» Articles » PMID: 31764068

Use of the Dapivirine Vaginal Ring and Effect on Cervical Cytology Abnormalities

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to determine if the dapivirine vaginal ring and the ring device alone (flexible silicone matrix polymer) was associated with the development of cervical cytology abnormalities.

Design: Secondary analysis comparing cervical cytology results between two randomized controlled microbicide trials (MTN-020/ASPIRE and MTN-003/VOICE).

Methods: Data from ASPIRE, a phase III, placebo-controlled trial of the dapivirine vaginal ring, were used in this analysis. Cervical cytology smears were evaluated at baseline and at the final visit with product use. We compared cytology results between women randomized to dapivirine versus placebo vaginal ring. We further assessed for the effect of the vaginal ring device on cervical cytology by comparing results with data from the oral placebo arm of VOICE, a prior HIV-1 prevention trial conducted in a similar population.

Results: Cervical cytology results for 2394 women from ASPIRE (1197 per study arm) were used in this analysis; median time between baseline and final visit with product use was 22.1 months. Cytology smear findings were comparable between dapivirine and placebo vaginal ring arms: at final visit, normal: 90.6 versus 91.5%, ASC-US//LSIL: 7.8 versus 7.4%, ASC-H/HSIL/AGC/AGC-favor neoplastic: 1.7 versus 1.1%, P = 0.44. Cytology data from VOICE had findings (normal: 87.8%, ASC-US/LSIL: 9.8%, ASC-H/HSIL/AGC/AGC-favor neoplastic: 2.4%) comparable with that of both dapivirine (P = 0.93) and placebo vaginal ring arms (P = 0.24).

Conclusion: These findings indicate that neither use of the dapivirine vaginal ring nor the vaginal ring device alone, over a period of 2 years, is associated with development of cervical cytology abnormalities that could lead to precancerous or cancerous lesions.

Citing Articles

Approved HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors in the past decade.

Li G, Wang Y, De Clercq E Acta Pharm Sin B. 2022; 12(4):1567-1590.

PMID: 35847492 PMC: 9279714. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.11.009.


Where are the pregnant and breastfeeding women in new pre-exposure prophylaxis trials? The imperative to overcome the evidence gap.

Davey D, Bekker L, Bukusi E, Chi B, Delany-Moretlwe S, Goga A Lancet HIV. 2022; 9(3):e214-e222.

PMID: 35090604 PMC: 9178651. DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00280-0.


High Preventive Effect of G2-S16 Anionic Carbosilane Dendrimer against Sexually Transmitted HSV-2 Infection.

Rodriguez-Izquierdo I, Gasco S, Munoz-Fernandez M Molecules. 2020; 25(13).

PMID: 32605185 PMC: 7412300. DOI: 10.3390/molecules25132965.

References
1.
Thigpen M, Kebaabetswe P, Paxton L, Smith D, Rose C, Segolodi T . Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(5):423-34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110711. View

2.
Marrazzo J, Ramjee G, Richardson B, Gomez K, Mgodi N, Nair G . Tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(6):509-18. PMC: 4341965. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402269. View

3.
Wieder D, Pattimakiel L . Examining the efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing). Int J Womens Health. 2010; 2:401-9. PMC: 2990910. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S6162. View

4.
Schiffman M, Wentzensen N . Human papillomavirus infection and the multistage carcinogenesis of cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013; 22(4):553-60. PMC: 3711590. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1406. View

5.
Montgomery E, Stadler J, Naidoo S, Katz A, Laborde N, Garcia M . Reasons for nonadherence to the dapivirine vaginal ring: narrative explanations of objective drug-level results. AIDS. 2018; 32(11):1517-1525. PMC: 6230508. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001868. View