Household Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Adult Index Cases With and Without Human Immunodeficiency Virus in South Africa, 2020-2021: A Case-Ascertained, Prospective, Observational Household Transmission Study.

BACKGROUND: In South Africa, 19% of adults are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; LWH). Few data on the influence of HIV on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) household transmission are available. METHODS: We performed a case-ascertained, prospective household transmission study of symptomatic adult index SARS-CoV-2 cases LWH and not living with HIV (NLWH) and their contacts from October 2020 to September 2021. Households were followed up 3 times a week for 6 weeks to collect nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. We estimated household cumulative infection risk (HCIR) and duration of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (at a cycle threshold value <30 as proxy for high viral load). RESULTS: HCIR was 59% (220 of 373), not differing by index HIV status (60% LWH vs 58% NLWH). HCIR increased with index case age (35-59 years: adjusted OR [aOR], 3.4; 95% CI, 1.5-7.8 and ≥60 years: aOR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-10.1) compared with 18-34 years and with contacts' age, 13-17 years (aOR, 7.1; 95% CI, 1.5-33.9) and 18-34 years (aOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.0-18.4) compared with <5 years. Mean positivity was longer in cases LWH (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, .1-.9). CONCLUSIONS: Index HIV status was not associated with higher HCIR, but cases LWH had longer positivity duration. Adults aged >35 years were more likely to transmit and individuals aged 13-34 to be infected SARS-CoV-2 in the household. As HIV infection may increase transmission, health services must maintain HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy initiation.

Ethical Implications of eHealth Tools for Delivering STI/HIV Laboratory Results and Partner Notifications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: eHealth tools are increasingly utilized for communication with patients. Although efficacious and cost-effective, these tools face several barriers that challenge their ethical use in sexual health. We reviewed literature from the past decade to pick illustrative studies of eHealth tools that deliver results of laboratory tests for sexually transmitted infections, including the human immunodeficiency virus, as well as partner notifications. We describe ethical implications for such technologies. RECENT FINDINGS: Our review found that despite widespread research on the use of eHealth tools in delivering laboratory results and partner notifications, these studies rarely measured or reported on the ethical implications. Such implications can be organized according to the four major principles in bioethics: beneficence, patient autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice. The beneficence of eHealth typically measures efficacy in comparison to existing standards of care. Patient autonomy includes the ability to opt in or out of eHealth tools, right-based principles of consent, and sovereignty over healthcare data. To adhere to the principle of non-maleficence, relevant harms must be identified and measured-such as unintentional disclosure of illness, sexual orientation, or sexual activity. Justice must also be considered to accommodate all users equally, irrespective of their literacy level, with easy-to-use platforms that provide clear messages. Based on case studies from this review, we developed a list of recommendations for the ethical development and evaluation of eHealth platforms to deliver STI/HIV results to patients and notifications to partners.