Abstract
Family planning options, including hormonal contraceptives, are essential for improving reproductive health among the more than 17 million women living with HIV worldwide. For these women, prevention of unintended pregnancy decreases maternal and child mortality, as well as reduces the risk of perinatal HIV transmission. Similarly, treatment of HIV with antiretroviral therapy (ART) is essential for reducing morbidity and mortality among HIV-positive individuals, as well as preventing HIV transmission between sexual partners or from mother to child. Importantly, despite the benefits of hormonal contraceptives, barriers to effective family planning methods exist for HIV-positive women. Specifically, drug–drug interactions can occur between some antiretroviral medications and some hormonal contraceptives, which may influence both contraceptive efficacy and tolerability. In addition, safety concerns have been raised about the impact of hormonal contraceptives on HIV disease progression, tolerability, and the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission. This review article summarizes the potential for drug–drug interactions, tolerability, and contraceptive effectiveness when hormonal contraceptives are combined with ART. In addition, the evidence surrounding the influence of hormonal contraceptives on HIV transmission and HIV disease progression in women living with HIV are summarized.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) is demonstrated to decrease contraceptive effectiveness when combined with subdermal contraceptive implants and some oral contraceptive pills. This negative impact on contraceptive effectiveness has not been observed with other antiretroviral medications. |
Hormonal contraceptive tolerability is similar between women living with or without HIV; however, providers should monitor patients receiving ART known to increase hormone exposure for possible excess contraceptive-related toxicity. |
Data from systematic reviews indicate that hormonal contraceptive use is not associated with HIV disease progression and some data suggest that depot-medroxyprogesterone use may increase the risk of HIV transmission in the absence of ART. Widespread access to effective ART is the most important factor for reducing the risk of HIV disease progression and HIV transmission, minimizing the potential influence of hormonal contraceptives. |
1 Introduction
Effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) has transformed HIV infection into a medically manageable, chronic condition that requires life-long medication therapy. For those living with HIV, modern ART significantly reduces morbidity and mortality with fewer adverse effects than older combinations [1, 2]. As a result, ART is now recommended for all HIV-positive patients worldwide and remains a particularly important intervention for women of reproductive age to prevent perinatal HIV transmission [2–4]. Family planning options, including hormonal contraceptives, are also vital among HIV-positive women of reproductive age, and are an essential component of a comprehensive HIV care program. Important for the more than 17 million women living with HIV worldwide [5], contraceptives decrease the risk of perinatal HIV transmission, maternal mortality, and maternal economic disparity [6–10]. Despite the importance of family planning methods and ART for HIV-positive women, the use of some hormonal contraceptives presents challenges. Specifically, changes in hormone pharmacokinetic exposure during coadministration with ART may influence contraceptive effectiveness and safety. In addition, safety concerns exist about the effect of hormonal contraceptives on HIV disease progression and HIV transmissibility [11]. This review summarizes the available literature on the effectiveness and safety of hormonal contraceptives in HIV-positive women, with an emphasis on the impact of drug–drug interactions on these clinical outcomes.
2 Methods
The corresponding author searched EMBASE and PubMed to identify peer-reviewed publications related to HIV infection and hormonal contraception through to 6 January 2016. Articles were identified from EMBASE using the following search criteria: ‘human immunodeficiency virus infection’/exp AND ‘antivirus agent’/exp/mj AND ‘contraceptive agent’/exp/mj AND [humans]/lim. PubMed was searched using the following terms: ((“Contraceptive Agents”[MeSH] OR “Contraceptive Agents” [Pharmacological Action]) AND (“Anti-HIV Agents”[MeSH] OR “HIV Infections”[MeSH])). Publications were excluded if the content was not relevant to this review or not available in English. Further review of search results yielded additional relevant publications and abstracts for inclusion.
3 Overview of Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) and Hormonal Contraceptives
3.1 ART Options
Recommended regimens for ART-naïve individuals include two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in combination with a third active drug from another antiretroviral drug class, the choice of which varies by global region but most commonly includes an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), or a protease inhibitor (PI) [2, 12]. Less commonly, antiretrovirals in the entry inhibitor class (maraviroc and enfuvirtide) are used. In the USA, the recommended first-line regimens include an INSTI or PI as the third drug [2]. Directed mostly towards low- and middle-income countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends efavirenz, an NNRTI, as the third drug for all adults receiving first-line ART; nevirapine, another NNRTI, or dolutegravir, an INSTI, are alternative options [12]. Also per the WHO guidelines, PI-based regimens are reserved for second-line therapy. Given these guidelines, efavirenz-based ART is the most widely used regimen in HIV-positive women, as the majority of women living with HIV reside in low- and middle-income countries.
3.1.1 Pharmacokinetic Considerations of Antiretroviral Agents
With the exception of most NRTIs and enfuvirtide, antiretrovirals are common victims and perpetrators of drug–drug interactions. These interactions are typically mediated by drug-metabolizing enzymes, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes and glucuronidation via uridine 5′-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT), and drug transporters, including P-glycoprotein and organic anion transporter (OAT). With regard to drug–drug interactions between antiretrovirals and hormonal contraceptives specifically, CYP enzymes are most often implicated and UGT occasionally plays a role. The impact of drug transporters on hormone disposition has not been clearly elucidated and will not be addressed in detail by this review. The role of CYP enzymes in antiretroviral drug metabolism (as substrates for CYP enzymes) and the effect of antiretrovirals on CYP enzyme expression (as inducers and/or inhibitors of CYP enzymes) are summarized in Table 1.
3.2 Hormonal Contraceptive Options
Hormonal contraceptives are offered in a wide range of formulations, including oral pills, a transdermal patch, a vaginal ring, injectables, implants, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Hormonal contraceptives may include either a progestin alone or a combination of estrogen and progestin. The progestin provides most of the contraceptive effect by preventing the luteinizing hormone surge, which prevents ovulation. Progestin therapy also thickens the cervical mucus, which slows tubal mobility, and induces endometrial atrophy. Exogenous estrogen suppresses follicle-stimulating hormone release, also contributing to ovulation suppression. However, the primary role of exogenous estrogen is to improve tolerability of hormonal contraceptives by stabilizing the endometrial lining and preventing unpredictable bleeding [13]. Guidelines on contraceptive use recommend long-acting, reversible contraceptive methods as first-line options [14], either a progestin-containing subdermal implant or an IUD [8, 15]. This recommendation is due to their high efficacy (<1 % contraceptive failure rate) and ease of use. However, patients and providers are encouraged to review all contraceptive options to select a method that is best suited for the individual.
Oral contraceptive pills, which are available as a combination of progestin and estrogen [combination oral contraceptive (COC)] or progestin-only pill (POP), are typically administered daily for 28 days per package. The 28-day cycle includes 3 weeks of a daily hormone-containing tablet, followed by 3–7 days of a placebo tablet to allow for menses. A 21-day cycle is also available, in which the placebo week is omitted to avoid menstruation [13]. There is currently one transdermal patch marketed as a contraceptive, which contains ethinyl estradiol/norelgestromin, as well as one contraceptive vaginal ring, which contains ethinyl estradiol/etonogestrel. Similar to oral pills, both the patch and vaginal ring are generally applied or inserted for 3 weeks and then removed for 1 week to allow for menses, but can also be used continuously to avoid menstruation. Injectable hormonal contraceptives include medroxyprogesterone acetate, norethisterone enanthate, and combined ethinyl estradiol and medroxyprogestone acetate; these injectables are administered every 3 months, every 2 months, or every 1 month, respectively. Medroxyprogesterone remains the most common injectable used worldwide, most often as an intramuscular injection; however, it is also available as a subcutaneous injection. Subdermal implants vary by the progestin (levonorgestrel or etonogestrel) released and the duration of use after placement (3–5 years). Following subdermal insertion into the upper arm, progestin is released from the implant at a steady, daily dose throughout the period of intended use. Lastly, the IUD is the most commonly used form of long-acting reversible contraception worldwide; however, the frequency and type of IUD used varies significantly across and within global regions [16]. There are currently two types of IUDs available for contraception, the non-hormonal copper-bearing IUD and the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. Each is a very small, often T-shaped, device that is inserted into the uterus to prevent pregnancy [17]. Depending on the product and manufacturer, the IUD is approved for 3–10 years of use [18], though extended use in select populations has demonstrated effectiveness [19].
