Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24838704›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2014

Injectable and oral contraceptives and risk of HIV acquisition in women: an analysis of data from the MDP301 trial.

Angela M Crook, Deborah Ford, Mitzy Gafos, Richard Hayes, Anatoli Kamali, Saidi Kapiga, Andrew Nunn, Maureen Chisembele, Gita Ramjee, Helen Rees and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Angela M CrookMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK angela.crook@ucl.ac.uk.
Deborah FordMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Mitzy GafosMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK Africa Centre for Health and Population Studies, Mtubatuba, South Africa.
Richard HayesLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Anatoli KamaliMRC/UVRI Uganda Research Unit, Entebbe, Uganda.
Saidi KapigaMwanza Intervention Trials Unit (MITU), Mwanza, Tanzania.
Andrew NunnMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Maureen ChisembeleUniversity Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia.
Gita RamjeeMRC HIV Prevention Research Unit, Durban, South Africa.
Helen ReesWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sheena McCormackMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
University College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBMwanza Intervention Trials Unit · TZPerinatal HIV Research Unit · ZAUganda Virus Research Institute · UGUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAUniversity Teaching Hospital · ZM

Funding

Medical Research Council G0100137Medical Research Council G0901756Medical Research Council MC_EX_G0800814Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/1Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Wellcome Trust 097410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionDo injectable and oral contraceptives increase the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in women? SUMMARY ANSWER: After adjusting for confounders, evidence of a significantly increased risk of HIV remained for women using injectable depo-medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) (hazard ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval (1.06-2.08)) but not for injectable norethisterone-enanthate (Net-En) or oral contraceptive pills (OC). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An association between the use of some types of hormonal contraception (HC) methods and an increased risk of HIV, possibly through changes in the genital tract environment and alterations in the immune response, has been previously observed, although not consistently. A recent systematic review of these studies has highlighted the need for more definitive evidence. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A secondary data analysis of the MDP301 phase 3 microbicide trial was conducted to estimate the effects of use of different methods of HC on the risk of HIV acquisition in women. HIV-negative women (n = 8663) with a median age of 28 years were included in the analysis; 382 HIV seroconverted by 52 weeks follow-up; 10% of women-years were lost to follow-up before 52 weeks. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsContraceptive use was reported at each 4-weekly visit. Cox proportional hazards (PH) models were used to estimate the effects of baseline and current use of injectable DMPA, injectable Net-En and OC compared with no HC, on the risk of HIV, adjusting for baseline and time-updated covariates. Causal effects for 52 weeks of HC use compared with no HC were estimated in a weighted Cox model, censoring women at deviation from baseline HC use (or non-use) or pregnancy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At baseline, 2499 (29%) women were on DMPA, 1180 (14%) on Net-En, and 1410 (16%) on OC; 3574 (40%) not on HC, started HC in follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for baseline HC use, compared with no HC, were 1.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.78) for DMPA; 1.18 (0.86-1.62) for Net-En and 0.97 (0.68-1.38) for OC. The estimated causal effects of DMPA and Net-En over 52 weeks were: HR = 1.49 (95% CI 1.06-2.08) and HR = 1.31 (95% CI 0.62-1.61), respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A main limitation of the study was that it was a secondary analysis of data from a study that was not designed to investigate this question. Despite our best efforts, we cannot exclude residual confounding to explain the effect of DMPA. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe results of this study should be reviewed by the World Health Organization to determine whether current recommendations on the use of DMPA in settings with high HIV prevalence require modification. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: MDP is a partnership of African and European academic/government institutions with commercial organizations, which is funded by the UK Government (DFID and MRC), with support from IPM and EDCTP. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: None.

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorAdultContraceptive Agents, FemaleFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansIncidenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsContraceptive Agents, FemalecontraceptionHIVsexual behaviourwomen

Identifiers

PMID24838704
PMCPMC4093991
OpenAlexW2141449378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.