Cialis vs viagra cost

The costs cialis vs viagra cost of care for many families, both direct medical and non-medical (accomodation, for example) and indirect in the form of loss of productivity and http://gointotheworld.net/purchase-viagra/ salary is daunting. In an estimated costs of illness study, Marufa Sultana and colleagues from the ICDDB-R assessed the household financial impact of a hospital admission for a child with pneumonia. The results provide a pretty clearcut pointer for intervention with an admission costing a poor urban family the equivalent of 43% of a monthly income and, for their rural counterparts, 20%.

Add to this that cialis vs viagra cost approximately 80% of global pneumonia mortality is out of hospital so any means of encouraging families to seek help early but ensure this is economically feasible is to be welcomed. Health insurance seems to be the key. See page 539CholesterolConceptually, screening is quite straightforward.

For a programme to cialis vs viagra cost ‘work’, the prerequisites are as follows. A common problem. A sensitive test with a high positive predictive value.

Feasibility. Acceptability and an effective treatment. Cardiovascular disease stubbornly remains at the top table for mortality and the origins are acknowledged to be early in life.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia is a major contributor to coronary heart disease. There is a simple sensitive and specific screening test and, once identified is treatable with statins at an appopriate age currently 8 years. There’s another bonus too, if children are identified, their parents (who will be at high risk) can also be screened and, if also positive, saved, by starting statin treatment rather than dying prematurely.

The earlier treatment starts, the better the chance for the parent and, later on once statins can be started, the child. Combining the screen with the 1 year vaccinations, would spare both appointments and distress. David Wald and Andrew Martin argue the case ‘for’.

See page 525A point in historyIn a poignant Voices from history, reflection, Samuel Schotland describes the inspiration for and development of the seminal Bridge programme for street youths and homeless in Boston at the start of the 1970s inaugurated by Andrew Guthrie an adolescent physician. Though one could argue the case for turmoil in many eras, before and after, but the then epidemic levels of homelessness, homophobia, drug addiction that had been fermenting during the 1960s makes this period stand out. The idea was a simple one.

To provide support, medical, psychological and social help to the hordes of children who had found themselves in hard times. The vehicle (literally and metaphorically) was a van which doubled as clinic, social work centre and rehabilition co-ordinator. Fast forward 50 years, multiple iterations (700 in the US alone) and numerous lives changed, it’s hard to overstate the influence of the project or the way in which it personified a decade which began with the US withdrawal from Vietnam and ended with the USSR wresting for control over Afghanistan.

See page 615Have we gone forwards or backwards?.

Where can i buy viagra

	Viagra	Silagra	Viagra capsules	Super avana	Cialis soft tabs	Cialis soft flavored
Where to get	Oral take	Oral take	Oral take	Oral take	Oral take	Oral take
Dosage	Online Pharmacy	Indian Pharmacy	At walmart	Online Drugstore	Online Pharmacy	Drugstore on the corner
Male dosage	Nearby pharmacy	On the market	Online Pharmacy	At walgreens	Order online	At cvs
Does medicare pay	In online pharmacy	Canadian pharmacy only	Register first	60mg + 100mg	Register first

The Henry viagra cost J where can i buy viagra. Kaiser Family Foundation where can i buy viagra Headquarters. 185 Berry St., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94107 | Phone 650-854-9400 Washington Offices and Barbara Jordan Conference Center. 1330 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 | Phone 202-347-5270 where can i buy viagra www.kff.org | Email Alerts. Kff.org/email | facebook.com/KaiserFamilyFoundation | twitter.com/kff Filling the need for trusted information on national health issues, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, California..

The Henry J cialis vs viagra cost. Kaiser Family cialis vs viagra cost Foundation Headquarters. 185 Berry St., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94107 | Phone 650-854-9400 Washington Offices and Barbara Jordan Conference Center.

1330 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 | Phone cialis vs viagra cost 202-347-5270 www.kff.org | Email Alerts. Kff.org/email | facebook.com/KaiserFamilyFoundation | twitter.com/kff Filling the need for trusted information on national health issues, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, California..

What may interact with Viagra?

Do not take Viagra with any of the following:

• cisapride
• methscopolamine nitrate
• nitrates like amyl nitrite, isosorbide dinitrate, isosorbide mononitrate, nitroglycerin
• nitroprusside
• other sildenafil products (Revatio)

Viagra may also interact with the following:

• certain drugs for high blood pressure
• certain drugs for the treatment of HIV or AIDS
• certain drugs used for fungal or yeast s, like fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole
• cimetidine
• erythromycin
• rifampin

This list may not describe all possible interactions. Give your health care providers a list of all the medicines, herbs, non-prescription drugs, or dietary supplements you use. Also tell them if you smoke, drink alcohol, or use illegal drugs. Some items may interact with your medicine.

Side affects of viagra

About This TrackerThis tracker provides the number of confirmed cases and deaths from novel erectile dysfunction side affects of viagra by country, the trend in confirmed case and death counts by country, and a global http://bookwormlbi.com/product/product-name-2/ map showing which countries have confirmed cases and deaths. The data are drawn from the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) erectile dysfunction Resource Center’s erectile dysfunction treatment Map and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment-2019) situation reports.This tracker will be updated regularly, as new data are released.Related Content. About erectile dysfunction treatment erectile dysfunctionIn late 2019, a new erectile dysfunction side affects of viagra emerged in central China to cause disease in humans.

Cases of this disease, known as erectile dysfunction treatment, have since been reported across around the globe. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the viagra represents a public health emergency of international concern, and on January side affects of viagra 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared it to be a health emergency for the United States.Key PointsOn January 23, 2017, President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy via presidential memorandum, renaming it “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” This explainer provides an overview of the policy, including its history, changes over time, and current application.First announced in 1984 by the Reagan administration, the policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines and has now been in effect for 19 of the past 34 years.The policy requires foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S.

Funds) as a condition of side affects of viagra receiving U.S. Government global family planning assistance and, as of Jan. 23, 2017, side affects of viagra most other U.S.

Global health assistance.The Trump administration’s application of the policy extends to the vast majority of U.S. Bilateral global health assistance, including funding for HIV under side affects of viagra PEPFAR, maternal and child health, malaria, nutrition, and other programs. This marks a significant expansion of its scope, potentially encompassing $7.3 billion in FY 2020, to the extent that such funding is ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly (family planning assistance accounts for approximately $600 million of that total).Additionally, as a result of a March 2019 policy announcement and subsequent information released in June 2019, the policy, for the first time, prohibits foreign NGOs who accept the policy from providing any financial support using any source of funds and for any purpose to other foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.

This greatly extends its reach side affects of viagra to other areas of U.S. Development assistance beyond global health and to other non-U.S. Funding streams.More recently, in September 2020, a proposed rule to side affects of viagra extend the policy to contracts was published.

If finalized, it would greatly extend the reach of the policy beyond grants and cooperative agreements to also include contracts.KFF analyses have found that:more than half of the countries in which the U.S. Provides bilateral global health assistance allow for legal abortion in at least side affects of viagra one case not permitted by the policy (analysis). Andhad the expanded policy been in effect during the FY 2013 – FY 2015 period, at least 1,275 foreign NGOs would have been subject to the policy (analysis).What is the Mexico City Policy?.

The Mexico side affects of viagra City Policy is a U.S. Government policy that – when in effect – has required foreign NGOs to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S. Funds) as a condition side affects of viagra of receiving U.S.

Global family planning assistance and, as of Jan. 23, 2017, most other side affects of viagra U.S. Global health assistance.The policy was first announced by the Reagan administration at the 2nd International Conference on Population, which was held in Mexico City, Mexico, on August 6-14, 1984 (hence its name.

See Box 1) side affects of viagra. Under the Trump administration, the policy has been renamed “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” (PLGHA). Among opponents, it is also known as the “Global Gag Rule,” because among other activities, it prohibits side affects of viagra foreign NGOs from using any funds (including non-U.S.

Funds) to provide information about abortion as a method of family planning and to lobby a foreign government to legalize abortion. €œ[T]he United States does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs and will no longer contribute to those of which it is side affects of viagra a part. €¦[T]he United States will no longer contribute to separate nongovernmental organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”When first instituted in 1984, the Mexico City Policy marked an expansion of existing legislative restrictions that already prohibited U.S.

Funding for abortion internationally, with some exceptions side affects of viagra (see below). Prior to the policy, foreign NGOs could use non-U.S. Funds to engage in certain voluntary abortion-related side affects of viagra activities as long as they maintained segregated accounts for any U.S.

Money received, but after the Mexico City Policy was in place, they were no longer permitted to do so if they wanted to receive U.S. Family planning assistance.The Trump administration’s application of side affects of viagra the policy to the vast majority of U.S. Bilateral global health assistance, including funding for HIV under the U.S.

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), maternal and child health, malaria, nutrition, and other programs, marks a significant expansion of its scope, potentially encompassing $7.3 billion in FY 2020, to the extent that such funding is ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly (family planning assistance accounted for side affects of viagra approximately $600 million of that total). The Administration’s more recent extension of the policy to include any financial support (health or otherwise) provided by foreign NGOs for any purpose to other foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning is likely to encompass significant additional funding.When has it been in effect?. The Mexico City Policy has been in effect for 19 of the past 34 years, primarily through executive action, and has been instated, rescinded, and reinstated by presidential administrations along party lines (see Table 1).The policy was first instituted in 1984 (taking effect in 1985) by President Ronald Reagan and continued to be in effect through President George H.W.

Bush’s administration side affects of viagra. It was rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993 (although it was reinstated legislatively for one year during his second term. See below) side affects of viagra.

The policy was reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001 and then rescinded by President Barack Obama in 2009 side affects of viagra. It is currently in effect, having been reinstated by President Trump in 2017.

YearsIn Effect? side affects of viagra. Presidential Administration (Party Affiliation)Executive (E) or Congressional (C) Action?. 1985-1989YesReagan (R)E1989-1993YesBush (R)E1993-1999 Sept.NoClinton (D)E1999 Oct.-2000 Sept.Yes*Clinton (D)C2000 Oct.-2001NoClinton (D)E2001-2009YesBush (R)E2009-2017NoObama (D)E2017-presentYesTrump (R)ENOTES side affects of viagra.

Shaded blue indicate periods when policy was in effect. * There was a temporary, one-year legislative imposition of the policy, which included a portion of the restrictions in effect in other years and side affects of viagra an option for the president to waive these restrictions in part. However, if the waiver option was exercised (for no more than $15 million in family planning assistance), then $12.5 million of this funding would be transferred to maternal and child health assistance.

The president did exercise the side affects of viagra waiver option.SOURCES. €œPolicy Statement of the United States of America at the United Nations International Conference on Population (Second Session), Mexico City, Mexico, August 6-14, 1984,” undated. Bill Clinton side affects of viagra Administration, “Subject.

AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, January 22, 1993, Clinton White House Archives, https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1993/01/1993-01-22-aid-family-planning-grants-mexico-city-policy.html. FY 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L side affects of viagra. 106-113.

George W side affects of viagra. Bush Administration, “Subject. Restoration of the Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, January 22, side affects of viagra 2001, Bush Administration White House Archives, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html.

€œSubject. Restoration of the Mexico side affects of viagra City Policy,” Memorandum for the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, March 28, 2001, Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/03/29/01-8011/restoration-of-the-mexico-city-policy. George W.

Bush Administration, side affects of viagra “Subject. Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, August 29, 2003, Bush Administration White House Archives, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030829-3.html. Barack Obama Administration, “Mexico City Policy and Assistance side affects of viagra for Voluntary Population Planning,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, January 23, 2009, Obama White House Archives, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/mexico-city-policy-and-assistance-voluntary-population-planning.

White House, “The Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Jan. 23, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-mexico-city-policy.How is it side affects of viagra instituted (and rescinded)?. The Mexico City Policy has, for the most part, been instituted or rescinded through executive branch action (typically via presidential memoranda).

While Congress has the ability to institute the policy through side affects of viagra legislation, this has happened only once in the past. A modified version of the policy was briefly applied by Congress during President Clinton’s last year in office as part of a broader arrangement to pay the U.S. Debt to the United side affects of viagra Nations.

(At that time, President Clinton was able to partially waive the policy’s restrictions.) Other attempts to institute the policy through legislation have not been enacted into law, nor have legislative attempts to overturn the policy. See Table 1.Who does the policy side affects of viagra apply to?. The policy, when in effect, applies to foreign NGOs as a condition for receiving U.S.

Family planning support and, now, other global health assistance, either directly (as the main – or prime – recipient of U.S. Funding) or indirectly side affects of viagra (as a recipient of U.S. Funding through an agreement with the prime recipient.

