The increase in global HIV epidemics in MSM : AIDS

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo


The increase in global HIV epidemics in MSM

Beyrer, Chrisa; Sullivan, Patrickb; Sanchez, Jorgec; Baral, Stefan D.a; Collins, Chrisd; Wirtz, Andrea L.a,e; Altman, Dennisf; Trapence, Giftg; Mayer, Kennethh

Author Information
AIDS 27(17):p 2665-2678, November 13, 2013. | DOI: 10.1097/01.aids.0000432449.30239.fe
  • Free



The global epidemiology of HIV-1 is changing in 2013 [1]. Encouraging declines in new infections in many high burden countries in sub-Saharan Africa, declining trends in AIDS morbidity and mortality, and advances in treatment access and prevention science, have led to a new optimism that control of the HIV pandemic may be an achievable goal [2]. But the available data on HIV prevalence and incidence, from low, middle, and high income countries suggest that the HIV epidemics among gay, bisexual, and other MSM are on markedly different, and expanding, trajectories [3,4]. In many high income country settings, HIV epidemics have expanded among MSM in the HAART era – and where access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care services is widespread, including in the United States, the UK, France, Australia, and the Netherlands [5,6]. In many low and middle income countries, MSM have many fewer resources, and may be much more hidden and stigmatized, compounding risks for HIV acquisition and transmission [7,8] and limiting access to the most basic of services, including condoms and lubricants [3]. Subepidemics of HIV in particularly marginalized subgroups of MSM, most notably among black MSM in the United States and UK, are particularly severe and underscore the complex challenges addressing HIV among stigmatized men will require [9,10]. Although much of the work on HIV acquisition and transmission between men has focused on individual level risks for HIV infection, these have been shown to be insufficient to explain the divergence of MSM epidemics from those in other populations. How then, can these consistent and disturbing trends for HIV among MSM be explained? And what prevention, treatment, policy, and program innovations might help address this ongoing component of global HIV/AIDS?

An international collaborative team conducted a series of comprehensive reviews of the global HIV epidemic for a special theme issue of The Lancet in 2012. A number of recent reports have added new incidence and prevalence data, geographic reach, and analytic insights, which suggest a new paradigm of HIV risk and protection is emerging which may help gay and other MSM, and their communities and providers, address what is tragically, the next wave of global HIV.

Global burden of HIV in MSM

There has been a vigorous recent effort to measure HIV disease burdens among MSM globally, including in many settings in which, despite decades of HIV research and programs, no studies had been done with MSM. Recent first reports on HIV prevalence have come from Uganda [11], Cote d’Ivoire [12], Israel [13], and Taiwan [14]. Figure 1 shows the global burden of HIV among MSM by region. Very high prevalence burdens are found in the United States [15–19], the Caribbean [20], Peru [21–24], multiple African countries [11,12,25–29], Thailand [30], Burma (Myanmar) [31], and parts of China [32]. Data from China [33–38], Vietnam [39], Taiwan [14] published within the last year have moved regional HIV prevalence estimates in East Asia from 5.3%, reported by Beyrer et al. in 2012 [3], to 10.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.1–10.5].

Fig. 1:
Pooled HIV prevalence among MSM, and among all men of reproductive age, by region, 2012.Adapted from [3]. HIV prevalence among adults, UNAIDS 2012 (data from [1]).

HIV incidence data have been less available, but new reports from Kenya [28,40], Thailand [30], China [41,42], and among black MSM in several US cities show consistently high rates of new infection, with the highest rates among the youngest age groups [43]. Figure 2 shows available incidence data on MSM globally through 1 May 2013.

Fig. 2:
HIV incidence among MSM globally, 2013.

Epidemic drivers and risks

Individual level risks for HIV infection, including numbers of sex partners, use of intoxicants during sex, self-reported condom use, rates of substance use, and others are informative but insufficient to explain HIV epidemics among networks of men, and to explain the marked disparities in subepidemics of MSM, wherein individual level risks may be modest, but cumulative acquisition probabilities high [9,10]. Findings from network level investigations and from the molecular epidemiology of HIV may be more informative of the differing dynamics of infection in these populations. Two biological factors are essential to understanding these dynamics. First, as Baggaley et al.[44] have reported, is the very high transmission efficiency of receptive anal intercourse – at an estimated 1.4% per act probability (95% CI 0.2–2.5%) and the very high per partner probability of 40.4% (95% CI 6.0–74.9), roughly 18-fold higher than for vaginal intercourse. These probabilities were derived from a meta-analysis that included available data on both heterosexual and male homosexual couples – the risk did not differ by gender of the receptive partner, but is a function of the high efficiency of HIV transmission across the rectal mucosa. Second, is the reality that unlike women in heterosexual networks, men can be both receptive (high risk for acquisition) and insertive (high risk for transmission) partners in anal sex with other men [3]. These two factors appear to explain, at least in part, the rapid and efficient spread of HIV through networks of MSM. The very high acquisition probability in receptive anal sex likely accounts for the lack of protection with circumcision seen in MSM.

Recent insights from molecular epidemiology have helped elucidate aspects of these transmission dynamics at network and population levels (Table 1) [16,45–48]. Yebra et al.[45] using phylogenetic approaches explored networks in Madrid and found that MSM were more likely than other persons living with HIV to be in networks of transmissions, and that most of the networks identified were among MSM. Ambrosioni et al.[46] investigated newly diagnosed HIV infections in the Swiss national cohort and reported that recent HIV infections accounted for some two-thirds of transmission in MSM, and that MSM were significantly more likely than other persons to be in transmission clusters of other recent infections. Leigh Brown et al. [47], investigating epidemic dynamics among some 14 560 B clade infections in the UK, found that the median time of onward transmission was 17 months, and that in large clusters of MSM, some 20% of new HIV infections occurred within 6 months of index acquisition. They concluded that the high infectiousness of recent infection played a marked role in accelerating HIV transmission within MSM networks. Elegant work by Oster et al.[16] using traditional epidemiologic methods and phylogenetic data explored networks of transmission among MSM in Mississippi. They found very marked insularity in high HIV transmission networks among the youngest group of black MSM. HIV infections in black men aged 24 and under clustered in networks with no HIV infections in women, no IDU, few men of other races, and no men aged over 24 years, suggesting highly assortative spread of HIV within this network.

Table 1:
Molecular epidemiology reports on MSM and HIV spread.

