AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 3026–3034 | Cite as

Sexual Partner Concurrency Among Partners Reported by MSM with Recent HIV Infection

  • Heather A. Pines
  • Maile Y. Karris
  • Susan J. Little
Original Paper


We examined concurrency among sexual partners reported by men who have sex with men (MSM) with recent (acute or early) HIV infection in San Diego, California (2002–2015). Partners overlapping in time in the past 3 months were considered concurrent. Logistic generalized linear mixed models were used to identify factors associated with concurrency at the partner-level. 56% (388/699) of partners were concurrent to ≥1 other partner. The odds of concurrency were higher among partners >10 years younger than the participant (vs. within 10 years of age) [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–4.52], longer term partners (AOR per month = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), and partners met online (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.98–2.48). Concurrency is common among partners of recently HIV-infected MSM. Tailored HIV prevention strategies for MSM with older partners, longer term partners, and partners met online may help minimize the potential impact of concurrency on HIV transmission.


Concurrency Acute and early HIV infection HIV transmission MSM 



This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse [Grant No. K01 DA040543 to H.A.P.]; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [Grant Nos. U01 AI43638, R01 HD083042, R01 MH100974, R24 AI106039, P01 AI074621, P30 AI035214]; the California HIV Research Program [Grant No. RN07-SD-702]; and the California Collaborative Treatment Group [Grant No. El11-SD-005]. M.Y.K. receives funding to the institution and has served on an advisory board to Gilead Sciences.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

