| Literature DB >> 31107913 |
Andrea Ries Thurman1, Jill L Schwartz2, Jacques Ravel3, Pawel Gajer3, Mark A Marzinke4, Nazita Yousefieh1, Sharon M Anderson1, Gustavo F Doncel2.
Abstract
Recent data support that the vaginal microbiota may alter mucosal pharmacokinetics (PK) of topically delivered microbicides. Our team developed an intravaginal ring (IVR) that delivers tenofovir (TFV) (8-10 mg/day) alone or with levonorgestrel (LNG) (20 ug/day). We evaluated the effect of IVRs on the vaginal microbiota, and describe how the vaginal microbiota impacts mucosal PK of TFV. CONRAD A13-128 was a randomized, placebo controlled phase I study. We randomized 51 women to TFV, TFV/LNG or placebo IVR. We assessed the vaginal microbiota by sequencing the V3-V4 regions of 16S rRNA genes prior to IVR insertion and after approximately 15 days of use. We measured the concentration of TFV in the cervicovaginal (CV) aspirate, and TFV and TFV-diphosphate (TFV-DP) in vaginal tissue at the end of IVR use. The change in relative or absolute abundance of vaginal bacterial phylotypes was similar among active and placebo IVR users (all q values >0.13). TFV concentrations in CV aspirate and vaginal tissue, and TFV-DP concentrations in vaginal tissue were not significantly different among users with community state type (CST) 4 versus those with Lactobacillus dominated microbiota (all p values >0.07). The proportions of participants with CV aspirate concentrations of TFV >200,000 ng/mL and those with tissue TFV-DP concentrations >1,000 fmol/mg were similar among women with anaerobe versus Lactobacillus dominated microbiota (p = 0.43, 0.95 respectively). There were no significant correlations between the CV aspirate concentration of TFV and the relative abundances of Gardnerella vaginalis or Prevotella species. Tissue concentrations of TFV-DP did not correlate with any the relative abundances of any species, including Gardnerella vaginalis. In conclusion, active IVRs did not differ from the placebo IVR on the effect on the vaginal microbiota. Local TFV and TFV-DP concentrations were high and similar among IVR users with Lactobacillus dominated microbiota versus CST IV vaginal microbiota. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235662.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31107913 PMCID: PMC6527208 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217229
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1CONSORT Figure CONRAD A13-128 study population.
Fig 2Differences of log absolute bacterial bioburden at visit 7 and visit 4 for TFV, TFV/LNG and placebo IVR users.
Fig 3Bray-Curtis dissimilarities calculated using phylotype absolute abundances at visit 7 and visit 4 for TFV/LNG IVR, TFV IVR and placebo user groups.
Frequency table of the number of participants, per IVR, with each community state type (CST) at insertion of IVR at visit 4 (row) versus removal of IVR at visit 7 (column).
| Paired Placebo IVR data (n = 7) | CST I | CST II | CST III | CST IV | CST V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CST I | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CST II | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CST III | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| CST IV | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CST V | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Paired TFV IVR participant data (n = 15) | CST I | CST II | CST III | CST IV | CST V |
| CST I | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| CST II | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CST III | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| CST IV | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| CST V | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Paired TFV/LNG IVR participant data (n = 17) | CST I | CST II | CST III | CST IV | CST V |
| CST I | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CST II | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CST III | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| CST IV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| CST V | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Dark highlighted cells show no change in microbiota between IVR insertion and removal.
Community state type (CST) frequencies at visit 7 for TFV, TFV/LNG and Placebo IVR users combining all Lactobacillus dominated CSTs (CST I, II, III and V), and CST IV.