Referred to side affects of viagra as a sub-recipient). Specifically, a foreign NGO “recipient agrees that it will not, during the term of this award, perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries or provide financial support to any other foreign non-governmental organization that conducts such activities.”Foreign NGOs include:international NGOs that are based outside the U.S.,regional NGOs that are based outside the U.S., andlocal NGOs in assisted countries.U.S. NGOs, while not directly subject to the Mexico City Policy, must side affects of viagra also agree to ensure that they do not provide funding to any foreign NGO sub-recipients unless those sub-recipients have first certified adherence to the policy.

Specifically, a U.S. NGO “recipient (A) agrees that it will not furnish health side affects of viagra assistance under this award to any foreign non-governmental organization that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries. And (B) further agrees to require that such sub-recipients do not provide financial support to any other foreign non-governmental organization that conducts such activities.”As in the past, the current policy does not apply to funding provided by the U.S.

Government to foreign governments (national or sub-national), public international organizations, and other multilateral side affects of viagra entities, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Gavi, the treatment Alliance. However, this funding is subject to the policy if it flows through a foreign NGO that has accepted the policy. See “What is ‘financial support’? side affects of viagra.

€ below.To what assistance does it apply?. In the side affects of viagra past, foreign NGOs have been required to adhere to the Mexico City Policy – when it was in effect – as a condition of receiving support through certain U.S. International funding streams.

Family planning side affects of viagra assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and, beginning in 2003, family planning assistance through the U.S. Department of side affects of viagra State.

In the 2003 memorandum announcing the policy’s expansion to include the Department of State, President Bush stated that the policy did not apply to funding for global HIV/AIDS programs and that multilateral organizations that are associations of governments are not included among “foreign NGOs.”The current policy, reinstated in 2017, applies to the vast majority of U.S. Bilateral global side affects of viagra health assistance furnished by all agencies and departments. “Assistance” includes “the provision of funds, commodities, equipment, or other in-kind global health assistance.” Specifically, the expanded policy applies to nearly all bilateral global health assistance, including.

family planning and reproductive healthfor the first time:maternal and child health (including household-level water, sanitation, and side affects of viagra hygiene (WASH))nutritionHIV under PEPFARtuberculosismalaria under the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)neglected tropical diseasesglobal health securitycertain types of research activitiesThe policy applies to the assistance described above that is appropriated directly to three agencies and departments. USAID. The Department side affects of viagra of State, including the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, which oversees and coordinates U.S.

Global HIV funding under PEPFAR. And for the first time, the Department of Defense side affects of viagra (DoD). When such funding is transferred to another agency, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it remains subject to the policy, to the extent that such funding is ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly.The policy applies to three types of funding agreements for such assistance.

Grants. Cooperative agreements. And, for the first time, contracts, pending necessary rule-making that would be needed to do so (a proposed rule to accomplish this was published in September 2020).The policy does not apply to U.S.

Assistance for. Water supply and sanitation activities, which is usually focused on infrastructure and systems. Humanitarian assistance, including activities related to migration and refugee assistance activities as well as disaster and humanitarian relief activities.

The American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) program. And Food for Peace (FFP). However, this funding is subject to the policy if it flows through a foreign NGO that has accepted the policy.

See “What is ‘financial support’?. € below.What activities are prohibited?. The policy prohibits foreign NGOs that receive U.S.

Family planning assistance and, now, most other U.S. Bilateral global health assistance from using funds from any source (including non-U.S. Funds) to “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.” In addition to providing abortions with non-U.S.

Funds, restricted activities also include the following:providing advice and information about and offering referral for abortion – where legal – as part of the full range of family planning options,promoting changes in a country’s laws or policies related to abortion as a method of family planning (i.e., engaging in lobbying), andconducting public information campaigns about abortion as a method of family planning.The prohibition of these activities are why the policy has been referred to by its critics as the “Global Gag Rule.”Additionally, for the first time, the policy prohibits foreign NGOs from providing any financial support with any source of funds (including non-U.S. Funding) and for any purpose to other foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. See “What is “financial support?.

€ below.The policy, however, does not prohibit foreign NGOs from:providing advice and information about, performing, or offering referral for abortion in cases where the pregnancy has either posed a risk to the life of the mother or resulted from incest or rape. Andresponding to a question about where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained when a woman who is already pregnant clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion (passively providing information, versus actively providing medically-appropriate information).In addition, the expanded policy does not apply to healthcare providers who have an affirmative duty required under local law to provide counseling about and referrals for abortion as a method of family planning.Does it restrict direct U.S. Funding for abortion overseas?.

U.S. Funding for abortion is already restricted under several provisions of the law. Specifically, before the Mexico City Policy was first announced in 1984, U.S.

Law already prohibited the use of U.S. Aid:to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion (the Helms Amendment, 1973, to the Foreign Assistance Act);for biomedical research related to methods of or the performance of abortion as a means of family planning (the Biden Amendment, 1981, to the Foreign Assistance Act). Andto lobby for or against abortion (the Siljander Amendment, first included in annual appropriations in 1981 and included each year thereafter).Then, shortly after the policy was announced in 1984, the Kemp-Kasten Amendment was passed in 1985, prohibiting the use of U.S.

Aid to fund any organization or program, as determined by the president, that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization (it is now included in annual appropriations).Before the Mexico City Policy, U.S. Aid recipients could use non-U.S. Funds to engage in certain abortion-related activities but were required to maintain segregated accounts for U.S.

Assistance. The Mexico City Policy reversed this practice. No longer were foreign NGOs allowed to use non-U.S.

Funds, maintained in segregated accounts, for voluntary abortion-related activities if they wished to continue to receive or be able to receive U.S. Family planning funds.Does the policy prohibit post-abortion care?. The Mexico City Policy does not restrict the provision of post-abortion care, which is a supported activity of U.S.

Family planning assistance. Whether or not the Mexico City Policy is in effect, recipients of U.S. Family planning assistance are allowed to use U.S.

And non-U.S. Funding to support post-abortion care, no matter the circumstances of the abortion (whether it was legal or illegal).What has been the impact of the policy?. Several studies have looked at the impact of the policy.

A 2011 quantitative analysis by Bendavid, et. Al, found a strong association between the Mexico City Policy and abortion rates in sub-Saharan Africa. This study was recently updated to include several more years of data, again identifying a strong association.

Specifically, the updated study found that during periods when the policy was in place, abortion rates rose by 40% in countries with high exposure to the Mexico City Policy compared to those with low exposure, while the use of modern contraceptives declined by 14% and pregnancies increased by 12% in high exposure compared to low exposure countries. In other words, it found patterns that “strengthen the case for the role played by the policy” in “a substantial increase in abortions across sub-Saharan Africa among women affected by the U.S. Mexico City Policy … [and] a corresponding decline in the use of modern contraception and increase in pregnancies,” likely because foreign NGOs that declined U.S.

Funding as a result of the Mexico City Policy – often key providers of women’s health services in these areas – had fewer resources to support family planning services, particularly contraceptives. Increased access to and use of contraception have been shown to be key to preventing unintended pregnancies and thereby reducing abortion, including unsafe abortion. The study also found patterns that “suggest that the effects of the policy are reversible” when the policy is not in place.Additionally, there has been anecdotal evidence and qualitative data on the impact of the policy, when it has been in force in the past, on the work of organizations that have chosen not to agree to the policy and, therefore, forgo U.S.

Funding that had previously supported their activities. For example, they have reported that they have fewer resources to support family planning and reproductive health services, including family planning counseling, contraceptive commodities, condoms, and reproductive cancer screenings.While it is likely too early to assess the full effects of the current policy on NGOs and the individuals they serve, as the policy is applied on a rolling basis as new funding agreements or modifications to existing agreements are made, some early data are available. Several early qualitative and quantitative studies have been released, and at least one long-term, quantitative assessment is underway.

Additionally, an official assessment by the U.S. Department of State on implementation during the first six months of the policy has been released (see below). This review acknowledged that it took “place early in the policy’s implementation, when affected U.S.

Government departments and agencies have added a significant portion of the funding affected by the policy to grants and cooperative agreements only recently [i.e., after the period the review examined]. A follow-on analysis would allow an opportunity to address one of the primary concerns presented in feedback from third-party stakeholder organizations, namely that six months is insufficient time to gauge the impacts of” the policy.Nonetheless, it is already clear that the reinstated and expanded version of the policy applies to a much greater amount of U.S. Global health assistance, and greater number of foreign NGOs, across many program areas.

KFF has found that more than half (37) of the 64 countries that received U.S. Bilateral global health assistance in FY 2016 allow for legal abortion in at least one case not permitted by the policy and that had the expanded Mexico City Policy been in effect during the FY 2013 – FY 2015 period, at least 1,275 foreign NGOs would have been subject to the policy. In addition, at least 469 U.S.

NGOs that received U.S. Global health assistance during this period would have been required to ensure that their foreign NGO sub-recipients were in compliance. Additional foreign NGOs are likely to be impacted by the policy due to the revised interpretation of “financial support” announced in March 2019 and implemented beginning June 2019.

See “What is ‘financial support’?. € below.A report released in March 2020 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided new information on the number of projects (awards) and NGOs affected.

It found that from May 2017 through FY 2018:the policy had been applied to over 1,300 global health projects, with the vast majority of these through USAID and CDC, andNGOs declined to accept the policy in 54 instances, totaling $153 million in declined funding – specifically, seven prime awards amounting to $102 million and 47 sub-awards amounting to $51 million (more than two-thirds of sub-awards were intended for Africa) – across USAID and CDC. The Department of State and DoD did not identify any instances where NGOs declined to accept the policy conditions.What have the U.S. Government’s reviews of the policy found?.

The U.S. Government has published two reviews of the policy to date, with the first examining the initial six months of the policy released in February 2018 and the second examining the first 18 months of the policy released in August 2020.First ReviewIn February 2018, the Department of State announced the findings of an initial six-month review of implementation of the policy through the end of FY 2017 (September 2017). The report directed agencies to provide greater support for improving understanding of implementation among affected organizations and provided guidance to clarify terms included in standard provisions of grants and cooperative agreements.

In the six-month review report, the Department of State report identified a number of “actions” for implementing agencies, such as a need for:more central and field-based training and implementation tools,a clearer explanation of termination of awards for NGOs found to be in violation of the policy, anda clarification of “financial support,” which was not defined in the standard provisions (see “What is financial support?. € below).The six month review also identified the number of affected agreements with prime implementing partners and the number of those that have accepted the Mexico City Policy as part of their agreements through September 2017 (see Table 2). U.S.

Agency or DepartmentPolicy Implementation DateOverall # of Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Global Health Assistance FundingOf Overall #:(From the Policy Implementation Date through 9/30/2017)# That Received New Funding and Accepted Policy# That Received New Funding and Declined to Accept Policy^# That Had Not Received New Funding YetUSAIDMay 15, 20175804193158State*May 15, 2017142108034HHS+May 31, 20174991600339DoDMay 15, 20177742134TOTAL12987294565NOTES. * reflects PEPFAR funding implemented through the Department of State. Other departments and agencies implement the majority of PEPFAR funding.

+ At HHS agencies, only certain assistance funding transferred from USAID, State, and DoD are subject to the policy. ^ As of September 30, 2017, USAID reported it was aware of three centrally funded prime partners, and 12 sub-awardee implementing partners, that declined to agree to the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) terms in their awards. DoD reported that one DoD partner, a U.S.

NGO, declined to agree in one country but accepted the PLGHA standard provision in other countries. And HHS reported that no HHS partners declined to agree.SOURCES. KFF analysis of data from Department of State, “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Six-Month Review,” report, Feb.

6, 2018, https://www.state.gov/protecting-life-in-global-health-assistance-six-month-review/.Second ReviewOn August 17, 2020, the Department of State released its second review of the policy, updating its initial six-month review (as an action item in the six-month review report, the department stated it would “conduct a further review of implementation of the policy by December 15, 2018, when more extensive experience will enable a more thorough examination of the benefits and challenges”). The long-anticipated review, which examines the period from May 2017 through September 2018, found:the awards declined spanned a variety of program areas, including family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH), HIV and AIDS (HIV/AIDS), maternal and child health (MCH), tuberculosis (TB), and nutrition, in addition to cross-cutting awards;the awards declined spanned geographic areas but many were for activities in sub-Saharan Africa;agencies and departments made efforts to transition projects to another implementer in order to minimize disruption. Butnevertheless, among USAID awards involving health service delivery where prime and sub-award recipients declined to accept the policy, gaps or disruptions in service delivery were sometimes reported.The second review also identified the number of affected agreements with prime implementing partners and the number of those that have accepted the Mexico City Policy as part of their agreements through September 2018 (see Table 3).

