Global population-level association between herpes simplex virus 2 prevalence and HIV prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess the population-level association between herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) and HIV prevalence. METHODS: Reports of HSV-2 and HIV prevalence were systematically reviewed and synthesized following PRISMA guidelines. Spearman rank correlation ((Equation is included in full-text article.)) was used to assess correlations. Risk ratios (RRHSV-2/HIV) and odds ratios (ORHSV-2/HIV) were used to assess HSV-2/HIV epidemiologic overlap. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In total, 939 matched HSV-2/HIV prevalence measures were identified from 77 countries. HSV-2 prevalence was consistently higher than HIV prevalence. Strong HSV-2/HIV prevalence association was found for all data ((Equation is included in full-text article.) = 0.6, P < 0.001), all data excluding people who inject drugs (PWID) and children ((Equation is included in full-text article.) = 0.7, P < 0.001), female sex workers ((Equation is included in full-text article.) = 0.5, P < 0.001), and MSM ((Equation is included in full-text article.) = 0.7, P < 0.001). No association was found for PWID ((Equation is included in full-text article.) = 0.2, P = 0.222) and children ((Equation is included in full-text article.) = 0.3, P = 0.082). A threshold effect was apparent where HIV prevalence was limited at HSV-2 prevalence less than 20%, but grew steadily with HSV-2 prevalence for HSV-2 prevalence greater than 20%. The overall pooled mean RRHSV-2/HIV was 5.0 (95% CI 4.7-5.3) and ORHSV-2/HIV was 9.0 (95% CI 8.4-9.7). The RRHSV-2/HIV and ORHSV-2/HIV showed similar patterns that conveyed inferences about HSV-2 and HIV epidemiology. CONCLUSION: HSV-2 and HIV prevalence are strongly associated. HSV-2 prevalence can be used as a proxy 'biomarker' of HIV epidemic potential, acting as a 'temperature scale' of the intensity of sexual risk behavior that drive HIV transmission. HSV-2 prevalence can be used to identify populations and/or sexual networks at high-risk of future HIV expansion, and help prioritization, optimization, and resource allocation of cost-effective prevention interventions.

Status of HIV and hepatitis C virus infections among prisoners in the Middle East and North Africa: review and synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: The status of HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections among incarcerated populations in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and the links between prisons and the HIV epidemic are poorly understood. This review synthesized available HIV and HCV data in prisons in MENA and highlighted opportunities for action. METHODS: The review was based on data generated through the systematic searches of the MENA HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Synthesis Project (2003 to December 15, 2015) and the MENA HCV Epidemiology Synthesis Project (2011 to December 15, 2015). Sources of data included peer-reviewed publications and country-level reports and databases. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We estimated a population of 496,000 prisoners in MENA, with drug-related offences being a major cause for incarceration. Twenty countries had data on HIV among incarcerated populations with a median prevalence of 0.6% in Afghanistan, 6.1% in Djibouti, 0.01% in Egypt, 2.5% in Iran, 0% in Iraq, 0.1% in Jordan, 0.05% in Kuwait, 0.7% in Lebanon, 18.0% in Libya, 0.7% in Morocco, 0.3% in Oman, 1.1% in Pakistan, 0% in Palestine, 1.2% in Saudi Arabia, 0% in Somalia, 5.3% in Sudan and South Sudan, 0.04% in Syria, 0.05% in Tunisia, and 3.5% in Yemen. Seven countries had data on HCV, with a median prevalence of 1.7% in Afghanistan, 23.6% in Egypt, 28.1% in Lebanon, 15.6% in Pakistan, and 37.8% in Iran. Syria and Libya had only one HCV prevalence measure each at 1.5% and 23.7%, respectively. There was strong evidence for injecting drug use and the use of non-sterile injecting-equipment in prisons. Incarceration and injecting drugs, use of non-sterile injecting-equipment, and tattooing in prisons were found to be independent risk factors for HIV or HCV infections. High levels of sexual risk behaviour, tattooing and use of non-sterile razors among prisoners were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Prisons play an important role in HIV and HCV dynamics in MENA and have facilitated the emergence of large HIV epidemics in at least two countries, Iran and Pakistan. There is evidence for substantial but variable HIV and HCV prevalence, as well as risk behaviour including injecting drug use and unprotected sex among prisoners across countries. These findings highlight the need for comprehensive harm-reduction strategies in prisons.

Neighbour-shared versus communal latrines in urban slums: a cross-sectional study in Orissa, India exploring household demographics, accessibility, privacy, use and cleanliness.

INTRODUCTION: A growing proportion of the global population rely on shared sanitation facilities, despite their association with adverse health outcomes. We sought to explore differences between neighbour-shared and communal latrines in terms household demographics, accessibility, facilities and use. METHODS: We conducted surveys among 295 households relying on shared sanitation in 30 slums in Orissa, India, 60.3% (178) of which relied on neighbour-shared latrines while the balance relied on communal latrines. We collected household demographic data, conducted latrine spot-checks and collected data on indicators of use, accessibility, privacy and cleanliness. RESULTS: Compared to neighbour-shared facilities, households relying on communal facilities were poorer, larger, less educated, less likely to have access to piped water and more likely to have a member practicing open defecation. Communal latrines were also less accessible, less likely to have water or a hand washing station on site and cleaned less frequently; they were more likely to have visible faeces and flies present. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant differences between neighbour-shared and communal facilities in terms of user demographics, access, facilities and cleanliness that could potentially explain differences in health. These findings highlight the need for a shared sanitation policy that focuses not just on the number of users, but also on maintenance, accessibility, cleanliness and provision of water and hand washing facilities.