Taken together, these insights suggest that HIV spread in networks of MSM is rapid, efficient, and is driven by high onward transmission probability among recently infected men. These findings would, at least partially, explain why HIV spread among young MSM might be increasing in settings in which the epidemic is otherwise in decline. The consistent finding of rapid spread among young MSM, who may be the least likely to be in care and on HAART, may also explain the limited impact of treatment as prevention (TasP) on these epidemics.

In most parts of the world, denial, persecution, and refusal to include MSM within prevention programs intersects with individual behaviors to place MSM at heightened risk of infection. Individual level biological and behavioral risks among these populations are likely contextualized by higher order risk factors including size and density of social and sexual networks, and stigma [26,49,50]. Stigma targeting MSM has been shown to limit both the provision and uptake of HIV services [50]. Stigma can also limit funding for targeted research and programs, and stigma within health provider networks can limit uptake of services. Stigma programs have tended to focus on people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) [51–55], but there are consistent results of the outcomes of multiple forms of stigma affecting MSM. Research in Senegal demonstrated that stigma affected provision and uptake of HIV prevention, treatment, and care services in the context of ongoing arrests of MSM [56]. Studies of MSM clients have shown that stigma limits uptake of HIV services [26,49,50].

Health disparities and black MSM

Many of the elements driving HIV epidemics among MSM globally are also responsible for HIV infection disparities among black MSM in the United States. Surveillance data show that HIV prevalence and incidence disproportionately affect black MSM compared to all other US populations [4,57]. Young black are particularly affected. New HIV infections among young black MSM increased by 48% between 2006 and 2009 [4] and mathematical models based upon HIV incidence estimates of young black MSM show that as many as 60% within a given cohort may be HIV-positive by age 40 [58].

A 2006 review provided the first comprehensive examination of factors that likely contribute to HIV infection disparities among black MSM [59]. A year later, a meta-analysis of 56 studies confirmed that despite greater HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) burden, black MSM across various studies, regions, and demographics reported comparable unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), fewer sex partners, less substance use, but greater undiagnosed HIV infection and less access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) [60]. A more recent meta-analysis of 176 US studies affirmed the results of the first meta-analysis and also found that black MSM have a 40% greater odds than other MSM of engaging in any behavior protective of HIV transmission [9]. Scientific opinion explaining disproportionate HIV infection among black MSM has converged on the following explanations.

Differences in clinical outcomes

Although HIV diagnosis and treatment have enormous potential to curb HIV transmission opportunities at the interpersonal [61] and population [62] levels, black MSM are least likely to be diagnosed with HIV or to be in care compared with other MSM [9,60]. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of studies of HIV-positive MSM found evidence of major disparities in clinical outcomes at each stage of the treatment cascade (Fig. 3). Black MSM were more likely than other MSM to have undiagnosed HIV infection and to be diagnosed with HIV, yet less likely to access ART, to begin ART at a non-AIDS-defining CD4+ cell count (>200 cells/μl), to adhere to ART, or to be virally suppressed [9]. Moreover, the analysis found that access to ART and viral suppression remains complicated for HIV-diagnosed black MSM because they are more likely than other MSM to have a low income, to be uninsured, or to attend clinical visits. A separate analysis of HIV surveillance data found that an additional 38 920 black MSM would need to be placed on treatment to raise viral suppression to a comparable level as white MSM [63], which may be difficult to achieve as some black MSM in high prevalence jurisdictions remain undiagnosed even when engaged in healthcare and informing their physicians about their homosexual behavior [64].

Fig. 3:
Disparities persist between black and other MSM throughout treatment cascade (24 comparative studies).

Differences in sexual networks/partner characteristics

An important analysis found that having older and black sex partners raised the probability of HIV infection among black MSM compared with other MSM [65]. Black MSM across US studies are 11 times more likely to have black partners compared with other MSM and 50% more likely to have older sex partners [9]. Because background prevalence of HIV is greater among both older and black MSM, and because black MSM are less likely to be virally suppressed than other MSM, various analyses show that the partner pool for black places them at risk for HIV infection despite less risk behavior than other MSM [9,16,66]. Thus, black MSM with only two UAI partners have as much as a 40% risk of HIV infection compared with a 20% risk for white MSM with the same number of partners [53]. Risk is further compounded by assortative sexual mixing beliefs. Black MSM who believe that ‘sex with a black man reduces HIV risk’ were more likely to have undiagnosed HIV infection than black MSM who did not subscribe to this belief [64].

Differences in social and structural experiences

Meta-analyses show that black MSM are more likely than other MSM to have a low income, to be unemployed, to ever be incarcerated, or to have a low education. Each of these factors is associated with a greater likelihood of HIV infection [67–69], and they highlight the degree to which black MSM remain marginalized despite being at the epicenter of the US epidemic and, along with homophobia, help explain why few HIV prevention interventions [70,71] or HIV prevention resources [72] target black MSM compared to US populations at lower risk for HIV infection.

HIV-related disparities affect black MSM beyond the US borders. Black MSM in the UK are more likely to be HIV-positive despite comparable risk behaviors and less likely to access ART once diagnosed with HIV. Moreover, meta-analytic data show that black MSM across the Diaspora (Africa, Caribbean, Europe, North America) are at elevated risk for HIV compared with other MSM or black populations generally [9,10]. Given these similarities, the creation of effective HIV prevention and care interventions for black MSM in any of these regions may have implications for the health and well being of black MSM globally.

Responses, prevention for MSM

A consideration of HIV prevention for MSM starts with an understanding of the epidemiology and biology of HIV epidemics among these men. Around the world, MSM epidemics continue to expand, even as co-located epidemics among heterosexuals stabilize or contract; this is likely driven by the high per-act HIV transmission risk for anal sex, sex role versatility, and network level factors as described in Table 1. Modeling studies reported in The Lancet MSM and HIV series illustrate that even high levels of behavioral change are insufficient to meaningfully curb growth in MSM epidemics, given the high biological force of infection [3], and that achieving sufficient coverage of prevention interventions – as high as 60–80% of eligible MSM – may be required to achieve impact in reducing HIV incidence [6]. Taken together, these observations support the conclusion that there may be a biologically ‘higher bar’ for HIV prevention for MSM, and that strategies to meet the prevention needs of MSM will need to address barriers to high coverage, such as stigma and lack of access to culturally competent care. For MSM, the packaging of comprehensive prevention services is not an attractive theoretical next step: it is an imperative.