3.2.1 Pharmacokinetic Considerations of Hormonal Contraceptives
The metabolism of hormonal contraceptives is complex and varied depending on the drug used and the route of administration. Through these metabolic pathways, hormones can be both victims and perpetrators of drug–drug interactions, which may influence hormone effectiveness and safety. Orally administered forms of estrogen and most progestins undergo extensive first-pass metabolism in the gut or liver by phase I enzymatic pathways, such as oxidation, reduction, and hydrolysis, followed by phase II metabolism via glucuronide and/or sulfate conjugation [20]. These routes of pre-systemic clearance, which can be further altered as a result of drug–drug interactions, may significantly impact the oral bioavailability of some hormones. The impact of first-pass metabolism varies widely by hormone and formulation. For example, ethinyl estradiol undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism with a reported oral bioavailability of 38–83 % [21, 22]. For the progestins, oral bioavailability varies from 64 % for norethindrone [23], to 84 % for desogestrel, the prodrug for etonogestrel [21], to as high as 100 % for levonorgestrel [22]. Non-oral routes of hormonal contraceptive delivery effectively bypass first-pass metabolism and drug–drug interactions occurring at the pre-systemic stage. Once in systemic circulation, hormones undergo further hepatic metabolism, mostly by phase I pathways mediated by CYP enzymes or other minor routes. Hormonal contraceptives may induce and inhibit CYP enzymes, either through direct competition for metabolism or by modulation of nuclear receptors that govern enzyme expression [24–27]. Table 2 describes the metabolic pathways for hormonal contraceptives that are most likely to be implicated in drug–drug interactions with antiretrovirals.
3.2.2 Effectiveness of Hormonal Contraceptives
A recent evaluation of contraceptive effectiveness during typical use (i.e., outside of the clinical trial environment) was conducted using demographic survey data from 43 developing countries [28]. Table 3 describes the results after 12, 24, and 36 months of use for various methods of contraception. These data support that long-acting reversible contraceptives have the highest rate of effectiveness, followed by injectable methods, and finally contraceptive pills. All methods were more effective than traditional family planning methods, such as withdrawal.
Studies evaluating hormonal contraceptive effectiveness in women living with HIV describe similar trends irrespective of ART use; i.e., long-acting, reversible contraceptives are the most effective, followed by injectables and then contraceptive pills [29, 30]. When considering the type of ART used, studies to date are appropriately powered to evaluate only NNRTI-based ART regimens containing either efavirenz or nevirapine. A large retrospective cohort from Kenya identified 3337 incident pregnancies among 24,560 women; pregnancy rates were 3.1–4.1 times higher in women using forms of hormonal contraceptives other than progestin-containing implants (excluding IUDs) [29]. Notably, adjusted pregnancy rates were three-fold higher in efavirenz users than in nevirapine users [adjusted rate ratio (aRR) (95 % confidence interval [CI]): 3.0 (1.3–4.6)]. Differences in contraceptive effectiveness among women receiving efavirenz or nevirapine were not observed for other forms of hormonal contraceptives in this study (primarily injectables and COCs). A smaller prospective cohort evaluation of women receiving efavirenz- or nevirapine-based ART also found that implants reduced incident pregnancies the most compared with no hormonal contraceptive use [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95 % CI): 0.06 (0.01–0.45)], followed by injectables [0.18 (0.10–0.35)] and then COCs [0.37 (0.15–0.91)] [30]. Notably, the majority of women in this cohort were receiving nevirapine-based ART.
These studies provide clinical evidence that the use of efavirenz-based ART may impair the effectiveness of some hormonal contraceptive methods; see Sect. 4 for further discussion of the proposed mechanism for this change and the type of hormonal contraceptives most significantly impacted by efavirenz. Despite the decreased contraceptive effectiveness reported in women receiving efavirenz-based ART, the rate of unintended pregnancy remained lower in these women than in women not using contraception [29, 30]. Therefore, careful consideration of family planning desires, local ART and contraceptive availability, and the potential risk of reduced contraceptive effectiveness for some ART–contraceptive combinations is needed when choosing contraception among HIV-positive women.
3.2.3 Tolerability of Hormonal Contraceptives
There are no reported differences in the side effect profile of hormonal contraceptives in HIV-positive women compared with HIV-negative women [8]. In general, adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives depend on the progestin and/or estrogen component, along with the dose and route of administration that determines the amount of systemic exposure. Higher progestin exposure is usually well-tolerated, while lower systemic progestin exposure may impact the bleeding profile of the contraceptive; specifically, decreases in progestin exposure could increase the number of days or amount of vaginal bleeding. The addition of ethinyl estradiol to progestins in COCs improves the bleeding profile, making it similar to monthly menstruation. Accordingly, lower systemic exposure of ethinyl estradiol may cause irregular bleeding and impact adherence to the contraceptive method. The adverse effects of estrogen exposure include breast tenderness, headache and nausea, which could also worsen contraceptive adherence [31]. The most concerning health risk of increased estrogen exposure is related to estrogen-induced hepatic production of clotting factors and subsequent thrombosis-related complications, such as venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident. Additionally, estrogen increases circulating levels of angiotensinogen and could lead to an increase in blood pressure [32]. Therefore, the side effect profile and health risks (other than contraceptive failures, as discussed in Sect. 3.2.2) of systemic hormonal contraceptives are more dependent on the systemic estrogen rather than progestin exposure.
New IUD users can expect to have irregular bleeding for the first 3–6 months after insertion; thereafter, levonorgestrel IUD users might have lighter menstrual cycles or amenorrhea [33]. Historically, there were concerns regarding increased risk of pelvic infection and resultant complications following IUD use among immunocompromised women; however, studies that utilized modern forms of IUDs have not shown an increased risk among women living with versus without HIV [34]. The risk of pelvic inflammatory disease attributable to an IUD occurs in the first 20 days after insertion [35]; after this time period, the rate of pelvic inflammatory disease in IUD users decreases to the baseline level (1.4/1000 women) for women without IUDs. Accordingly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the WHO include IUDs as a recommended form of contraception that is generally acceptable for use in HIV-positive women who are asymptomatic or with mild clinical disease (WHO HIV stage 1 or 2) [17, 36]. Given the theoretical risk of an increased rate of infection following IUD insertion, caution is advised for women with severe or advanced HIV clinical disease (WHO HIV stage 3 or 4) who want to initiate contraception with an IUD, though continued use of an already inserted IUD is acceptable with close monitoring for pelvic infection [17, 36].
