Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Unraveling the divergent results of pre-exposure prophylaxis trials for HIV prevention

van der Straten, Arianea; Van Damme, Lutb; Haberer, Jessica E.c; Bangsberg, David R.d

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283522272
FAST TRACK
Free

Although the balance of recent evidence supports the efficacy of antiretroviral (ARV)-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV-1 infection, recent negative trial results are perplexing. Of seven trials with available HIV endpoints, three different products have been tested: tenofovir 1% vaginal gel, oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) tablets, and TDF/emtricitabine tablets. Six of these trials were conducted exclusively in sub-Saharan Africa; all found the products to be well tolerated, and four demonstrated effectiveness. Furthermore, the HIV Prevention Trial Network (HPTN) 052 trial recently confirmed that antiretroviral treatment leads to 96% reduction in transmission to HIV-negative partners in HIV-serodiscordant couples. These results, along with human and animal data, provide substantial evidence for the efficacy of antiretroviral-based HIV prevention. Yet assessment of oral TDF/emtricitabine in the FEM-PrEP study and of oral and vaginal tenofovir in the Microbicide Trial Network (MTN)-003 trial (VOICE) was stopped for futility. How do we make sense of these discrepant results? We believe that adherence is a key factor, although it cannot be the only factor. Expanding upon a recent editorial in the Lancet, we discuss the impact of suboptimal product adherence on PrEP efficacy in the context of variable drug concentration at the exposure site, integrity of the vaginal epithelium, and the role of acute infection.

aWomen's Global Health Imperative, RTI International, and Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California

bFHI 360, Arlington, Virginia

cMassachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Department of Medicine and Center for Global Health; Harvard Medical School

dMassachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Global Health; Harvard Medical School; Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Correspondence to Ariane van der Straten, RTI International, 114 Sansome Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA. Tel: +1 415 848 1324; fax: +1 415 848 1377; e-mail: ariane@rti.org

Received 21 December, 2011

Revised 31 January, 2012

Accepted 2 February, 2012

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

Although the balance of recent evidence supports the efficacy of antiretroviral-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV-1 infection, recent negative trial results are perplexing [1–3]. Of seven trials with available HIV endpoints, three different products have been tested: tenofovir 1% vaginal gel, oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) tablets, and TDF/emtricitabine (Truvada; Gilead Sciences, Foster City, California, USA) tablets. Six of these trials were conducted exclusively in sub-Saharan Africa; all found the products to be safe, and four (the Centre for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa 004 trial (CAPRISA004); the Preexposure Prophylaxis Initiative (iPrEx); Partners for PrEP; TDF2) demonstrated effectiveness (we define ‘efficacy’ as the biological efficacy of a product used under optimal trial conditions, whereas ‘effectiveness’ is defined as the intention-to-treat estimate obtained from a trial under less-than-perfect conditions, with presence of source of bias or dilution effect [4]) (Table 1) [1–3,5–13]. Furthermore, the HIV Prevention Trial Network (HPTN) 052 trial recently confirmed that antiretroviral treatment leads to 96% reduction in transmission to HIV-negative partners in HIV-serodiscordant couples [14]. These results, along with human and animal data [15,16], provide substantial evidence for the efficacy of antiretroviral-based HIV prevention [17]. Yet assessment of oral Truvada in the FEM-PrEP study and of oral and vaginal tenofovir in the Microbicide Trial Network-003 trial (VOICE) was stopped for futility. How do we make sense of these discrepant results? Expanding upon a recent editorial in the Lancet[18], we discuss the impact of suboptimal product adherence on PrEP efficacy in the context of variable drug concentration at the exposure site, integrity of the vaginal epithelium, and the role of acute infection as potential explanations for divergent PrEP trial results to date.

Table 1

Table 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Adherence

Adherence measured by different methods has been variable in the four PrEP trials with demonstrated effectiveness (Table 1). Applicators were used pericoitally in 72% of reported sex acts in CAPRISA004 (90% by self-report), with more protection (54%) among high adherers [6]. Moreover, adherence by pill count was 84% in TDF2 [11] and 89–95% in iPrEx [7], although drug levels were detectable in only 54% of a random subsample of men [8]. Drug levels correlated with protection in the CAPRISA and iPrEx trials [7,19], strongly suggesting that adherence determines the level of protection. Yet the heterogeneity of adherence estimates within studies calls for improved and standardized adherence measures in order to better characterize the relationship between adherence and protection.

