Search

Background: Cervicovaginal inflammation, bacterial microbiota and hormonal contraceptives all influence sexual and reproductive health. To date, the effects of intramuscular depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM) versus injectable norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN) on vaginal microbiota or cytokines have not been compared back-to-back, although in-vitro data suggest that DMPA-IM and NET-EN have different pharmacokinetic and biologic activities. This study aimed at comparing the effects of DMPA-IM versus NET-EN initiation on cervicovaginal cytokines and microbiota in women at high risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) assigned to the respective contraceptives., Methods: We collected socio-demographic characteristics and vaginal samples from women initiating DMPA-IM (ECHO Trial; n = 53) and NET-EN (UChoose Trial; n = 44) at baseline and after two consecutive injections to assess cytokine concentrations by Luminex, vaginal microbiota by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, STIs, bacterial vaginosis (BV) and candidiasis., Results: Cytokine concentrations did not change significantly after initiating DMPA-IM or NET-EN, although NET-EN versus DMPA-IM-associated profiles were distinct. While the abundance of bacterial taxa associated with optimal and non-optimal microbiota fluctuated with DMPA-IM use, overall community composition did not significantly change with either contraceptive. HSV-2 serology, chlamydial infection, gonorrhoea and candidiasis did not influence the associations between contraceptive type and cervicovaginal cytokines or microbiota., Conclusions: Both DMPA-IM and NET-EN use did not lead to broad inflammatory or microbiota changes in the female genital tract of sub-Saharan African women. This suggests that NET-EN is likely a viable option for contraception in African women at high risk of BV and STIs., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Dabee, Tanko, Brown, Bunjun, Balle, Feng, Konstantinus, Jaumdally, Onono, Nair, Palanee-Phillips, Gill, Baeten, Bekker, Passmore, Heffron, Jaspan and Happel.)

Objectives: Assessment of safety is an integral part of real-time monitoring in clinical trials. In HIV prevention research, safety of investigational products and trial participation has been expanded to include monitoring for 'social harms', generally defined as negative consequences of trial participation that may manifest in social, psychological, or physical ways. Further research on social harms within HIV prevention research is needed to understand the potential safety risks for women and advance the implementation of prevention methods in real-world contexts., Methods: Secondary analysis of quantitative data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of microbicide candidates in sub-Saharan Africa was conducted. Additionally, we assessed data from two prospective cohort studies that included participants who became HIV-positive or pregnant during parent trials., Results: Social harms reporting was low across the largest and most recent microbicide studies. Social harm incidence per 100 person-years ranged from 1.10 (95% CI 0.78-1.52) to 3.25 (95% CI 2.83-3.74) in the phased trials. Reporting differed by dosing mechanism (e.g. vaginal gel, oral tablet, ring) and study, most likely as a function of measurement differences. Social harms were most frequently associated with male partners, rather than, for example, experiences of stigma in the community., Conclusion: Measurement and screening for social harms is an important component of conducting ethical research of novel HIV prevention methods. To date, social harm incidence reported in microbicide trials has been relatively low (<4% per 100 person-years), and the majority have been partner-related events. However, any incidence of social harm within the context of HIV prevention is important to capture and understand for the safety of individuals, and for the successful impact of prevention methods in a real-world context.

Background: Reproductive-age women need effective interventions to prevent the acquisition of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection., Methods: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess daily treatment with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), oral tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC), or 1% tenofovir (TFV) vaginal gel as preexposure prophylaxis against HIV-1 infection in women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. HIV-1 testing was performed monthly, and plasma TFV levels were assessed quarterly., Results: Of 12,320 women who were screened, 5029 were enrolled in the study. The rate of retention in the study was 91% during 5509 person-years of follow-up. A total of 312 HIV-1 infections occurred; the incidence of HIV-1 infection was 5.7 per 100 person-years. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the effectiveness was -49.0% with TDF (hazard ratio for infection, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.29), -4.4% with TDF-FTC (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.49), and 14.5% with TFV gel (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.21). In a random sample, TFV was detected in 30%, 29%, and 25% of available plasma samples from participants randomly assigned to receive TDF, TDF-FTC, and TFV gel, respectively. Independent predictors of TFV detection included being married, being older than 25 years of age, and being multiparous. Detection of TFV in plasma was negatively associated with characteristics predictive of HIV-1 acquisition. Elevations of serum creatinine levels were seen more frequently among participants randomly assigned to receive oral TDF-FTC than among those assigned to receive oral placebo (1.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.004). We observed no significant differences in the frequencies of other adverse events., Conclusions: None of the drug regimens we evaluated reduced the rates of HIV-1 acquisition in an intention-to-treat analysis. Adherence to study drugs was low. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; VOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00705679.).