Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroduction: Preventing unintended pregnancies is important among all women, including those living with HIV. Increasing numbers of women, including HIV‐positive women, choose progestin‐containing subdermal implants, which are one of the most effective forms of contraception. However, drug–drug interactions between contraceptive hormones and efavirenz‐based antiretroviral therapy (ART) may reduce implant effectiveness. We present four inter‐related perspectives on this issue.Discussion: First, as a case study, we discuss how limited data prompted country‐level guidance against the use of implants among women concomitantly using efavirenz in South Africa and its subsequent negative effects on the use of implants in general. Second, we discuss the existing clinical data on this topic, including the observational study from Kenya showing women using implants plus efavirenz‐based ART had three‐fold higher rates of pregnancy than women using implants plus nevirapine‐based ART. However, the higher rates of pregnancy in the implant plus efavirenz group were still lower than the pregnancy rates among women using common alternative contraceptive methods, such as injectables. Third, we discuss the four pharmacokinetic studies that show 50–70% reductions in plasma progestin concentrations in women concurrently using efavirenz‐based ART as compared to women not on any ART. These pharmacokinetic studies provide the biologic basis for the clinical findings. Fourth, we discuss how data on this topic have marked implications for both family planning and HIV programmes and policies globally.Conclusion: This controversy underlines the importance of integrating family planning services into routine HIV care, counselling women appropriately on increased risk of pregnancy with concomitant implant and efavirenz use, and expanding contraceptive method mix for all women. As global access to ART expands, greater research is needed to explore implant effectiveness when used concomitantly with newer ART regimens. Data on how HIV‐positive women and their partners choose contraceptives, as well as information from providers on how they present and counsel patients on contraceptive options are needed to help guide policy and service delivery. Lastly, greater collaboration between HIV and reproductive health experts at all levels are needed to develop successful strategies to ensure the best HIV and reproductive health outcomes for women living with HIV.

IntroductionAvoiding unintended pregnancies is important for the health of adolescents living with HIV and has the additional benefit of preventing potential vertical HIV transmission. Health facility providers represent an untapped resource in understanding the barriers and facilitators adolescents living with HIV face when accessing contraception. By understanding these barriers and facilitators to contraceptive use among adolescent females living with HIV, this study aimed to understand how best to promote contraception within this marginalized population.MethodsWe conducted structured in‐depth interviews with 40 providers at 21 Family AIDS Care & Education Services ‐ supported clinics in Homabay, Kisumu and Migori counties in western Kenya from July to August 2014. Our interview guide explored the providers' perspectives on contraceptive service provision to adolescent females living with HIV with the following specific domains: contraception screening and counselling, service provision, commodity security and clinic structure. Transcripts from the interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis.ResultsAccording to providers, interpersonal factors dominated the barriers adolescent females living with HIV face in accessing contraception. Providers felt that adolescent females fear disclosing their sexual activity to parents, peers and providers, because of repercussions of perceived promiscuity. Furthermore, providers mentioned that adolescents find seeking contraceptive services without a male partner challenging, because some providers and community members view adolescents unaccompanied by their partners as not being serious about their relationships or having multiple concurrent relationships. On the other hand, providers noted that institutional factors best facilitated contraception for these adolescents. Integration of contraception and HIV care allows easier access to contraceptives by removing the stigma of coming to a clinic solely for contraceptive services. Youth‐friendly services, including serving youth on days separate from adults, also create a more comfortable setting for adolescents seeking contraceptive services.ConclusionsProviders at these facilities identified attitudes of equating seeking contraceptive services with promiscuity by parents, peers and providers as barriers preventing adolescent females living with HIV from accessing contraceptive services. Health facilities should provide services for adolescent females in a youth‐friendly manner and integrate HIV and contraceptive services.