4 Drug–Drug Interactions Between Hormonal Contraceptives and ART
Given the overlapping metabolic pathways for hormonal contraceptives and antiretrovirals (Tables 1, 2), there is significant concern that coadministration may influence hormone exposure. Considering the mechanism of action of the estrogen and progestin components of hormonal contraceptives, drug–drug interactions that decrease progestin exposure may influence contraceptive effectiveness to a greater extent than those that decrease estrogen exposure. In contrast, drug–drug interactions that increase either progestin or estrogen exposure may influence the potential for drug exposure-related adverse events. Table 4 summarizes the published pharmacokinetic studies that evaluate drug–drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and ART, as well as the original authors’ clinical conclusions based on study results.
Some pharmacokinetic studies include a pharmacodynamic component by evaluating luteal activity, a surrogate marker of the ability to become pregnant, as a measure of contraceptive efficacy in the presence of changing hormone exposure. Luteal activity is assessed by endogenous progesterone concentrations, repeatedly measured during the study period. Herein, these pharmacodynamic data are presented in conjunction with the pharmacokinetic data, when available, as a measure of effectiveness.
4.1 Antiretroviral Agents with No Known or Anticipated Drug–Drug Interactions with Hormonal Contraceptives
Antiretrovirals in the NRTI, INSTI, and entry inhibitor classes are not known to induce or inhibit the drug-metabolizing enzymes that often influence hormone pharmacokinetics (Table 2). Given this, significant drug–drug interactions with these agents are not expected. Studies to date have found no effect of NRTIs or maraviroc on hormone exposure (Table 4) [37–40]. Specific to INSTIs, raltegravir and dolutegravir were each evaluated in healthy volunteers receiving a COC and no change in hormone exposure was observed (Table 4) [41, 42]. In contrast, elvitegravir, also an INSTI, must be coadministered with a pharmacokinetic-enhancing agent such as ritonavir or cobicistat, which influences its drug–drug interaction potential. The published literature available to describe the potential interactions between hormonal contraceptives and pharmacokinetically enhanced elvitegravir, as well as antiretrovirals in the NNRTI and PI classes, are described in the following sections.
4.2 Oral Contraceptive Methods
A large number of oral contraceptive products are commercially available, with variable dosing of the estrogen component, most commonly ethinyl estradiol, as well as variable progestin type and dose. Individual drug–drug interaction studies between ART and oral contraceptives evaluate only one specific COC product; therefore, careful interpretation of the results, in the context of overlapping metabolic pathways (Table 2), is needed before extrapolating the results to other COC products that were not evaluated.
4.2.1 Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor: Elvitegravir
One drug–drug interaction study with elvitegravir and hormonal contraceptives has been conducted. In this healthy volunteer study, elvitegravir, pharmacokinetically enhanced with cobicistat, was evaluated with ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone [43]. In combination, the ethinyl estradiol exposure was significantly reduced by 25 %, while the norethindrone exposure significantly increased by 126 %. While the increase in norethindrone exposure may be explained by cobicistat-mediated CYP inhibition, the decrease in ethinyl estradiol exposure is unexplained by the known induction or inhibition of enzymes and transporters by cobicistat or elvitegravir (Table 1). No data are available for elvitegravir coadministered with ritonavir as the pharmacokinetic enhancer, and product labeling suggests that alternative, non-hormonal methods of contraception should be considered in the absence of available evidence [2].
4.2.2 Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
The potential for drug–drug interactions between COCs and individual NNRTI agents is variable. Nevirapine, the first available NNRTI, remains widely used in low- and middle-income countries. In a small case series, three HIV-positive women receiving nevirapine 200 mg twice daily plus ethinyl estradiol/norgestrel had higher ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel (the active metabolite of norgestrel) exposure than three HIV-negative women [44]. Notably, HIV-positive women, with or without ART, had higher hormone exposure than the three HIV-negative women. Landolt et al. [45] compared the pharmacokinetics of ethinyl estradiol/desogestrel in HIV-positive women receiving ART to HIV-negative women. In that study, women receiving nevirapine-based ART had etonogestrel (the active metabolite of desogestrel) concentrations 22 % lower and ethinyl estradiol concentrations 58 % lower than HIV-negative individuals [45]. However, no participant receiving nevirapine-based ART had luteal activity, despite the decrease in etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol exposure [46].
In the same ethinyl estradiol/desogestrel COC study, Landolt et al. [45] described 61 % lower etonogestrel exposure, but no significant difference in ethinyl estradiol exposure, when the COC was combined with efavirenz. In an effort to describe the clinical significance of lower progestin exposure, the authors found a statistically higher number of women with luteal activity in the efavirenz group than in the nevirapine group (25 vs. 0 %; p = 0.04), raising concern for reduced contraceptive efficacy when this COC is coadministered with efavirenz [46]. Another crossover study of ethinyl estradiol/norgestimate in healthy volunteers with and without efavirenz monotherapy found no significant change in ethinyl estradiol exposure, while concentrations of norgestimate and its active metabolite, levonorgestrel, decreased 46–86 % during efavirenz coadministration [47]. Despite this marked decrease in progestin exposure, no luteal activity was noted in the efavirenz group. The impact of efavirenz on progestin-only emergency contraception was also evaluated in one study of healthy volunteers [48]. Consistent with the results when combined with a COC, levonorgestrel exposure was decreased 58 % in combination with efavirenz.
The impact of the newer NNRTIs, etravirine and rilpivirine, on COCs were separately evaluated in healthy volunteer crossover studies of women receiving ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone with or without etravirine or rilpivirine monotherapy. When coadministered with etravirine, ethinyl estradiol and norethindrone exposure remained within the defined limits of bioequivalence (least squares mean ratio 0.8–1.25) [49], with the exception of the minimum concentration (C min) of norethindrone, which was 22 % lower during etravirine coadministration [50]. Despite this, no difference in the laboratory markers of ovulation were observed, leading the authors to conclude that this decrease in progestin exposure was not clinically significant. Rilpivirine demonstrated minimal potential for drug–drug interaction with COCs; all pharmacokinetic parameters were unchanged and there was no laboratory signal for ovulation [51].
4.2.3 Protease Inhibitors
Currently used PIs are coadministered with either ritonavir or cobicistat to pharmacokinetically enhance PI exposure. As a pharmacokinetic enhancer, ritonavir 100 mg is given once or twice daily, which is in contrast to 400–600 mg twice daily used historically when ritonavir was given as an active drug for the treatment of HIV. One study reported a significant decrease in ethinyl estradiol exposure when administered with high-dose ritonavir [52], likely mediated by UGT induction. A decrease in ethinyl estradiol exposure was also observed when ritonavir was given as a pharmacokinetic enhancer in combination with atazanavir, darunavir, and lopinavir [53–56]. In contrast to the consistent results with ethinyl estradiol, the impact of ritonavir-boosted PIs on progestin exposure is variable. In one study of ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone combined with darunavir/ritonavir, norethindrone exposure was non-significantly reduced by 14 % [54]. Also, no significant change in the progestin C min was observed after coadministration of lopinavir/ritonavir with ethinyl estradiol/desogestrel [55]. In contrast, norgestimate exposure increased 85 % when combined with atazanavir/ritonavir [56]. Similarly, in two studies of a POP in women predominately receiving atazanavir/ritonavir-based ART, the norethindrone exposure was 50 % higher in combination with the PIs [57, 58]. Only one study evaluated luteal activity and no participant had evidence of luteal activity, regardless of receipt of lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART [55]. This result is consistent with the expectation that the progestin exposure is primarily responsible for ovulation.
Co-formulated products of cobicistat-boosted atazanavir and darunavir have recently become available; however, no drug–drug interaction studies have been completed with these combination products. Therefore, coadministration of hormonal contraceptives with cobicistat-enhanced PIs is not currently recommended [2].