A systematic review of HIV prevention interventions conducted in 2011–2012 revealed several key themes [6]. Dozens of theoretically based interventions to increase condom use and/or reduce sexual partner number have been developed and tested, mostly in the United States, and have demonstrated modest reductions in self-reported outcomes, but no effects on HIV incidence outcomes. More recently, interventions based on the provision of antiviral drugs to MSM – either before HIV infection, to prevent infection [73], or after HIV infection, to reduce risk of onward transmission [74] – have demonstrated efficacy against HIV. Other prevention tools, such as HIV vaccines and rectal microbicides [75], are in ongoing testing and development, and comprehensive prevention strategies for MSM should be constructed flexibly, with the hope and expectation that such technologies will eventually be available.

Combination HIV prevention for MSM must utilize a set of approaches that intervene at key vulnerable points in the HIV transmission cycle, that allow the provision of prevention services tailored to men's individual circumstances, and that allow broad uptake and coverage of packages. Practically, packages should be built around the primary technologies with the strongest evidence of the highest efficacy in prevention infections: early treatment of partners (96% efficacy among heterosexual couples) [74], condoms (∼70–80% efficacy) [76–78], and oral preexposure prophylaxis (46% efficacy) [73]. Other services, such as periodic HIV and STI testing, allow men to be provided with recommendations for primary interventions based on their HIV serostatus, and to corroborate self-reported levels of behavioral risk. Behavior change interventions promote effectiveness, for example, by supporting uptake of condom use and adherence to drug regimens and repeat HIV testing recommendations.

In many parts of the world, there are substantial barriers to achieving adequate coverage of prevention services for MSM. Both HIV-related stigma and MSM-related stigma operate to discourage men from disclosing to their healthcare providers that they have male sex partners, and from attending clinical services tailored for the needs of gay men [50]. Similarly, criminalization of HIV transmission and male-male sex make it risky for men to have frank conversations about their risks for HIV, and thereby reduce the extent to which the most appropriate recommendations for services can be made [79]. Negative experiences with medical providers can also discourage men from disclosing their risks and asking for appropriate prevention services and commodities [26]. Thus, policy work to support decriminalization of HIV transmission and male-male sex is needed. Training of providers to provide culturally competent care and to take sexual histories that allow discussion of male-male sex should be increased. Table 2 illustrates three examples of targets for HIV prevention interventions, primary interventions, coordinated behavioral interventions, and societal/policy interventions to promote coverage.

Table 2:
HIV prevention targets and interventions for combined prevention packages for MSM.

In the coming 5 years, we should anticipate the potential for new opportunities in HIV prevention for MSM. First, communication technologies, such as text messaging, smartphone applications, and increased global access to high speed internet, will offer increased opportunities for using technologies to bring prevention services to scale, at marginal increased costs [6,80]. There are promising pipelines for new primary prevention technologies, including rectal microbicides [81]. Additional data sources, and perhaps bridging studies, will help develop our understanding of the efficacy of treatment of HIV-positive anal sex partners, making clearer the relevance of HPTN 052 for MSM [82]. As experience with PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) provision matures, the demand for PrEP and its niche in HIV prevention approaches will become clearer [83].

More than any time in the epidemic, prevention providers and public health practitioners have efficacious tools with which to address re-emerging HIV epidemics among MSM. Because of the high biological bar for preventing HIV transmission through anal sex, we will need to develop coordinated packages of interventions and services, tailored to the needs of groups of MSM that are specific to regions, countries, and communities. To achieve greatest impact, HIV prevention for MSM must comprise the work of clinicians, mental health professionals, policymakers, and peers.

Provision of comprehensive clinical care

Although the AIDS epidemic raised awareness of unique health needs of MSM, many root causes of HIV vulnerability were not initially fully understood, or incorporated into care and prevention programs [84]. Following list presents key elements of comprehensive clinical care for MSM.

  1. Culturally competent healthcare workers
  2. Confidential HIV counseling and testing services
  3. Access to affordable primary care
  4. Access to screening for bacterial sexually transmitted diseases, including the following:
    1. Syphilis serology with confirmatory testing
    2. Nucleic amplification testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia, including extragenital sites
  5. Screening for viral hepatitis; hepatitis A and B vaccination for susceptibles
  6. Screening for hepatitis C, if HIV-infected; access to treatment, if indicated
  7. Vaccination against human papillomavirus for MSM youth less than 26 years
  8. Access to culturally competent mental health professionals
  9. Access to substance use treatment services
  10. Access to evidence-based prevention interventions, including individual and group counseling
  11. Access to preexposure prophylaxis, if appropriate.

Subsequent analyses of the life experiences of MSM suggest that proximate sources of psychological distress and sexual risk taking may stem from early childhood experiences, including physical and emotional abuse by family and/or peers [85]. Sexual and gender minority youth are often exposed to rejection, which may create internalized homophobia, low self-esteem, and emotional distress [86]. MSM adolescents may experience shame and become depressed when they recognize that their same sex attraction is not socially acceptable. Given that the age of sexual debut is decreasing for youth globally, earlier conflicts are emerging between young MSM's identities and societal norms, at times when they are most vulnerable [87,88]. MSM adolescents are also more likely than heterosexual peers to report substance abuse, transactional sex, and STIs, often in response to a hostile environment. Key institutions, like schools that create safe milieus report better outcomes [89].

Despite social challenges, the majority of MSM are HIV-uninfected and productive, and their resiliency in the face of homophobic adversity warrants further study [90]. Emerging evidence suggests that resolution of internalized homophobia results in improved health outcomes [91]. However, often in response to antecedent stressors, adult MSM have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders than demographically similar heterosexual men [92]. Unsupportive environments or hostile local norms may increase the likelihood that MSM will ‘self-medicate’ their depression and anxiety, contributing to higher rates of use [93]; however, the majority of substance-using MSM do not become drug-dependent, and that many appear to manage their substance use with relatively few consequences, with the exception of tobacco, alcohol, popper, and/or stimulant use [94]. Methamphetamine, cocaine, and poppers use are consistently and independently associated with unprotected sex and HIV seroconversion [94]. Although studies have suggested that culturally tailored substance use interventions are most effective in decreasing substance abuse among MSM [95], among US federally funded substance treatment providers, only 7.4% offered services that were tailored for sexual and gender minority clients [96]. Health and substance use treatment providers should be sensitized to issues faced by MSM and other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) clients that influence access and health outcomes [97]. As noted above, unprotected anal sex puts MSM at increased risk for HIV and other STIs. MSM biological risks are greatly enhanced if they avoid accessing clinical services because of anticipated negative responses from medical providers. Health service avoidance may result in MSM presenting late to care, with increased HIV and STI burdens. Although anal sex may increase HIV risk, social frameworks that do not recognize gay marriage may be counterproductive, by discouraging long-term maintenance of stable relationships. Given the high prevalence of HIV, STI, and mental health concerns among MSM, integrated services and interventions are needed. Substance using MSM should be routinely screened for HIV and STIs, and MSM presenting for HIV or STI care should have comprehensive behavioral health assessments.