U.S. Agency or DepartmentPolicy Implementation Date# of Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Global Health Assistance Funding# of Prime Awardees That Declined to Accept Policy^USAIDMay 15, 20174866State*May 15, 20173350HHS+May 31, 20174661DoDMay 15, 2017531TOTAL13408NOTES. * reflects PEPFAR funding implemented through the Department of State.

Other departments and agencies implement the majority of PEPFAR funding. + At HHS agencies, only certain assistance funding transferred from USAID, State, and DoD are subject to the policy. ^ As of September 30, 2018, USAID reported it was aware of six centrally funded prime partners, and 47 sub-awardee implementing partners, that declined to agree to the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) terms in their awards.

DoD reported that one DoD partner, a U.S. NGO, declined to agree in one country but accepted the PLGHA standard provision in other countries. And HHS reported that one HHS partner declined to agree.SOURCES.

KFF analysis of data from Department of State, “Review of the Implementation of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy ,” report, Aug. 17, 2020, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PLGHA-2019-Review-Final-8.17.2020-508.pdf, and Department of State, “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Six-Month Review,” report, Feb. 6, 2018, https://www.state.gov/protecting-life-in-global-health-assistance-six-month-review/.Additionally, the review reports that 47 sub-awardees, all under USAID awards, declined to accept the policy.

It is important to note that the review also states that information on sub-awards is not systematically collected by departments and agencies and that DoD was not able to collect information on sub-awards.What is “financial support”?. In February 2018, in the initial six-month review issued when Secretary of State Tillerson led the department, the Department of State report included an “action” statement to clarify the definition of “financial support” as used in the standard provisions for grants and cooperative agreements. At issue was whether it applied more narrowly to certain funding provided by foreign NGOs (i.e., funding other than U.S.

Global health funding) to other foreign NGOs specifically for the purpose of performing or actively promoting abortion as a method of family planning or if it applied more broadly to certain funding provided by foreign NGOs to other foreign NGOs for any purpose, if that foreign NGO happened to perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. The State Department clarified that it was the more narrow interpretation.However, on March 26, 2019, Secretary of State Pompeo reversed this interpretation, announcing further “refinements” to the policy to clarify that it applied to the broader definition of financial support. Specifically, under the policy, U.S.-supported foreign NGOs agree to not provide any financial support (global health-related as well as other support), no matter the source of funds, to any other foreign NGO that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning.

In June 2019, USAID provided additional information to reflect this broader interpretation of the standard provisions.This marks the first time the policy has been applied this broadly, as it can now affect funding provided by other donors (such as other governments and foundations) and non-global health funding provided by the U.S. Government for a wide range of purposes if this funding is first provided to foreign NGOs who have accepted the policy (as recipients of U.S. Global health assistance) that then in turn provide that donor or U.S.

Non global health funding for any purpose to foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. For example, under the prior interpretation, a foreign NGO recipient of U.S. Global health funding could not provide any non-U.S.

Funding to another foreign NGO to perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning but could provide funding for other activities, such as education, even if the foreign NGO carried out prohibited activities. Under the broader interpretation, a foreign NGO could not provide any non-U.S. Funding for any activity to a foreign NGO that carried out prohibited activities.

Similarly, while under the prior interpretation a foreign NGO recipient of U.S. Global health funding could provide other U.S. Funding (such as humanitarian assistance) to another foreign NGO for non-prohibited activities, even if the foreign NGO carried out prohibited activities, now under the broader interpretation, it could not do so.What are the next steps in implementing the expanded policy?.

The policy went into effect in May 2017 (see Table 2), although it is applied on a rolling basis, as new funding agreements and modifications to existing agreements occur. While it applies to all grants and cooperative agreements, the Trump administration has indicated that it intends the policy to apply to contracts, which would require a rule-making process (it began this process by publishing a proposed rule in September 2020)..

About This TrackerThis cialis vs viagra cost tracker provides the number of confirmed cases and deaths from novel erectile dysfunction by country, the trend in confirmed case and death counts by country, and Web Site a global map showing which countries have confirmed cases and deaths. The data are drawn from the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) erectile dysfunction Resource Center’s erectile dysfunction treatment Map and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment-2019) situation reports.This tracker will be updated regularly, as new data are released.Related Content. About erectile dysfunction treatment erectile dysfunctionIn late 2019, a new cialis vs viagra cost erectile dysfunction emerged in central China to cause disease in humans. Cases of this disease, known as erectile dysfunction treatment, have since been reported across around the globe.

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the viagra represents a public health emergency of international concern, and on January 31, 2020, cialis vs viagra cost the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared it to be a health emergency for the United States.Key PointsOn January 23, 2017, President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy via presidential memorandum, renaming it “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” This explainer provides an overview of the policy, including its history, changes over time, and current application.First announced in 1984 by the Reagan administration, the policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines and has now been in effect for 19 of the past 34 years.The policy requires foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S. Funds) as a condition of cialis vs viagra cost receiving U.S. Government global family planning assistance and, as of Jan.

23, 2017, most other cialis vs viagra cost U.S. Global health assistance.The Trump administration’s application of the policy extends to the vast majority of U.S. Bilateral global health assistance, including funding for HIV under PEPFAR, maternal and cialis vs viagra cost child health, malaria, nutrition, and other programs. This marks a significant expansion of its scope, potentially encompassing $7.3 billion in FY 2020, to the extent that such funding is ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly (family planning assistance accounts for approximately $600 million of that total).Additionally, as a result of a March 2019 policy announcement and subsequent information released in June 2019, the policy, for the first time, prohibits foreign NGOs who accept the policy from providing any financial support using any source of funds and for any purpose to other foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.

This greatly extends its reach to cialis vs viagra cost other areas of U.S. Development assistance beyond global health and to other non-U.S. Funding streams.More recently, in September cialis vs viagra cost 2020, a proposed rule to extend the policy to contracts was published. If finalized, it would greatly extend the reach of the policy beyond grants and cooperative agreements to also include contracts.KFF analyses have found that:more than half of the countries in which the U.S.

Provides bilateral global health assistance allow for legal cialis vs viagra cost abortion in at least one case not permitted by the policy (analysis). Andhad the expanded policy been in effect during the FY 2013 – FY 2015 period, at least 1,275 foreign NGOs would have been subject to the policy (analysis).What is the Mexico City Policy?. The Mexico cialis vs viagra cost City Policy is a U.S. Government policy that – when in effect – has required foreign NGOs to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S.

Funds) as cialis vs viagra cost a condition of receiving U.S. Global family planning assistance and, as of Jan. 23, 2017, most cialis vs viagra cost other U.S. Global health assistance.The policy was first announced by the Reagan administration at the 2nd International Conference on Population, which was held in Mexico City, Mexico, on August 6-14, 1984 (hence its name.

See Box cialis vs viagra cost 1). Under the Trump administration, the policy has been renamed “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” (PLGHA). Among opponents, it is also known as the “Global Gag Rule,” because cialis vs viagra cost among other activities, it prohibits foreign NGOs from using any funds (including non-U.S. Funds) to provide information about abortion as a method of family planning and to lobby a foreign government to legalize abortion.

€œ[T]he United States does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs and will no longer contribute to cialis vs viagra cost those of which it is a part. €¦[T]he United States will no longer contribute to separate nongovernmental organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”When first instituted in 1984, the Mexico City Policy marked an expansion of existing legislative restrictions that already prohibited U.S. Funding for abortion internationally, with some cialis vs viagra cost exceptions (see below). Prior to the policy, foreign NGOs could use non-U.S.

Funds to engage in certain voluntary abortion-related cialis vs viagra cost activities as long as they maintained segregated accounts for any U.S. Money received, but after the Mexico City Policy was in place, they were no longer permitted to do so if they wanted to receive U.S. Family planning assistance.The Trump administration’s application of the policy to the cialis vs viagra cost vast majority of U.S. Bilateral global health assistance, including funding for HIV under the U.S.

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), maternal and child health, malaria, nutrition, and other programs, marks a cialis vs viagra cost significant expansion of its scope, potentially encompassing $7.3 billion in FY 2020, to the extent that such funding is ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly (family planning assistance accounted for approximately $600 million of that total). The Administration’s more recent extension of the policy to include any financial support (health or otherwise) provided by foreign NGOs for any purpose to other foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning is likely to encompass significant additional funding.When has it been in effect?. The Mexico City Policy has been in effect for 19 of the past 34 years, primarily through executive action, and has been instated, rescinded, and reinstated by presidential administrations along party lines (see Table 1).The policy was first instituted in 1984 (taking effect in 1985) by President Ronald Reagan and continued to be in effect through President George H.W. Bush’s administration cialis vs viagra cost.

It was rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993 (although it was reinstated legislatively for one year during his second term. See below) cialis vs viagra cost. The policy was reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001 and then rescinded by President cialis vs viagra cost Barack Obama in 2009.

It is currently in effect, having been reinstated by President Trump in 2017. YearsIn Effect? cialis vs viagra cost. Presidential Administration (Party Affiliation)Executive (E) or Congressional (C) Action?. 1985-1989YesReagan (R)E1989-1993YesBush (R)E1993-1999 Sept.NoClinton (D)E1999 Oct.-2000 Sept.Yes*Clinton (D)C2000 Oct.-2001NoClinton (D)E2001-2009YesBush (R)E2009-2017NoObama (D)E2017-presentYesTrump cialis vs viagra cost (R)ENOTES.

Shaded blue indicate periods when policy was in effect. * There was a temporary, one-year legislative imposition of the policy, which included a portion of cialis vs viagra cost the restrictions in effect in other years and an option for the president to waive these restrictions in part. However, if the waiver option was exercised (for no more than $15 million in family planning assistance), then $12.5 million of this funding would be transferred to maternal and child health assistance. The president did exercise the cialis vs viagra cost waiver option.SOURCES.

€œPolicy Statement of the United States of America at the United Nations International Conference on Population (Second Session), Mexico City, Mexico, August 6-14, 1984,” undated. Bill Clinton Administration, cialis vs viagra cost “Subject. AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, January 22, 1993, Clinton White House Archives, https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1993/01/1993-01-22-aid-family-planning-grants-mexico-city-policy.html. FY 2000 Consolidated cialis vs viagra cost Appropriations Act, P.L.

106-113. George W cialis vs viagra cost. Bush Administration, “Subject. Restoration of the Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for the Administrator of the United cialis vs viagra cost States Agency for International Development, January 22, 2001, Bush Administration White House Archives, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html.

€œSubject. Restoration of the Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for cialis vs viagra cost the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, March 28, 2001, Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/03/29/01-8011/restoration-of-the-mexico-city-policy. George W. Bush Administration, “Subject cialis vs viagra cost.

Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, August 29, 2003, Bush Administration White House Archives, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030829-3.html. Barack Obama Administration, “Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the cialis vs viagra cost Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, January 23, 2009, Obama White House Archives, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/mexico-city-policy-and-assistance-voluntary-population-planning. White House, “The Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Jan. 23, 2017, cialis vs viagra cost https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-mexico-city-policy.How is it instituted (and rescinded)?.

The Mexico City Policy has, for the most part, been instituted or rescinded through executive branch action (typically via presidential memoranda). While Congress has the ability to institute the policy through legislation, this has happened only cialis vs viagra cost once in the past. A modified version of the policy was briefly applied by Congress during President Clinton’s last year in office as part of a broader arrangement to pay the U.S. Debt to cialis vs viagra cost the United Nations.

(At that time, President Clinton was able to partially waive the policy’s restrictions.) Other attempts to institute the policy through legislation have not been enacted into law, nor have legislative attempts to overturn the policy. See Table 1.Who does the policy apply to? cialis vs viagra cost. The policy, when in effect, applies to foreign NGOs as a condition for receiving U.S. Family planning support and, now, other global health assistance, either directly (as the main – or prime – recipient of U.S.

Funding) or cialis vs viagra cost indirectly (as a recipient of U.S. Funding through an agreement with the prime recipient. Referred to as a cialis vs viagra cost sub-recipient). Specifically, a foreign NGO “recipient agrees that it will not, during the term of this award, perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries or provide financial support to any other foreign non-governmental organization that conducts such activities.”Foreign NGOs include:international NGOs that are based outside the U.S.,regional NGOs that are based outside the U.S., andlocal NGOs in assisted countries.U.S.

NGOs, while not directly subject to the Mexico City Policy, must also agree to ensure that they do not provide funding to any foreign NGO sub-recipients unless those sub-recipients have cialis vs viagra cost first certified adherence to the policy. Specifically, a U.S. NGO “recipient (A) agrees that it will not furnish health assistance under this award to any foreign cialis vs viagra cost non-governmental organization that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries. And (B) further agrees to require that such sub-recipients do not provide financial support to any other foreign non-governmental organization that conducts such activities.”As in the past, the current policy does not apply to funding provided by the U.S.