4.3 Transdermal Contraceptive Methods
One study evaluated the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART on the pharmacokinetics of ethinyl estradiol/norelgestromin released from a transdermal patch [53]. Consistent with studies evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir coadministered with COCs, ethinyl estradiol exposure was 45 % lower, while progestin exposure was 83 % higher in women receiving lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART plus the contraceptive patch. The decreased exposure to ethinyl estradiol did not influence luteal activity. In this same study, ethinyl estradiol exposure after a single dose of a COC was measured and was similar ethinyl estradiol exposure when given transdermally in combination with ART, signaling that avoidance of oral first-pass effect did not mitigate the ART–hormone drug–drug interaction.
4.4 Injectable Contraceptive Methods
To date, data regarding the effect of ART on injectable contraceptives are limited to the progestin depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) administered by the intramuscular route. Studies evaluating the pharmacokinetics of medroxyprogesterone have not identified a clinically significant effect of ART on DMPA [59–61]. Specifically, clinical studies on efavirenz-, nelfinavir-, and nevirapine-based ART found no influence of ART on medroxyprogesterone exposure [59, 61]. One recent study compared women receiving lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART to women not receiving ART and found that medroxyprogesterone exposure was 46 % higher with lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART but DMPA remained well-tolerated [60].
4.5 Long-Acting, Reversible Contraceptive Methods
4.5.1 Progestin-Releasing Subdermal Implants
The pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from an implant have been assessed in one study [62]. An etonogestrel implant was placed at entry in HIV-positive women either receiving lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART, efavirenz-based ART, or not yet on ART (control group). Pharmacokinetic samples were collected over 24 weeks, at which time the minimum etonogestrel concentration was 33 % higher in the lopinavir/ritonavir group but 70 % lower in the efavirenz group, each compared with control subjects. Luteal activity was observed in 2.8–5 % of participants receiving efavirenz, depending on the progesterone level threshold applied, compared with no luteal activity in subjects in the control group (p < 0.05).
The pharmacokinetics of levonorgestrel released from an implant were also characterized in HIV-positive women receiving ART [63]. Specifically, a levonorgestrel implant was placed at entry and pharmacokinetic samples were collected over 48 weeks in women receiving nevirapine-based ART, efavirenz-based ART, and a control group not yet on ART. At week 48, the levonorgestrel C min was 57 % lower in the efavirenz group than in control subjects, but was not significantly different in the nevirapine group compared with the control group. No differences were observed between the three groups related to contraceptive-associated adverse events over 48 weeks. During this pharmacokinetic evaluation, three women became pregnant in the efavirenz group between weeks 36 and 48 post-implant placement (3 of 20; 15 %). No pregnancy occurred in the nevirapine or control groups, highlighting the clinical significance of the lower levonorgestrel exposure when used in combination with efavirenz.
4.5.2 Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Devices
Although pharmacokinetic data are lacking, limited observational data suggest the contraceptive effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD is not compromised when used in women receiving ART [4, 64–66]. Given the localized delivery and action of levonorgestrel released from IUDs, systemic ART is not expected to significantly affect hormone concentrations in the genital tract [18, 67]. In addition, the IUD provides contraceptive effectiveness primarily by preventing fertilization via thickening of the cervical mucus and reducing sperm motility and function, irrespective of local hormone exposure.
5 Hormonal Contraceptive Use and HIV Disease Progression
There is now international consensus that ART should be initiated in all adults living with HIV [2, 12], making the concern about HIV disease progression with contraceptives in the absence of ART less relevant. Historically, concerns existed that the use of some hormonal contraceptives negatively impacted HIV disease progression in the absence of ART. Several biological mechanisms were proposed to explain this effect. First, exogenous progestin administration can induce immunosuppression. Progestins have a varying affinity to the progestin receptor, as well as to other steroid receptors, such as the androgen, glucocorticoid, and mineralocorticoid receptors [68, 69]. For example, the hormonal contraceptive medroxyprogesterone acetate binds to the glucocorticoid receptor at a much higher affinity than endogenous progesterone or other exogenous progestins used for contraception, and activity at the glucocorticoid receptor may lead to immunosuppression [69]. A recent ex vivo study of human primary T lymphocytes showed that medroxyprogesterone acetate inhibited the activation of T lymphocytes and peripheral dendritic cell response, whereas norethisterone and levonorgestrel did not have any detectable immunosuppressive activity [70]. This study indicates that exogenous progestins have varying effects on immune function via interactions with the glucocorticoid receptor.
Another potential mechanism by which contraceptives could increase the risk of HIV disease progression is by a drug–drug interaction between the hormonal contraceptive and the antiretroviral drugs, resulting in a decrease in systemic ART exposure. A few pharmacokinetic studies have found that exogenous hormone exposure influenced ART exposure. One study found statistically lower efavirenz concentrations when given with an oral contraceptive pill containing ethinyl estradiol/desogestrel (efavirenz concentrations: 3.3 vs. 2.7 mg/L; p = 0.03) [46]. Another study of the contraceptive transdermal patch (ethinyl estradiol/norelgestromin) plus lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART identified a significantly lower ritonavir area under the concentration–time curve and maximum concentration when combined with the patch (24 and 8 % lower, respectively; both p = 0.031) [53]. Also, one study observed 18 % lower nelfinavir and 17 % higher nevirapine exposure, which were both statistically significant by 90 % CIs, when combined with DMPA [59]. Despite these statistically significant changes, the antiretroviral drug exposure still meets the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) definition of bioequivalence (least squares mean ratio 0.80–1.25) [49], and are unlikely to be clinically significant. In addition, most studies have not identified significant changes in antiretroviral concentrations when used with hormonal contraceptives. For oral contraceptives, a significant impact on antiretroviral pharmacokinetics was not observed when given with lamivudine/stavudine [44], zidovudine [37], emtricitabine [38], tenofovir [38, 39], efavirenz [48], etravirine [50], nevirapine [44, 45], rilpivirine [51], darunavir/ritonavir [54], lopinavir/ritonavir [55], and elvitegravir/cobicistat [43]. For non-oral routes of hormonal contraception, DMPA did not impact the pharmacokinetic exposure of lopinavir/ritonavir [60], efavirenz [59], or nevirapine [59]. Similarly, the levonorgestrel implant did not impact efavirenz or nevirapine systemic exposure over 48 weeks of combined use [63]. Based on these data, the impact of hormonal contraceptives on ART exposure, if any, is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.
Two recent systematic reviews identified 13 high-quality studies that evaluated the risk of HIV disease progression and hormonal contraception [11, 71]. A secondary analysis from a randomized trial of 595 women showed an increased risk of declining CD4+ count (a marker of immune system function and predictor of HIV disease progression) among the 302 women randomized to hormonal contraceptives (DMPA or COC) when compared with the 293 women randomized to the copper IUD (HR [95 % CI]: 1.56 [1.08–2.26] for DMPA and 1.69 [1.09–2.64] for COC) [72]. However, loss to follow-up and contraceptive method switching were common; therefore, the intent-to-treat analysis failed to show an association between hormonal contraception and HIV disease progression. Conversely, a prospective cohort of 2269 HIV-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa found that the use of injectable contraceptives (DMPA and norethisterone enanthate), but not COCs, was associated with a lower likelihood of disease progression, defined as a composite measure of ART initiation, CD4+ count falling below 200 cells/mL, or atraumatic death (adjusted HR: 0.74, p = 0.04 for injectable users and adjusted HR: 0.83, p = 0.5 for COC users) [73]. Similarly, other studies have not observed a change in plasma HIV-RNA levels (a measure of ART effectiveness) and none have observed a negative impact on CD4+ cell count [11, 71, 74–76].