Partners for PrEP was the only trial that enrolled HIV-serodiscordant couples, offered adherence counseling to both partners, and had the highest adherence in the study overall and in a substudy using intensive adherence monitoring followed by an intervention for individuals with less than 80% adherence [20]. Early qualitative data [21] suggest that trust and commitment within the partnership are critical for supporting adherence. Although not all trials can or should enroll partners, encouraging the involvement of partners or other influential individuals in supporting product use should be integral to adherence interventions. This may be especially important when targeting women [22,23], given the lack of effectiveness seen to date in two trials recruiting exclusively women. Although theory-based adherence support interventions were implemented in several trials, estimating their effect has been limited, in part, by their late implementation, the absence of an experimental design, and/or the lack of objective measures to evaluate success [Next Step Counseling in iPrEX [24]; VOICE Adherence Strengthening Program [25]; and an adherence support program with motivational interviewing in CAPRISA [6]].

Mode and frequency of administration may explain the heterogeneity in adherence across study populations in addition to the level of involvement of a stable partner. In one cross-over study of 144 women, American women strongly preferred tablets over gel, whereas African women had no clear preference [26]. Limited data exist on preference of different dosing regimens, although some evidence suggests that daily or intermittent dosing yields higher adherence than coitally related dosing [27,28]. However, daily use is more costly and possibly more burdensome on users with higher risks of lapses or stopping altogether [29]. Other causes of nonadherence, such as gaps in product refill due to missed study visits or protocol-driven holds, may also contribute to efficacy dilution and warrant further cross-trial analyses.

Heterogeneity in adherence has a profound impact on the interpretation of trial results. Mathematical models of efficacy from randomized controlled trials often assume 100% adherence [4,30], and these estimates are biased toward the null as adherence levels fall. For example, at 60% adherence, the trial estimate is less than half of the true biological efficacy. Yet, explaining the futility findings in VOICE and FEM-PrEP simply based on low average adherence (defined by the percentage of study product taken during the study) may be overly simplistic. Temporal patterns of adherence and sexual exposure will influence the degree of PrEP protection (Fig. 1); isolated lapses combined with high-risk sexual exposures can lead to transmission. Conversely, low adherence confers little risk in the absence of sexual exposure. Unfortunately, cost and complexity of measurement have so far precluded any PrEP study to address this issue.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Explaining discrepant findings by differences in adherence is difficult in the absence of comparable and accurate measures across studies. Participant's self-report has limited accuracy and overestimates adherence compared to objective measures that minimize opportunities for participant manipulation (these include measures such as electronic devices for medication monitoring, unannounced home-based product counts, and biomarkers of gel applicator insertion) [31,32]. Although drug levels are helpful, they represent a combination of behavioral and biologic factors and they do not inform patterns of adherence. In the absence of a gold standard, achieving accurate behavioral reporting remains a challenge. Triangulating multiple objective measures provides the best possible estimate of true adherence. Although they add to the cost and operational complexity of trials, objective behavioral measures of adherence are necessary to monitor use and target adherence interventions to those participants needing additional support. Objective behavioral measures combined with drug levels will be critical for the interpretation of future study results.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Drug concentration at the exposure site

Antiretroviral medications must reach a concentration high enough in the exposed tissue to provide protection [19]. Available antiretroviral drugs offer varying levels of drug concentration within the cervicovaginal fluids (CVFs), blood plasma, and vaginal and rectal tissues [33]. Tenofovir reaches slightly higher levels in the CVF and a 33 times higher concentration in rectal tissue compared with blood plasma after one single oral dose [34]. For emtricitabine, slightly higher levels are seen in the rectum, and much higher levels (42 times) in the CVF than in plasma. Tenofovir levels in the CVF and in genital tissues are more than 100-fold higher after vaginal gel insertion than after oral tablet ingestion [26,34,35]. Although we do not know the effective tissue concentration needed to prevent HIV infection, less than 1000 ng/ml of tenofovir in CVF was associated with no significant protection in CAPRISA004 [19].

