|
BHIVA: No evidence of a
hepatitis C epidemic in HIV negative gay men
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/F9C11A12-FB93-487C-AEFB-110C5EC85DF1.asp
Data from attendees at a London GUM
clinic presented at the 14th BHIVA
Conference on Friday suggest that there is no
increase in hepatitis C infections amongst HIV
negative gay men.
The study found that the likelihood
of being newly diagnosed with hepatitis C was not
significantly greater in gay men than it was in
heterosexual men, and hepatitis C infection was much
more strongly associated with having HIV than it was
with sexual orientation.
Dr Jo Turner told the conference that the University
College Hospital (UCH) Centre for Sexual Health,
wishing to establish if the apparent rise in
hepatitis C infections in positive gay men was
matched by a similar rise in HIV negative men, had
decided to offer hepatitis C tests to all men
attending the GUM clinic for STI checkups between
March 2007 and March 2008.
Over the year 10,204 men attended the GUM clinic and
4,554 (44%) accepted the offer of a hepatitis C
test. Dr Turner was reporting on 4,472 valid
results. The men who accepted the offer of a
hepatitis C test were more likely to be gay (58% of
those accepting a test, 48% of those turning one
down), less likely to be African or Caribbean (8.7%
of those accepting, 13.3% of those not accepting)
and more likely to be injecting drug users (2.4% of
those accepting, 1.0% of those refusing).
The average age of all the men was 34. Seventy-one
per cent were of white ethnicity, about 8% black, 6%
Asian and the rest other/mixed. Nearly a quarter
(1032 or 23%) were HIV positive, 3122 HIV negative
at their last test, and 318 did not know their HIV
status at the time they were tested for hepatitis C.
One hundred and eight (2.5%) were or had been
injecting drug users and another 77 (1.7%) were both
gay and injecting drug users. Acute STIs were
diagnosed in 775 men (17.3%).
Hepatitis C testing was conducted by
antibody-testing pools of twelve blood samples. If
the pool tested positive, sub-pools of four were
tested and these tested individually if the sub-pool
tested positive. Individual samples that tested HCV
antibody positive were also tested for hepatitis C
RNA (viral load).
So far one hundred and fourteen hepatitis C
infections (2.55%) have been confirmed in the group.
Of these 97 were already known and 17 were newly
diagnosed infections.
The hepatitis C rate in HIV positive men was 9.3%
(82 infections), and was no different in gay men
(9.25%) than in all men. Similarly the rate in HIV
negative men, 0.51% (16 infections), was no
different in HIV negative gay men (0.49%). There was
one infection in a heterosexual man of unknown HIV
status.
The 17 newly diagnosed infections comprised ten
infections that appeared to be chronic, three where
people tested antibody positive but had cleared the
HCV virus, and four that appeared to be incident
(recent). Of the ten new diagnoses of chronic
infections, six were in HIV positive men, three of
whom were injecting drug users. Two were in HIV
negative gay men, one in an HIV negative drug user,
and one in a man without any hepatitis C or HIV risk
factors.
Three of the four incident infections were in HIV
positive men. The one in an HIV negative man was
interesting; he was a gay man with an HIV positive
partner and his sexual risk behaviour commented Dr
Turner, suggested that he was at high risk of both
HIV and hepatitis C. However he had told the staff
he was taking anti-HIV drugs as pre-exposure
prophylaxis to prevent infection by his partner. Dr
Turner told the conference that, independently of
the study, liver function testing had revealed
another five incident hepatitis C infections in
untested male clinic attendees during the same
period.
If injecting drug users were excluded, the hepatitis
C rate was 2.9% in gay men and 0.4% in
heterosexuals, but the difference was solely due to
the fact that more of the gay men had HIV. The
hepatitis C rate was 7.5% and 6.5% respectively in
HIV positive gay and heterosexual men, and 0.4% and
0.2% in HIV negative gay and heterosexual men;
neither of these differences was statistically
significant.
Dr Turner concluded that there was no evidence of an
increased risk of hepatitis C infection in HIV
negative gay men.
Asked to comment on the source of hepatitis C
infections in HIV positive men, given that rates in
non-drug using men were the same regardless of
sexual orientation, Dr Turner said analysis of
behavioural risks were ongoing but speculated that
infections might be due to non-sexual exposures such
as undisclosed needle use.
Reference
Turner J et al. Is there an unrecognised epidemic
of hepatitis C infection in men who have sex with
men? Fourteenth British HIV Association
Conference, Belfast. Abstract O22. 2008.
|