Shared Sanitation Versus Individual Household Latrines in Urban Slums: A Cross-Sectional Study in Orissa, India.

A large and growing proportion of the global population rely on shared sanitation facilities despite evidence of a potential increased risk of adverse health outcomes compared with individual household latrines (IHLs). We sought to explore differences between households relying on shared sanitation versus IHLs in terms of demographics, sanitation facilities, and fecal exposure. We surveyed 570 households from 30 slums in Orissa, India, to obtain data on demographics, water, sanitation, and hygiene. Latrine spot-checks were conducted to collect data on indicators of use, privacy, and cleanliness. We collected samples of drinking water and hand rinses to assess fecal contamination. Households relying on shared sanitation were poorer and less educated than those accessing IHLs. Individuals in sharing households were more likely to practice open defecation. Shared facilities were less likely to be functional, less clean, and more likely to have feces and flies. No differences in fecal contamination of drinking water or hand-rinse samples were found. Important differences exist among households accessing shared facilities versus IHLs that may partly explain the apparent adverse health outcomes associated with shared sanitation. As these factors may capture differences in risk and promote sanitary improvements, they should be considered in future policy.

The geographic and demographic scope of shared sanitation: an analysis of national survey data from low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: A large and growing proportion of the world's population rely on shared sanitation facilities that have historically been excluded from international targets due to concerns about acceptability, hygiene and access. In connection with a proposed change in such policy, we undertook this study to describe the prevalence and scope of households that report relying on shared sanitation and to characterise them in terms of selected socio-economic and demographic covariates. METHODS: We extracted data from the most recent national household surveys of 84 low- and middle-income countries from Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. We describe the prevalence of shared sanitation and explore associations between specified covariates and reliance on shared sanitation using log-binomial regression. RESULTS: While household reliance on any type of shared sanitation is relatively rare in Europe (2.5%) and the Eastern Mediterranean (7.7%), it is not uncommon in the Americas (14.2%), Western Pacific (16.4%) and South-East Asia (31.3%), and it is most prevalent in Africa (44.6%) where many shared facilities do not meet the definition of 'improved' even if they were not shared (17.7%). Overall, shared sanitation is more common in urban (28.6%) than in rural settings (25.9%), even after adjusting for wealth. While results vary geographically, people who rely on shared sanitation tend to be poorer, reside in urban areas and live in households with more young children and headed by people with no formal education. Data from 21 countries suggest that most sharing is with neighbours and other acquaintances (82.0%) rather than the public. CONCLUSIONS: The determinants of shared sanitation identified from these data suggest potential confounders that may explain the apparent increased health risk from sharing and should be considered in any policy recommendation. Both geographic and demographic heterogeneity indicate the need for further research to support a change in policies.

Shared sanitation and the prevalence of diarrhea in young children: evidence from 51 countries, 2001-2011.

Shared sanitation is defined as unimproved because of concerns that it creates unsanitary conditions; this policy is being reconsidered. We assessed whether sharing a toilet facility was associated with an increased prevalence of diarrhea among children < 5 years of age. We use data from Demographic and Health Surveys conducted in 51 countries. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for diarrhea, comparing children from households that used a shared facility with children from households that used a non-shared facility, were estimated for each country and pooled across countries. Unadjusted PRs varied across countries, ranging from 2.15 to 0.65. The pooled PR was 1.09; differences in socioeconomic status explained approximately half of this increased prevalence (adjusted PR = 1.05). Shared sanitation appears to be a risk factor for diarrhea although differences in socioeconomic status are important. The heterogeneity across countries, however, suggests that the social and economic context is an important factor.

Shared sanitation versus individual household latrines: a systematic review of health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than 761 million people rely on shared sanitation facilities. These have historically been excluded from international sanitation targets, regardless of the service level, due to concerns about acceptability, hygiene and access. In connection with a proposed change in such policy, we undertook this review to identify and summarize existing evidence that compares health outcomes associated with shared sanitation versus individual household latrines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Shared sanitation included any type of facilities intended for the containment of human faeces and used by more than one household, but excluded public facilities. Health outcomes included diarrhoea, helminth infections, enteric fevers, other faecal-oral diseases, trachoma and adverse maternal or birth outcomes. Studies were included regardless of design, location, language or publication status. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the STROBE guidelines. Twenty-two studies conducted in 21 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies show a pattern of increased risk of adverse health outcomes associated with shared sanitation compared to individual household latrines. A meta-analysis of 12 studies reporting on diarrhoea found increased odds of disease associated with reliance on shared sanitation (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% CI: 1.18-1.76). CONCLUSION: Evidence to date does not support a change of existing policy of excluding shared sanitation from the definition of improved sanitation used in international monitoring and targets. However, such evidence is limited, does not adequately address likely confounding, and does not identify potentially important distinctions among types of shared facilities. As reliance on shared sanitation is increasing, further research is necessary to determine the circumstances, if any, under which shared sanitation can offer a safe, appropriate and acceptable alternative to individual household latrines.