Overall, only one outlying study with the methodologic limitations described above has indicated concern regarding HIV disease progression with use of hormonal contraception [72], but others show either no effect or reduced disease progression with use of hormonal contraception [11]. Therefore, the available data indicate that hormonal contraceptives do not impact the rate of disease progression for women living with HIV.
6 Hormonal Contraceptive Use and HIV Transmission
Similar to the influence of hormonal contraceptives on HIV progression, concerns regarding an increased risk of HIV transmission from HIV-positive women using hormonal contraceptives to HIV-negative male partners are less relevant following the worldwide recommendation for ART initiation in all adults living with HIV [2, 12]. This is because treatment of HIV infection with ART is perhaps the most effective method to reduce HIV transmission between serodiscordant couples (HIV transmission in ART vs. no ART: HR [95 % CI] 0.04 [0.01–0.27]) [77]. However, this has been an area of significant concern for patients without access to ART. Several biological mechanisms suggesting an increased risk of HIV transmission with some hormonal contraceptives have been proposed, including the potential for increased genital HIV viral shedding [78] and increased plasma HIV-RNA [79]. Increased HIV genital shedding may be the result of direct immunosuppressive effects of the hormonal contraceptives on HIV replication in the genital tract [70] or could be caused indirectly by increasing genital tract inflammation [69], the latter of which increases susceptibility to sexually transmitted infection (STI) [80] or results in the thinning of the genital tract mucosa [81, 82].
Twenty high-quality studies have evaluated the effect of hormonal contraception on HIV infectiousness, which are summarized in recent systematic reviews [11, 83]. These studies evaluated the effect of hormonal contraceptives on HIV transmission risk by direct evidence (incident cases of new HIV infection in the male partner) and by indirect evidence (genital or plasma HIV-RNA levels in HIV-positive women). Direct evidence of incident HIV cases among the male partners is difficult to interpret due to potentially significant methodological limitations, such as behavioral confounders, the presence of other STIs, and dependence on self-report for hormonal or barrier contraceptive use. However, a recent study in a Ugandan community cohort of 159 serodiscordant couples found no significant difference in HIV transmission among women using hormonal contraception and those not using hormonal contraception [84]. Long intervals between follow-up (6–12 months) made misclassification of contraceptive use at the time of HIV transmissions more likely in this study. Another secondary data analysis of 3790 serodiscordant couples in African countries found that hormonal contraceptives were associated with increased female-to-male HIV transmission (adjusted HR [95 % CI]: 1.97 [1.12–3.45]); however, only injectable hormonal contraceptives were associated with a significant increase in transmission (adjusted HR [95 % CI]: 1.95 [1.06–3.58]), while an association with oral contraceptives was not observed (adjusted HR [95 % CI]: 1.09 [0.75–5.84]) [85]. The strengths of this study were that seroconversions were genetically linked between partners and there was frequent follow-up (every 3 months) during the study period.
There are 13 studies summarized in recent reviews that have examined the influence of hormonal contraceptive use on genital HIV-DNA or RNA shedding [11, 73]. There is significant heterogeneity among these studies due to differences in study design, methods of sample collection, methods of detection and quantification of HIV, and type and classification of hormonal contraceptive use, which makes comparison and interpretation of these studies difficult. Notably, of these 13 studies, ten found no change in HIV genital shedding when comparing women using hormonal contraceptives with those not using hormones, after controlling for covariates [11, 73]. One study of 97 women at a STI clinic in Kenya found that COCs increased the odds of detecting cervical HIV-DNA (adjusted odds ratio (OR) [95 % CI]: 11.6 [1.7–77.6]) when compared with women not using hormonal contraception, but did not change the odds of detecting vaginal HIV-DNA [86]. Another study of 318 Kenyan women in a STI clinic found increased odds of detecting both cervical and vaginal HIV-DNA in women using COCs (adjusted OR [95 % CI]: cervical 4.9 [2.1–11.8]; vaginal 2.4 [1.0–5.7]) and of cervical, but not vaginal, HIV-DNA in women using DMPA (adjusted OR [95 % CI]: 2.9 [1.5–5.7]) when compared with women not using hormonal contraception [87]. Most compelling is the Heffron et al. [85] study, which, in addition to providing direct evidence of transmission, reported that women using injectable hormonal contraceptives, but not COCs, were more likely to have detectable HIV-RNA in the genital tract (adjusted OR [95 % CI]: 1.67 [1.21–2.31]) [85]. In addition to cervical and vaginal viral detection, eight of the reported studies described the impact of hormonal contraceptives on plasma HIV-RNA [11, 73]. Only one of these studies, after adjusting for covariates, reported an association between DMPA use and a higher plasma HIV-RNA set point in 161 commercial sex workers who became infected with HIV over the study period than in women not using hormonal contraception (p = 0.03). However, the rate of HIV-RNA increase in plasma was not greater with DMPA than with no hormonal contraception [88]. This indicates that women using DMPA at the time of HIV acquisition had higher HIV-RNA at baseline, and thus higher HIV-RNA during the follow-up period. DMPA did not affect the rate of plasma HIV-RNA change over time in these women who were acutely infected with HIV and not yet on ART.
Only four studies have evaluated a long-acting reversible contraceptive. Two included women using subdermal implants, one of which evaluated genital HIV shedding [89] and the other evaluated plasma HIV-RNA levels [88]; neither found a significant association between contraceptive implants and these markers of HIV transmission or progression. Additionally, there have been two prospective studies of HIV-1 genital shedding in women using either the copper IUD or the levonorgestrel IUD that showed no increased HIV-1 shedding after IUD placement [90, 91].
It should be highlighted that most studies have been conducted in HIV-positive women not yet on ART or those initiating ART. More recently, studies evaluating HIV-positive women receiving ART over several years did not identify an association between the risk of HIV transmission and hormonal contraceptive use [92, 93]. In summary, although some studies indicate that there may be an increased risk of female-to-male HIV transmission with some hormonal contraception in the absence of ART, the widespread use of potent ART regimens likely mitigates this risk.
7 Conclusions
For the ART–hormone combinations evaluated to date, the effectiveness of most hormonal contraceptives in combination with most antiretrovirals is not significantly influenced by pharmacokinetic drug–drug interactions, with a critical exception and some gaps in the information. A notable gap in the evidence exists regarding effective hormonal contraceptive options for women receiving elvitegravir, pharmacokinetically enhanced with either ritonavir or cobicistat, which has only been evaluated in a single healthy volunteer study, despite predicted drug–drug interactions given overlapping metabolic pathways. Perhaps most importantly, when some hormonal contraceptives are combined with efavirenz-based ART, significant reductions in progestin pharmacokinetic exposure occur, irrespective of the progestin route of administration. This decrease in drug exposure has been correlated with decreased contraceptive effectiveness, as measured by either observed unintended pregnancies or observed luteal activity, for subdermal implants and some oral contraceptive pills. Data suggest that DMPA is an exception to this detrimental ART–contraceptive interaction, as it appears to retain contraceptive effectiveness in combination with efavirenz-based ART [59]. Globally, the drug–drug interactions between efavirenz and hormonal contraceptives have high clinical significance because the WHO recommends efavirenz-based ART as the only preferred first-line regimen for HIV-positive adults [12]. For these women, effective hormonal contraceptive options in addition to DMPA are critically needed in combination with widely available ART options.
In general, tolerability of hormonal contraceptives in these studies was not influenced by coadministration of ART, even when hormone exposure was increased due to drug–drug interactions. Therefore, hormonal contraceptive tolerability in HIV-positive women is expected to be similar to other populations. Providers may wish to monitor patients who are receiving ART that is known to increase hormone exposure for excess hormone-related toxicities, including thrombosis and hypertension.