Products applied vaginally may also penetrate into the rectum [36], although it is not known whether these levels confer protection against anal HIV acquisition. Differential drug levels in the vagina and rectum combined with differences in sexual practices across study populations may also inform the interpretation of conflicting trial results.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Integrity of the vaginal epithelium and cofactors of infection

A number of biologic risk factors may increase women's HIV susceptibility, including genital inflammation and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). There is high degree of variation in herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) prevalence by location and populations [37–39]. STIs may selectively decrease PrEP potency by compromising the vaginal epithelium or through other immunological mechanisms. For example, in CAPRISA004 the effectiveness of tenofovir gel was decreased among women with high cytokine levels, such as occurs with STIs [40]. On the contrary, tenofovir 1% gel was 51% protective against HSV-2 acquisition in CAPRISA004 [6]; an effect not observed with oral TDF administration [41].

Vaginal practices that interfere with PrEP tissue coverage (for topical gels), compromise the vaginal mucosa and/or microflora, or create drug-to-drug interactions may influence protection. A meta-analysis confirmed that intravaginal use of soap, cloth, paper, or drying products increased risk of acquiring HIV [42]. These practices vary by location and population [43,44] and may contribute to contradictory trial results.

Another consideration is that the hyperosmolarity of tenofovir gel has been associated with epithelial disruption of cervical and colorectal explants in vitro[45]. Side-effects following rectal application prompted a recent change in formulation to improve rectal safety [46]. Although the vaginal epithelium is much thicker than the rectum's, daily application of active gel for long durations could theoretically affect the integrity of cervical or vaginal epithelium (the placebo gel used in the VOICE vaginal control arm, is isotonic and isosmolar [47]).

Not enough is known about the role of women's exogenous and endogenous hormones in PrEP effectiveness and in their risk of HIV infection. Some hormonal contraceptives may increase susceptibility to HIV via several biological mechanisms, including epithelial thinning due to progesterone [48,49]. More studies should examine potential drug-to-drug interactions between hormonal contraceptive and antiretroviral-based PrEP [50–52] and the effect of hormonal contraceptives on antiretroviral activity in the genital tract.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acute HIV infection

HIV-RNA levels are much higher during acute compared with chronic infection and confer greater risk of sexual transmission [53]. Empirical and modeling studies from sub-Saharan Africa indicate that acute infection may account for 13–25% of new HIV transmission events [54,55]. Acute infection was presumably uncommon in stable serodiscordant partnerships in Partners for PrEP in which the baseline plasma viral load in the index partner was relatively low (3.9 log10 copies/ml) and HIV incidence was only 1.92 per 100 person-years in the placebo group [12]. In contrast, the HIV incidence was 6% per year in VOICE's vaginal gel group [3] and 5% in FEM-PrEP [1]. In high seroincidence settings, trial participants are sexually exposed to high viral loads that may overwhelm antiretroviral-based protection, particularly among women with varying adherence levels.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

Differences in adherence behavior combined with biologic determinants of drug concentration at the exposure site, integrity of the vaginal epithelium, and/or stage of infection of the index partner are potential explanations for the current divergent PrEP trial findings. Despite these contradictory findings, the Partners for PrEP study demonstrates that significant protection can be achieved with high adherence to oral antiretroviral within heterosexual couples. Behavioral studies, which include objective and comparable adherence measures, are needed to explore the reasons why women at high risk of HIV infection may not have been sufficiently adherent for protection. Establishing the minimum level of adherence to achieve adequate drug levels in the female genital tract or in the rectum for reliable protection is critical to guide interventions and will require more detailed assessment of patterns of adherence and sexual exposure. Such findings will help identify optimal populations for PrEP and develop effective adherence counseling interventions. Concurrently, the development of more user-independent antiretroviral delivery methods, such as vaginal rings, should continue. Accurate adherence measures should be combined with epidemiologic and laboratory studies on the determinants of drug concentration in sites of exposure to understand how behavioral and biologic factors impact antiretroviral-based protection and, thereby, guide future prevention strategies.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

A.S. conceived of the idea and led the writing of this manuscript. All authors wrote at least one section of the manuscript and contributed to editing and modifying the content of the manuscript as a whole.