Government to foreign cialis vs viagra cost governments (national or sub-national), public international organizations, and other multilateral entities, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Gavi, the treatment Alliance. However, this funding is subject to the policy if it flows through a foreign NGO that has accepted the policy. See “What is ‘financial cialis vs viagra cost support’?. € below.To what assistance does it apply?.

In the past, foreign NGOs have been required cialis vs viagra cost to adhere to the Mexico City Policy – when it was in effect – as a condition of receiving support through certain U.S. International funding streams. Family planning assistance through the cialis vs viagra cost U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and, beginning in 2003, family planning assistance through the U.S.

Department of State cialis vs viagra cost. In the 2003 memorandum announcing the policy’s expansion to include the Department of State, President Bush stated that the policy did not apply to funding for global HIV/AIDS programs and that multilateral organizations that are associations of governments are not included among “foreign NGOs.”The current policy, reinstated in 2017, applies to the vast majority of U.S. Bilateral global cialis vs viagra cost health assistance furnished by all agencies and departments. “Assistance” includes “the provision of funds, commodities, equipment, or other in-kind global health assistance.” Specifically, the expanded policy applies to nearly all bilateral global health assistance, including.

family planning and reproductive healthfor the first time:maternal and child health (including household-level water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH))nutritionHIV under PEPFARtuberculosismalaria under the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)neglected cialis vs viagra cost tropical diseasesglobal health securitycertain types of research activitiesThe policy applies to the assistance described above that is appropriated directly to three agencies and departments. USAID. The Department of State, including the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, which oversees and coordinates cialis vs viagra cost U.S. Global HIV funding under PEPFAR.

And for the first time, the Department of cialis vs viagra cost Defense (DoD). When such funding is transferred to another agency, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it remains subject to the policy, to the extent that such funding is ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly.The policy applies to three types of funding agreements for such assistance. Grants. Cooperative agreements.

And, for the first time, contracts, pending necessary rule-making that would be needed to do so (a proposed rule to accomplish this was published in September 2020).The policy does not apply to U.S. Assistance for. Water supply and sanitation activities, which is usually focused on infrastructure and systems. Humanitarian assistance, including activities related to migration and refugee assistance activities as well as disaster and humanitarian relief activities.

The American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) program. And Food for Peace (FFP). However, this funding is subject to the policy if it flows through a foreign NGO that has accepted the policy. See “What is ‘financial support’?.

€ below.What activities are how to get viagra at cvs prohibited?. The policy prohibits foreign NGOs that receive U.S. Family planning assistance and, now, most other U.S. Bilateral global health assistance from using funds from any source (including non-U.S.

Funds) to “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.” In addition to providing abortions with non-U.S. Funds, restricted activities also include the following:providing advice and information about and offering referral for abortion – where legal – as part of the full range of family planning options,promoting changes in a country’s laws or policies related to abortion as a method of family planning (i.e., engaging in lobbying), andconducting public information campaigns about abortion as a method of family planning.The prohibition of these activities are why the policy has been referred to by its critics as the “Global Gag Rule.”Additionally, for the first time, the policy prohibits foreign NGOs from providing any financial support with any source of funds (including non-U.S. Funding) and for any purpose to other foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. See “What is “financial support?.

€ below.The policy, however, does not prohibit foreign NGOs from:providing advice and information about, performing, or offering referral for abortion in cases where the pregnancy has either posed a risk to the life of the mother or resulted from incest or rape. Andresponding to a question about where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained when a woman who is already pregnant clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion (passively providing information, versus actively providing medically-appropriate information).In addition, the expanded policy does not apply to healthcare providers who have an affirmative duty required under local law to provide counseling about and referrals for abortion as a method of family planning.Does it restrict direct U.S. Funding for abortion overseas?. U.S.

Funding for abortion is already restricted under several provisions of the law. Specifically, before the Mexico City Policy was first announced in 1984, U.S. Law already prohibited the use of U.S. Aid:to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion (the Helms Amendment, 1973, to the Foreign Assistance Act);for biomedical research related to methods of or the performance of abortion as a means of family planning (the Biden Amendment, 1981, to the Foreign Assistance Act).

Andto lobby for or against abortion (the Siljander Amendment, first included in annual appropriations in 1981 and included each year thereafter).Then, shortly after the policy was announced in 1984, the Kemp-Kasten Amendment was passed in 1985, prohibiting the use of U.S. Aid to fund any organization or program, as determined by the president, that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization (it is now included in annual appropriations).Before the Mexico City Policy, U.S. Aid recipients could use non-U.S. Funds to engage in certain abortion-related activities but were required to maintain segregated accounts for U.S.

Assistance. The Mexico City Policy reversed this practice. No longer were foreign NGOs allowed to use non-U.S. Funds, maintained in segregated accounts, for voluntary abortion-related activities if they wished to continue to receive or be able to receive U.S.

Family planning funds.Does the policy prohibit post-abortion care?. The Mexico City Policy does not restrict the provision of post-abortion care, which is a supported activity of U.S. Family planning assistance. Whether or not the Mexico City Policy is in effect, recipients of U.S.

Family planning assistance are allowed to use U.S. And non-U.S. Funding to support post-abortion care, no matter the circumstances of the abortion (whether it was legal or illegal).What has been the impact of the policy?. Several studies have looked at the impact of the policy.

A 2011 quantitative analysis by Bendavid, et. Al, found a strong association between the Mexico City Policy and abortion rates in sub-Saharan Africa. This study was recently updated to include several more years of data, again identifying a strong association. Specifically, the updated study found that during periods when the policy was in place, abortion rates rose by 40% in countries with high exposure to the Mexico City Policy compared to those with low exposure, while the use of modern contraceptives declined by 14% and pregnancies increased by 12% in high exposure compared to low exposure countries.

In other words, it found patterns that “strengthen the case for the role played by the policy” in “a substantial increase in abortions across sub-Saharan Africa among women affected by the U.S. Mexico City Policy … [and] a corresponding decline in the use of modern contraception and increase in pregnancies,” likely because foreign NGOs that declined U.S. Funding as a result of the Mexico City Policy – often key providers of women’s health services in these areas – had fewer resources to support family planning services, particularly contraceptives. Increased access to and use of contraception have been shown to be key to preventing unintended pregnancies and thereby reducing abortion, including unsafe abortion.

The study also found patterns that “suggest that the effects of the policy are reversible” when the policy is not in place.Additionally, there has been anecdotal evidence and qualitative data on the impact of the policy, when it has been in force in the past, on the work of organizations that have chosen not to agree to the policy and, therefore, forgo U.S. Funding that had previously supported their activities. For example, they have reported that they have fewer resources to support family planning and reproductive health services, including family planning counseling, contraceptive commodities, condoms, and reproductive cancer screenings.While it is likely too early to assess the full effects of the current policy on NGOs and the individuals they serve, as the policy is applied on a rolling basis as new funding agreements or modifications to existing agreements are made, some early data are available. Several early qualitative and quantitative studies have been released, and at least one long-term, quantitative assessment is underway.

Additionally, an official assessment by the U.S. Department of State on implementation during the first six months of the policy has been released (see below). This review acknowledged that it took “place early in the policy’s implementation, when affected U.S. Government departments and agencies have added a significant portion of the funding affected by the policy to grants and cooperative agreements only recently [i.e., after the period the review examined].

A follow-on analysis would allow an opportunity to address one of the primary concerns presented in feedback from third-party stakeholder organizations, namely that six months is insufficient time to gauge the impacts of” the policy.Nonetheless, it is already clear that the reinstated and expanded version of the policy applies to a much greater amount of U.S. Global health assistance, and greater number of foreign NGOs, across many program areas. KFF has found that more than half (37) of the 64 countries that received U.S. Bilateral global health assistance in FY 2016 allow for legal abortion in at least one case not permitted by the policy and that had the expanded Mexico City Policy been in effect during the FY 2013 – FY 2015 period, at least 1,275 foreign NGOs would have been subject to the policy.

In addition, at least 469 U.S. NGOs that received U.S. Global health assistance during this period would have been required to ensure that their foreign NGO sub-recipients were in compliance. Additional foreign NGOs are likely to be impacted by the policy due to the revised interpretation of “financial support” announced in March 2019 and implemented beginning June 2019.

See “What is ‘financial support’?. € below.A report released in March 2020 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided new information on the number of projects (awards) and NGOs affected. It found that from May 2017 through FY 2018:the policy had been applied to over 1,300 global health projects, with the vast majority of these through USAID and CDC, andNGOs declined to accept the policy in 54 instances, totaling $153 million in declined funding – specifically, seven prime awards amounting to $102 million and 47 sub-awards amounting to $51 million (more than two-thirds of sub-awards were intended for Africa) – across USAID and CDC.

The Department of State and DoD did not identify any instances where NGOs declined to accept the policy conditions.What have the U.S. Government’s reviews of the policy found?. The U.S. Government has published two reviews of the policy to date, with the first examining the initial six months of the policy released in February 2018 and the second examining the first 18 months of the policy released in August 2020.First ReviewIn February 2018, the Department of State announced the findings of an initial six-month review of implementation of the policy through the end of FY 2017 (September 2017).

The report directed agencies to provide greater support for improving understanding of implementation among affected organizations and provided guidance to clarify terms included in standard provisions of grants and cooperative agreements. In the six-month review report, the Department of State report identified a number of “actions” for implementing agencies, such as a need for:more central and field-based training and implementation tools,a clearer explanation of termination of awards for NGOs found to be in violation of the policy, anda clarification of “financial support,” which was not defined in the standard provisions (see “What is financial support?. € below).The six month review also identified the number of affected agreements with prime implementing partners and the number of those that have accepted the Mexico City Policy as part of their agreements through September 2017 (see Table 2). U.S.

Agency or DepartmentPolicy Implementation DateOverall # of Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Global Health Assistance FundingOf Overall #:(From the Policy Implementation Date through 9/30/2017)# That Received New Funding and Accepted Policy# That Received New Funding and Declined to Accept Policy^# That Had Not Received New Funding YetUSAIDMay 15, 20175804193158State*May 15, 2017142108034HHS+May 31, 20174991600339DoDMay 15, 20177742134TOTAL12987294565NOTES. * reflects PEPFAR funding implemented through the Department of State. Other departments and agencies implement the majority of PEPFAR funding. + At HHS agencies, only certain assistance funding transferred from USAID, State, and DoD are subject to the policy.

^ As of September 30, 2017, USAID reported it was aware of three centrally funded prime partners, and 12 sub-awardee implementing partners, that declined to agree to the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) terms in their awards. DoD reported that one DoD partner, a U.S. NGO, declined to agree in one country but accepted the PLGHA standard provision in other countries. And HHS reported that no HHS partners declined to agree.SOURCES.

KFF analysis of data from Department of State, “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Six-Month Review,” report, Feb. 6, 2018, https://www.state.gov/protecting-life-in-global-health-assistance-six-month-review/.Second ReviewOn August 17, 2020, the Department of State released its second review of the policy, updating its initial six-month review (as an action item in the six-month review report, the department stated it would “conduct a further review of implementation of the policy by December 15, 2018, when more extensive experience will enable a more thorough examination of the benefits and challenges”). The long-anticipated review, which examines the period from May 2017 through September 2018, found:the awards declined spanned a variety of program areas, including family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH), HIV and AIDS (HIV/AIDS), maternal and child health (MCH), tuberculosis (TB), and nutrition, in addition to cross-cutting awards;the awards declined spanned geographic areas but many were for activities in sub-Saharan Africa;agencies and departments made efforts to transition projects to another implementer in order to minimize disruption. Butnevertheless, among USAID awards involving health service delivery where prime and sub-award recipients declined to accept the policy, gaps or disruptions in service delivery were sometimes reported.The second review also identified the number of affected agreements with prime implementing partners and the number of those that have accepted the Mexico City Policy as part of their agreements through September 2018 (see Table 3).

U.S. Agency or DepartmentPolicy Implementation Date# of Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Global Health Assistance Funding# of Prime Awardees That Declined to Accept Policy^USAIDMay 15, 20174866State*May 15, 20173350HHS+May 31, 20174661DoDMay 15, 2017531TOTAL13408NOTES. * reflects PEPFAR funding implemented through the Department of State. Other departments and agencies implement the majority of PEPFAR funding.

+ At HHS agencies, only certain assistance funding transferred from USAID, State, and DoD are subject to the policy. ^ As of September 30, 2018, USAID reported it was aware of six centrally funded prime partners, and 47 sub-awardee implementing partners, that declined to agree to the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) terms in their awards. DoD reported that one DoD partner, a U.S. NGO, declined to agree in one country but accepted the PLGHA standard provision in other countries.