Overall, hormonal contraceptives are safe and critically important for use among HIV-positive women. Direct evidence indicates that there may be a slight increased risk of HIV infectiousness with DMPA, but data relating to other methods of hormonal contraception do not support this, though the limited representation of modern, long-acting reversible contraceptives, such as progestin-containing contraceptive implants, in these studies is noted. Because HIV transmission between serodiscordant partners is dramatically decreased when plasma HIV-RNA is below the limit of detection, any small increase in infectiousness due to hormonal contraceptives is likely to be eliminated by the use of ART, resulting in suppressed plasma HIV-RNA. Given the recent WHO recommendations for universal use of ART irrespective of CD4+ cell counts [94], the remaining concerns regarding the influence of hormonal contraceptives on HIV progression or transmission will also be eliminated.
References
Walensky RP, Paltiel AD, Losina E, Mercincavage LM, Schackman BR, Sax PE, et al. The survival benefits of AIDS treatment in the United States. J Infect Dis. 2006;194(1):11–9. doi:10.1086/505147.
Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf. Accessed 22 Jul 2016.
World Health Organization. Guideline on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
Panel on Treatment of HIV-Infected Pregnant Women and Prevention of Perinatal Transmission. Recommendations for use of antiretroviral drugs in pregnant HIV-1-infected women for maternal health and interventions to reduce perinatal HIV transmission in the United States. http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/lvguidelines/PerinatalGL.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016.
World Health Organization. Global summary of the AIDS epidemic, December 2014. http://www.who.int/hiv/data/epi_core_july2015.png?ua=1. Accessed 14 Sep 2015.
Darroch JE. Trends in contraceptive use. Contraception. 2013;87(3):259–63. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.08.029.
Darroch JE, Singh S. Trends in contraceptive need and use in developing countries in 2003, 2008, and 2012: an analysis of national surveys. Lancet. 2013;381(9879):1756–62. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60597-8.
World Health Organization. Hormonal contraceptive methods for women at high risk of HIV and living with HIV: 2014 guidance statement. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
Reynolds HW, Janowitz B, Homan R, Johnson L. The value of contraception to prevent perinatal HIV transmission. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(6):350–6. doi:10.1097/01.olq.0000194602.01058.e1.
Reynolds HW, Janowitz B, Wilcher R, Cates W. Contraception to prevent HIV-positive births: current contribution and potential cost savings in PEPFAR countries. Sex Transm Infect. 2008;84(Suppl 2):ii49–53. doi:10.1136/sti.2008.030049.
Phillips SJ, Polis CB, Curtis KM. The safety of hormonal contraceptives for women living with HIV and their sexual partners. Contraception. 2016;93(1):11–6. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2015.10.002.
World Health Organization. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
Shrader SP, Ragucci KR. Contraception. In: DiPiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM, editors. Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiologic approach. 9th ed. New York: McGaw Hill Education; 2014. p. 1271–86.
Espey E, Ogburn T. Long-acting reversible contraceptives: intrauterine devices and the contraceptive implant. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):705–19. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ce2f0.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on. Gynecologic Practice; Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 450: increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1434–8.
Buhling KJ, Zite NB, Lotke P, Black K, INTRA Writing Group. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review. Contraception. 2014;89(3):162–73. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2013.11.011.
World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 5th ed. 2015. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/181468/1/9789241549158_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 15 Feb 2016.
Skyla [package insert]. Whippany: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2016.
Wu JP, Pickle S. Extended use of the intrauterine device: a literature review and recommendations for clinical practice. Contraception. 2014;89(6):495–503. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.011.
Tittle V, Bull L, Boffito M, Nwokolo N. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions between antiretrovirals and oral contraceptives. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54(1):23–34. doi:10.1007/s40262-014-0204-8.
Desogen® [package insert]. Whitehouse Station: Merck & Co., Inc.; 2014.
Levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol tablets [package insert]. Morgantown: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2013.
Estrostep FE [package insert]. Fajardo: Warner Chilcott Company, Inc.; 2009.
Back DJ, Houlgrave R, Tjia JF, Ward S, Orme ML. Effect of the progestogens, gestodene, 3-keto desogestrel, levonorgestrel, norethisterone and norgestimate on the oxidation of ethinyloestradiol and other substrates by human liver microsomes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1991;38(2):219–25.
Balogh A, Gessinger S, Svarovsky U, Hippius M, Mellinger U, Klinger G, et al. Can oral contraceptive steroids influence the elimination of nifedipine and its primary pryidine metabolite in humans? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(9–10):729–34.
Martin P, Riley R, Back DJ, Owen A. Comparison of the induction profile for drug disposition proteins by typical nuclear receptor activators in human hepatic and intestinal cells. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;153(4):805–19. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707601.
Palovaara S, Pelkonen O, Uusitalo J, Lundgren S, Laine K. Inhibition of cytochrome P450 2B6 activity by hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptive as measured by bupropion hydroxylation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003;74(4):326–33. doi:10.1016/S0009-9236(03)00202-9.
Polis CB, Bradley SE, Bankole A, Onda T, Croft T, Singh S. Typical-use contraceptive failure rates in 43 countries with Demographic and Health Survey data: summary of a detailed report. Contraception. 2016;94(1):11–7. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2016.03.011.
Patel RC, Onono M, Gandhi M, Blat C, Hagey J, Shade SB, et al. Pregnancy rates in HIV-positive women using contraceptives and efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in Kenya: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2015;2(11):e474–82. doi:10.1016/S2352-3018(15)00184-8.
Pyra M, Heffron R, Mugo NR, Nanda K, Thomas KK, Celum C, et al. Effectiveness of hormonal contraception in HIV-infected women using antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 2015;29(17):2353–9. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000000827.
Speroff L, Darney PD. A clinical guide for contraception. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, Cates W. Contraceptive technology. New York: Ardent Media, Incorporated; 2011.
American College of Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG committee opinion. No. 337: noncontraceptive uses of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1479–82.
Browne H, Manipalviratn S, Armstrong A. Using an intrauterine device in immunocompromised women. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):667–9. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318183464e.
Farley TM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe PJ, Chen JH, Meirik O. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet. 1992;339(8796):785–8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010: adapted from the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. 4th ed. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010;59(RR-4):1–86.
Aweeka FT, Rosenkranz SL, Segal Y, Coombs RW, Bardeguez A, Thevanayagam L, et al. The impact of sex and contraceptive therapy on the plasma and intracellular pharmacokinetics of zidovudine. AIDS. 2006;20(14):1833–41. doi:10.1097/01.aids.0000244202.18629.36.
Todd CS, Deese J, Wang M, Hubacher D, Steiner MJ, Otunga S, et al. Sino-implant (II)(R) continuation and effect of concomitant tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine use on plasma levonorgestrel concentrations among women in Bondo, Kenya. Contraception. 2015;91(3):248–52. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.10.008.
Kearney BP, Mathias A. Lack of effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on pharmacokinetics of hormonal contraceptives. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(8):924–9. doi:10.1592/phco.29.8.924.
Selzentry® [package insert]. New York: Pfizer, Inc.; 2010.
Anderson MS, Hanley WD, Moreau AR, Jin B, Bieberdorf FA, Kost JT, et al. Effect of raltegravir on estradiol and norgestimate plasma pharmacokinetics following oral contraceptive administration in healthy women. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71(4):616–20. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03885.x.