The authors thank Miriam Hartmann for her help in preparing and editing this manuscript, and Tim Mastro, Connie Celum, and Jared Baeten for reviewing an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

Support for preparation of this manuscript was provided by a Professional Development Award from RTI International for A.S. L.V.D. was supported by USAID funding. J.E.H. and D.R.B. were supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. J.E.H. was supported by K-23 087228 and D.R.B. was supported by K-24 MH87227

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. A.S. is a member of the Behavioral Research Working Group of the Microbicide Trial Network, and a co-investigator on the VOICE trial. L.D. is the principal investigator of FEM-PrEP. D.R.B. is the principal investigator and J.E.H. is a co-investigator for the adherence substudy within the Partners for PrEP study.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. FHI statement on the FEM-PrEP HIV prevention study: FHI to initiate orderly closure of FEM-PrEP. In. http://http://www.fhi360.org/en/AboutFHI/Media/Releases/FEM-PrEP_statement041811.htm FHI 360; 2011.
2. Microbicide trials network statement on decision to discontinue use of oral Tenofovir tablets in VOICE, a major HIV prevention study in women. In. http://http://www.mtnstopshiv.org/node/3619: Microbicide Trials Network; 2011.
3. Microbicide trials network statement on decision to discontinue use of Tenofovir gel in VOICE, a major HIV prevention study in women. In. http://http://www.mtnstopshiv.org/node/3909: Microbicide Trials Network; 2011.
4. Mâsse BR, Boily MC, Dimitrov D, Desai K. Efficacy dilution in randomized placebo-controlled vaginal microbicide trials. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2009; 6: http://http://www.ete-online.com/content/6/1/5.
5. Peterson L, Taylor D, Roddy R, Belai G, Phillips P, Nanda K, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for prevention of HIV infection in women: a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS Hub Clin Trials 2007; 2:e27.
6. Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, Grobler AC, Baxter C, Mansoor LE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 2010; 329:1168–1174.
7. 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.
8. Amico KR, Liu A, McMahan V, Anderson PL, Lama JR, Guanira J, et al.Adherence indicators and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drug levels in the iPrEx study. In: 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2011; Boston, Massachusetts.
9. Liu A, Huang Y, Defechereux P, McMahan V, Eden C, Guanira J, et al.Hair as a biological marker of daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence and tenofovir/emtricitabine (TFV/FTC) exposure in the Global iPrEx Study. In: 6th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Prevention; 2011; Rome, Italy.
10. FEM-PrEP fact sheet on adherence. In. http://http://www.fhi360.org//NR/rdonlyres/ejz5zgddvcqscxov2rzcang7f74nnzz4v26bzcxrk6vxjmm5dchnwb7sy7ct27h34djhi4bkv33hda/FEMPrEPFactSheetAdherence1.pdf: FHI 360.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC trial and another major study find PrEP can reduce risk of HIV infection among heterosexuals. In. http://http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/PrEPHeterosexuals.html: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.
12. Baeten J, Celum C. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention among heterosexual African men and women: the Partners PrEP study. In: 6th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Prevention; 2011; Rome, Italy.
13. Pivotal study finds that HIV medications are highly effective as prophylaxis against HIV infection in men and women in Africa. In. http://depts.washington.edu/uwicrc/research/studies/files/PrEP_PressRelease-UW_13Jul2011.pdf: University of Washington International Clinical Research Center; 2011.
14. 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.
15. García-Lerma JG, Otten RA, Qari SH, Jackson E, Cong M, Masciotra S, et al. Prevention of rectal SHIV transmission in macaques by daily or intermittent prophylaxis with emtricitabine and tenofovir. PLoS Med 2008; 5:e28.
16. Jackson JB, Musoke P, Fleming T, Guay LA, Bagenda D, Allen M, et al. Intrapartum and neonatal single-dose nevirapine compared with zidovudine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in Kampala, Uganda: 18-month follow-up of the HIVNET 012 randomised trial. Lancet 2003; 362:859–868.