| CST | Placebo IVR | TFV IVR | TFV/LNG IVR (%) | TOTAL ACTIVE IVRs (TFV + TFV/LNG IVRs)(%) | TOTAL ALL IVRs (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 5 (50) | 6 (30) | 11 (55) | 17 (42) | 22 (44) | |
| II | 1 (10) | 0 (0) | 1 (5) | 1 (3) | 2 (4) | |
| III | 1 (10) | 5 (25) | 3 (15) | 8 (20) | 9 (18) | |
| V | 0 (0) | 2 (10) | 1 (5) | 3 (8) | 3 (6) | |
| CST IV microbiota | IV | 3 (30) | 7 (35) | 4 (20) | 11 (27) | 14 (28) |
| Column Totals | 10 | 20 | 20 | 40 | 50 |
Mucosal concentrations of TFV and TFV-DP based on community state type (CST) at end of treatment (visit 7) for TFV and TFV/LNG IVR users combined.
| Variable | CST IV Microbiota | P value | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean | SD | Median | N | Mean | SD | Median | ||
| Tenofovir | |||||||||
| CV Aspirate (ng/mL) *106 | 11 | 4.7 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 27 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 0.66 |
| Tissue (ng/mg) | 21 | 169.4 | 180.2 | 120.7 | 50 | 78.0 | 88.2 | 41.7 | 0.07 |
| Tenofovir-Diphosphate | |||||||||
| Tissue (fmol/mg) | 21 | 8,038 | 9,970 | 4,098 | 48 | 3,949 | 4,773 | 2,530 | 0.27 |
| Molecular Ratio of TFV-DP to TFV (%) | 21 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 48 | 2.6 | 4.1 | 1.3 | 0.65 |
Fig 4A. TFV concentrations in the CV aspirate among active IVR users with Lactobacillus dominated (LB) CSTs versus CST IV. LB cohort (blue dots) includes 12 TFV and 15 TFV/LNG IVR users. CST IV cohort (red dots) includes 7 TFV and 4 TFV/LNG IVR users. B. TFV concentrations in vaginal tissue among active IVR users with Lactobacillus dominated CSTs (LB) versus CST IV. LB cohorts (blue dots) includes 13 TFV and 16 TFV/LNG IVR users contributing 50 tissue samples. CST IV cohort (red dots) includes 7 TFV and 4 TFV/LNG IVR users contributing 21 tissue samples. C. TFV-DP concentrations in vaginal tissue among active IVR users with Lactobacillus dominated CSTs (LB) versus CST IV. LB cohort (blue dots) includes 13 TFV IVR and 16 TFV/LNG IVR users contributing 48 tissue samples. CST IV cohort (red dots) includes 7 TFV IVR and 4 TFV/LNG IVR users, contributing 21 tissue samples. D. Molecular ratio of TFV-DP to TFV in vaginal tissue among active IVR users with Lactobacillus dominated CSTs (LB) versus CST IV. LB cohort (blue dots) included 13 TFV IVR and 16 TFV/LNG IVR users and contributed 48 vaginal tissue samples. CST IV cohort (red dots) included 7 TFV IVR and 4 TFV/LNG IVR users contributing 21 vaginal tissue samples.
Fig 5Plot of the log10 relative abundances of G. vaginalis and Prevotella spp. and log10 of TFV (ng/ml) in CV aspirates at visit 7.
Effect size and corresponding p and q values for associations between TFV-DP concentration in vaginal tissue and log phylotype relative abundances.
| Bacterial Species | gEff | P value | Q value | Median (log10(RA)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus jensenii | -0.0205 | 0.000193 | 0.0112 | -3.04 |
| Parvimonas micra | -0.0151 | 0.00324 | 0.0696 | -4.29 |
| Lactobacillus vaginalis | 0.0159 | 0.0036 | 0.0696 | -2.43 |
| Mobiluncus curtisii | -0.0129 | 0.0123 | 0.178 | -4.54 |
| Prevotella genogroup 1 | -0.0139 | 0.016 | 0.186 | -4.32 |
| Prevotella genogroup 2 | -0.0104 | 0.022 | 0.213 | -3.88 |
| Eggerthella | 0.0169 | 0.0345 | 0.286 | -4.46 |
| Dialister sp. type 2 | -0.0099 | 0.0445 | 0.323 | -4.15 |
| Sneathia sanguinegens | -0.0107 | 0.061 | 0.393 | -3.77 |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | -0.0090 | 0.0781 | 0.453 | -3.92 |
Phylotypes with smallest p values are shown.