Search

ObjectivesThe relationship between sexual practices, identity and role among Latino men who have sex with men (MSM) and HIV risk is the subject of ongoing investigation but less is known about how these aspects of sexuality relate to human papilloma-virus (HPV), an independent risk factor for HIV. This observational study investigated the relationship between HPV and sexual practices, identity and role as well as other sexually transmitted infection (STI)/HIV risk factors among HIV-negative heterosexually and homosexually identified Peruvian MSM.SettingCommunity-based clinic for MSM in Lima, Peru.Participants756 subjects were screened based on inclusion criteria of: born anatomically male; age ≥18 years; had any anal intercourse with a man during the previous 12 months; residing in metropolitan Lima; HIV negative; willing to commit to twice-yearly clinic visits for 24 months; had not participated in an HIV or HPV vaccine study. 600/756 participants met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled, of whom 48% (284) identified as homosexual and 10% (57) as heterosexual, the basis of the analyses performed.ResultsCompared with homosexually identified MSM, heterosexually identified MSM had completed fewer years of formal education and were less likely to have: anogenital HPV or visible anal warts; given oral sex to a man; or used a condom with their most recent female sexual partner (all pConclusionsHPV burden, wart type (penile vs anal) and select HIV/STI risk behaviours differed between heterosexually and homosexually identified Peruvian MSM. Understanding the implications of these differences can lead to tailored HIV/STI prevention interventions for heterosexually identified MSM.Trial registration numberNCT01387412.

Background Factors influencing condom use among MSM/TW may include partner type and recent STI diagnosis. We examined the association of partner type with UAI among MSM/TW in urban Lima, Peru, recently diagnosed with HIV or STI. Methods We surveyed MSM/TW in Lima diagnosed with HIV/STI within the last month regarding their sexual practises with the most recent partner according to partner type (stable, casual, anonymous, commercial sex client or sex worker). We used a multivariate regression analysis to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) with UAI as the main outcome. Results Among 340 participants (mean age: 30.9, range: 18 – 60), 62.5% self-identified as homosexual, 5.7% heterosexual, 17.6% bisexual, and 14.3% TW. Participants classified their last partners as 44.5% stable, 34.0% casual, 10.2% anonymous, 9.9% commercial sex client and 1.5% sex worker. Overall, 72.3% of participants reported UAI with their last partner. Using stable partners as the reference category, UAI was positively associated with all other partner types: PR: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1 – 1.9, p Conclusion UAI with the last partner was more commonly reported for non-stable partners. These unexpected results warrant further investigation into the influence of partner type on high-risk sexual behaviour among HIV/STI infected MSM/TGW. A better understanding of relational partner-level factors is critical for improving HIV/STI prevention and partner notification efforts for Peruvian MSM/TGW.

Background Epidemiologic data demonstrates unequal distribution of HIV and STIs among MSM in Peru, with higher risk sub-populations disproportionately affected. Perceptions about partners as source of recent acquired STIs and its correlates could contribute to this epidemic by several mechanisms and serve as basis for future interventions. Methods 323 MSM and TW from Lima, Peru diagnosed with HIV (45.5%), Syphilis (53.9%), and/or Gonorrhea/Chlamydia (15.2%) within the last month were surveyed to assess partner sexual identity, and perception of most recent sexual partner as source of infection. Prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated using heterosexually-identified partners as the reference category in bivariate and multivariate analysis using partner perceived source of infection as the main outcome. Results Respondents aged from 18–60 years old (Mean: 30.8, SD: 9.3) and self-identified as Heterosexual (6.0%), Bisexual (17.1%), Homosexual (64.8%), and Transgender (12.1%). Most recent sexual partners identified as Heterosexual (10.3%), Bisexual (41.5%), Homosexual (45.7%), and Transgender (2.5%). Perception of most recent sexual partner as likely/highly likely to be the source of STI transmission was reported by 37.2% (N = 120/323) of respondents. Heterosexually-identified partners were least frequently perceived as the source of STI (24.1% perceived as likely/highly likely source). Transgender partners were most frequently perceived as the source of STI (57.1% likely/highly likely source; PR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.0–5.9; p = 0.5) followed by Homosexual (45.7% likely/highly likely source; PR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.0–3.7; p = 0.06) and Bisexual (31.6% likely/highly likely source; PR = 1.3; 95% CI: 0.7–2.6; p = 0.06) partners, demonstrating a borderline statistical significance. Conclusions Partner sexual identity is associated with perception of infection transmission among MSM in Peru. Overall, trends in perception mirror the actual gradient of HIV burden across sexual identities. Future research should focus on the exact potential causes for this at the individual-level (actual knowledge of the epidemic, discrimination, actual past experiences, etc.) and contexts (norms, beliefs, etc.).

Background In Peru, partner notification (PN) outcomes are correlated with its perceived importance. Data assessing perceptions of PN and its correlates among MSM/TW patient populations can help inform prevention interventions. Methods MSM/TW in Lima diagnosed with HIV and/or STI within the last month were surveyed about their beliefs concerning both partner notification and practises among their peers. All analyses were stratified by partner type. Results We recruited 390 MSM/TW (Ages: 18–60, Median: 28.5, IQR: 24–36) who identified as homosexual (63.0%), bisexual (16.0%), heterosexual (6.8%), and TW (14.2%). Overall, 93.3% and 73.3% of respondents considered it “Very” or “Somewhat Important” to notify stable and casual partners, respectively. 73.5% of respondents believed that “Few” or “None” of their peers would notify their stable partners, while 84.7% believed the same for casual partners. There was no association between perceived importance of notifying stable partners and beliefs about peer notification of stable partners. Among subjects who reported that “Few” or “None” of their peers would notify their casual partners, 31.7% (52/164) of gays and 57.9% (22/38) of TW did not consider it important to notify casual partners while 90.9% (30/33) of gays and all (5/5) TW who reported “Most” or “All” peers would notify casual partners were likely to do the same themselves (all p Conclusions Perceptions about PN vary by partner type with casual partner notification considered least important. Perceived peer notification practises may reflect individual beliefs or social norms of notification behaviour, especially among TW and gay-identified MSM. Understanding individual-level, partner-level, factors and societal contexts that influence these perceptions will better inform interventions to promote PN.