Article Text

Download PDFPDF

P04.08 Sex partner meeting venues and hiv transmission risk factors among newly diagnosed hiv-infected urban msm: implications for targeted control strategies
  1. EL Fields1,2,
  2. MA Clarke3,
  3. C Schumacher1,4,
  4. AG Safi1,
  5. C Nganga-Good4,
  6. R Muvva4,
  7. P Patrick Chaulk4,5,6,
  8. JM Jennings1,3
  1. 1Center for Child and Community Health Research, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
  2. 2Department of Health Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
  3. 3Department of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
  4. 4Baltimore City Health Department, Baltimore, MD, USA
  5. 5Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
  6. 6Department of Health Policy and Management, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA


Background Men who have sex with men (MSM) experience over half of US HIV infections. Control strategies, including identifying venues with ongoing transmission, are needed. Surveillance efforts traditionally focus on place, rather than internet venues and may miss other high risk populations. The objective of this study was to determine if there were significant differences in HIV-transmission related risk factors including viral load by sex partner meeting venue among newly diagnosed HIV-infected MSM.

Methods Public health surveillance data of newly diagnosed MSM between January 2011 and July 2014 (N = 280) was utilised. Data included reported past-year sex partner meeting venues and transmission risk factors including viral load collected between October 2012 and July 2014.

Results Eighty-four percent of subjects were Black and 48% were ≤24 years-old; 39% reported meeting partners at place only venues (bar/club/park/street), 34% internet only venues (website/mobile-app), and 26% both venue types. Significant differences among the three groups of individuals included differences in reports of sex under the influence of alcohol, numbers of sex partners and chlamydia co-infection at time of HIV diagnosis; individuals reporting both venue types had higher reports in all three characteristics compared to individuals reporting place only and venue only. Individuals reporting both venue types had significantly lower geometric mean viral load (copies/mL) at diagnosis (2,574) than those reporting internet (6,275) or place (11,745) only venues.

Conclusions MSM meeting sex partners at both venue types may be at greater risk for HIV transmission based on number of sex partners, sex under influence of alcohol, and chlamydia infection. Lower viral load may suggest later diagnosis which increases transmission risk. Exploring this population may improve control strategies.

Statistics from

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.