And HHS reported that one HHS partner declined to agree.SOURCES. KFF analysis of data from Department of State, “Review of the Implementation of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy ,” report, Aug. 17, 2020, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PLGHA-2019-Review-Final-8.17.2020-508.pdf, and Department of State, “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Six-Month Review,” report, Feb. 6, 2018, https://www.state.gov/protecting-life-in-global-health-assistance-six-month-review/.Additionally, the review reports that 47 sub-awardees, all under USAID awards, declined to accept the policy.

It is important to note that the review also states that information on sub-awards is not systematically collected by departments and agencies and that DoD was not able to collect information on sub-awards.What is “financial support”?. In February 2018, in the initial six-month review issued when Secretary of State Tillerson led the department, the Department of State report included an “action” statement to clarify the definition of “financial support” as used in the standard provisions for grants and cooperative agreements. At issue was whether it applied more narrowly to certain funding provided by foreign NGOs (i.e., funding other than U.S. Global health funding) to other foreign NGOs specifically for the purpose of performing or actively promoting abortion as a method of family planning or if it applied more broadly to certain funding provided by foreign NGOs to other foreign NGOs for any purpose, if that foreign NGO happened to perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.

The State Department clarified that it was the more narrow interpretation.However, on March 26, 2019, Secretary of State Pompeo reversed this interpretation, announcing further “refinements” to the policy to clarify that it applied to the broader definition of financial support. Specifically, under the policy, U.S.-supported foreign NGOs agree to not provide any financial support (global health-related as well as other support), no matter the source of funds, to any other foreign NGO that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning. In June 2019, USAID provided additional information to reflect this broader interpretation of the standard provisions.This marks the first time the policy has been applied this broadly, as it can now affect funding provided by other donors (such as other governments and foundations) and non-global health funding provided by the U.S. Government for a wide range of purposes if this funding is first provided to foreign NGOs who have accepted the policy (as recipients of U.S.

Global health assistance) that then in turn provide that donor or U.S. Non global health funding for any purpose to foreign NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. For example, under the prior interpretation, a foreign NGO recipient of U.S. Global health funding could not provide any non-U.S.

Funding to another foreign NGO to perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning but could provide funding for other activities, such as education, even if the foreign NGO carried out prohibited activities. Under the broader interpretation, a foreign NGO could not provide any non-U.S. Funding for any activity to a foreign NGO that carried out prohibited activities. Similarly, while under the prior interpretation a foreign NGO recipient of U.S.

Global health funding could provide other U.S. Funding (such as humanitarian assistance) to another foreign NGO for non-prohibited activities, even if the foreign NGO carried out prohibited activities, now under the broader interpretation, it could not do so.What are the next steps in implementing the expanded policy?. The policy went into effect in May 2017 (see Table 2), although it is applied on a rolling basis, as new funding agreements and modifications to existing agreements occur. While it applies to all grants and cooperative agreements, the Trump administration has indicated that it intends the policy to apply to contracts, which would require a rule-making process (it began this process by publishing a proposed rule in September 2020)..

Male viagra prank

A broadly neutralising http://www.ec-gustave-dore-strasbourg.site.ac-strasbourg.fr/wp/?page_id=202 antibody to prevent HIV transmissionTwo HIV prevention trials (HVTN 704/HPTN male viagra prank 085. HVTN 703/HPTN 081) enrolled 2699 at-risk cisgender men and transgender persons in the Americas and Europe and 1924 at-risk women in sub-Saharan Africa who were randomly assigned to receive the broadly neutralising antibody (bnAb) VRC01 or placebo (10 infusions at an interval of 8 weeks). Moderate-to-severe adverse events related to VRC01 were male viagra prank uncommon.

In a prespecified pooled analysis, over 20 months, VRC01 offered an estimated prevention efficacy of ~75% against VRC01-sensitive isolates (30% of viagraes circulating in the trial regions). However, VRC01 did not prevent with other HIV isolates male viagra prank and overall HIV acquisition compared with placebo. The data provide proof of concept that bnAb can prevent HIV acquisition, although the approach is limited by viral diversity and potential selection of resistant isolates.Corey L, Gilbert PB, Juraska M, et al.

Two randomized trials of neutralizing antibodies male viagra prank to prevent HIV-1 acquisition. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1003–1014.Seminal cytokine profiles are associated with the risk of HIV transmissionInvestigators analysed a panel of 34 cytokines/chemokines in blood and semen of men (predominantly men who have sex with men) with HIV, comparing 21 who transmitted HIV to their partners and 22 who did male viagra prank not.

Overall, 47% of men had a recent HIV , 19% were on antiretroviral therapy and 84% were viraemic. The cytokine profile in seminal fluid, but not in blood, differed significantly between transmitters and non-transmitters, with transmitters showing higher seminal concentrations of interleukin 13 (IL-13), IL-15 and IL-33, and lower concentrations of interferon‐gamma, IL-15, macrophage colony-stimulating male viagra prank factor (M-CSF), IL-17, granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), IL-4, IL-16 and eotaxin. Although limited, the findings suggest that the seminal milieu modulates the risk of HIV transmission, providing a potential development opportunity for HIV prevention strategies.Vanpouille C, Frick A, Rawlings SA, et al.

Cytokine network male viagra prank and sexual HIV transmission in men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:2655–2662.The challenge of estimating global treatment eligibility for chronic hepatitis B male viagra prank from incomplete datasetsWorldwide, over 250 million people are estimated to live with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), although only ~11% is diagnosed and a minority receives antiviral therapy.

An estimate of the global proportion eligible for treatment was not previously available. A systematic review analysed studies of CHB male viagra prank populations done between 2007 and 2018 to estimate the prevalence of cirrhosis, abnormal alanine aminotransferase, hepatitis B viagra DNA >2000 or >20 000 IU/mL, hepatitis B e-antigen, and overall eligibility for treatment as per WHO and other guidelines. The pooled treatment eligibility estimate was 19% (95% CI 18% to 20%), with about 10% requiring urgent treatment due to cirrhosis.

However, the male viagra prank estimate should be interpreted with caution due to incomplete data acquisition and reporting in available studies. Standardised reporting is needed to improve global and regional estimates of CHB treatment eligibility and guide effective policy formulation.Tan M, Bhadoria AS, Cui F, et al. Estimating the proportion of people with chronic hepatitis B viagra male viagra prank eligible for hepatitis B antiviral treatment worldwide.

A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2021 male viagra prank. 6:106–119.Broad geographical disparity in the contribution of HIV to the burden of cervical cancerThis systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the contribution of HIV to the global and regional burden of cervical cancer using data from 24 studies which included 236 127 women with HIV.

HIV markedly increased the risk of cervical cancer (pooled relative risk 6.07 male viagra prank. 95% CI 4.40 to 8.37). In 2018, 4.9% (95% CI 3.6% to 6.4%) of cervical cancers were attributable to HIV globally, although the population-attributable fraction for HIV varied geographically, reaching male viagra prank 21% (95% CI 15.6% to 26.8%) in the African region.

Cervical cancer is preventable and treatable. Efforts are male viagra prank needed to expand access to HPV vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa. More immediately, there is an urgent need to integrate cervical cancer screening within HIV services.Stelzle D, Tanaka LF, Lee KK, et al.

Estimates of the global burden of cervical cancer associated with HIV male viagra prank. Lancet Glob Health. 2020.

9:e161–69.The complex relationship between serum vitamin D and persistence of high-risk human papilloma viagra Most cervical high-risk human papilloma viagra (hrHPV) s are transient and those that persist are more likely to progress to cancer. Based on the proposed immunomodulatory properties of vitamin D, a longitudinal study examined the association between serum concentrations of five vitamin D biomarkers and short-term persistent (vs transient or sporadic) detection of hrHPV in 72 women who collected monthly cervicovaginal swabs over 6 months. No significant associations were detected in the primary analysis.

In sensitivity analyses, after multiple adjustments, serum concentrations of multiple vitamin D biomarkers were positively associated with the short-term persistence of 14 selected hrHPV types. The relationship between vitamin D and hrHPV warrants closer examination. Studies should have longer follow-up, include populations with more diverse vitamin D concentrations and account for vitamin D supplementation.Troja C, Hoofnagle AN, Szpiro A, et al.

Understanding the role of emerging vitamin D biomarkers on short-term persistence of high-risk HPV among mid-adult women. J Infect Dis 2020. Online ahead of printPublished in STI—the editor’s choice.

One in five cases of with Neisseria gonorrhoeae clear spontaneouslyStudies have indicated that Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) s can resolve spontaneously without antibiotic therapy. A substudy of a randomised trial investigated 405 untreated subjects (71% men) who underwent both pretrial and enrolment NG testing at the same anatomical site (genital, pharyngeal and rectal). Based on nuclear acid amplification tests, 83 subjects (20.5%) showed clearance of the anatomical site within a median of 10 days (IQR 7–15) between tests.

Those with spontaneous clearance were less likely to have concurrent chlamydia (p=0.029) and dysuria (p=0.035), but there were no differences in age, gender, sexual orientation, HIV status, number of previous NG episodes, and symptoms other than dysuria between those with and without clearance. Given the high rate of spontaneous resolution, point-of-care NG testing should be considered to reduce unnecessary antibiotic treatment.Mensforth S, Ayinde OC, Ross J. Spontaneous clearance of genital and extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

Data from GToG. STI 2020. 96:556–561.BackgroundReproductive aged women are at risk of both pregnancy and sexually transmitted s (STI).

The modern contraceptive prevalence among married and unmarried women in South Africa is 54% and 64%, respectively, with injectable progestins being most widely used.1 Moreover, current global efforts aim towards all women having access to a range of reliable contraceptives options.2 The prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea are high among women in Africa, particularly among younger women. A recent meta-analysis of over 37 000 women estimated prevalences for chlamydia and gonorrhoea by region and population type (South Africa clinic/community-based, Eastern Africa higher-risk and Southern/Eastern Africa clinic community-based). High chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences were found among 15–24 year-old South African women and high risk populations in East Africa.3 Both chlamydia and gonorrhoea are associated with numerous comorbidities including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, infertility, increased risk of HIV and other STIs, as well as significant social harm.4While STIs are a significant global health burden, data on STI prevalence by gender and drivers of are limited, hindering an effective public health response.5 Moreover, data on the association between contraceptive use and risk of non-HIV STIs are limited.

The WHO recently reported stagnation in efforts to decrease global STI incidence.5 Understanding drivers of STI acquisition, including any possible associations with widely used contraceptive methods, is necessary to effectively target public health responses that reduce STI incidence and associated comorbidities.The ECHO Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier. NCT02550067) was a multicentre, open-label randomised trial of 7829 HIV-seronegative women seeking effective contraception in Eswatini, Kenya, South Africa and Zambia. Detailed trial methods and results have been published.6 7 We conducted a secondary analysis of ECHO trial data to evaluate absolute and relative chlamydia and gonorrhoea final visit prevalences among women randomised to intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), a copper intrauterine device (IUD) and a levonorgestrel (LNG) implant.MethodsStudy design, participants and ethicsWomen were enrolled in the ECHO trial from December 2015 through September 2017.

Institutional review boards at each site approved the study protocol and women provided written informed consent before any study procedures. In brief, women who were not pregnant, HIV-seronegative, aged 16–35 years, seeking effective contraception, without medical contraindications, willing to use the assigned method for 18 months, reported not using injectable, intrauterine or implantable contraception for the previous 6 months and reported being sexually active, were enrolled. At every visit, participants received HIV risk reduction counselling, HIV testing and STI management, condoms and, as it became a part of national standard of care, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Counselling messages related to HIV risk were implemented consistently across the three groups throughout the trial.6The trial was implemented in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Informed consent was obtained from participants or their parents/guardians and human experimentation guidelines of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and those of the authors' institution(s) were followed.Contraceptive exposureAt enrolment, women were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to DMPA-IM, copper IUD or LNG implant.6 Participants received an injection of 150 mg/mL DMPA-IM (Depo Provera. Pfizer, Puurs, Belgium) at enrolment and every 3 months until the final visit at 18 months after enrolment, a copper IUD (Optima TCu380A.

Injeflex, Sao Paolo, Brazil) or a LNG implant (Jadelle. Bayer, Turku, Finland) at enrolment. Women returned for follow-up visits at 1 month after enrolment to address initial contraceptive side-effects and every 3 months thereafter, for up to 18 months with later enrolling participants contributing 12 to 18 months of follow-up.

Visits included HIV serological testing, contraceptive counselling, syndromic STI management and safety monitoring.STI outcomesThe primary outcomes of this secondary analysis were prevalent chlamydia and gonorrhoea at the final visit. Syndromic STI management was provided at screening and all follow-up visits. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae was conducted at screening and final visits, at the visit of HIV detection for participants who became HIV infected and at clinical discretion.

