Kathleen Ridgeway1, Elizabeth T Montgomery2, Kevin Smith3, Kristine Torjesen1, Ariane van der Straten2, Sharon L Achilles4, Jennifer B Griffin5. 1. FHI 360, Global Health Population Nutrition, Durham, NC, United States. 2. RTI International, Women's Global Health Imperative, Berkeley, CA, United States; Center for AIDS Pervention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States. 3. Centre for Global Health, RTI International, Durham, NC, United States. 4. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Centre for Global Health, RTI International, Durham, NC, United States. Electronic address: griffsby@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The vaginal ring (ring) is a female-initiated, long-acting drug delivery system for different indications, including HIV prevention. Our aim was to provide evidence for acceptability of the vaginal ring across indications to support dapivirine and multipurpose prevention technology ring introduction and roll out. STUDY DESIGN: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature for publications reporting favorable ring acceptability and secondary outcomes involving actual ring use (comfort, ease of ring use, ring comfort during sex, expulsions, and vaginal symptoms) or hypothetical acceptability for any indication published January 1, 1970-June 15, 2021. We estimated random-effects pooled prevalence, assessing between-study variation using meta-regression. RESULTS: Of 2,234 records, we included 123 studies with 40,434 actual and hypothetical ring users. The primary outcome assessment included 50 studies with 60 ring subgroups totaling 19,271 ring users. The favorable acceptability pooled prevalence was 85.6% (95%CI 81.3, 89.0), while hypothetical acceptability among non-ring users was 27.6% (95%CI 17.5, 40.5). In meta-regression, acceptability was higher in menopause (95.4%; 95%CI 88.4, 98.2) compared to contraceptive rings (83.7%; 95%CI 75.6, 89.5). Acceptability was lower in pharmacokinetic studies (50%; 95%CI 22.1, 77.9) compared to RCTs (89.5%; 95%CI 85.8.92.4) and in studies assessing acceptability at ≥12 months (78.5%; 95%CI 66.5, 87.1) versus studies assessing acceptability at <3 months (91.9%; 95%CI 83.7, 96.1). European (90.6%; 95%CI 83.9, 94.7), Asian (97.1%; 95%CI 92.0, 99.0), and multi-region studies (93.5%; 95%CI 84.6, 97.4) reported more favorable acceptability compared to African studies (59.4%; 95%CI 38.3, 77.5). Secondary outcomes were similarly favorable, including ring comfort (92.9%; 95%CI 89.2, 95.4), ease of use (90.9%; 95%CI 86.5, 94.0), and comfort during sex (82.7%; 95%CI 76.4, 87.6). Limitations include inconsistent outcome definitions and unmeasured factors affecting acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Women who used vaginal rings reported they were acceptable across indications geographic regions and indications. Policy makers should consider the ring as an important option for pregnancy and HIV prevention drug development. IMPLICATIONS: This review found favorable acceptability among vaginal ring users across indications and geographic areas, in contrast to low hypothetical acceptability among non-users. Vaginal rings are an important drug delivery system for pregnancy and HIV preventions, and scale-up should plan to address initial hesitancy among new users.
OBJECTIVE: The vaginal ring (ring) is a female-initiated, long-acting drug delivery system for different indications, including HIV prevention. Our aim was to provide evidence for acceptability of the vaginal ring across indications to support dapivirine and multipurpose prevention technology ring introduction and roll out. STUDY DESIGN: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature for publications reporting favorable ring acceptability and secondary outcomes involving actual ring use (comfort, ease of ring use, ring comfort during sex, expulsions, and vaginal symptoms) or hypothetical acceptability for any indication published January 1, 1970-June 15, 2021. We estimated random-effects pooled prevalence, assessing between-study variation using meta-regression. RESULTS: Of 2,234 records, we included 123 studies with 40,434 actual and hypothetical ring users. The primary outcome assessment included 50 studies with 60 ring subgroups totaling 19,271 ring users. The favorable acceptability pooled prevalence was 85.6% (95%CI 81.3, 89.0), while hypothetical acceptability among non-ring users was 27.6% (95%CI 17.5, 40.5). In meta-regression, acceptability was higher in menopause (95.4%; 95%CI 88.4, 98.2) compared to contraceptive rings (83.7%; 95%CI 75.6, 89.5). Acceptability was lower in pharmacokinetic studies (50%; 95%CI 22.1, 77.9) compared to RCTs (89.5%; 95%CI 85.8.92.4) and in studies assessing acceptability at ≥12 months (78.5%; 95%CI 66.5, 87.1) versus studies assessing acceptability at <3 months (91.9%; 95%CI 83.7, 96.1). European (90.6%; 95%CI 83.9, 94.7), Asian (97.1%; 95%CI 92.0, 99.0), and multi-region studies (93.5%; 95%CI 84.6, 97.4) reported more favorable acceptability compared to African studies (59.4%; 95%CI 38.3, 77.5). Secondary outcomes were similarly favorable, including ring comfort (92.9%; 95%CI 89.2, 95.4), ease of use (90.9%; 95%CI 86.5, 94.0), and comfort during sex (82.7%; 95%CI 76.4, 87.6). Limitations include inconsistent outcome definitions and unmeasured factors affecting acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Women who used vaginal rings reported they were acceptable across indications geographic regions and indications. Policy makers should consider the ring as an important option for pregnancy and HIV prevention drug development. IMPLICATIONS: This review found favorable acceptability among vaginal ring users across indications and geographic areas, in contrast to low hypothetical acceptability among non-users. Vaginal rings are an important drug delivery system for pregnancy and HIV preventions, and scale-up should plan to address initial hesitancy among new users.
Authors: S Koetsawang; G Ji; U Krishna; A Cuadros; G I Dhall; R Wyss; J Rodriquez la Puenta; A T Andrade; T Khan; E S Kononova Journal: Contraception Date: 1990-02 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Tina R Raine; Anne Foster-Rosales; Ushma D Upadhyay; Cherrie B Boyer; Beth A Brown; Abby Sokoloff; Cynthia C Harper Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Annalene Nel; Linda-Gail Bekker; Elizabeth Bukusi; Elizabeth Hellstrӧm; Philip Kotze; Cheryl Louw; Francis Martinson; Gileard Masenga; Elizabeth Montgomery; Nelisiwe Ndaba; Ariane van der Straten; Neliëtte van Niekerk; Cynthia Woodsong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Evelyne Kestelyn; Stephen Agaba; Jennifer Ilo Van Nuil; Mireille Uwineza; Marie Michelle Umulisa; Lambert Mwambarangwe; Jean Claude Ndagijimana; Irith De Baetselier; Jozefien Buyze; Thérèse Delvaux; Tania Crucitti; Vicky Jespers; Janneke H H M van de Wijgert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mary Kate Shapley-Quinn; Nicole Laborde; Ellen Luecke; Craig Hoesley; Robert A Salata; Sherri Johnson; Annalene Nel; Lydia Soto-Torres; Beatrice A Chen; Ariane van der Straten Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 5.944
Authors: Mary Kate Shapley-Quinn; Nicole Laborde; Ellen Luecke; Craig Hoesley; Robert A Salata; Sherri Johnson; Annalene Nel; Lydia Soto-Torres; Beatrice A Chen; Ariane van der Straten Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 5.944