17. Karim S, Karim QA. Antiretroviral prophylaxis: a defining moment in HIV control.Lancet 2011; 378:e23–e25.
18. Kashuba ADM, Patterson KB, Dumond JB, Cohen MS. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: how to predict success.Lancet 2011 [Epub ahead of print].
19. Karim SSA, Kashuba ADM, Werner L, Karim QA. Drug concentrations after topical and oral antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis: implications for HIV prevention in women. Lancet 2011; 378:279–281.
20. Haberer JE, Baeten J, Celum C, Tumwesigye E, Katabira E, Krows M, et al.Near perfect early adherence to antiretroviral PrEP against HIV infection among HIV serodiscordant couples as determined by multiple measures: preliminary data from the partners PrEP study. In: 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2011; Boston, Massachusetts.
21. Ware NC, Wyatt MA, Haberer J, Baeten J, Kintu A, Psaros C, et al.What's love got to do with it? Explaining adherence to oral antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV serodiscordant couples.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (in press).
22. Montgomery E, van der Straten A, Torjesen K. ‘Male involvement’ in women and children's HIV prevention: challenges in definition and interpretation. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 57:e114–e116.
23. Montgomery ET, van der Straten A, Chidanyika A, Chipato T, Jaffar S, Padian N. The importance of male partner involvement for women's acceptability and adherence to female-initiated HIV prevention methods in Zimbabwe.AIDS Behav 2011; 15:959–969.
24. Amico KR, McMahan V, Goicochea P, Vargas L, Wolf E, Lama JR, et al.Developing an innovative approach to adherence counseling and assessment in a preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trial: next step counseling and neutral assessment in the iPrEx study. In: 5th International Conference on HIV Treatment Adherence; 2010; Miami, Florida.
25. MTN-003 study-specific procedure manual version 2: section 12. Counseling considerations. In. http://http://www.mtnstopshiv.org/node/1077: Microbicide Trials Network; 2011.
26. Hendrix C, Minnis A, Guddera V, Riddler S, Salata R, Nakabiito C, et al.MTN-001: a phase 2 cross-over study of daily oral and vaginal TFV in healthy, sexually active women results in significantly different product acceptability and vaginal tissue drug concentrations. In: 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2011; Boston, Massachusetts.
27. Mutua G, Sanders EJ, Kamali A, Kibengo F, Mugo P, Anzala O, et al.Safety and adherence to intermittent emtricitabine/tenofovir for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in Kenya and Uganda. In: 17th International AIDS Conference; 2010; Vienna, Austria.
28. van der Straten A, Montgomery E, Cheng H, Lutnick A, Musara P, Woodsong C. Preference between precoital and continuous use of Duet in Zimbabwe. In: International Microbicides Conference; 2010; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
29. Vermund SH, Van Damme L. HIV prevention in women: next steps. Science 2011; 331:284.
30. Weiss HA, Wasserheit JN, Barnabas RV, Hayes RJ, Abu-Raddad LJ. Persisting with prevention: the importance of adherence for HIV prevention. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2008; 5:1–7.
31. Rudd P, Byyny RL, Zachary V, LoVerde ME, Titus C, Mitchell WD, et al. The natural history of medication compliance in a drug trial: limitations of pill counts. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46:169–176.
32. Simoni JM, Kurth AE, Pearson CR, Pantalone DW, Merrill JO, Frick PA. Self-report measures of antiretroviral therapy adherence: a review with recommendations for HIV research and clinical management. AIDS Behav 2006; 10:227–245.
33. Anderson PL, Kiser JJ, Gardner EM, Rower JE, Meditz A, Grant RM. Pharmacological considerations for tenofovir and emtricitabine to prevent HIV infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66:240–250.
34. Patterson K, Prince H, Kraft E, Jenkins A, Shaheen NJ, Rooney JF, et al. Penetration of tenofovir and emtricitabine in mucosal tissues: implications for prevention of HIV-1 transmission. Sci Transl Med 2011; 3:112re4.
35. Schwartz JL, Rountree W, Kashuba ADM, Brache V, Creinin MD, Poindexter A, et al. A multicompartment, single and multiple dose pharmacokinetic study of the vaginal candidate microbicide 1% tenofovir gel. PLoS One 2011; 6:e25974.
