Response to Morrison et al., ‘Hormonal contraception and the risk of HIV acquisition’

AIDS ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 887
Author(s):  
Elizabeth G Raymond ◽  
Thomas Moench ◽  
Paul Feldblum ◽  
David Hubacher
2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn M Curtis ◽  
Philip C Hannaford ◽  
Maria Isabel Rodriguez ◽  
Tsungai Chipato ◽  
Petrus S Steyn ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo update a 2016 systematic review on hormonal contraception use and HIV acquisition.MethodsWe searched Pubmed and Embase between 15 January 2016 and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using a hormonal contraceptive method and either non-users or users of another specific hormonal contraceptive method. We extracted information from newly identified studies, assessed study quality, and updated forest plots and meta-analyses.ResultsIn addition to 31 previously included studies, five more were identified; three provided higher quality evidence. A randomised clinical trial (RCT) found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among users of intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), levonorgestrel implant (LNG implant) or the copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD). An observational study found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among women using DMPA, norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN), implants (type not specified) or Cu-IUD. Updated results from a previously included observational study continued to find a statistically significant increased HIV risk with oral contraceptives and DMPA compared with no contraceptive use, and found no association between LNG implant and HIV risk.ConclusionsHigh-quality RCT data comparing use of DMPA, LNG implant and Cu-IUD does not support previous concerns from observational studies that DMPA-IM use increases the risk of HIV acquisition. Use of other hormonal contraceptive methods (oral contraceptives, NET-EN and implants) is not associated with an increased risk of HIV acquisition.


AIDS ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 497-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Morrison ◽  
Stephanie Skoler-Karpoff ◽  
Cynthia Kwok ◽  
Pai-Lien Chen ◽  
Janneke van de Wijgert ◽  
...  

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e1001778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Morrison ◽  
Pai-Lien Chen ◽  
Cynthia Kwok ◽  
Jared M. Baeten ◽  
Joelle Brown ◽  
...  

AIDS ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S Morrison ◽  
Barbra A Richardson ◽  
Francis Mmiro ◽  
Tsungai Chipato ◽  
David D Celentano ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Kristin M Wall ◽  
Etienne Karita ◽  
Julien Nyombayire ◽  
Rosine Ingabire ◽  
Jeannine Mukamuyango ◽  
...  

Abstract Background We explored the role of genital abnormalities and hormonal contraception in HIV transmission among heterosexual serodifferent couples in Rwanda. Methods From 2002-2011, non-antiretroviral treatment using HIV serodifferent couples were followed and sociodemographic and clinical data were collected, family planning provided, and HIV-negative partners retested. Couples were assessed for genital ulcers; non-ulcerative genital sexually transmitted infection (STI) including gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis; and non-STI vaginal infections including bacterial vaginosis and candida. Multivariable models evaluated associations between covariates and HIV transmission genetically linked to the index partner. Results Among 877 couples where the man was HIV-positive, 37 linked transmissions occurred. Factors associated with women’s HIV acquisition included female partner genital ulceration (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=14.1) and male partner non-ulcerative STI (aHR=8.6). Among 955 couples where the woman was HIV-positive, 46 linked transmissions occurred. Factors associated with men’s HIV acquisition included female partner non-ulcerative STI (aHR=4.4), non-STI vaginal dysbiosis (aHR=7.1), and male partner genital ulceration (aHR=2.6). Hormonal contraception use was not associated with HIV transmission or acquisition. Conclusions Our findings underscore the need for integrating HIV services with care for genital abnormalities. Barriers (e.g., cost for training, demand creation, advocacy, client education; provider time; clinic space) to joint HIV/STI testing need to be considered and addressed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document