Song IH, Borland J, Chen S, Wajima T, Peppercorn AF, Piscitelli SC. Dolutegravir has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptives with norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol. Ann Pharmacother. 2015;49(7):784–9. doi:10.1177/1060028015580637.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Stribild (elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir). 2011. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/203100Orig1s000ClinPharmR.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
Stuart GS, Moses A, Corbett A, Phiri G, Kumwenda W, Mkandawire N, et al. Combined oral contraceptives and antiretroviral PK/PD in Malawian women: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a combined oral contraceptive and a generic combined formulation antiretroviral in Malawi. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;58(2):e40–3. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31822b8bf8.
Landolt NK, Phanuphak N, Ubolyam S, Pinyakorn S, Kerr S, Ahluwalia J, et al. Significant decrease of ethinylestradiol with nevirapine, and of etonogestrel with efavirenz in HIV-positive women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(2):e50–2. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000134.
Landolt NK, Phanuphak N, Ubolyam S, Pinyakorn S, Kriengsinyot R, Ahluwalia J, et al. Efavirenz, in contrast to nevirapine, is associated with unfavorable progesterone and antiretroviral levels when coadministered with combined oral contraceptives. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;62(5):534–9. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31827e8f98.
Sevinsky H, Eley T, Persson A, Garner D, Yones C, Nettles R, et al. The effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate in healthy HIV-negative women. Antivir Ther. 2011;16(2):149–56. doi:10.3851/IMP1725.
Carten ML, Kiser JJ, Kwara A, Mawhinney S, Cu-Uvin S. Pharmacokinetic interactions between the hormonal emergency contraception, levonorgestrel (Plan B), and efavirenz. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2012:137192. doi:10.1155/2012/137192.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for Industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products—general considerations. Rockville: United States Food and Drug Administration; 2003.
Scholler-Gyure M, Kakuda TN, Woodfall B, Aharchi F, Peeters M, Vandermeulen K, et al. Effect of steady-state etravirine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ethinylestradiol and norethindrone. Contraception. 2009;80(1):44–52. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.01.009.
Crauwels HM, van Heeswijk RP, Buelens A, Stevens M, Hoetelmans RM. Lack of an effect of rilpivirine on the pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol and norethindrone in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;52(2):118–28. doi:10.5414/CP201943.
Ouellet D, Hsu A, Qian J, Locke CS, Eason CJ, Cavanaugh JH, et al. Effect of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of ethinyl oestradiol in healthy female volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;46(2):111–6.
Vogler MA, Patterson K, Kamemoto L, Park JG, Watts H, Aweeka F, et al. Contraceptive efficacy of oral and transdermal hormones when co-administered with protease inhibitors in HIV-1-infected women: pharmacokinetic results of ACTG trial A5188. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(4):473–82. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181eb5ff5.
Sekar VJ, Lefebvre E, Guzman SS, Felicione E, De Pauw M, Vangeneugden T, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone and darunavir with low-dose ritonavir in healthy women. Antivir Ther. 2008;13(4):563–9.
Kancheva Landolt N, Bunupuradah T, Kosalaraksa P, Ubolyam S, Thammajaruk N, Cremers S, et al. High variability of hormonal levels and no clinically relevant interaction between ethinyl estradiol, desogestrel and lopinavir/ritonavir in a small sample of HIV-positive adolescents. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;72(5):507–12. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000997.
Zhang J, Chung E, Yones C, Persson A, Mahnke L, Eley T, et al. The effect of atazanavir/ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate in healthy women. Antivir Ther. 2011;16(2):157–64. doi:10.3851/IMP1724.
Atrio J, Stanczyk FZ, Neely M, Cherala G, Kovacs A, Mishell DR Jr. Effect of protease inhibitors on steady-state pharmacokinetics of oral norethindrone contraception in HIV-infected women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;65(1):72–7. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182a9b3f1.
DuBois BN, Atrio J, Stanczyk FZ, Cherala G. Increased exposure of norethindrone in HIV+ women treated with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir therapy. Contraception. 2015;91(1):71–5. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.08.009.
Cohn SE, Park JG, Watts DH, Stek A, Hitti J, Clax PA, et al. Depo-medroxyprogesterone in women on antiretroviral therapy: effective contraception and lack of clinically significant interactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81(2):222–7. doi:10.1038/sj.clpt.6100040.
Luque AE, Cohn SE, Park JG, Cramer Y, Weinberg A, Livingston E, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate in combination with a twice-daily lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in HIV-infected women showed effective contraception and a lack of clinically significant interactions, with good safety and tolerability: results of the ACTG 5283 study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(4):2094–101. doi:10.1128/AAC.04701-14.
Nanda K, Amaral E, Hays M, Viscola MA, Mehta N, Bahamondes L. Pharmacokinetic interactions between depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and combination antiretroviral therapy. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):965–71. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.1348.
Vieira CS, Bahamondes MV, de Souza RM, Brito MB, Rocha Prandini TR, Amaral E, et al. Effect of antiretroviral therapy including lopinavir/ritonavir or efavirenz on etonogestrel-releasing implant pharmacokinetics in HIV-positive women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(4):378–85. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000189.
Scarsi KK, Darin KM, Nakalema S, Back DJ, Byakika-Kibwika P, Else LJ, et al. Unintended pregnancies observed with combined use of the levonorgestrel contraceptive implant and efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy: a three-arm pharmacokinetic evaluation over 48 weeks. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(6):675–82. doi:10.1093/cid/civ1001.
Heikinheimo O, Lehtovirta P, Aho I, Ristola M, Paavonen J. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in human immunodeficiency virus-infected women: a 5-year follow-up study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(2):126 e1–4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.09.002.
Heikinheimo O, Lehtovirta P, Suni J, Paavonen J. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in HIV-infected women–effects on bleeding patterns, ovarian function and genital shedding of HIV. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(11):2857–61. doi:10.1093/humrep/del264.
Lehtovirta P, Paavonen J, Heikinheimo O. Experience with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system among HIV-infected women. Contraception. 2007;75(1):37–9. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2006.09.006.
Mirena [package insert]. Whippany: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2015.
Stanczyk FZ, Hapgood JP, Winer S, Mishell DR Jr. Progestogens used in postmenopausal hormone therapy: differences in their pharmacological properties, intracellular actions, and clinical effects. Endocr Rev. 2013;34(2):171–208. doi:10.1210/er.2012-1008.
Hapgood JP, Ray RM, Govender Y, Avenant C, Tomasicchio M. Differential glucocorticoid receptor-mediated effects on immunomodulatory gene expression by progestin contraceptives: implications for HIV-1 pathogenesis. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2014;71(6):505–12. doi:10.1111/aji.12214.
Huijbregts RP, Michel KG, Hel Z. Effect of progestins on immunity: medroxyprogesterone but not norethisterone or levonorgestrel suppresses the function of T cells and pDCs. Contraception. 2014;90(2):123–9. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.006.
Phillips SJ, Curtis KM, Polis CB. Effect of hormonal contraceptive methods on HIV disease progression: a systematic review. AIDS. 2013;27(5):787–94. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835bb672.
Stringer EM, Levy J, Sinkala M, Chi BH, Matongo I, Chintu N, et al. HIV disease progression by hormonal contraceptive method: secondary analysis of a randomized trial. AIDS. 2009;23(11):1377–82. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32832cbca8.
Heffron R, Mugo N, Ngure K, Celum C, Donnell D, Were E, et al. Hormonal contraceptive use and risk of HIV-1 disease progression. AIDS. 2013;27(2):261–7. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835ad473.
Heikinheimo O, Lahteenmaki P. Contraception and HIV infection in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15(2):165–76. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn049.