Historically, MSM have received inadequate, and often discriminatory, medical care in both resource-rich and resource-constrained environments [98]. Although MSM have diverse health needs, provider training is often limited, particularly in countries where punitive laws may result in invisibility, resulting in few healthcare settings wherein MSM may receive optimal care. The provision of culturally competent care requires training healthcare workers to recognize medical conditions, which are specific for MSM because of distinctive practices (e.g. anal STIs in MSM who are anally receptive), and behavioral health concerns, which may arise from internal or external homophobia (e.g. substance use and depression), as well as knowledge of community norms that require tailored approaches (e.g. same sex couples counseling) [99]. If trusting relationships can be developed, providers may play an important role in helping MSM make healthy choices. Many resources are now available online (e.g.,, and in print (e.g., The Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health) [100]. Although many of these materials were produced in developed countries, recently, educational materials that are appropriate for use in diverse cultures and resource-constrained settings have been developed (; Optimal healthcare for sexual and gender minorities is essential if the AIDS epidemic is going to be controlled, but moreover, it is a fundamental human right, requiring health professionals as allies.

Responses: social, structural, community, and human rights

The heavy burden of HIV among gay men and other MSM is a reality in virtually every country affected by HIV and for which data on MSM are available [101]. Gay people realized early on in the AIDS crisis that because of the way gay people are legally and socially marginalized, protecting personal health required community level action. To this day, gay men, lesbians, and their nongay allies continue to be central to the AIDS response – where it has been safe for them to do so, and in many places where it has not been safe [102]. Gay movements targeting HIV arose in different countries based on the local contexts and histories [103–107]. In many cases, it was inaction and blatant disregard by governments for the needs and rights of gay people that mobilized action. Gay people forged a style of AIDS activism that was political and confrontational. This activism has had tangible results, including speeding regulatory approval of products for expanded clinical research; lowering the price of licensed HIV medicines; and building support for research and program funding [108–110]. Yet, although the epidemic has been very important in mobilizing homosexual men, often in extremely hostile environments, it has simultaneously led to greater repression of MSM in some parts of the world, often in the name of ‘tradition, culture, and religion’ [8].

Ironically, three decades into the HIV pandemic, MSM are often excluded from the evidence-based services that they helped develop. However, it is in these challenging environments wherein MSM community members and groups can be among the most effective, and sometimes the only, actors willing to provide and advocate for their communities. The last three decades has witnessed gay men and other MSM working in the HIV response through advocacy, education, research, and design and delivery of prevention, treatment, and care programs benefiting all affected by HIV. For MSM in many settings, including many MSM of color in the United States, engaging in research has often been complicated by a history of neglect and mistreatment by researchers, healthcare systems, and government [111–113]. In addition, MSM community members can be the best persons to describe their own sexual practices and the social and sexual network dynamics that drive incident HIV infections, thereby informing the development of effective responses [114].

MSM continue to lead on HIV advocacy as core participants in the development of strategies, resource allocations, policy development, decision-making, and evaluations of the Global Fund, PEPFAR, WHO and other UNAIDS Co-sponsors, and other global initiatives such as the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law [115–117]. However, MSM remain excluded from official processes in many places where same-sex practices are criminalized or heavily stigmatized [118]. And while gay AIDS advocacy has had tangible impacts, it has come at real personal cost, with activists having been beaten, arrested, and killed [119].

Gay community advocacy and engagement remain essential to ensuring appropriate use of new technologies and benefit from scientific knowledge, to advocate strategic and equitable use of resources, and to address stigma. The third decade of HIV should witness the end of the paradox too often seen today: MSM exclusion from the services that they helped develop. Taking maximum advantage of new HIV technologies and growing recognition of the MSM epidemic, gay communities will require increased resources, support to develop capacity, and expanded opportunities to serve and lead.

Discussion and conclusion

The goal of global control of the HIV pandemic is now a part of strategic thinking, planning, and research. Recent advances, perhaps most compellingly the findings from Tanser et al.[62] that achievable levels antiretroviral therapy care can reduce HIV incidence at population levels, have led to new optimism that the global pandemic of HIV can be controlled. Yet for MSM, in low, middle, and high income country settings, the epidemic trajectory is markedly different: available prevention and treatment tools are insufficient as single interventions, are reaching inadequate levels of coverage, and continue to be hampered by homophobia, stigma, and discrimination. Treatment for HIV has become a reality, and life-expectancy for HIV-positive persons where treatment is available has been extended by decades. Yet the lifetime acquisition probabilities for HIV in MSM are high, disproportionate compared to other populations and most marked in subepidemics of extraordinary intensity and severity. This must change if global control of the HIV pandemic is to be achieved. This will require policy, program, legal, funding and communications advances on several fronts (Table 3).

Table 3-a:
A policy agenda for MSM HIV epidemics, 2013.
Table 3-b:
A policy agenda for MSM HIV epidemics, 2013.

The U.S. PEPFAR guidance on MSM lays out the minimum requirements for programs for MSM [120]: first, community-based outreach and the distribution of condoms and condom-compatible lubricants; HIV counseling and testing in safety and dignity; active linkages to healthcare and ART; targeted information, education and communication (IEC); and finally STI prevention, screening in safety and dignity. Condom and lubricant promotion, commodities, and distribution are an essential minimum of services for HIV prevention in MSM, and lubricant, in particular, remains markedly limited in coverage for MSM in many low resource and high stigma settings [121]. To close the condom and lubricant gap for MSM globally, a modest cost of 136 million USD in 2012 was estimated.

These are essentials, but the available data suggest they will not be sufficient to control HIV epidemics among MSM. Combination preventive interventions will almost certainly be required. Three studies – in the Americas, China, and South Africa – are developing and modeling combination interventions for MSM [122].