36. Nuttall J, Kashuba A, Wang R, White N, Allen P, Roberts J, et al.The pharmacokinetics of tenofovir following intravaginal and intrarectal administration of tenofovir gel to Rhesus macaques.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 56:103–109.
37. Freeman EE, Weiss HA, Glynn JR, Cross PL, Whitworth JA, Hayes RJ. Herpes simplex virus 2 infection increases HIV acquisition in men and women: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. AIDS 2006; 20:73–83.
38. Glynn JR, Biraro S, Weiss HA. Herpes simplex virus type 2: a key role in HIV incidence. AIDS 2009; 23:1595–1598.
39. Kaul R, Nagelkerke NJ, Kimani J, Ngugi E, Bwayo JJ, MacDonald KS, et al. Prevalent herpes simplex virus type 2 infection is associated with altered vaginal flora and an increased susceptibility to multiple sexually transmitted infections. J Infect Dis 2007; 196:1692–1697.
40. Karim SA. Tenofovir gel and HIV transmission: insights from the CAPRISA 004 trial. In: 6th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Prevention; 2011; Rome, Italy.
41. Andrei G, Lisco A, Vanpouille C, Introini A, Balestra E, van den Oord J, et al. Topical tenofovir, a microbicide effective against HIV, inhibits herpes simplex virus-2 replication. Cell Host Microbe 2011; 10:379–389.
42. Low N, Chersich MF, Schmidlin K, Egger M, Francis SC, van de Wijgert JHHM, et al. Intravaginal practices, bacterial vaginosis, and HIV infection in women: individual participant data meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2011; 8:e1000416.
43. Hilber AM, Francis SC, Chersich M, Scott P, Redmond S, Bender N, et al. Intravaginal practices, vaginal infections and HIV acquisition: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9119.
44. Mavedzenge SN, Weiss HA, Montgomery ET, Blanchard K, de Bruyn G, Ramjee G, et al. Determinants of differential HIV incidence among women in three southern African locations. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 58:89–99.
45. Rohan LC, Moncla BJ, Ayudhya RPKN, Cost M, Huang Y, Gai F, et al. In vitro and ex vivo testing of tenofovir shows it is effective as an HIV-1 microbicide. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9310.
46. Dezzutti CS, Rohan LC, Lynam JD, Wang L, Friend D. Tenofovir gel reformulation results in improved product safety for rectal application. In: 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2011; Boston, Massachusetts.
47. Tien D, Schnaare RL, Kang F, Cohl G, McCormick TJ, Moench TR, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of a potential universal placebo designed for use in vaginal microbicide clinical trials. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2005; 21:845–853.
48. Heffron R, Donnell D, Rees H, Celum C, Mugo N, Were E, et al.Use of hormonal contraceptives and risk of HIV-1 transmission: a prospective cohort study.Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 12:19–26.
49. Hel Z, Stringer E, Mestecky J. Sex steroid hormones, hormonal contraception, and the immunobiology of human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection. Endocr Rev 2010; 31:79–97.
50. El-Ibiary SY, Cocohoba JM. Effects of HIV antiretrovirals on the pharmacokinetics of hormonal contraceptives. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008; 13:123–132.
51. Kearney BP, Mathias A. Lack of effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on pharmacokinetics of hormonal contraceptives. Pharmacotherapy 2009; 29:924–929.
52. Stuart GS, Moses A, Corbett A, Phiri G, Kumwenda W, Mkandawire N, et al. Combined oral contraceptives and antiretroviral PK/PD in Malawian women: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a combined oral contraceptive and a generic combined formulation antiretroviral in Malawi. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 58:e40–e43.
53. Pinkerton SD. Probability of HIV transmission during acute infection in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS Behav 2008; 12:677–684.
54. Abu-Raddad LJ, Longini IM Jr. No HIV stage is dominant in driving the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS 2008; 22:1055–1061.
55. Goodreau SM, Cassels S, Kasprzyk D, Montaño DE, Greek A, Morris M. Concurrent partnerships, acute infection and HIV epidemic dynamics among young adults in Zimbabwe.AIDS Behav 2010; 16:312–322.
Keywords:

antiretrovirals; biomedical HIV prevention trials; microbicide; pre-exposure prophylaxis

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.