Any untreated participants with positive NAAT results were contacted to return to the study clinic for treatment.CovariatesAt baseline (inclusive of screening and enrolment visits), we collected demographic, sexual and reproductive risk behaviour and reproductive and contraceptive history data. Baseline risk factors evaluated as covariates included age, whether the participant earned her own income, chlamydia and gonorrhoea status, herpes simplex viagra type 2 (HSV-2) sero-status and suspected PID. Final visit factors evaluated as covariates included number of sex partners in the past 3 months, number of new sex partners in the past 3 months, HIV serostatus, HSV-2 serostatus, condom use in the past 3 months, sex exchanged for money/gifts, sex during vaginal bleeding, follow-up time and number of pelvic examinations during follow-up.

Age and HSV-2 serostatus were evaluated for effect measure modification.Statistical analysisWe conducted analyses using R V.3.5.3 (Vienna, Austria), and log-binomial regression to estimate chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences within each contraceptive group and pairwise prevalence ratios (PR) between each arm in as-randomised and consistent use analyses.In the as-randomised analysis, we analysed participants by the contraceptive method assigned at randomisation independent of method adherence. We estimated crude point prevalences by arm and study site and pairwise adjusted PRs.In the consistent use analysis, we only included women who initiated use of their randomised contraceptive method and maintained randomised method adherence throughout follow-up. We estimated crude point prevalences by arm and pairwise adjusted PRs, with evaluation of age and HSV-2 status first as potential effect measure modifiers, and all covariates above as potential confounders.

Study site and age were retained in the final model. Other covariates were retained if their inclusion in the base model led to a 10% change in the effect estimate through backwards selection.Supplementary analysesAdditional supporting analyses to assess postrandomisation potential sources of bias were conducted to inform interpretation of results. These include evaluation of recent sexual behaviour at enrolment, month 9 and the final visit.

Cohort participation (ie, follow-up time, early discontinuation and timing of randomised method discontinuation) and health outcomes (ie, final visit HIV and HSV-2 status) and frequency and results of pelvic examinations by STI status, site and visit month by randomised arm.ResultsA total of 7829 women were randomly assigned as follows. 2609 to the DMPA-IM group, 2607 to the copper IUD group and 2613 to the LNG implant group (figure 1). Participants were excluded if they were HIV positive at enrolment, did not have at least one HIV test or did not have chlamydia and gonorrhoea test results at the final visit.

Overall, 90%, 94% and 93% from the DMPA-IM, copper IUD and LNG implant groups, respectively, were included in analyses.Study profile. DMPA-IM, depot medroxy progesterone acetate. IUD, intrauterine device.

LNG, levonorgestrel." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 1 Study profile. DMPA-IM, depot medroxy progesterone acetate. IUD, intrauterine device.

LNG, levonorgestrel.Participant characteristicsBaseline characteristics were similar across groups (table 1). Nearly two-third of enrolled women (63%) were aged 24 and younger and 5768 (74%) of the study population resided in South Africa.View this table:Table 1 Participant baseline and final visit characteristicsThe duration of participation averaged 16 months with no differences between randomised groups (table 1). A total of 1468 (19%) women either did not receive their randomised method or discontinued use during follow-up.

Overall method continuation rates were high with minimal differences between randomised groups when measured by person-years.6 The proportion, however, of method non-adherence as defined in this analysis (ie, did not receive randomised method at baseline or discontinued randomised method at any point during follow-up), was greater in the DMPA-IM group (26%), followed by the copper IUD (18%) and LNG implant (12%) groups. Timing of discontinuation also differed across methods. During the first 6 months, method discontinuation was highest in the copper IUD group (7%) followed closely by DMPA-IM (6%) and LNG implant (4%) groups.

Between 7 and 12 months of follow-up, it was highest in DMPA-IM group (15%), with equivalent proportions in the LNG implant (5%) and copper IUD (5%) groups.Point prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at baseline and final visitsIn total, 18% of women had chlamydia at baseline (figure 2A) and 15% at the final visit. Among women 24 years and younger, 22% and 20% had chlamydia at baseline and final visits, respectively. Women aged 25–35 at baseline were less likely to have chlamydia at both baseline (12%) and final visits (8%) compared with younger women.

Baseline chlamydia prevalence ranged from 5% in Zambia to 28% in the Western Cape, South Africa (figure 2B).Point prevalence (per 100 persons) of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at baseline and final visit by age category and study site region. Y-axis scale differs for chlamydia and gonorrhoea figures." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 2 Point prevalence (per 100 persons) of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at baseline and final visit by age category and study site region. Y-axis scale differs for chlamydia and gonorrhoea figures.Among all women, 5% had gonorrhoea at baseline and the final visit (figure 2C).

Women aged 24 and younger were more likely to have gonorrhoea compared with women aged 25 and older at both baseline (5% vs 4%, respectively) and the final visit (6% vs 3%, respectively). Baseline gonorrhoea prevalence ranged from 3% in Zambia and Kenya to 9% in the Western Cape, South Africa (figure 2D). Similar prevalences were observed at the final visit.Point prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at final visit by randomised contraceptive methodFourteen per cent of women randomised to DMPA-IM, 15% to copper IUD and 17% to LNG implant had chlamydia at the final visit (table 2).View this table:Table 2 Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae prevalence at final visitThe prevalence of chlamydia did not significantly differ between DMPA-IM and copper IUD groups (PR 0.90, 95% CI (0.79 to 1.04)) or between copper IUD and LNG implant groups (PR 0.92, 95% CI (0.81 to 1.04)).

Women in the DMPA-IM group, however, had a significantly lower risk of chlamydia compared with the LNG implant group (PR. 0.83, 95% CI (0.72 to 0.95)). Findings from the consistent use analysis were similar, and neither age nor HSV-2 status modified the observed associations.Four per cent of women randomised to DMPA-IM, 6% to copper IUD and 5% to LNG implant had gonorrhoea at the final visit (table 2).

Gonorrhoea prevalence did not significantly differ between DMPA-IM and LNG implant groups (PR. 0.79, 95% CI (0.61 to 1.03)) or between copper IUD and LNG implant groups (PR. 1.18, 95% CI (0.93 to 1.49)).

Women in the DMPA-IM group had a significantly lower risk of gonorrhoea compared with women in the copper IUD group (PR. 0.67, 95% CI (0.52 to 0.87)). Results from as randomised and continuous use analyses did not differ.

And again, neither age nor HSV-2 status modified the observed associations.Clinical assessment by randomised contraceptive methodTo assess the potential for outcome ascertainment bias, we evaluated the frequency of pelvic examinations and abdominal/pelvic pain and discharge by study arm. Women in the copper IUD group were generally more likely to receive a pelvic examination during follow-up as compared with women in the DMPA-IM and LNG implant groups (online supplemental appendix 1). Similarly, abdominal/pelvic pain on examination or abnormal discharge was observed most frequently in the copper IUD group.

The number of pelvic examinations met the prespecified criteria for retention in the adjusted gonorrhoea model but not in the chlamydia model.Supplemental materialFrequency of syndromic symptoms and potential reAmong women who had chlamydia at baseline, 23% were also positive at the final visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3A). Nine per cent of gonorrhoea-positive women at baseline were also positive at the final visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3B). Across both baseline and final visits, a minority of women with chlamydia or gonorrhoea presented with signs and/or symptoms.

Among chlamydia-positive women, only 12% presented with either abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain at their test-positive visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3C). Similarly, only 15% of gonorrhoea-positive women presented with abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain at their test-positive visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3D).Potential re and symptoms among women with chlamydia or gonorrhoea. Data are pooled across the screening and final visits in figures (C) and (D).

Symptomatic is defined as presenting with abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain. Final visit is described as potential re because test of cure was not conducted following baseline diagnosis and treatment." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 3 Potential re and symptoms among women with chlamydia or gonorrhoea. Data are pooled across the screening and final visits in figures (C) and (D).

Symptomatic is defined as presenting with abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain. Final visit is described as potential re because test of cure was not conducted following baseline diagnosis and treatment.DiscussionWe observed differences in final prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea by contraceptive group in both as-randomised and consistent-use analyses. The DMPA-IM group had lower final visit chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences as compared with copper IUD and LNG implant groups, though only the DMPA-IM versus the copper IUD comparison of gonorrhoea and DMPA-IM versus LNG implant comparison of chlamydia reached statistical significance.

These are novel findings that have not previously been reported to our knowledge and were determined in a randomised trial setting with high participant retention, robust biomarker testing and high randomised method adherence. Interestingly, the copper IUD group had higher gonorrhoea and lower chlamydia prevalence compared with the LNG implant group, though neither finding was statistically significant.Two recent systematic reviews of the association between contraceptives and STIs found inconsistent and insufficient evidence on the association between the contraceptive methods under study in ECHO and chlamydia and gonorrhoea.8 9 Neither systematic review identified any randomised studies or any direct comparative evidence for DMPA-IM, copper IUD and LNG implant, thus enabling a unique scientific contribution from this secondary trial analysis. Nonetheless, these findings should be interpreted in light of biological plausibility, as well as the design strengths and limitations of this analysis.The emerging science on the biological mechanisms underlying HIV susceptibility demonstrates the complex relationship between the infectious pathogen, the host innate and adaptive immune response and the interaction of both with the vaginal microbiome and other -omes.

Data on these factors in relationship to chlamydia and gonorrhoea acquisition are much more limited but can be assumed to be equally complex. Vaginal microbiome composition, including microbial metabolic by-products, have been shown to significantly modify risk of HIV acquisition and to vary with exogenous hormone exposure, menstrual cycle phase, ethnicity and geography.10–12 These same biological principles likely apply to chlamydia and gonorrhoea susceptibility. While DMPA-IM has been associated with decreased bacterial vaginosis (BV), initiation of the copper IUD has been associated with increased BV prevalence, and BV is associated with chlamydia and gonorrhoea acquisition.13 14 Moreover, Lactobacillus crispatus, which is less abundant in BV, has been shown to inhibit HeLa cell by Chlamydia trachomatis and inhibits growth of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in animal models.15 16 In addition, microbial community state types that are deficient in Lactobacillus crispatus and/or dominated by dysbiotic species are associated with inflammation, which is a driver of both STI and HIV susceptibility.

Thus, while the exact mechanisms of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in the presence of exogenous hormones and varying host microbiomes are unknown, it is biologically plausible that these complex factors may result in differential susceptibility to chlamydia and gonorrhoea among DMPA-IM, copper IUD and LNG implant users.An alternative explanation for these findings may be postrandomisation differences in clinical care and/or sexual behaviour. Participants in the copper IUD arm were more likely to have pelvic examinations and more likely to have discharge compared with women in the DMPA-IM and LNG implant groups. While interim STI testing and/or treatment were not documented, women in the copper IUD arm may have been more likely to receive syndromic STI treatment during follow-up due to more examination and observed discharge.

More frequent STI treatment in the copper IUD group would theoretically lower the final visit point prevalence relative to women in the DMPA-IM and LNG implant arms, suggesting that the observed lower risk of STI in the DMPA-IM arm is not due to differential examination, testing and treatment. Differential sexual risk behaviour may also have influenced the results. As reported previously, women in the DMPA-IM group less frequently reported condomless sex and multiple partners than women in the other groups, and both DMPA-IM and LNG implant users less frequently reported new partners and sex during menses than copper IUD users.6 Statistical control of self-reported sexual risk behaviour in the consistent-use analysis may have been inadequate if self-reported sexual behaviour was inaccurately or insufficiently reported.A second alternative explanation may be differences in randomised method non-adherence, which was greater in the DMPA-IM group, compared with copper IUD and LNG implant groups.

Yet, the consistency of findings in the as-randomised and continuous use analyses suggests that method non-adherence had minimal effect on study outcomes. Taken as a whole, these findings indicate that there may be real differences in chlamydia and gonorrhoea risk associated with use of DMPA-IM, the copper IUD and LNG implant. However, any true differential risk by method must be evaluated in light of the holistic benefits and risks of each method.The high observed chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences, despite intensive counselling and condom provision, warrants attention, particularly among women ages 24 years and younger and among women in South Africa and Eswatini.

While the ECHO study was conducted in settings of high HIV/STI incidence, enrolment criteria did not purposefully target women at highest risk of HIV/STI in the trial communities, suggesting that the observed prevalences may be broadly applicable to women seeking effective contraception in those settings. Improved approaches are needed to prevent STIs, including options for expedited partner treatment, to prevent re.As expected, few women testing positive for chlamydia or gonorrhoea presented with symptoms (12% and 15%, respectively), and a substantial proportion of women who were positive and treated at baseline were infected at the final visit despite syndromic management during the follow-up. Given that syndromic management is the standard of care within primary health facilities in most trial settings, these data suggest that a large proportion of among reproductive aged women is missed, exacerbating the burden of curable STIs and associated morbidities.