Polis CB, Gray RH, Bwanika JB, Kigozi G, Kiwanuka N, Nalugoda F, et al. Effect of hormonal contraceptive use before HIV seroconversion on viral load setpoint among women in Rakai, Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;56(2):125–30. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181fbcc11.
Polis CB, Wawer MJ, Kiwanuka N, Laeyendecker O, Kagaayi J, Lutalo T, et al. Effect of hormonal contraceptive use on HIV progression in female HIV seroconverters in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS. 2010;24(12):1937–44. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32833b3282.
Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):493–505. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1105243.
Baeten JM, Kahle E, Lingappa JR, Coombs RW, Delany-Moretlwe S, Nakku-Joloba E, et al. Genital HIV-1 RNA predicts risk of heterosexual HIV-1 transmission. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(77):77ra29. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001888.
Quinn TC, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo N, Serwadda D, Li C, Wabwire-Mangen F, et al. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Rakai Project Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(13):921–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM200003303421303.
Morrison CS, Turner AN, Jones LB. Highly effective contraception and acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;23(2):263–84. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.11.004.
Mauck CK, Callahan MM, Baker J, Arbogast K, Veazey R, Stock R, et al. The effect of one injection of Depo-Provera on the human vaginal epithelium and cervical ectopy. Contraception. 1999;60(1):15–24.
Tjernlund A, Carias AM, Andersson S, Gustafsson-Sanchez S, Rohl M, Petersson P, et al. Progesterone-based intrauterine device use is associated with a thinner apical layer of the human ectocervical epithelium and a lower ZO-1 mRNA expression. Biol Reprod. 2015;92(3):68. doi:10.1095/biolreprod.114.122887.
Polis CB, Phillips SJ, Curtis KM. Hormonal contraceptive use and female-to-male HIV transmission: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. AIDS. 2013;27(4):493–505. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835ad539.
Lutalo T, Musoke R, Kong X, Makumbi F, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, et al. Effects of hormonal contraceptive use on HIV acquisition and transmission among HIV-discordant couples. AIDS. 2013;27(Suppl 1):S27–34. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000000045.
Heffron R, Donnell D, Rees H, Celum C, Mugo N, Were E, et al. Use of hormonal contraceptives and risk of HIV-1 transmission: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(1):19–26. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70247-X.
Clemetson DB, Moss GB, Willerford DM, Hensel M, Emonyi W, Holmes KK, et al. Detection of HIV DNA in cervical and vaginal secretions. Prevalence and correlates among women in Nairobi, Kenya. JAMA. 1993;269(22):2860–4.
Mostad SB, Overbaugh J, DeVange DM, Welch MJ, Chohan B, Mandaliya K, et al. Hormonal contraception, vitamin A deficiency, and other risk factors for shedding of HIV-1 infected cells from the cervix and vagina. Lancet. 1997;350(9082):922–7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04240-2.
Lavreys L, Baeten JM, Kreiss JK, Richardson BA, Chohan BH, Hassan W, et al. Injectable contraceptive use and genital ulcer disease during the early phase of HIV-1 infection increase plasma virus load in women. J Infect Dis. 2004;189(2):303–11. doi:10.1086/380974.
Graham SM, Masese L, Gitau R, Jalalian-Lechak Z, Richardson BA, Peshu N, et al. Antiretroviral adherence and development of drug resistance are the strongest predictors of genital HIV-1 shedding among women initiating treatment. J Infect Dis. 2010;202(10):1538–42. doi:10.1086/656790.
Coleman JS, Mwachari C, Balkus J, Sanguli L, Muliro A, Agnew K, et al. Effect of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device on genital HIV-1 RNA shedding among HIV-1-infected women not taking antiretroviral therapy in Nairobi, Kenya. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(2):245–8. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31828decf8.
Richardson BA, Morrison CS, Sekadde-Kigondu C, Sinei SK, Overbaugh J, Panteleeff DD, et al. Effect of intrauterine device use on cervical shedding of HIV-1 DNA. AIDS. 1999;13(15):2091–7.
Day S, Graham SM, Masese LN, Richardson BA, Kiarie JN, Jaoko W, et al. A prospective cohort study of the effect of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate on detection of plasma and cervical HIV-1 in women initiating and continuing antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(4):452–6. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000187.
Low AJ, Konate I, Nagot N, Weiss HA, Kania D, Vickerman P, et al. Cervicovaginal HIV-1 shedding in women taking antiretroviral therapy in Burkina Faso: a longitudinal study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;65(2):237–45. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000049.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC). Update to CDC’s U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010: revised recommendations for the use of hormonal contraception among women at high risk for HIV infection or infected with HIV. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(24):449–52.
Wang B, Sanchez RI, Franklin RB, Evans DC, Huskey SE. The involvement of CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 in the metabolism of 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol. Drug Metab Dispos. 2004;32(11):1209–12. doi:10.1124/dmd.104.000182.
Benowitz NL, Lessov-Schlaggar CN, Swan GE, Jacob P 3rd. Female sex and oral contraceptive use accelerate nicotine metabolism. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2006;79(5):480–8. doi:10.1016/j.clpt.2006.01.008.
Zhang H, Cui D, Wang B, Han YH, Balimane P, Yang Z, et al. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions involving 17alpha-ethinylestradiol: a new look at an old drug. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2007;46(2):133–57.
Tseng A, Hills-Nieminen C. Drug interactions between antiretrovirals and hormonal contraceptives. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2013;9(5):559–72. doi:10.1517/17425255.2013.772579.
Natazia® [package insert]. Whippany: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2015.
Kobayashi K, Mimura N, Fujii H, Minami H, Sasaki Y, Shimada N, et al. Role of human cytochrome P450 3A4 in metabolism of medroxyprogesterone acetate. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(8):3297–303.
Yamazaki H, Shimada T. Progesterone and testosterone hydroxylation by cytochromes P450 2C19, 2C9, and 3A4 in human liver microsomes. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1997;346(1):161–9. doi:10.1006/abbi.1997.0302.
Tsunoda SM, Harris RZ, Mroczkowski PJ, Benet LZ. Preliminary evaluation of progestins as inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4 activity in postmenopausal women. J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;38(12):1137–43.
Loestrin FE [package insert]. Fajardo: Warner Chilcott Company, Inc.; 2009.
Korhonen T, Turpeinen M, Tolonen A, Laine K, Pelkonen O. Identification of the human cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in the in vitro biotransformation of lynestrenol and norethindrone. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2008;110(1–2):56–66. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2007.09.025.
Korhonen T, Tolonen A, Uusitalo J, Lundgren S, Jalonen J, Laine K. The role of CYP2C and CYP3A in the disposition of 3-keto-desogestrel after administration of desogestrel. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;60(1):69–75. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02382.x.
Gentile DM, Verhoeven CH, Shimada T, Back DJ. The role of CYP2C in the in vitro bioactivation of the contraceptive steroid desogestrel. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;287(3):975–82.
Ortho Evra® [package insert]. Titusville: Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2015.
Yasmin [package insert]. Wayne: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
We acknowledge support from the following grants from the National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [Grant Numbers 1R01HD085887 (Kimberly Scarsi) and K12HD043441 (Catherine Chappell)]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Conflict of interest
Kimberly Scarsi, Kristin Darin, Catherine Chappell, Stephanie Nitz, and Mohammed Lamorde have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to this content.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scarsi, K.K., Darin, K.M., Chappell, C.A. et al. Drug–Drug Interactions, Effectiveness, and Safety of Hormonal Contraceptives in Women Living with HIV. Drug Saf 39, 1053–1072 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0452-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0452-7