Article Text

PDF

P4.122 Effectiveness of Communidades Positivas: A Randomised Community-Level Combination HIV Prevention Intervention For Men Who Have Sex with Men in Peru
  1. A Silva-Santisteban1,
  2. K A Konda2,
  3. S Leon1,
  4. X Salazar1,
  5. C Sandoval1,
  6. J Clark2,
  7. J D Klausner3,
  8. T J Coates3,
  9. C F Caceres1
  1. 1Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
  2. 2UCLA Program in Global Health, Lima, Peru
  3. 3University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Abstract

Introduction Comunidades Positivas was a randomised clinical trial that assessed a community-level structural combination HIV prevention intervention for men who have sex with men (MSM) in Peru from 2008–2011. We used a 2 × 2 factorial design to determine the independent and combined effectiveness of community-level behavioural and biomedical HIV/STI prevention interventions.

Methods We cluster-randomised 24 low-income neighbourhoods in Lima, Peru, to one of four conditions: (1) Establishment of Community Centers focused on empowerment and promotion of HIV/STI prevention messages for MSM; (2) Expedited Partner Therapy for bacterial STIs; (3) Both interventions combined or; (4) No intervention. To determine the effectiveness of the interventions, a cohort of participants from each neighbourhood was interviewed concerning sexual risk behaviours and tested for HIV, HSV-2, syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhoea (pharyngeal and anal) at baseline and 9- and 18-months follow-up visits. We used Poisson regression adjusted for neighbourhood clustering to determine the association of intervention allocation with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) and overall STI incidence.

Results We enrolled 718 MSM and retained 571 (80%) at 18 months. At baseline there were no differences by intervention arm in either UAI or STI prevalence. The overall STI incidence was 19/100 person years with no difference in STI incidence by intervention allocation (all p > 0.05) (Table 1). There was an 19% absolute reduction in reported UAI in all communities comparing baseline to 18 months. There was no difference in the probability of reporting UAI by intervention allocation at the second follow-up (all p > 0.05) (Table 2).

Conclusions There was no significant intervention effect on STI incidence or UAI. Further analyses to interpret the lack of intervention effectiveness are ongoing and should be considered in future efforts to conceptualise and study the relationship between structural and biomedical components of combination prevention.

Abstract P4.122 Table 1

STI incidence during the 18 month follow-up by intervention component.

Abstract P4.122 Table 2

Unprotected anal sex in the past 6 months at the 18 month final study visit

  • clinical trial
  • HIV Prevention
  • Peru

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.