A vigorous research agenda is called for to develop and test novel interventions that may reduce the biological, network, and social/structural risks for MSM. More granular and nuanced epidemiologic approaches that utilize the marked assortative nature of MSM epidemics may help target interventions. Both rectal microbicides and HIV vaccines hold promise for reduction of acquisition probabilities. TasP needs to be adapted to MSM epidemics and must be for younger and more recently infected men if its promise as a prevention tool is to be realized. For these interventions, and for PrEP, research on improving adherence and on the development of less-adherence dependent interventions will likely be key to success. Nevertheless, PrEP with Truvada has demonstrated efficacy in three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in male populations, two in heterosexuals and one in MSM, and should be made much more widely available for MSM at risk who want it. The current pricing structure, particularly in industrialized countries, is a clear barrier to the use of this new intervention and must also be addressed. Structural interventions, including healthcare worker training in LGBT sensitivity, decriminalization of same-sex behavior between consenting adults, and reducing homophobia will likely also be essential to turn the tide for MSM and HIV.

These efforts are essential from a public health perspective, but they are also required to meet minimum international standards for human rights. The universality of human rights, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, has been reaffirmed by the UN Secretary General in 2012 [123]: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. All human beings – not some, not most, but all. No one gets to decide who is entitled to human rights and who is not … lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. They, too, are born free and equal.’


The co-authors express their gratitude to Gregorio Millett for his inputs to this paper and contribution to the field of research of HIV and health disparities among MSM.

C.B. conceived of the manuscript structure, and drafted the introduction, the sections on disease burden and risks, and the discussion and conclusions.

P.S. wrote the prevention section, drafted the research agenda, and reviewed and edited the full manuscript.

J.S. provided an overall review of the draft manuscript and contributed to the research agenda.

S.D.B. wrote the community section, contributed to the design and analysis of the comprehensive reviews, and contributed to the global burden of disease section.

C.C. drafted the policy and recommendations section and contributed to the community section.

A.W. contributed the epidemiology review and created the global burden figures and worked on the epidemiology section.

D.A. drafted the policy sections of the review, and did an overall review and edit of the manuscript.

G.T. worked on the community engagement section.

K.M. drafted the clinical section, and added substantively to the discussion.

