Carolyne A Akello1, Katherine E Bunge2, Clemensia Nakabiito1, Brenda G Mirembe1, Mary Glenn Fowler1,3, Anupam Mishra4, Jeanne Marrazzo5, Zvavahera M Chirenje6, Connie Celum5,7, Jennifer E Balkus7,8. 1. 1 Makerere University-Johns Hopkins University Research Collaboration , Kampala, Uganda . 2. 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Magee-Womens Research Institute , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. 3 Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, Maryland. 4. 4 Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 5. 5 Department of Medicine, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 6. 6 University of Zimbabwe-University of California San Francisco Research Program , Harare, Zimbabwe . 7. 7 Department of Global Health, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 8. 8 Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center , Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent HIV prevention trials required use of effective contraceptive methods to fulfill eligibility for enrollment. We compared pregnancy rates in a subset of participants enrolled in the Microbicide Trials Network protocol (MTN-003), a randomized trial of chemoprophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition among women aged 18-45 years who initiateddepot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or combined oral contraceptives (COCs) at enrollment, relative to those already using DMPA or COCs. METHODS: Data were analyzed from MTN-003 participants from Uganda. Before enrollment, information on contraceptive type and initiation date was obtained. Urine pregnancy tests were performed at monthly follow-up visits. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare pregnancy incidence among new users (initiated ≤60 days before enrollment) and established users (initiated >60 days before enrollment). RESULTS: Of 322 women enrolled, 296 were COC or DMPA users, 82 (28%) were new users, and 214 (72%) were established users. Pregnancy incidence was higher among new contraceptive users compared to established users (20.70% vs. 10.55%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93-2.96). Among DMPA users, pregnancy incidence was 10.20% in new users versus 3.48% in established users (HR = 2.56; 95% CI 0.86-7.65). Among new COC users, pregnancy incidence was 42.67% in new users versus 23.67% in established COC users (adjusted HR = 1.74; 95% CI 0.87-3.48). CONCLUSIONS: New contraceptive users, regardless of method, at the Uganda MTN-003 site had an increased pregnancy risk compared to established users, which may be due to contraceptive initiation primarily for trial eligibility. New users may benefit from intensive contraceptive counseling and additional contraceptive options, including longer acting reversible contraceptives.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recent HIV prevention trials required use of effective contraceptive methods to fulfill eligibility for enrollment. We compared pregnancy rates in a subset of participants enrolled in the Microbicide Trials Network protocol (MTN-003), a randomized trial of chemoprophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition among women aged 18-45 years who initiated depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or combined oral contraceptives (COCs) at enrollment, relative to those already using DMPA or COCs. METHODS: Data were analyzed from MTN-003participants from Uganda. Before enrollment, information on contraceptive type and initiation date was obtained. Urine pregnancy tests were performed at monthly follow-up visits. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare pregnancy incidence among new users (initiated ≤60 days before enrollment) and established users (initiated >60 days before enrollment). RESULTS: Of 322 women enrolled, 296 were COC or DMPA users, 82 (28%) were new users, and 214 (72%) were established users. Pregnancy incidence was higher among new contraceptive users compared to established users (20.70% vs. 10.55%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93-2.96). Among DMPA users, pregnancy incidence was 10.20% in new users versus 3.48% in established users (HR = 2.56; 95% CI 0.86-7.65). Among new COC users, pregnancy incidence was 42.67% in new users versus 23.67% in established COC users (adjusted HR = 1.74; 95% CI 0.87-3.48). CONCLUSIONS: New contraceptive users, regardless of method, at the Uganda MTN-003 site had an increased pregnancy risk compared to established users, which may be due to contraceptive initiation primarily for trial eligibility. New users may benefit from intensive contraceptive counseling and additional contraceptive options, including longer acting reversible contraceptives.
Authors: Quarraisha Abdool Karim; Salim S Abdool Karim; Janet A Frohlich; Anneke C Grobler; Cheryl Baxter; Leila E Mansoor; Ayesha B M Kharsany; Sengeziwe Sibeko; Koleka P Mlisana; Zaheen Omar; Tanuja N Gengiah; Silvia Maarschalk; Natasha Arulappan; Mukelisiwe Mlotshwa; Lynn Morris; Douglas Taylor Journal: Science Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Kelly Blanchard; Alan Bostrom; Elizabeth Montgomery; Ariane van der Straten; Naomi Lince; Guy de Bruyn; Dan Grossman; Tsungai Chipato; Gita Ramjee; Nancy Padian Journal: Contraception Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Michael C Thigpen; Poloko M Kebaabetswe; Lynn A Paxton; Dawn K Smith; Charles E Rose; Tebogo M Segolodi; Faith L Henderson; Sonal R Pathak; Fatma A Soud; Kata L Chillag; Rodreck Mutanhaurwa; Lovemore Ian Chirwa; Michael Kasonde; Daniel Abebe; Evans Buliva; Roman J Gvetadze; Sandra Johnson; Thom Sukalac; Vasavi T Thomas; Clyde Hart; Jeffrey A Johnson; C Kevin Malotte; Craig W Hendrix; John T Brooks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jared M Baeten; Deborah Donnell; Patrick Ndase; Nelly R Mugo; James D Campbell; Jonathan Wangisi; Jordan W Tappero; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Craig R Cohen; Elly Katabira; Allan Ronald; Elioda Tumwesigye; Edwin Were; Kenneth H Fife; James Kiarie; Carey Farquhar; Grace John-Stewart; Aloysious Kakia; Josephine Odoyo; Akasiima Mucunguzi; Edith Nakku-Joloba; Rogers Twesigye; Kenneth Ngure; Cosmas Apaka; Harrison Tamooh; Fridah Gabona; Andrew Mujugira; Dana Panteleeff; Katherine K Thomas; Lara Kidoguchi; Meighan Krows; Jennifer Revall; Susan Morrison; Harald Haugen; Mira Emmanuel-Ogier; Lisa Ondrejcek; Robert W Coombs; Lisa Frenkel; Craig Hendrix; Namandjé N Bumpus; David Bangsberg; Jessica E Haberer; Wendy S Stevens; Jairam R Lingappa; Connie Celum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Salim S Abdool Karim; Barbra A Richardson; Gita Ramjee; Irving F Hoffman; Zvavahera M Chirenje; Taha Taha; Muzala Kapina; Lisa Maslankowski; Anne Coletti; Albert Profy; Thomas R Moench; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Benoît Mâsse; Sharon L Hillier; Lydia Soto-Torres Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-04-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Sheena McCormack; Gita Ramjee; Anatoli Kamali; Helen Rees; Angela M Crook; Mitzy Gafos; Ute Jentsch; Robert Pool; Maureen Chisembele; Saidi Kapiga; Richard Mutemwa; Andrew Vallely; Thesla Palanee; Yuki Sookrajh; Charles J Lacey; Janet Darbyshire; Heiner Grosskurth; Albert Profy; Andrew Nunn; Richard Hayes; Jonathan Weber Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Aderonke Odutola; Kathy Baisley; Richard J Hayes; Mary Rusizoka; Clare Tanton; Helen A Weiss; John Changalucha; David A Ross; Deborah Watson-Jones Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Catherine A Chappell; Ishana Harkoo; Daniel W Szydlo; Katherine E Bunge; Devika Singh; Clemensia Nakabiito; Felix Mhlanga; Betty Kamira; Jeanna M Piper; Jennifer E Balkus; Sharon L Hillier Journal: Contraception Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Anna L Bowring; Frances H Ampt; Sheree Schwartz; Mark A Stoové; Stanley Luchters; Stefan Baral; Margaret Hellard Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.396