You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical round-up
Clinical roundup
  1. Lewis Haddow1,
  2. Sophie Herbert2
  1. 1Research Department of Infection and Population Health, Centre for Sexual Health & HIV Research, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lewis Haddow, Research Department of Infection and Population Health, Centre for Sexual Health & HIV Research, University College London, London, UK; lewis.haddow{at}ucl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2015-052069

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.

    What are the chances, doctor?

    The risk of HIV transmission from a single sexual encounter is a popular topic of conversation between sexual healthcare providers and patients. Patel et al have recently updated the USA’ Centers for Disease Control 2005 review, in which this risk was previously estimated.1 ,2 Their review includes the most recent observational and interventional study findings, in particular those pertaining to the use of treatment as prevention (TasP). The review reports that receptive anal intercourse carries a risk of 138 transmissions per 10 000 acts (1.38%) in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) or condoms, compared with 4 transmissions per 10 000 acts of insertive penile–vaginal sex (0.04%). The use of both condoms and ART reduces the risk of HIV from sexual exposure by 99.2%. With careful study of figure 2 in the paper and armed with a pocket calculator, the reader will be able to calculate many other permutations of estimated risk from the data reviewed.

    The irony of TasP and Patel's review …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both authors contributed to the identification of articles for review and drafting of the manuscript. On this occasion, the corresponding author contributed >50% of the work.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.