AbstractIntroductionThe rollout of dolutegravir (DTG) in low‐ and middle‐income countries was disrupted by a potential association reported with periconceptional DTG exposure among women living with HIV (WLHIV) and infant neural tube defects. This prompted countries to issue interim guidance limiting DTG use among women of reproductive potential to those on effective contraception. Data to understand the potential impact of such guidance on WLHIV are limited.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of WLHIV 15–49 years initiating DTG‐containing antiretroviral treatment (ART) in Kenya from 2017 to 2020. We determined baseline effective (oral, injectable or lactational amenorrhea) and very effective (implant, intrauterine device or female sterilization) contraception use among women who initiated DTG before (Group 1) or during (Group 2) the interim guideline period. We defined incident contraception use in each group as the number of contraceptive methods initiated ≤180 days post‐guideline (Group 1) or post‐DTG initiation (Group 2). We determined the proportions of all women who switched from DTG‐ to non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)‐ (efavirenz or nevirapine) containing ART ≤12 months post‐DTG initiation, compared their viral suppression (<1000 copies/ml) and conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with switching from DTG to NNRTI‐containing ART.ResultsAmong 5155 WLHIV in the analysis (median age 43 years), 89% initiated DTG after transitioning from an NNRTI. Baseline effective and very effective contraception use, respectively, by the group were: Group 1 (12% and 13%) and Group 2 (41% and 35%). Incident contraception use in each group was <5%. Overall, 498 (10%) women switched from DTG to an NNRTI. Viral suppression among those remaining on DTG versus switched to NNRTI was 95% and 96%, respectively (p = 0.63). In multivariable analysis, incident effective and very effective contraception use was not associated with switching.ConclusionsBaseline, but not incident, effective contraception use was higher during the interim guideline period compared to before it, suggesting women already using effective contraception were preferentially selected to initiate DTG after the guideline was released. These findings reveal challenges in the implementation of policy which ties antiretroviral access to contraceptive use. Future guidance should capture nuances of contraception decision‐making and support women's agency to make informed decisions.

IntroductionSince 2015, the World Health Organization recommends pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for all persons at substantial risk for HIV, including HIV‐uninfected partners in serodiscordant relationships in resource‐limited settings. As PrEP moves from clinical trials to real‐world use, understanding facilitators of and barriers to PrEP initiation and adherence is critical to successful PrEP implementation and rollout.MethodsWe conducted 44 in‐depth individual or couple interviews with 63 participants (30 without HIV and 33 with HIV) enrolled in the Partners Demonstration Project in Kisumu, Kenya, between August and September 2014. The semi‐structured interviews discussed the following: 1) perceived advantages and disadvantages of antiretroviral therapy (ART)/PrEP; 2) reasons for accepting or declining ART/PrEP and 3) influence of prevention of transmission to partner or infant on ART/PrEP use. Transcripts from the interviews were iteratively analyzed using inductive content analysis.ResultsOur study identified three key factors that may facilitate initiation of PrEP in this population. First, participants using PrEP felt reduced stress and increased trust in their HIV serodiscordant relationships. Second, greater community‐wide knowledge of PrEP was thought to likely increase PrEP acceptance. Third, greater education and counselling by providers on PrEP use was also considered to likely increase the adoption of PrEP. We also identified three key barriers to initiation of and adherence to PrEP. First, most participants who declined PrEP expressed doubts about the relative additional effectiveness of PrEP in combination with other prevention tools. Second, perceived stigma related to PrEP use was an important barrier to PrEP initiation. Third, many struggled with overcoming perceived side effects or logistical challenges of taking daily PrEP, particularly when they themselves were not ill.ConclusionsLeveraging the facilitators and overcoming barriers to PrEP uptake may enhance the successful rollout of PrEP among HIV serodiscordant couples in Kenya and other areas in sub‐Saharan Africa, thereby reducing sexual transmission of HIV. Further research focused on how best to provide counselling on combination HIV prevention tools in the context of PrEP use is a crucial next step to delivering PrEP.

