Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Rayanakorn A, Chautrakarn S, Intawong K, Chariyalertsak C, Khemngern P, Olson D, et al.
    PLoS One, 2022;17(5):e0268407.
    PMID: 35551288 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268407
    BACKGROUND: HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness among high-risk populations. In Thailand, PrEP has been included in the National Guidelines on HIV/AIDS Treatment and Prevention since 2014. As a part of the national monitoring and evaluation framework for Thailand's universal coverage inclusion, this cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess knowledge of, attitudes to and practice (KAP) of PrEP service providers in Thailand.

    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to explore knowledge of, and attitudes towards PrEP among providers from hospital and Key Population Led Health Services (KPLHS) settings. The questionnaire was distributed online in July 2020. Descriptive and univariate analysis using an independent-sample t-test were applied in the analyses. Attitudes were ranked from the most negative (score of 1) to the most positive (score of 5).

    RESULTS: Overall, there were 196 respondents (158 from hospitals and 38 from KPLHS) in which most hospital providers are female nurse practitioners while half of those from KPLHS report current gender as gay. Most respondents report a high level of PrEP knowledge and support provision in all high-risk groups with residual concern regarding anti-retroviral drugs resistance. Over two-fifths of providers from both settings perceive that PrEP would result in risk compensation and half of KPLHS providers are concerned regarding risk of sexual transmitted infections. Limited PrEP counselling time is a challenge for hospital providers.

    CONCLUSIONS: Service integration between both settings, more involvement and distribution of KPLHS in reaching key populations would be essential in optimizing PrEP uptake and retention. Continuing support particularly in raising awareness about PrEP among healthcare providers and key populations, facilities and manpower, unlimited quota of patient recruitment and PrEP training to strengthen providers' confidence and knowledge would be essential for successful PrEP implementation.

  2. Solante R, Alvarez-Moreno C, Burhan E, Chariyalertsak S, Chiu NC, Chuenkitmongkol S, et al.
    Expert Rev Vaccines, 2023;22(1):1-16.
    PMID: 36330971 DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2023.2143347
    INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective in reducing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. However, the emergence of the Omicron variant and subvariants as the globally dominant strains have raised doubts about the effectiveness of currently available vaccines and prompted debate about potential future vaccination strategies.

    AREAS COVERED: Using the publicly available IVAC VIEW-hub platform, we reviewed 52 studies on vaccine effectiveness (VE) after booster vaccinations. VE were reported for SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection, severe disease and death and stratified by vaccine schedule and age. In addition, a non-systematic literature review of safety was performed to identify single or multi-country studies investigating adverse event rates for at least two of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines.

    EXPERT OPINION: Booster shots of the current COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high protection against Omicron-related severe disease and death. Additionally, this protection appears to be conserved for at least 3 months, with a small but significant waning after that. The positive risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is well established, giving us confidence to administer additional doses as required. Future vaccination strategies will likely include a combination of schedules based on risk profile, as overly frequent boosting may be neither beneficial nor sustainable for the general population.

  3. Wei F, Gaisa MM, D'Souza G, Xia N, Giuliano AR, Hawes SE, et al.
    Lancet HIV, 2021 Sep;8(9):e531-e543.
    PMID: 34339628 DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00108-9
    BACKGROUND: Robust age-specific estimates of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in men can inform anal cancer prevention efforts. We aimed to evaluate the age-specific prevalence of anal HPV, HSIL, and their combination, in men, stratified by HIV status and sexuality.

    METHODS: We did a systematic review for studies on anal HPV infection in men and a pooled analysis of individual-level data from eligible studies across four groups: HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), HIV-negative MSM, HIV-positive men who have sex with women (MSW), and HIV-negative MSW. Studies were required to inform on type-specific HPV infection (at least HPV16), detected by use of a PCR-based test from anal swabs, HIV status, sexuality (MSM, including those who have sex with men only or also with women, or MSW), and age. Authors of eligible studies with a sample size of 200 participants or more were invited to share deidentified individual-level data on the above four variables. Authors of studies including 40 or more HIV-positive MSW or 40 or more men from Africa (irrespective of HIV status and sexuality) were also invited to share these data. Pooled estimates of anal high-risk HPV (HR-HPV, including HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68), and HSIL or worse (HSIL+), were compared by use of adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) from generalised linear models.

    FINDINGS: The systematic review identified 93 eligible studies, of which 64 contributed data on 29 900 men to the pooled analysis. Among HIV-negative MSW anal HPV16 prevalence was 1·8% (91 of 5190) and HR-HPV prevalence was 6·9% (345 of 5003); among HIV-positive MSW the prevalences were 8·7% (59 of 682) and 26·9% (179 of 666); among HIV-negative MSM they were 13·7% (1455 of 10 617) and 41·2% (3798 of 9215), and among HIV-positive MSM 28·5% (3819 of 13 411) and 74·3% (8765 of 11 803). In HIV-positive MSM, HPV16 prevalence was 5·6% (two of 36) among those age 15-18 years and 28·8% (141 of 490) among those age 23-24 years (ptrend=0·0091); prevalence was 31·7% (1057 of 3337) among those age 25-34 years and 22·8% (451 of 1979) among those age 55 and older (ptrend<0·0001). HPV16 prevalence in HIV-negative MSM was 6·7% (15 of 223) among those age 15-18 and 13·9% (166 of 1192) among those age 23-24 years (ptrend=0·0076); the prevalence plateaued thereafter (ptrend=0·72). Similar age-specific patterns were observed for HR-HPV. No significant differences for HPV16 or HR-HPV were found by age for either HIV-positive or HIV-negative MSW. HSIL+ detection ranged from 7·5% (12 of 160) to 54·5% (61 of 112) in HIV-positive MSM; after adjustment for heterogeneity, HIV was a significant predictor of HSIL+ (aPR 1·54, 95% CI 1·36-1·73), HPV16-positive HSIL+ (1·66, 1·36-2·03), and HSIL+ in HPV16-positive MSM (1·19, 1·04-1·37). Among HPV16-positive MSM, HSIL+ prevalence increased with age.

    INTERPRETATION: High anal HPV prevalence among young HIV-positive and HIV-negative MSM highlights the benefits of gender-neutral HPV vaccination before sexual activity over catch-up vaccination. HIV-positive MSM are a priority for anal cancer screening research and initiatives targeting HPV16-positive HSIL+.

    FUNDING: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links