Routine access to more reliable diagnostics, like NAAT and novel point-of-care diagnostic tests, will be key to managing asymptomatic STIs and reducing STI prevalence and related morbidities in these settings.17This secondary analysis of the ECHO trial has strengths and limitations. Strengths include the randomised design with comparator groups of equal STI baseline risk. Participants had high adherence to their randomised contraceptive method.6 While all participants received standardised clinical care and counselling, the unblinded randomisation may have allowed postrandomisation differences in STI risk over time by method.

It is possible that participants modified their risk-taking behaviour based on study counselling messages regarding the potential association between DMPA-IM and HIV.In conclusion, our analyses suggest that DMPA-IM users may have lower risk of chlamydia and gonorrhoea compared with LNG implant and copper IUD users, respectively. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the mechanisms of chlamydia and gonorrhoea susceptibility in the context of contraceptive use. Moreover, the high chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences in this population, independent of contraceptive method, warrants urgent attention.Key messagesThe prevalence of chlamydia and gonorrhoea varied by contraceptive method in this randomised trial.High chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences, despite intensive counselling and condom provision, warrants attention, particularly among young women in South Africa and Eswatini.Most chlamydia and gonorrhoea s were asymptomatic.

Therefore, routine access to reliable diagnostics are needed to effectively manage and prevent STIs in African women..

A broadly cialis vs viagra cost go to my blog neutralising antibody to prevent HIV transmissionTwo HIV prevention trials (HVTN 704/HPTN 085. HVTN 703/HPTN 081) enrolled 2699 at-risk cisgender men and transgender persons in the Americas and Europe and 1924 at-risk women in sub-Saharan Africa who were randomly assigned to receive the broadly neutralising antibody (bnAb) VRC01 or placebo (10 infusions at an interval of 8 weeks). Moderate-to-severe adverse events related to VRC01 were uncommon cialis vs viagra cost. In a prespecified pooled analysis, over 20 months, VRC01 offered an estimated prevention efficacy of ~75% against VRC01-sensitive isolates (30% of viagraes circulating in the trial regions). However, VRC01 did not prevent with cialis vs viagra cost other HIV isolates and overall HIV acquisition compared with placebo.

The data provide proof of concept that bnAb can prevent HIV acquisition, although the approach is limited by viral diversity and potential selection of resistant isolates.Corey L, Gilbert PB, Juraska M, et al. Two randomized cialis vs viagra cost trials of neutralizing antibodies to prevent HIV-1 acquisition. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1003–1014.Seminal cytokine profiles are associated with cialis vs viagra cost the risk of HIV transmissionInvestigators analysed a panel of 34 cytokines/chemokines in blood and semen of men (predominantly men who have sex with men) with HIV, comparing 21 who transmitted HIV to their partners and 22 who did not. Overall, 47% of men had a recent HIV , 19% were on antiretroviral therapy and 84% were viraemic.

The cytokine profile in seminal fluid, but not in blood, differed significantly between transmitters and non-transmitters, with transmitters showing higher seminal concentrations of interleukin cialis vs viagra cost 13 (IL-13), IL-15 and IL-33, and lower concentrations of interferon‐gamma, IL-15, macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), IL-17, granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), IL-4, IL-16 and eotaxin. Although limited, the findings suggest that the seminal milieu modulates the risk of HIV transmission, providing a potential development opportunity for HIV prevention strategies.Vanpouille C, Frick A, Rawlings SA, et al. Cytokine network cialis vs viagra cost and sexual HIV transmission in men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:2655–2662.The challenge of estimating global treatment eligibility for chronic hepatitis B from incomplete datasetsWorldwide, over 250 million people are estimated to cialis vs viagra cost live with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), although only ~11% is diagnosed and a minority receives antiviral therapy.

An estimate of the global proportion eligible for treatment was not previously available. A systematic review analysed studies of CHB populations done between cialis vs viagra cost 2007 and 2018 to estimate the prevalence of cirrhosis, abnormal alanine aminotransferase, hepatitis B viagra DNA >2000 or >20 000 IU/mL, hepatitis B e-antigen, and overall eligibility for treatment as per WHO and other guidelines. The pooled treatment eligibility estimate was 19% (95% CI 18% to 20%), with about 10% requiring urgent treatment due to cirrhosis. However, the cialis vs viagra cost estimate should be interpreted with caution due to incomplete data acquisition and reporting in available studies. Standardised reporting is needed to improve global and regional estimates of CHB treatment eligibility and guide effective policy formulation.Tan M, Bhadoria AS, Cui F, et al.

Estimating the proportion of people with chronic hepatitis B viagra eligible for hepatitis B cialis vs viagra cost antiviral treatment worldwide. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol cialis vs viagra cost Hepatol, 2021. 6:106–119.Broad geographical disparity in the contribution of HIV to the burden of cervical cancerThis systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the contribution of HIV to the global and regional burden of cervical cancer using data from 24 studies which included 236 127 women with HIV. HIV markedly increased cialis vs viagra cost the risk of cervical cancer (pooled relative risk 6.07.

95% CI 4.40 to 8.37). In 2018, 4.9% (95% CI 3.6% to 6.4%) of cervical cancers were attributable to HIV cialis vs viagra cost globally, although the population-attributable fraction for HIV varied geographically, reaching 21% (95% CI 15.6% to 26.8%) in the African region. Cervical cancer is preventable and treatable. Efforts are needed to expand access cialis vs viagra cost to HPV vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa. More immediately, there is an urgent need to integrate cervical cancer screening within HIV services.Stelzle D, Tanaka LF, Lee KK, et al.

Estimates of the global burden of cervical cancer associated with cialis vs viagra cost HIV. Lancet Glob Health. 2020. 9:e161–69.The complex relationship between serum vitamin D and persistence of high-risk human papilloma viagra Most cervical high-risk human papilloma viagra (hrHPV) s are transient and those that persist are more likely to progress to cancer. Based on the proposed immunomodulatory properties of vitamin D, a longitudinal study examined the association between serum concentrations of five vitamin D biomarkers and short-term persistent (vs transient or sporadic) detection of hrHPV in 72 women who collected monthly cervicovaginal swabs over 6 months.

No significant associations were detected in the primary analysis. In sensitivity analyses, after multiple adjustments, serum concentrations of multiple vitamin D biomarkers were positively associated with the short-term persistence of 14 selected hrHPV types. The relationship between vitamin D and hrHPV warrants closer examination. Studies should have longer follow-up, include populations with more diverse vitamin D concentrations and account for vitamin D supplementation.Troja C, Hoofnagle AN, Szpiro A, et al. Understanding the role of emerging vitamin D biomarkers on short-term persistence of high-risk HPV among mid-adult women.

J Infect Dis 2020. Online ahead of printPublished in STI—the editor’s choice. One in five cases of with Neisseria gonorrhoeae clear spontaneouslyStudies have indicated that Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) s can resolve spontaneously without antibiotic therapy. A substudy of a randomised trial investigated 405 untreated subjects (71% men) who underwent both pretrial and enrolment NG testing at the same anatomical site (genital, pharyngeal and rectal). Based on nuclear acid amplification tests, 83 subjects (20.5%) showed clearance of the anatomical site within a median of 10 days (IQR 7–15) between tests.

Those with spontaneous clearance were less likely to have concurrent chlamydia (p=0.029) and dysuria (p=0.035), but there were no differences in age, gender, sexual orientation, HIV status, number of previous NG episodes, and symptoms other than dysuria between those with and without clearance. Given the high rate of spontaneous resolution, point-of-care NG testing should be considered to reduce unnecessary antibiotic treatment.Mensforth S, Ayinde OC, Ross J. Spontaneous clearance of genital and extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Data from GToG. STI 2020.

96:556–561.BackgroundReproductive aged women are at risk of both pregnancy and sexually transmitted s (STI). The modern contraceptive prevalence among married and unmarried women in South Africa is 54% and 64%, respectively, with injectable progestins being most widely used.1 Moreover, current global efforts aim towards all women having access to a range of reliable contraceptives options.2 The prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea are high among women in Africa, particularly among younger women. A recent meta-analysis of over 37 000 women estimated prevalences for chlamydia and gonorrhoea by region and population type (South Africa clinic/community-based, Eastern Africa higher-risk and Southern/Eastern Africa clinic community-based). High chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences were found among 15–24 year-old South African women and high risk populations in East Africa.3 Both chlamydia and gonorrhoea are associated with numerous comorbidities including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, infertility, increased risk of HIV and other STIs, as well as significant social harm.4While STIs are a significant global health burden, data on STI prevalence by gender and drivers of are limited, hindering an effective public health response.5 Moreover, data on the association between contraceptive use and risk of non-HIV STIs are limited. The WHO recently reported stagnation in efforts to decrease global STI incidence.5 Understanding drivers of STI acquisition, including any possible associations with widely used contraceptive methods, is necessary to effectively target public health responses that reduce STI incidence and associated comorbidities.The ECHO Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier.

NCT02550067) was a multicentre, open-label randomised trial of 7829 HIV-seronegative women seeking effective contraception in Eswatini, Kenya, South Africa and Zambia. Detailed trial methods and results have been published.6 7 We conducted a secondary analysis of ECHO trial data to evaluate absolute and relative chlamydia and gonorrhoea final visit prevalences among women randomised to intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), a copper intrauterine device (IUD) and a levonorgestrel (LNG) implant.MethodsStudy design, participants and ethicsWomen were enrolled in the ECHO trial from December 2015 through September 2017. Institutional review boards at each site approved the study protocol and women provided written informed consent before any study procedures. In brief, women who were not pregnant, HIV-seronegative, aged 16–35 years, seeking effective contraception, without medical contraindications, willing to use the assigned method for 18 months, reported not using injectable, intrauterine or implantable contraception for the previous 6 months and reported being sexually active, were enrolled. At every visit, participants received HIV risk reduction counselling, HIV testing and STI management, condoms and, as it became a part of national standard of care, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Counselling messages related to HIV risk were implemented consistently across the three groups throughout the trial.6The trial was implemented in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Informed consent was obtained from participants or their parents/guardians and human experimentation guidelines of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and those of the authors' institution(s) were followed.Contraceptive exposureAt enrolment, women were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to DMPA-IM, copper IUD or LNG implant.6 Participants received an injection of 150 mg/mL DMPA-IM (Depo Provera. Pfizer, Puurs, Belgium) at enrolment and every 3 months until the final visit at 18 months after enrolment, a copper IUD (Optima TCu380A. Injeflex, Sao Paolo, Brazil) or a LNG implant (Jadelle. Bayer, Turku, Finland) at enrolment.

Women returned for follow-up visits at 1 month after enrolment to address initial contraceptive side-effects and every 3 months thereafter, for up to 18 months with later enrolling participants contributing 12 to 18 months of follow-up. Visits included HIV serological testing, contraceptive counselling, syndromic STI management and safety monitoring.STI outcomesThe primary outcomes of this secondary analysis were prevalent chlamydia and gonorrhoea at the final visit. Syndromic STI management was provided at screening and all follow-up visits. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae was conducted at screening and final visits, at the visit of HIV detection for participants who became HIV infected and at clinical discretion. Any untreated participants with positive NAAT results were contacted to return to the study clinic for treatment.CovariatesAt baseline (inclusive of screening and enrolment visits), we collected demographic, sexual and reproductive risk behaviour and reproductive and contraceptive history data.

Baseline risk factors evaluated as covariates included age, whether the participant earned her own income, chlamydia and gonorrhoea status, herpes simplex viagra type 2 (HSV-2) sero-status and suspected PID. Final visit factors evaluated as covariates included number of sex partners in the past 3 months, number of new sex partners in the past 3 months, HIV serostatus, HSV-2 serostatus, condom use in the past 3 months, sex exchanged for money/gifts, sex during vaginal bleeding, follow-up time and number of pelvic examinations during follow-up. Age and HSV-2 serostatus were evaluated for effect measure modification.Statistical analysisWe conducted analyses using R V.3.5.3 (Vienna, Austria), and log-binomial regression to estimate chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences within each contraceptive group and pairwise prevalence ratios (PR) between each arm in as-randomised and consistent use analyses.In the as-randomised analysis, we analysed participants by the contraceptive method assigned at randomisation independent of method adherence. We estimated crude point prevalences by arm and study site and pairwise adjusted PRs.In the consistent use analysis, we only included women who initiated use of their randomised contraceptive method and maintained randomised method adherence throughout follow-up. We estimated crude point prevalences by arm and pairwise adjusted PRs, with evaluation of age and HSV-2 status first as potential effect measure modifiers, and all covariates above as potential confounders.