AbstractIntroductionContraceptive implants containing etonogestrel and levonorgestrel have emerged as popular contraceptive options among women in areas of high HIV burden in sub‐Saharan Africa. However, recent pharmacokinetic data have shown drug–drug interactions between implants and efavirenz‐containing antiretroviral therapy (ART), reducing the effectiveness of the implants. Here, we evaluated pregnancy incidence in 6‐month intervals following implant initiation among women using efavirenz and contraceptive implants to assess whether the risk of breakthrough pregnancy is higher after specific periods of implant use.MethodsWe used data from a retrospective longitudinal analysis of women living with HIV ages 18–45 years in western Kenya who attended HIV‐care facilities between 2011 and 2015. We used Cox proportional hazard models to compute hazard ratios (HRs) for breakthrough pregnancy by implant type and ART regimen. Depending on the model, we adjusted for socio‐demographic and clinical factors, programme, site and interaction between calendar time and ART regimen. We utilized inverse probability weights (IPWs) to account for three sampling phases (electronic medical record [EMR], chart review and phone interview) and calculated overall parameter estimates.ResultsWomen contributed 14,768 woman‐years from the largest sampling phase (EMR). The median age was 31 years. Women used etonogestrel implants for 26–69% of the time and levonorgestrel implants for 7–31% of the time, depending on the sampling phase. Women used efavirenz, nevirapine or no ART for 27–33%, 40–46% and 15–26% of follow‐ups, respectively. When combining sampling phases, there was little evidence to suggest that the relative hazard of pregnancy among efavirenz‐containing ART users relative to nevirapine‐containing ART changed with length of time on implants: IPW‐adjusted HR of 3.1 (CI: [1.5; 6.4]) at 12 months, 3.4 (CI: [1.8; 6.3]) at 24 months, 3.8 (CI: [1.9; 7.7]) at 36 months and 4.2 (CI: [1.6; 11.1]) at 48 months (interaction p‐value = 0.88). Similarly, no significant change in HRs over time was found when comparing women not using ART to nevirapine‐containing ART users (interaction p‐value = 0.49).ConclusionsWe did not find evidence to suggest implants being more fallible from drug–drug interactions with efavirenz at later time intervals of implant use. Thus, we would not recommend shortening the duration of implant use or replacing implants sooner when concomitantly used with efavirenz.

AbstractIntroductionLack of viral suppression (VS) among pregnant and breastfeeding women living with HIV poses challenges for maternal and infant health, and viral load (VL) monitoring via centralized laboratory systems faces many barriers. We aimed to determine the impact of point‐of‐care (POC) VL and targeted drug resistance mutation (DRM) testing in improving VS among pregnant and postpartum women on antiretroviral therapy.MethodsWe conducted a pre/post‐intervention prospective cohort study among 820 pregnant women accessing HIV care at five public‐sector facilities in western Kenya from 2019 to 2022. The pre‐intervention or "control" group consisted of standard‐of‐care (SOC) centralized VL testing every 6 months and the post‐intervention or "intervention" group consisted of a combined strategy of POC VL every 3 months, targeted DRM testing, and clinical management support. The primary outcome was VS (VL ≤1000 copies/ml) at 6 months postpartum; secondary outcomes included uptake and turnaround times for VL testing and sustained VS.ResultsAt 6 months postpartum, 321/328 (98%) of participants in the intervention group and 339/347 (98%) in the control group achieved VS (aRR 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98, 1.02). When assessing VS using a threshold of <40 copies/ml, VS proportions were lower overall (90−91%) but remained similar between groups. Among women with viraemia (VL>1000 copies/ml) who underwent successful DRM testing in the intervention group, all (46/46, 100%) had some DRMs and 20 (43%) had major DRMs (of which 80% were nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor mutations). POC VL testing uptake was high (>89%) throughout pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum periods, with a median turnaround time of 1 day (IQR 1, 4) for POC VL in the intervention group and 7 days (IQR 5, 9) for SOC VL in the control group. Sustained VS throughout follow‐up was similar between groups with either POC or SOC VL testing (90−91% for <1000 copies/ml, 62–70% for <40 copies/ml).ConclusionsOur combined strategy markedly decreased turnaround time but did not increase VS rates, which were already very high, or sustained VS among pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV. Further research on how best to utilize POC VL and DRM testing is needed to optimize sustained VS among this population.