This research was supported by grants to the Center for Public Health and Human Rights at Johns Hopkins from amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Center for AIDS Research (NIAID, 1P30AI094189-01A1) and the Partners HealthCare (Mass. General Hospital) and Fenway Community Health NIAID/Harvard CFAR (5P30AI06354-09).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1. UNAIDSUNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic: 2012. Geneva:Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 2012.
2. Havlir D, Beyrer C. The beginning of the end of AIDS?. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:685–687.
3. Beyrer C, Baral SD, van Griensven F, Goodreau SM, Chariyalertsak S, Wirtz AL, et al. Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. Lancet 2012; 380:367–377.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact - metropolitan statistical areas, United States and Puerto Rico, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61:962–966.
5. Mayer KH, Bekker LG, Stall R, Grulich AE, Colfax G, Lama JR. Comprehensive clinical care for men who have sex with men: an integrated approach. Lancet 2012; 380:378–387.
6. Sullivan PS, Carballo-Dieguez A, Coates T, Goodreau SM, McGowan I, Sanders EJ, et al. Successes and challenges of HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. Lancet 2012; 380:388–399.
7. Trapence G, Collins C, Avrett S, Carr R, Sanchez H, Ayala G, et al. From personal survival to public health: community leadership by men who have sex with men in the response to HIV. Lancet 2012; 380:400–410.
8. Altman D, Aggleton P, Williams M, Kong T, Reddy V, Harrad D, et al. Men who have sex with men: stigma and discrimination. Lancet 2012; 380:439–445.
9. Millett GA, Peterson JL, Flores SA, Hart TA, Jeffries WL, Wilson PA, et al. Comparisons of disparities and risks of HIV infection in black and other men who have sex with men in Canada, UK, and USA: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2012; 380:341–348.
10. Millett GA, Jeffries W, Peterson JL, Malebranche DJ, Lane T, Flores SA, et al. Common roots: a contextual review of HIV epidemics in black men who have sex with men across the African diaspora. Lancet 2012; 380:411–423.
11. Hladik W, Barker J, Ssenkusu JM, Opio A, Tappero JW, Hakim A, et al. HIV infection among men who have sex with men in Kampala, Uganda: a respondent driven sampling survey. PLoS One 2012; 7:e38143.
12. Vuylsteke B, Semde G, Sika L, Crucitti T, Ettiegne Traore V, Buve A, et al. High prevalence of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among male sex workers in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire: need for services tailored to their needs. Sex Transm Infect 2012; 88:288–293.
13. Mor Z, Dan M. Knowledge, attitudes, sexual practices and STI/HIV prevalence in male sex workers and other men who have sex in Tel Aviv, Israel: a cross-sectional study. Sex Transm Infect 2012; 88:574–580.
14. Huang YF, Nelson KE, Lin YT, Yang CH, Chang FY, Lew-Ting CY. Syphilis among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Taiwan: its association with HIV prevalence, awareness of HIV status, and use of antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Behav 2013; 17:1406–1414.
15. German D, Sifakis F, Maulsby C, Towe V, Flynn C, Latkin C, et al. Persistently high prevalence and unrecognized HIV infection among men who have sex with men in Baltimore: the BESURE Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 1:77–87.
16. Oster AM, Wiegand RE, Sionean C, Miles IJ, Thomas PE, Melendez-Morales L, et al. Understanding disparities in HIV infection between black and white MSM in the United States. AIDS 2011; 25:1103–1112.
17. Raymond HF, Chen YH, Ick T, Scheer S, Bernstein K, Liska S, et al. A new trend in the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men, San Francisco, 2004–2011. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 62:584–589.
18. Sifakis F, Hylton JB, Flynn C, Solomon L, Mackellar DA, Valleroy LA, et al. Racial disparities in HIV incidence among young men who have sex with men: the Baltimore Young Men's Survey. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 46:343–348.
19. Sifakis F, Hylton JB, Flynn C, Solomon L, MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA, et al. Prevalence of HIV infection and prior HIV testing among young men who have sex with men. The Baltimore young men's survey. AIDS Behav 2010; 14:904–912.
20. Wier S, Cooper C. Results of Men's Health Survey. International AIDS Conference 2008; Mexico City.
21. Caceres CF, Konda KA, Salazar X, Leon SR, Klausner JD, Lescano AG, et al. New populations at high risk of HIV/STIs in low-income, urban coastal Peru. AIDS Behav 2008; 12:544–551.
22. Clark JL, Konda KA, Segura ER, Salvatierra HJ, Leon SR, Hall ER, et al. Risk factors for the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men infected with HIV in Lima, Peru. Sex Transm Infect 2008; 84:449–454.
23. Kinsler JJ, Galea JT, Peinado J, Segura P, Montano SM, Sanchez J. Lubricant use among men who have sex with men reporting receptive anal intercourse in Peru: implications for rectal microbicides as an HIV prevention strategy. Int J STD AIDS 2010; 21:567–572.
24. Sanchez J, Lama JR, Kusunoki L, Manrique H, Goicochea P, Lucchetti A, et al. HIV-1, sexually transmitted infections, and sexual behavior trends among men who have sex with men in Lima, Peru. J Acquir Immune Defic Synd 2007; 44:578–585.
25. Baral S, Burrell E, Scheibe A, Brown B, Beyrer C, Bekker LG. HIV risk and associations of HIV infection among men who have sex with men in peri-urban Cape Town, South Africa. BMC Public Health 2011; 11:766.
26. Baral S, Trapence G, Motimedi F, Umar E, Iipinge S, Dausab F, et al. HIV prevalence, risks for HIV infection, and human rights among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Malawi, Namibia, and Botswana. PloS one 2009; 4:e4997.
27. Wirtz A, Trapence G, Jumbe V, Umar E, Ketende S, Kamba D, et al.HIV prevalence, sexual risks and HIV knowledge among MSM in Malawi: understanding risks among a stigmatized population and opportunities for interventions (Oral Presentation). XIX International AIDS Conference. Washington DC; 2012.
28. Sanders EJ, Graham SM, Okuku HS, van der Elst EM, Muhaari A, Davies A, et al. HIV-1 infection in high risk men who have sex with men in Mombasa, Kenya. AIDS 2007; 21:2513–2520.
29. Vu L, Adebajo S, Tun W, Sheehy M, Karlyn A, Njab J, et al. High HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men in Nigeria: implications for combination prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 63:221–227.
30. van Griensven F, Varangrat A, Wimonsate W, Tanpradech S, Kladsawad K, Chemnasiri T, et al. Trends in HIV prevalence, estimated HIV incidence, and risk behavior among men who have sex with men in Bangkok, Thailand, 2003–2007. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 53:234–239.
31. National AIDS ProgrammeMyanmar: Epidemiologic data. Yangon:Myanmar Department of Health; 2009.
32. Song D, Zhang H, Wang J, Liu Q, Wang X, Operario D, et al. Prevalence and correlates of HIV infection and unrecognized HIV status among men who have sex with men and women in Chengdu and Guangzhou, China. AIDS Behav 2012; 7:1–10.
33. Fan S, Lu H, Ma X, Sun Y, He X, Li C, et al. Behavioral and serologic survey of men who have sex with men in Beijing, China: implication for HIV intervention. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2012; 26:148–155.
34. Guo W, Wu ZY, Song AJ, Poundstone K. Impact of HIV/sexually transmitted infection testing on risky sexual behaviors among men who have sex with men in Langfang, China. Chin Med J (Engl) 2013; 126:1257–1263.
35. Wang K, Yan H, Liu Y, Leng Z, Wang B, Zhao J. Increasing prevalence of HIV and syphilis but decreasing rate of self-reported unprotected anal intercourse among men who had sex with men in Harbin, China: results of five consecutive surveys from 2006 to 2010. Int J Epidemiol 2012; 41:423–432.
