Does suppressive antiviral therapy for herpes simplex virus prevent transmission in an HIV-positive population? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among individuals with genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been shown to increase the frequency and severity of HSV symptoms, HSV shedding, and risk of HSV transmission. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether suppressive antivirual therapy for genital HSV in an HIV-positive populatation prevents HSV transmission to a susceptible partner. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials published between January 2005 and June 2015. Inclusion criteria were trials written in English or French utilizing suppressive antiviral therapies for HSV. Studies had to report on outcomes related to HSV transmission from HIV-positive populations. Surrogate markers of HSV transmission risk, such as HSV detection and viral load, were also included. Articles underwent a risk of bias assessment, and those with low risk of bias underwent data extraction to complete a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: This review identified thirteen papers. Only one study directly measured transmission of HSV. The overall transmission rate was <10%, and suppressive antiviral therapy had no significant protective effect (9% transmission rate in the acyclovir group vs. 6% in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.83-2.20). The remaining 12 papers addressed surrogate markers of transmission risk: HSV detection and viral load. Suppressive acyclovir appears to be effective in reducing HSV detection among HIV-positive populations, but it does not appear to reduce viral load. Suppressive valacyclovir may be effective in reducing HSV detection and viral load among HIV-positive patients who are antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve, but its effect appears to be nullified among those concurrently on ART. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, suppressive antiviral therapy may reduce HSV detection and viral load, but its impact on HSV transmission is unclear. Clinicians should caution HIV-positive patients with HSV that suppressive therapy may not reduce risk of HSV transmission to susceptible partners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".