

检索策略

我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、科学网/社会科学、PsycINFO以及拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学文献数据库(LILACS),检索时间为1980年1月1日至2010年8月16日。我们最初识别出6003篇文章和摘要。去除776篇重复文献后,一位作者(TH)又去除了另外3268篇明显不相关的文献。三位作者严格应用纳入标准,随后独立筛选了剩余的1959篇文献和摘要。两位作者选择了46篇文章进行全文审查。最终,四项研究被纳入本综述。我们还检索了会议摘要的Aegis数据库,其中包括逆转录病毒与机会性感染会议(CROI)、国际艾滋病大会(IAC)以及国际艾滋病学会HIV发病机制、治疗与预防会议(IAS)自其成立日期(分别为1993年、1985年和2001年)至2007年的会议摘要。我们手动搜索了这些会议的网站以获取更新的摘要(分别截至2010年、2010年和2009年)。除了检索美国国立卫生研究院的临床试验注册库外,我们还使用了对照试验元注册库。我们检查了通过上述方法识别出的所有研究的参考文献列表。

选择标准

随机对照试验,涉及对一般人群(与职业或行为定义的群体,如性工作者相对)进行一种或多种生物医学干预,随机分组单位为社区或治疗机构,主要结局为HIV感染新发病例。“社区”一词被解释为包括一组村庄、一个任意的地理区域或一组卫生设施的服务人群。

数据收集与分析

三位作者(BN、LB、TH)独立将纳入标准应用于潜在研究,任何分歧通过讨论解决。检查试验报告的完整性。使用标准化的摘要表格独立提取数据。

主要结果

我们纳入了四项试验。一项试验评估了对特定社区所有个体的大规模治疗。其他三项试验评估了诊所中改进的症状性性传播感染管理、性传播感染咨询和性传播感染治疗的各种组合。在乌干达西南部农村的大规模治疗试验中,对所有社区成员进行三轮性传播感染治疗后,HIV感染新发病例的调整率比(aRR)为0.97(95%可信区间0.81 - 1.2),表明干预无效果。三项性传播感染管理干预研究均在非洲农村地区进行。一项在坦桑尼亚北部的研究表明,干预组(基层医疗诊所强化症状性性传播感染管理)的HIV感染发病率为1.2%,而对照组为1.9%(aRR = 0.58,95%可信区间0.42 - 0.79),这相当于干预组HIV发病率降低了42%(95%可信区间21.0% - 58.0%)。另一项在乌干达西南部农村进行的研究表明,行为干预和性传播感染管理与对照组相比,对HIV发病率的aRR为1.00(95%可信区间0.63 - 1.58)。在第三项性传播感染管理试验中,在津巴布韦东部,干预对HIV发病率无影响(aRR = 1.3,95%可信区间0.92 - 1.8)。这些结果与大规模治疗试验中显示无干预效果的数据一致。总体而言,汇总四项研究的数据表明,任何干预均无显著效果(率比[RR] = 0.97,95%可信区间0.78 - 1.2)。将大规模治疗试验和一项性传播感染管理试验相结合,我们发现接受生物医学性传播感染干预的人群梅毒患病率显著降低了12.0%(RR 0.88,95%可信区间0.80 - 0.96)。对于淋病,我们发现接受任何这些干预的人群其患病率在统计学上显著降低了51.0%(RR 0.49,95%可信区间0.31 - 0.77)。最后,对于衣原体感染,我们发现任何生物医学干预与对照组之间无显著差异(RR = 1.03,95%可信区间0.77 - 1.4)。

作者结论

我们未能证实性传播感染控制是一种有效的HIV预防策略这一假设。在一项研究中显示,在HIV疫情初现(患病率低且缓慢上升)、性传播感染治疗服务差且性传播感染高度流行的环境中,改善性传播感染治疗服务可降低HIV发病率;在另外两个环境中发病率未降低。没有证据表明对所有社区成员进行推定治疗干预有实质性益处。然而,有其他令人信服的理由应加强性传播感染治疗服务,现有证据表明,当一项干预措施被接受时,它可以显著提高所提供服务的质量。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验