Renee Heffron1,2, Nelly Mugo1,3, Ting Hong1, Connie Celum1,2,4, Mark A Marzinke5,6, Kenneth Ngure1,7, Stephen Asiimwe8, Elly Katabira9, Elizabeth A Bukusi1,10,11, Josephine Odoyo11, Edna Tindimwebwa8, Nulu Bulya9, Jared M Baeten1,2,4. 1. Department of Global Health. 2. Department of Epidemiology. 3. Centres for Clinical Research. 4. Department of Medicine. 5. Department of Pathology. 6. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. 7. College of Health Sciences, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya. 8. Kabwohe Clinical Research Center. 9. Infectious Disease Institute, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 10. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 11. Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global guidelines recommend preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use by women at risk for HIV, including during pregnancy, a period with heightened HIV risk. However, data to support safety of PrEP use during pregnancy are limited, particularly from women using PrEP throughout pregnancy. METHODS: In an open-label delivery study of PrEP integrated with ART for high-risk HIV serodiscordant couples in Kenya and Uganda (the Partners Demonstration Project), women who became pregnant while using PrEP were offered the option to continue PrEP throughout pregnancy. We compared pregnancy outcomes and 1-year infant growth from pregnancies with exposure to PrEP throughout pregnancy to those without any exposure, with data from the placebo arm of a prior efficacy trial of PrEP conducted in the same setting. RESULTS: Outcomes from 30 women who elected to continue PrEP throughout pregnancy were compared with those from 96 pregnancies among PrEP-unexposed women. There were small nonsignificant decreases in the frequency of pregnancy loss [16.7% PrEP-exposed versus 23.5% PrEP-unexposed, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.59, P = 0.4] and preterm delivery [0 versus 7.7%, (aOR) = 0.54, exact P = 0.6]. No congenital anomalies occurred among PrEP-exposed infants. PrEP-exposed infants had slightly lower adjusted mean z-scores for length (-1.73 versus -0.79, P = 0.05) and head circumference (0.24 versus 1.07, P = 0.04) 1 month after birth but were comparable to PrEP-unexposed infants in these measurements 1 year after birth. CONCLUSION: This first evaluation among women using PrEP throughout pregnancy indicates no greater frequency of adverse pregnancy outcomes or restricted infant growth; these findings support recommendations permitting PrEP use during pregnancy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Global guidelines recommend preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use by women at risk for HIV, including during pregnancy, a period with heightened HIV risk. However, data to support safety of PrEP use during pregnancy are limited, particularly from women using PrEP throughout pregnancy. METHODS: In an open-label delivery study of PrEP integrated with ART for high-risk HIV serodiscordant couples in Kenya and Uganda (the Partners Demonstration Project), women who became pregnant while using PrEP were offered the option to continue PrEP throughout pregnancy. We compared pregnancy outcomes and 1-year infant growth from pregnancies with exposure to PrEP throughout pregnancy to those without any exposure, with data from the placebo arm of a prior efficacy trial of PrEP conducted in the same setting. RESULTS: Outcomes from 30 women who elected to continue PrEP throughout pregnancy were compared with those from 96 pregnancies among PrEP-unexposed women. There were small nonsignificant decreases in the frequency of pregnancy loss [16.7% PrEP-exposed versus 23.5% PrEP-unexposed, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.59, P = 0.4] and preterm delivery [0 versus 7.7%, (aOR) = 0.54, exact P = 0.6]. No congenital anomalies occurred among PrEP-exposed infants. PrEP-exposed infants had slightly lower adjusted mean z-scores for length (-1.73 versus -0.79, P = 0.05) and head circumference (0.24 versus 1.07, P = 0.04) 1 month after birth but were comparable to PrEP-unexposed infants in these measurements 1 year after birth. CONCLUSION: This first evaluation among women using PrEP throughout pregnancy indicates no greater frequency of adverse pregnancy outcomes or restricted infant growth; these findings support recommendations permitting PrEP use during pregnancy.
Authors: Ronald H Gray; Xianbin Li; Godfrey Kigozi; David Serwadda; Heena Brahmbhatt; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Fred Nalugoda; Mohamed Kiddugavu; Nelson Sewankambo; Thomas C Quinn; Steven J Reynolds; Maria J Wawer Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Nelly R Mugo; Renee Heffron; Deborah Donnell; Anna Wald; Edwin O Were; Helen Rees; Connie Celum; James N Kiarie; Craig R Cohen; Kayitesi Kayintekore; Jared M Baeten Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-09-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Craig W Hendrix; Adriana Andrade; Namandjé N Bumpus; Angela D Kashuba; Mark A Marzinke; Ayana Moore; Peter L Anderson; Lane R Bushman; Edward J Fuchs; Ilene Wiggins; Christine Radebaugh; Heather A Prince; Rahul P Bakshi; Ruili Wang; Paul Richardson; Eugenie Shieh; Laura McKinstry; Xin Li; Deborah Donnell; Vanessa Elharrar; Kenneth H Mayer; Kristine B Patterson Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Ashley A Leech; Dea Biancarelli; Erika Aaron; Emily S Miller; Jenell S Coleman; Peter L Anderson; Hervette Nkwihoreze; Brianne Condron; Meg Sullivan Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Dvora L Joseph Davey; Linda-Gail Bekker; Yolanda Gomba; Thomas Coates; Landon Myer; Leigh F Johnson Journal: AIDS Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Amanda P Miller; Steven Shoptaw; Rufaro Mvududu; Nyiko Mashele; Thomas J Coates; Linda-Gail Bekker; Zaynab Essack; Candice Groenewald; Zaino Petersen; Pamina M Gorbach; Landon Myer; Dvora L Joseph Davey Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Dvora L Joseph Davey; Linda-Gail Bekker; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Benjamin H Chi; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Ameena Goga; Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Nyaradzo M Mgodi; Nelly Mugo; Landon Myer; Lisa M Noguchi; Lynda Stranix-Chibanda; Catherine Slack; Jillian Pintye Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 16.070
Authors: Sigcinile Dlamini; Michael Kuipa; Kim Enfield; Salndave Skosana; John G Woodland; Johnson Mosoko Moliki; Alexis J Bick; Zephne van der Spuy; Michelle F Maritz; Chanel Avenant; Janet P Hapgood Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Kenneth Ngure; Susan B Trinidad; Kristin Beima-Sofie; John Kinuthia; Daniel Matemo; Grace Kimemia; Anne Njoroge; Lillian Achiro; Jillian Pintye; Nelly R Mugo; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Jared M Baeten; Renee Heffron; Grace John-Stewart; Maureen C Kelley Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 1.742