Study site Learn More Here and age were retained in the final model. Other covariates were retained if their inclusion in the base model led to a 10% change in the effect estimate through backwards selection.Supplementary analysesAdditional supporting analyses to assess postrandomisation potential sources of bias were conducted to inform interpretation of results. These include evaluation of recent sexual behaviour at enrolment, month 9 and the final visit. Cohort participation (ie, follow-up time, early discontinuation and timing of randomised method discontinuation) and health outcomes (ie, final visit HIV and HSV-2 status) and frequency and results of pelvic examinations by STI status, site and visit month by randomised arm.ResultsA total of 7829 women were randomly assigned as follows. 2609 to the DMPA-IM group, 2607 to the copper IUD group and 2613 to the LNG implant group (figure 1).

Participants were excluded if they were HIV positive at enrolment, did not have at least one HIV test or did not have chlamydia and gonorrhoea test results at the final visit. Overall, 90%, 94% and 93% from the DMPA-IM, copper IUD and LNG implant groups, respectively, were included in analyses.Study profile. DMPA-IM, depot medroxy progesterone acetate. IUD, intrauterine device. LNG, levonorgestrel." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 1 Study profile.

DMPA-IM, depot medroxy progesterone acetate. IUD, intrauterine device. LNG, levonorgestrel.Participant characteristicsBaseline characteristics were similar across groups (table 1). Nearly two-third of enrolled women (63%) were aged 24 and younger and 5768 (74%) of the study population resided in South Africa.View this table:Table 1 Participant baseline and final visit characteristicsThe duration of participation averaged 16 months with no differences between randomised groups (table 1). A total of 1468 (19%) women either did not receive their randomised method or discontinued use during follow-up.

Overall method continuation rates were high with minimal differences between randomised groups when measured by person-years.6 The proportion, however, of method non-adherence as defined in this analysis (ie, did not receive randomised method at baseline or discontinued randomised method at any point during follow-up), was greater in the DMPA-IM group (26%), followed by the copper IUD (18%) and LNG implant (12%) groups. Timing of discontinuation also differed across methods. During the first 6 months, method discontinuation was highest in the copper IUD group (7%) followed closely by DMPA-IM (6%) and LNG implant (4%) groups. Between 7 and 12 months of follow-up, it was highest in DMPA-IM group (15%), with equivalent proportions in the LNG implant (5%) and copper IUD (5%) groups.Point prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at baseline and final visitsIn total, 18% of women had chlamydia at baseline (figure 2A) and 15% at the final visit. Among women 24 years and younger, 22% and 20% had chlamydia at baseline and final visits, respectively.

Women aged 25–35 at baseline were less likely to have chlamydia at both baseline (12%) and final visits (8%) compared with younger women. Baseline chlamydia prevalence ranged from 5% in Zambia to 28% in the Western Cape, South Africa (figure 2B).Point prevalence (per 100 persons) of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at baseline and final visit by age category and study site region. Y-axis scale differs for chlamydia and gonorrhoea figures." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 2 Point prevalence (per 100 persons) of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at baseline and final visit by age category and study site region. Y-axis scale differs for chlamydia and gonorrhoea figures.Among all women, 5% had gonorrhoea at baseline and the final visit (figure 2C). Women aged 24 and younger were more likely to have gonorrhoea compared with women aged 25 and older at both baseline (5% vs 4%, respectively) and the final visit (6% vs 3%, respectively).

Baseline gonorrhoea prevalence ranged from 3% in Zambia and Kenya to 9% in the Western Cape, South Africa (figure 2D). Similar prevalences were observed at the final visit.Point prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at final visit by randomised contraceptive methodFourteen per cent of women randomised to DMPA-IM, 15% to copper IUD and 17% to LNG implant had chlamydia at the final visit (table 2).View this table:Table 2 Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae prevalence at final visitThe prevalence of chlamydia did not significantly differ between DMPA-IM and copper IUD groups (PR 0.90, 95% CI (0.79 to 1.04)) or between copper IUD and LNG implant groups (PR 0.92, 95% CI (0.81 to 1.04)). Women in the DMPA-IM group, however, had a significantly lower risk of chlamydia compared with the LNG implant group (PR. 0.83, 95% CI (0.72 to 0.95)). Findings from the consistent use analysis were similar, and neither age nor HSV-2 status modified the observed associations.Four per cent of women randomised to DMPA-IM, 6% to copper IUD and 5% to LNG implant had gonorrhoea at the final visit (table 2).

Gonorrhoea prevalence did not significantly differ between DMPA-IM and LNG implant groups (PR. 0.79, 95% CI (0.61 to 1.03)) or between copper IUD and LNG implant groups (PR. 1.18, 95% CI (0.93 to 1.49)). Women in the DMPA-IM group had a significantly lower risk of gonorrhoea compared with women in the copper IUD group (PR. 0.67, 95% CI (0.52 to 0.87)).

Results from as randomised and continuous use analyses did not differ. And again, neither age nor HSV-2 status modified the observed associations.Clinical assessment by randomised contraceptive methodTo assess the potential for outcome ascertainment bias, we evaluated the frequency of pelvic examinations and abdominal/pelvic pain and discharge by study arm. Women in the copper IUD group were generally more likely to receive a pelvic examination during follow-up as compared with women in the DMPA-IM and LNG implant groups (online supplemental appendix 1). Similarly, abdominal/pelvic pain on examination or abnormal discharge was observed most frequently in the copper IUD group. The number of pelvic examinations met the prespecified criteria for retention in the adjusted gonorrhoea model but not in the chlamydia model.Supplemental materialFrequency of syndromic symptoms and potential reAmong women who had chlamydia at baseline, 23% were also positive at the final visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3A).

Nine per cent of gonorrhoea-positive women at baseline were also positive at the final visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3B). Across both baseline and final visits, a minority of women with chlamydia or gonorrhoea presented with signs and/or symptoms. Among chlamydia-positive women, only 12% presented with either abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain at their test-positive visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3C). Similarly, only 15% of gonorrhoea-positive women presented with abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain at their test-positive visit (online supplemental appendix 2, figure 3D).Potential re and symptoms among women with chlamydia or gonorrhoea. Data are pooled across the screening and final visits in figures (C) and (D).

Symptomatic is defined as presenting with abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain. Final visit is described as potential re because test of cure was not conducted following baseline diagnosis and treatment." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 3 Potential re and symptoms among women with chlamydia or gonorrhoea. Data are pooled across the screening and final visits in figures (C) and (D). Symptomatic is defined as presenting with abnormal vaginal discharge and/or abdominal/pelvic pain. Final visit is described as potential re because test of cure was not conducted following baseline diagnosis and treatment.DiscussionWe observed differences in final prevalences of chlamydia and gonorrhoea by contraceptive group in both as-randomised and consistent-use analyses.

The DMPA-IM group had lower final visit chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences as compared with copper IUD and LNG implant groups, though only the DMPA-IM versus the copper IUD comparison of gonorrhoea and DMPA-IM versus LNG implant comparison of chlamydia reached statistical significance. These are novel findings that have not previously been reported to our knowledge and were determined in a randomised trial setting with high participant retention, robust biomarker testing and high randomised method adherence. Interestingly, the copper IUD group had higher gonorrhoea and lower chlamydia prevalence compared with the LNG implant group, though neither finding was statistically significant.Two recent systematic reviews of the association between contraceptives and STIs found inconsistent and insufficient evidence on the association between the contraceptive methods under study in ECHO and chlamydia and gonorrhoea.8 9 Neither systematic review identified any randomised studies or any direct comparative evidence for DMPA-IM, copper IUD and LNG implant, thus enabling a unique scientific contribution from this secondary trial analysis. Nonetheless, these findings should be interpreted in light of biological plausibility, as well as the design strengths and limitations of this analysis.The emerging science on the biological mechanisms underlying HIV susceptibility demonstrates the complex relationship between the infectious pathogen, the host innate and adaptive immune response and the interaction of both with the vaginal microbiome and other -omes. Data on these factors in relationship to chlamydia and gonorrhoea acquisition are much more limited but can be assumed to be equally complex.

Vaginal microbiome composition, including microbial metabolic by-products, have been shown to significantly modify risk of HIV acquisition and to vary with exogenous hormone exposure, menstrual cycle phase, ethnicity and geography.10–12 These same biological principles likely apply to chlamydia and gonorrhoea susceptibility. While DMPA-IM has been associated with decreased bacterial vaginosis (BV), initiation of the copper IUD has been associated with increased BV prevalence, and BV is associated with chlamydia and gonorrhoea acquisition.13 14 Moreover, Lactobacillus crispatus, which is less abundant in BV, has been shown to inhibit HeLa cell by Chlamydia trachomatis and inhibits growth of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in animal models.15 16 In addition, microbial community state types that are deficient in Lactobacillus crispatus and/or dominated by dysbiotic species are associated with inflammation, which is a driver of both STI and HIV susceptibility. Thus, while the exact mechanisms of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in the presence of exogenous hormones and varying host microbiomes are unknown, it is biologically plausible that these complex factors may result in differential susceptibility to chlamydia and gonorrhoea among DMPA-IM, copper IUD and LNG implant users.An alternative explanation for these findings may be postrandomisation differences in clinical care and/or sexual behaviour. Participants in the copper IUD arm were more likely to have pelvic examinations and more likely to have discharge compared with women in the DMPA-IM and LNG implant groups. While interim STI testing and/or treatment were not documented, women in the copper IUD arm may have been more likely to receive syndromic STI treatment during follow-up due to more examination and observed discharge.

More frequent STI treatment in the copper IUD group would theoretically lower the final visit point prevalence relative to women in the DMPA-IM and LNG implant arms, suggesting that the observed lower risk of STI in the DMPA-IM arm is not due to differential examination, testing and treatment. Differential sexual risk behaviour may also have influenced the results. As reported previously, women in the DMPA-IM group less frequently reported condomless sex and multiple partners than women in the other groups, and both DMPA-IM and LNG implant users less frequently reported new partners and sex during menses than copper IUD users.6 Statistical control of self-reported sexual risk behaviour in the consistent-use analysis may have been inadequate if self-reported sexual behaviour was inaccurately or insufficiently reported.A second alternative explanation may be differences in randomised method non-adherence, which was greater in the DMPA-IM group, compared with copper IUD and LNG implant groups. Yet, the consistency of findings in the as-randomised and continuous use analyses suggests that method non-adherence had minimal effect on study outcomes. Taken as a whole, these findings indicate that there may be real differences in chlamydia and gonorrhoea risk associated with use of DMPA-IM, the copper IUD and LNG implant.

However, any true differential risk by method must be evaluated in light of the holistic benefits and risks of each method.The high observed chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences, despite intensive counselling and condom provision, warrants attention, particularly among women ages 24 years and younger and among women in South Africa and Eswatini. While the ECHO study was conducted in settings of high HIV/STI incidence, enrolment criteria did not purposefully target women at highest risk of HIV/STI in the trial communities, suggesting that the observed prevalences may be broadly applicable to women seeking effective contraception in those settings. Improved approaches are needed to prevent STIs, including options for expedited partner treatment, to prevent re.As expected, few women testing positive for chlamydia or gonorrhoea presented with symptoms (12% and 15%, respectively), and a substantial proportion of women who were positive and treated at baseline were infected at the final visit despite syndromic management during the follow-up. Given that syndromic management is the standard of care within primary health facilities in most trial settings, these data suggest that a large proportion of among reproductive aged women is missed, exacerbating the burden of curable STIs and associated morbidities. Routine access to more reliable diagnostics, like NAAT and novel point-of-care diagnostic tests, will be key to managing asymptomatic STIs and reducing STI prevalence and related morbidities in these settings.17This secondary analysis of the ECHO trial has strengths and limitations.

Strengths include the randomised design with comparator groups of equal STI baseline risk. Participants had high adherence to their randomised contraceptive method.6 While all participants received standardised clinical care and counselling, the unblinded randomisation may have allowed postrandomisation differences in STI risk over time by method. It is possible that participants modified their risk-taking behaviour based on study counselling messages regarding the potential association between DMPA-IM and HIV.In conclusion, our analyses suggest that DMPA-IM users may have lower risk of chlamydia and gonorrhoea compared with LNG implant and copper IUD users, respectively. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the mechanisms of chlamydia and gonorrhoea susceptibility in the context of contraceptive use. Moreover, the high chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences in this population, independent of contraceptive method, warrants urgent attention.Key messagesThe prevalence of chlamydia and gonorrhoea varied by contraceptive method in this randomised trial.High chlamydia and gonorrhoea prevalences, despite intensive counselling and condom provision, warrants attention, particularly among young women in South Africa and Eswatini.Most chlamydia and gonorrhoea s were asymptomatic.

Therefore, routine access to reliable diagnostics are needed to effectively manage and prevent STIs in African women..