UCSD’s Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2014. HIV Surveillance Report 2015;26. Accessed 26 Aug 2016.
  2. 2.
    UNAIDS. Consultation on concurrent sexual partnerships: recommendations from a meeting of the UNAIDS reference group on estimates, modelling and projecion held in Nairobi Kenya. 2009. Accessed 10 Nov 2015.
  3. 3.
    Morris M, Kretzschmar M. Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV. AIDS. 1997;11(5):641–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morris M, Goodreau SM, Moody J. Sexual networks, concurrency, and STD/HIV. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE, Piot P, Wasserheit J, editors. Sexually transmitted diseases. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohl DD, Raymond HF, Arnold M, McFarland W. Concurrent sexual partnerships and racial disparities in HIV infection among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect. 2009;85(5):367–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenberg ES, Khosropour CM, Sullivan PS. High prevalence of sexual concurrency and concurrent unprotected anal intercourse across racial/ethnic groups among a national, Web-based study of men who have sex with men in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(10):741–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tieu HV, Nandi V, Frye V, et al. Concurrent partnerships and HIV risk among men who have sex with men in New York City. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41(3):200–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pines HA, Wertheim JO, Liu L, Garfein RS, Little SJ, Karris MY. Concurrency and HIV transmission network characteristics among men who have sex with men with recent HIV infection. AIDS. 2016;30(18):2875–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glick SN, Morris M, Foxman B, et al. A comparison of sexual behavior patterns among men who have sex with men and heterosexual men and women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;60(1):83–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knopf A, Morris M. Lack of association between concurrency and HIV infection: an artifact of study design. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;60(1):e20–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris M. Barking up the wrong evidence tree. Comment on Lurie & Rosenthal, “Concurrent partnerships as a driver of the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa? The evidence is limited”. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(1):31–3337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eaton JW, Hallett TB, Garnett GP. Concurrent sexual partnerships and primary HIV infection: a critical interaction. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(4):687–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodreau SM, Cassels S, Kasprzyk D, Montano DE, Greek A, Morris M. Concurrent partnerships, acute infection and HIV epidemic dynamics among young adults in Zimbabwe. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(2):312–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenberg ES, Rothenberg RB, Kleinbaum DG, Stephenson RB, Sullivan PS. The implications of respondent concurrency on sex partner risk in a national, web-based study of men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(4):514–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wejnert C, Hess KL, Rose CE, Balaji A, Smith JC, Paz-Bailey G. Age-specific race and ethnicity disparities in HIV infection and awareness among men who have sex with men–20 US Cities, 2008-2014. J Infect Dis. 2016;213(5):776–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drumright LN, Little SJ, Strathdee SA, et al. Unprotected anal intercourse and substance use among men who have sex with men with recent HIV infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;43(3):344–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morris SR, Little SJ, Cunningham T, Garfein RS, Richman DD, Smith DM. Evaluation of an HIV nucleic acid testing program with automated Internet and voicemail systems to deliver results. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(12):778–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le T, Wright EJ, Smith DM, et al. Enhanced CD4+ T-cell recovery with earlier HIV-1 antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(3):218–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morris M, Zavisca J, Dean L. Social and sexual networks: their role in the spread of HIV/AIDS among young gay men. AIDS Educ Prev. 1995;7(5 Suppl):24–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Service S, Blower SM. HIV transmission in sexual networks: an empirical analysis. Proc Biol Sci. 1995;260(1359):237–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Service SK, Blower SM. Linked HIV epidemics in San Francisco. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996;11(3):311–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blower SM, Service SK, Osmond DH. Calculating the odds of HIV infection due to sexual partner selection. AIDS Behav. 1997;1(4):273–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hurt CB, Matthews DD, Calabria MS, et al. Sex with older partners is associated with primary HIV infection among men who have sex with men in North Carolina. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54(2):185–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jin F, Grulich AE, Mao L, et al. Sexual partner’s age as a risk factor for HIV seroconversion in a cohort of HIV-negative homosexual men in Sydney. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(7):2426–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davidovich U, de Wit JB, Stroebe W. Behavioral and cognitive barriers to safer sex between men in steady relationships: implications for prevention strategies. AIDS Educ Prev. 2004;16(4):304–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Theodore PS, Duran RE, Antoni MH, Fernandez MI. Intimacy and sexual behavior among HIV-positive men-who-have-sex-with-men in primary relationships. AIDS Behav. 2004;8(3):321–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoff CC, Chakravarty D, Beougher SC, Neilands TB, Darbes LA. Relationship characteristics associated with sexual risk behavior among MSM in committed relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012;26(12):738–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prestage G, Van De Ven P, Grulich A, Kippax S, McInnes D, Hendry O. Gay men’s casual sex encounters: discussing HIV and using condoms. AIDS Care. 2001;13(3):277–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zablotska IB, Grulich AE, De Wit J, Prestage G. Casual sexual encounters among gay men: familiarity, trust and unprotected anal intercourse. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(3):607–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prestage G, Jin F, Grulich A, de Wit J, Zablotska I. Gay men are less likely to use condoms with casual sex partners they know ‘well’. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(3):664–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rouwenhorst E, Mallitt KA, Prestage G. Gay men’s use of condoms with casual partners depends on the extent of their prior acquaintance. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1589–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zablotska IB, Imrie J, Prestage G, et al. Gay men’s current practice of HIV seroconcordant unprotected anal intercourse: serosorting or seroguessing? AIDS Care. 2009;21(4):501–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kippax S, Crawford J, Davis M, Rodden P, Dowsett G. Sustaining safe sex: a longitudinal study of a sample of homosexual men. AIDS. 1993;7(2):257–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kippax S, Noble J, Prestage G, et al. Sexual negotiation in the AIDS era: negotiated safety revisited. AIDS. 1997;11(2):191–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goodreau SM, Carnegie NB, Vittinghoff E, et al. What drives the US and Peruvian HIV epidemics in men who have sex with men (MSM)? PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e50522.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sullivan PS, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, Sanchez TH. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS. 2009;23(9):1153–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liau A, Millett G, Marks G. Meta-analytic examination of online sex-seeking and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(9):576–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Phillips G 2nd, Magnus M, Kuo I, et al. Use of geosocial networking (GSN) mobile phone applications to find men for sex by men who have sex with men (MSM) in Washington DC. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1630–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cooper A. Sex and the internet: a guidebook for clinicians. New York: Brunner-Routledge; 2002.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klausner JD, Wolf W, Fischer-Ponce L, Zolt I, Katz MH. Tracing a syphilis outbreak through cyberspace. JAMA. 2000;284(4):447–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tashima KT, Alt EN, Harwell JI, Fiebich-Perez DK, Flanigan TP. Internet sex-seeking leads to acute HIV infection: a report of two cases. Int J STD AIDS. 2003;14(4):285–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Horvath KJ, Rosser BR, Remafedi G. Sexual risk taking among young internet-using men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(6):1059–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jenness SM, Neaigus A, Hagan H, Wendel T, Gelpi-Acosta C, Murrill CS. Reconsidering the internet as an HIV/STD risk for men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(6):1353–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lehmiller JJ, Ioerger M. Social networking smartphone applications and sexual health outcomes among men who have sex with men. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e86603.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Smith DM, Drumright LN, Frost SD, et al. Characteristics of recently HIV-infected men who use the Internet to find male sex partners and sexual practices with those partners. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;43(5):582–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chiasson MA, Hirshfield S, Remien RH, Humberstone M, Wong T, Wolitski RJ. A comparison of on-line and off-line sexual risk in men who have sex with men: an event-based on-line survey. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;44(2):235–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grov C, Hirshfield S, Remien RH, Humberstone M, Chiasson MA. Exploring the venue’s role in risky sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men: an event-level analysis from a national online survey in the U.S. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(2):291–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mustanski BS. Are sexual partners met online associated with HIV/STI risk behaviours? Retrospective and daily diary data in conflict. AIDS Care. 2007;19(6):822–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rosser BR, Miner MH, Bockting WO, et al. HIV risk and the internet: results of the Men’s INTernet Sex (MINTS) Study. AIDS Behav. 2009;13(4):746–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosser BR, Oakes JM, Horvath KJ, Konstan JA, Danilenko GP, Peterson JL. HIV sexual risk behavior by men who use the Internet to seek sex with men: results of the Men’s INTernet Sex Study-II (MINTS-II). AIDS Behav. 2009;13(3):488–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 1998;280(5365):867–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ghanem KG, Hutton HE, Zenilman JM, Zimba R, Erbelding EJ. Audio computer assisted self interview and face to face interview modes in assessing response bias among STD clinic patients. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81(5):421–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather A. Pines
    • 1
  • Maile Y. Karris
    • 1
  • Susan J. Little
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations