RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Key populations (sex workers, men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, people in prisons and other closed settings, and trans and gender diverse individuals) are disproportionately affected by HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and viral hepatitis (VH). Counselling behavioural interventions are widely used, but their impact on HIV/STI/VH acquisition is unclear. METHODS: To inform World Health Organization guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness, values and preferences, and cost studies about counselling behavioural interventions with key populations. We searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and EMBASE for studies published between January 2010 and December 2022; screened abstracts; and extracted data in duplicate. The effectiveness review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with HIV/STI/VH incidence outcomes; secondary review outcomes of unprotected sex, needle/syringe sharing and mortality were captured if studies also included primary review outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, generated pooled risk ratios through random effects meta-analysis and summarized findings in GRADE evidence profiles. Values and preferences and cost data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: We identified nine effectiveness, two values and preferences, and two cost articles. Meta-analysis of six RCTs showed no statistically significant effect of counselling behavioural interventions on HIV incidence (1280 participants; combined risk ratio [RR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.20) or STI incidence (3783 participants; RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.74-1.31). One RCT with 139 participants showed possible effects on hepatitis C virus incidence. There was no effect on secondary review outcomes of unprotected (condomless) sex (seven RCTs; 1811 participants; RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.02) and needle/syringe sharing (two RCTs; 564 participants; RR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.32-1.63). There was moderate certainty in the lack of effect across outcomes. Two values and preferences studies found that participants liked specific counselling behavioural interventions. Two cost studies found reasonable intervention costs. DISCUSSION: Evidence was limited and mostly on HIV, but showed no effect of counselling behavioural interventions on HIV/VH/STI incidence among key populations. CONCLUSIONS: While there may be other benefits, the choice to provide counselling behavioural interventions for key populations should be made with an understanding of the potential limitations on incidence outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH , Hepatitis C , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual , Masculino , Humanos , Terapia Conductista , ConsejoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This systematic review was aimed to estimate hepatitis C virus (HCV) seroprevalence and burden in disease in WHO South East Asia Region (SEAR). METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar) and websites of non-indexed national medical journals, government and international health agencies were searched to identify English language literature published between 1991 and June 2020. We selected the studies reporting HCV seroprevalence in asymptomatic general (low-risk) and high-risk adult populations, that is, persons living with HIV (PLHIV), persons who inject drugs (PWID), sex workers, persons on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), people in prison, and men sex with men (MSM). Seroprevalence data were combined to estimate weighted pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval) in each group and in each country, using the random-effects model. Estimated pooled seroprevalences were multiplied with estimated populations at risk to estimate the overall HCV burden. RESULTS: The analysis included 538 studies (35 Bangladesh, 6 Bhutan, 2 DPR Korea, 323 India, 43 Indonesia, 2 Maldives, 18 Myanmar, 29 Nepal, 11 Sri Lanka, 67 Thailand, and 2 Timor-Leste). In SEAR, the weighted pooled anti-HCV seroprevalence was estimated as 0.84% (0.56-1.12) in low-risk population and 13.67% (10.95-16.40) in PLHIV, 51.44% (43.67-59.20) in PWID, 25.80% (20.34-32.09) in MHD, 8.39% (5.84-11.51) in prison inmates, 2.69% (1.43-4.13) in people with high-risk sex behavior, and 11.43% (8.61-14.74) in MSM. The total HCV burden in low-risk and high-risk populations in SEAR countries was estimated as 12.45 million and 1.65 million, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our estimates of HCV seroprevalence and burden should help the respective countries in planning their HCV elimination strategies.