36. Wei S, Zhang H, Wang J, Song D, Duan Y, Yu F, et al. HIV and syphilis prevalence and associated factors among young men who have sex with men in 4 cities in China. AIDS Behav 2013; 17:1151–1158.
37. Wu Z, Xu J, Liu E, Mao Y, Xiao Y, Sun X, et al. HIV and syphilis prevalence among men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional survey of 61 cities in China. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:298–309.
38. Zhang Y, Chen P, Lu R, Liu L, Wu Y, Liu X, et al. Prevalence of HIV among men who have sex with men in Chongqing, China, 2006-2009: cross-sectional biological and behavioural surveys. Sex Transm Infect 2012; 88:444–450.
39. Pham QD, Nguyen TV, Hoang CQ, Cao V, Khuu NV, Phan HT, et al. Prevalence of HIV/STIs and associated factors among men who have sex with men in An Giang, Vietnam. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:799–806.
40. Price MA, Rida W, Mwangome M, Mutua G, Middelkoop K, Roux S, et al. Identifying at-risk populations in Kenya and South Africa: HIV incidence in cohorts of men who report sex with men, sex workers, and youth. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012; 59:185–193.
41. Peng Z, Yang H, Norris J, Chen X, Huan X, Yu R, et al. HIV incidence and predictors associated with retention in a cohort of men who have sex with men in Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, China. PLoS One 2012; 7:e52731.
42. Zhang M, Chu Z, Wang H, Xu J, Lu C, Shang H. A rapidly increasing incidence of HIV and syphilis among men who have sex with men in a major city of China. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2011; 27:1139–1140.
43. Bedoya CA, Mimiaga MJ, Beauchamp G, Donnell D, Mayer KH, Safren SA. Predictors of HIV transmission risk behavior and seroconversion among Latino men who have sex with men in project EXPLORE. AIDS Behav 2011; 16:608–617.
44. Baggaley R, White R, Boily M. HIV transmission risk through anal intercourse: systematic review, meta-analysis and implications for HIV prevention. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39:1048–1063.
45. Yebra G, Holguin A, Pillay D, Hue S. Phylogenetic and demographic characterization of HIV-1 transmission in Madrid, Spain. Infect Genet Evol 2013; 14:232–239.
46. Ambrosioni J, Junier T, Delhumeau C, Calmy A, Hirschel B, Zdobnov E, et al. Impact of HAART on the molecular epidemiology of newly diagnosed HIV infections in Geneva, Switzerland. AIDS 2012; 26:2079–2086.
47. Leigh Brown AJ, Lycett SJ, Weinert L, Hughes GJ, Fearnhill E, Dunn DT. Transmission network parameters estimated from HIV sequences for a nationwide epidemic. J Infect Dis 2011; 204:1463–1469.
48. Lin H, He N, Zhou S, Ding Y, Qiu D, Zhang T, et al. Behavioral and molecular tracing of risky sexual contacts in a sample of Chinese HIV-infected men who have sex with men. Am J Epid 2013; 177:343–350.
49. Baral S, Adams D, Lebona J, Kaibe B, Letsie P, Tshehlo R, et al. A cross-sectional assessment of population demographics, HIV risks and human rights contexts among men who have sex with men in Lesotho. J Int AIDS Soc 2011; 14:36.
50. Fay H, Baral SD, Trapence G, Motimedi F, Umar E, Iipinge S, et al. Stigma, healthcare access, and HIV knowledge among men who have sex with men in Malawi, Namibia, and Botswana. AIDS Behav 2011; 15:1088–1097.
51. Tanzania Stigma-Indicators Field Test GroupWorking report. Measuring HIV stigma: results of a field test in Tanzania. Geneva:USAID; 2005.
52. Berger BE, Ferrans CE, Lashley FR. Measuring stigma in people with HIV: psychometric assessment of the HIV stigma scale. Res Nurs Health 2001; 24:518–529.
53. Kalichman SC, Simbayi LC, Cloete A, Mthembu PP, Mkhonta RN, Ginindza T. Measuring AIDS stigmas in people living with HIV/AIDS: the Internalized AIDS-Related Stigma Scale. AIDS Care 2009; 21:87–93.
54. Logie C, Gadalla TM. Meta-analysis of health and demographic correlates of stigma towards people living with HIV. AIDS Care 2009; 21:742–753.
55. Brown L, Macintyre K, Trujillo L. Interventions to reduce HIV/AIDS stigma: what have we learned?. AIDS Educ Prev 2003; 15:49–69.
56. Poteat T, Diouf D, Drame FM, Ndaw M, Traore C, Dhaliwal M, et al. HIV risk among MSM in Senegal: a qualitative rapid assessment of the impact of enforcing laws that criminalize same sex practices. PLoS One 2011; 6:e28760.
57. Prejean J, Tang T, Irene Hall H. HIV diagnoses and prevalence in the southern region of the United States, 2007–2010. J Commun Health 2012; 38:414–426.
58. Stall R, Duran L, Wisniewski SR, Friedman MS, Marshal MP, McFarland W, et al. Running in place: implications of HIV incidence estimates among urban men who have sex with men in the United States and other industrialized countries. AIDS Behav 2009; 13:615–629.
59. Millett GA, Peterson JL, Wolitski RJ, Stall R. Greater risk for HIV infection of black men who have sex with men: a critical literature review. Am J Public Health 2006; 96:1007–1019.
60. Millett GA, Flores SA, Peterson JL, Bakeman R. Explaining disparities in HIV infection among black and white men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis of HIV risk behaviors. AIDS 2007; 21:2083–2091.
61. Cohen J. Breakthrough of the year. HIV treatment as prevention. Science 2011; 334:1628.
62. Tanser F, Barnighausen T, Grapsa E, Zaidi J, Newell ML. High coverage of ART associated with decline in risk of HIV acquisition in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Science 2013; 339:966–971.
63. Hall HI, Holtgrave DR, Tang T, Rhodes P. HIV transmission in the United States: considerations of viral load, risk behavior, and health disparities. AIDS Behav 2013; 17:1632–1636.
64. Millett GA, Ding H, Marks G, Jeffries WL, Bingham T, Lauby J, et al. Mistaken assumptions and missed opportunities: correlates of undiagnosed HIV infection among black and Latino men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 58:64–71.
65. Bingham TA, Harawa NT, Johnson DF, Secura GM, MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA. The effect of partner characteristics on HIV infection among African American men who have sex with men in the Young Men's Survey, Los Angeles, 1999–2000. AIDS Educ Prev 2003; 15:39–52.
66. Kelley CF, Rosenberg ES, O’Hara BM, Frew PM, Sanchez T, Peterson JL, et al. Measuring population transmission risk for HIV: an alternative metric of exposure risk in men who have sex with men (MSM) in the US. PloS One 2012; 7:e53284.
67. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Prevalence and awareness of HIV infection among men who have sex with men: 21 cities, United States, 2008. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59:1201–1207.
68. Magnus M, Kuo I, Phillips G 2nd, Shelley K, Rawls A, Montanez L, et al. Elevated HIV prevalence despite lower rates of sexual risk behaviors among black men in the District of Columbia who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2010; 24:615–622.
69. Koblin BA, Tieu HV, Frye V. Disparities in HIV/AIDS in black men who have sex with men. Lancet 2012; 380:316–318.
70. Darbes LA, Lewis MA. HIV-specific social support predicts less sexual risk behavior in gay male couples. Health Psychol 2005; 24:617–622.
71. Harper GW, Fernandez IM, Bruce D, Hosek SG, Jacobs RJ. The role of multiple identities in adherence to medical appointments among gay/bisexual male adolescents living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2013; 17:213–223.
72. Gasiorowicz M, Stodola J. HIV prevalence estimates and alignment among recent diagnoses, targeted tests, and prevention services by demographic and racial/ethnic group in Wisconsin. AIDS Educ Prev 2011; 23:7–16.
73. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2587–2599.
74. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:493–505.
75. McGowan I. Microbicides for HIV prevention: reality or hope?. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2010; 23:23–31.
