National HIV incidence measures--new insights into the South African epidemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Currently South Africa does not have national HIV incidence data based on laboratory testing of blood specimens. The 2005 South African national HIV household survey was analysed to generate national incidence estimates stratified by age, sex, race, province and locality type, to compare the HIV incidence and HIV prevalence profiles by sex, and to examine the relationship between HIV prevalence, HIV incidence and associated risk factors. METHOD: The detection of recent infections was performed on confirmed HIV-positive samples, using the BED capture enzyme immunoassay optimised for dried blood spot (DBS) specimens. BED HIV incidence calculations applied adjustment procedures that were recently revised and approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for subtype C blood specimens. RESULTS: HIV incidence in the study population aged 2 years and older was 1.4% per year, with 571,000 new HIV infections estimated for 2005. An HIV incidence rate of 2.4% was recorded for the age group 15-49 years. The incidence of HIV among females peaked in the 20-29-year age group at 5.6%, more than six times the incidence found in 20-29-year-old males (0.9%). Among youth aged 15-24 years, females account for 90% of the recent HIV infections. Non-condom use among youth, current pregnancy and widowhood were the socio-behavioural factors associated with the highest HIV incidence rates. CONCLUSIONS: The HIV incidence estimates reflect the underlying transmission dynamics that are currently at work in South Africa. The findings suggest that the current prevention campaigns are not having the desired impact, particularly among young women.

International collaboration, funding and association with burden of disease in randomized controlled trials in Africa.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether randomized controlled trials conducted in Africa with collaborators from outside Africa were more closely associated with health conditions that have a burden of disease that is of specific importance to Africa than with conditions of more general global importance or with conditions important to developed countries. We also assessed whether the source of funding influenced a study's relevance to Africa. METHODS: We compared randomized controlled trials performed in Africa that looked at diseases specifically relevant to Africa (as determined by burden of disease criteria) with trials classified as looking at diseases of global importance or diseases important to developed countries in order to assess differences in collaboration and funding. FINDINGS: Of 520 trials assessed, 347 studied diseases that are specifically important to Africa; 99 studied globally important diseases and 74 studied diseases that are important to developed countries. The strongest independent predictor of whether a study was of specifically African or global importance was the corresponding author's country of origin: African importance was negatively associated with a corresponding author being from South Africa (odds ratio (OR) = 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.10) but there was little difference between corresponding authors from other African countries and corresponding authors from countries outside Africa. The importance of a study to Africa was independently associated with having more non-African authors (OR per author = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.08-1.58), fewer trial sites (OR per site = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.50-0.96), and reporting of funding (OR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.15-4.00). Similar patterns were present in the comparisons of trials studying diseases important to Africa versus those studying diseases important to developed countries with stronger associations overall. When funding was reported, private industry funding was negatively associated with African importance compared with global importance (OR = 0.31, P= 0.008 for African importance and OR = 0.51, P= 0.57 for importance for developed countries). CONCLUSION: The relevance to Africa of trials conducted in Africa was not adversely affected by collaboration with non-African researchers but funding from private industry was associated with a decreased emphasis on diseases relevant to Africa.