No abstract

Tailoring sexual and reproductive health services to meet the needs of people living with the human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) is a growing concern but there are few insights into these issues where HIV is most prevalent. This cross-sectional study investigated the fertility intentions and associated health care needs of 459 women and men, not sampled as intimate partners of each other, living with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa. An almost equal proportion of women (55%) and men (43%) living with HIV, reported not intending to have children as were open to the possibility of having children (45 and 57%, respectively). Overall, greater intentions to have children were associated with being male, having fewer children, living in an informal settlement and use of antiretroviral therapy. There were important gender differences in the determinants of future childbearing intentions, with being on HAART strongly associated with women's fertility intentions. Gender differences were also apparent in participants' key reasons for wanting children. A minority of participants had discussed their reproductive intentions and related issues with HIV health care providers. There is an urgent need for intervention models to integrate HIV care with sexual and reproduction health counseling and services that account for the diverse reproductive needs of these populations.

Summary Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been used as antiviral agents for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV2) infection. We performed a systematic review to examine whether prior clinical studies that compared the effects of CQ and HCQ to a control for the treatment of non‐SARS‐CoV2 infection supported the use of these agents in the present SARS‐CoV2 outbreak. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science (PROSPERO CRD42020183429) were searched from inception through 2 April 2020 without language restrictions. Of 1766 retrieved reports, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective controlled studies and one retrospective study. CQ or HCQ were compared to control for the treatment of infectious mononucleosis (EBV, n = 4), warts (human papillomavirus, n = 2), chronic HIV infection ( n = 6), acute chikungunya infection ( n = 1), acute dengue virus infection ( n = 2), chronic HCV ( n = 2), and as preventive measures for influenza infection ( n = 1). Survival was not evaluated in any study. For HIV, the virus that was most investigated, while two early studies suggested HCQ reduced viral levels, four subsequent ones did not, and in two of these CQ or HCQ increased viral levels and reduced CD4 counts. Overall, three studies concluded CQ or HCQ were effective; four concluded further research was needed to assess the treatments' effectiveness; and 11 concluded that treatment was ineffective or potentially harmful. Prior controlled clinical trials with CQ and HCQ for non‐SARS‐CoV2 viral infections do not support these agents' use for the SARS‐CoV2 outbreak.

No abstract

Ninety years ago the isolation of insulin transformed the lives of people with type 1 diabetes. Now, models based on empirical data estimate that a 25-year-old person with HIV, when appropriately treated with antiretroviral therapy, can expect to enjoy a median survival of 35 years, remarkably similar to that for someone of the same age with type 1 diabetes. It is high time we normalised the lives of people living positively with HIV. This includes the basic human right to conceive and raise children. HIV-positive individuals may be in serodiscordant relationships or in seroconcordant relationships. As health care providers, it is our responsibility to ensure we understand the opportunities and risks of natural conception in these scenarios, so that we can help our patients to make informed decisions about their own lives. Most of all, it is our duty to make family planning in the setting of positive prevention as safe as we can. This includes informed decisions on contraception, adoption, fostering, conception and prevention of mother-to-child transmission. Some months ago a dedicated group of individuals, invited and sponsored by the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, came together in Cape Town to devise guidance in this area, recognising that there are ideal strategies that may be outside the realm of the resource constraints of the public sector or health programmes in southern Africa. This guideline therefore attempts to provide a range of strategies for various resource settings. It is up to us, the providers, to familiarise ourselves with the merits/benefits and risks of each, and to then engage patients in meaningful discussions. All the above, however, is based on the premise and prerequisite that the subject of family planning is actively raised and frequently discussed in our patient encounters.Please find a link to the update of this guideline: http://sajhivmed.org.za/index.php/hivmed/article/view/399

Background: Cervical cancer and infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are both major public health problems in South Africa. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of cervical pre-cancer and cancer among HIV positive women in South Africa.

Recent studies have suggested that progestogen-only contraceptives and combined estrogen/progestogen oral contraceptives (COCs) may increase the risk of breast cancer among women less than 35 years of age or among recent users. The authors conducted a case-control study, in which cases of breast cancer (n = 484) [corrected] and controls (n = 1,625) hospitalized for conditions unrelated to contraceptive use were interviewed from 1994 to 1997 in hospitals in greater Cape Town, South Africa. The women were aged 20-54 years, resided in a defined area around Cape Town, and were Black or of mixed racial descent. The relative risk for exposure to injectable progestogen contraceptives (IPCs), mostly depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, was 0.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7, 1.2). There were no consistent associations within categories of age or recency or duration of use. For exposure to COCs, the overall relative risk was 1.2 (95% CI 1.0, 1.5). Among women below age 35 years, the relative risk was 1.7 (95% CI 1.0, 3.0), and it was unrelated to the duration or recency of use. The findings suggest that IPCs do not increase the risk of breast cancer, and that COCs may increase the risk among women below age 35 years, although bias cannot be excluded.

BackgroundDespite abortion being legally available in South Africa after a change in legislation in 1996, barriers to accessing safe abortion services continue to exist. These barriers include provider opposition to abortion often on the grounds of religious or moral beliefs including the unregulated practice of conscientious objection. Few studies have explored how providers in South Africa make sense of, or understand, conscientious objection in terms of refusing to provide abortion care services and the consequent impact on abortion access.MethodsA qualitative approach was used which included 48 in-depth interviews with a purposively selected population of abortion related health service providers, managers and policy influentials in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.ResultsThe ways in which conscientious objection was interpreted and practiced, and its impact on abortion service provision was explored. In most public sector facilities there was a general lack of understanding concerning the circumstances in which health care providers were entitled to invoke their right to refuse to provide, or assist in abortion services. Providers seemed to have poor understandings of how conscientious objection was to be implemented, but were also constrained in that there were few guidelines or systems in place to guide them in the process.ConclusionsExploring the ways in which conscientious objection was interpreted and applied by differing levels of health care workers in relation to abortion provision raised multiple and contradictory issues. From providers’ accounts it was often difficult to distinguish what constituted confusion with regards to the specifics of how conscientious objection was to be implemented in terms of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, and what was refusal of abortion care based on opposition to abortion in general. In order to disentangle what is resistance to abortion provision in general, and what is conscientious objection on religious or moral grounds, clear guidelines need to be provided including what measures need to be undertaken in order to lodge one’s right to conscientious objection. This would facilitate long term contingency plans for overall abortion service provision.