76. Smith D, Herbst JH, Zhang H, Rose C. Condom efficacy by consistency of use among men who have sex with men: US. CROI 2013. Atlanta; 2013.
77. Weller SC, Davis-Beaty K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009. CD003255.
78. Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F, McKirnan D, MacQueen K, Buchbinder SP. Per-contact risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission between male sexual partners. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150:306–311.
79. Semugoma P, Beyrer C, Baral S. Assessing the effects of antihomosexuality legislation in Uganda on HIV prevention, treatment, and care services. SAHARA J 2012; 9:173–176.
80. Reback CJ, Grant DL, Fletcher JB, Branson CM, Shoptaw S, Bowers JR, et al. Text messaging reduces HIV risk behaviors among methamphetamine-using men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav 2012; 16:1993–2002.
81. Anton PA, Saunders T, Elliott J, Khanukhova E, Dennis R, Adler A, et al. First phase 1 double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized rectal microbicide trial using UC781 gel with a novel index of ex vivo efficacy. PLoS One 2011; 6:e23243.
82. World Health Organization and U.S. NIH Working GroupWorld Health Organization and U.S. NIH Working Group Meeting on Treatment for HIV Prevention among MSM: what additional evidence is required?. Geneva:World Health Organization; 2011.
83. Mansergh G, Koblin BA, Sullivan PS. Challenges for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in the United States. PLoS Med 2012; 9:e1001286.
84. Makadon H, Stall R, Goldhammer H, Landers S. Sexual and gender minority health: what we know and what needs to be done?. Am J Public Health 2008; 98:989–995.
85. Stall R, Mills TC, Williamson J, Hart T, Greenwood G, Paul J, et al. Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:939–942.
86. Safren S, Heimberg R. Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and related factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999; 67:859–866.
87. Butler A, Astbury G. The use of defence mechanisms as precursors to coming out in postapartheid South Africa: a gay and lesbian youth perspective. J Homosex 2008; 55:223–244.
88. Drasin H, Beals K, Elliott M, Lever J, Klein D, Schuster MA. Age cohort differences in the developmental milestones of gay men. J Homosex 2008; 54:381–399.
89. Murdock T, Bolch M. Risk and protective factors for poor school adjustment in LGB ‘high school youth’: variable and person centered analyses. Psych School 2005; 42:159–172.
90. Herrick A, Stall R, Goldhammer H, Egan J, Mayer K. Resilience as a research framework and as a cornerstone of prevention research for gay and bisexual men: theory and evidence. AIDS Behav 2013; Epub ahead of print.
91. Herrick A, Stall R, Chmiel J, Guadamuz T, Penniman T, Shoptaw S, et al. It gets better: resolution of internalized homophobia over time and associations with positive health outcomes among MSM. AIDS Behav 2013; 14:1423–1430.
92. Sandfort TG, Bakker F, Schellevis FG, Vanwesenbeeck I. Sexual orientation and mental and physical health status: findings from a Dutch population survey. Am J Public Health 2006; 96:1119–1125.
93. Colfax G, Guzman R. Club drugs and HIV infection: a review. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:1463–1469.
94. Colfax G, Santos GM, Chu P, Vittinghoff E, Pluddemann A, Kumar S, et al. Amphetamine-group substances and HIV. Lancet 2010; 376:458–474.
95. Shoptaw S, Reback C, Larkins S, Wang P, Rotheram-Fuller E, Dang J, et al. Outcomes using two tailored behavioral treatments for substance abuse in urban gay and bisexual men. J Subst Abuse Treat 2008; 35:285–293.
96. Cochran B, Peavy K, Robohm J. Do specialized services exist for LGBT individuals seeking treatment for substance misuse? A study of available treatment programs. Subst Use Misuse 2007; 42:161–176.
97. Lombardi E. Substance use treatment experiences of transgender/transsexual men and women. J LGBT Health Res 2007; 3:37–47.
98. Arnold L. Promoting culturally competent care for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender population. Am J Public Health 2001; 91:1731.
99. Gonser P, Gonser PA. Culturally competent care for members of sexual minorities. J Cult Divers 2000; 7:72–75.
100. Makadon H, Mayer K, Potter J, Goldhammer H. The Fenway guide to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender health. Philadelphia:Amer College of Physicians Press; 2008.
101. Baral S, Sifakis F, Cleghorn F, Beyrer C. Elevated risk for HIV infection among men who have sex with men in low and middle income countries 2000–2006. PLoS Med 2007; 4:e339.
102. Beyrer C, Wirtz A, Walker D, Johns B, Sifakis F, Baral S. The global HIV epidemics among men who have sex with men: epidemiology, prevention, access to care and human rights. Washington, DC:World Bank Publications; 2011.
103. Mbali M. TAC in the history of rights-based, patient driven HIV/AIDS activism in South Africa. Ann Arbor, Michigan:University of Michigan University Library; 2005.
104. Reddy V, Sandfort T, Rispel L. From social silence to social science: same-sex sexuality, HIV & AIDS and gender in South Africa. Johannesburg, RSA:HSRC Press; 2009.
105. Hoad N, Martin K, Reid G. Sex & politics in South Africa. Johannesburg:Double Storey Books; 2005.
106. Altman D. Power and community: organizational and cultural responses to AIDS. London, UK:Taylor & Francis; 1994.
107. Frasca T. AIDS in Latin America. Santiago, Chile:Palgrave/Macmillan; 2005.
108. Harrington M. Community involvement in HIV and tuberculosis research. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 52 (Suppl 1):S63–66.
109. Wentzy J. Fight back, fight AIDS: 15 years of ACT UP. Edited by ACTUP. USA: Frameline Distribution; 2003.
110. Editorial. The end of AIDS? The Economist: the Economist Newspaper Limited; 2011.
111. Gamble VN. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and healthcare. Am J Public Health 1997; 87:1773–1778.
112. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14:537–546.
113. Thomas SB, Quinn SC. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community. Am J Public Health 1991; 81:1498–1505.
114. DeGruttola V, Smith DM, Little SJ, Miller V. Developing and evaluating comprehensive HIV infection control strategies: issues and challenges. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50 (Suppl 3):S102–107.
115. Godwin J. Legal environments, human rights and HIV responses among men who have sex with men and transgender people in Asia and the Pacific: an agenda for action. Edited by APCOM. Bangkok; 2010.
116. International Development Law Organization (IDLO), Godwin J. Report of the IDLO International Consultation on HIV-related legal services and rights. 2010.
117. International HIV/AIDS AllianceEnabling legal environments for effective HIV responses: a leadership challenge for the Commonwealth. 2010.
118. Center for Public Health and Human Rights JHSoPH. Achieving an AIDS-free generation for gay men and other MSM: financing and implementation of HIV programs targeting MSM. Washington DC; 2011.
119. ILGLHRCOff the map: how HIV/AIDS programming is failing same sex practicing people in Africa. New York:ILGLHRC; 2007.
120. PEPFARPEPFAR and Prevention, care, and treatment: the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: five-year strategy. Washington DC:US Gov; 2009.
121. Beyrer C, Sullivan PS, Sanchez J, Dowdy D, Altman D, Trapence G, et al. A call to action for comprehensive HIV services for men who have sex with men. Lancet 2012; 380:424–438.
122. Beyrer C. The global MSM HIV epidemic: time to act. 20th Conference onf Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Session 21 - Plenary. Atlanta; 2013.
123. United Nations, ki-Moon B. Speech: Universal Human Rights. 2012.

epidemiology; global burden of disease; health disparities; HIV; human rights; MSM; prevention

© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.