Abstract
Historically, pregnant and lactating populations (PLP) have been excluded or disenrolled from biomedical HIV prevention trials, despite being more likely to acquire HIV during pregnancy and the post-partum period. We conducted a meta-analysis of pregnancy events in biomedical HIV prevention trials in sub-Saharan Africa to support trialists moving toward more inclusive clinical and implementation studies. We searched peer-reviewed literature reporting pregnancy events and contraceptive requirements in HIV prevention trials between 2001 and 2022. We hypothesized four variables to explain variation: contraceptive requirements, study start year, study product, and sub-region. We fit a meta-analytic model to estimate individual effect sizes and sampling variances, then conducted sub-group analyses to assess moderating effects. We identified 38 references for inclusion, across which the proportion of pregnancy events was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6–10%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). Studies not requiring contraceptives (21%, 95%CI: 7–48%) reported a significantly higher proportion of pregnancy events than studies requiring two methods (5%, 95%CI: 2–10%). Studies launched between 2001 and 2007 (11%, 95%CI: 8–16%), microbicide gel trials (12%, 95%CI: 8–18%), and studies conducted in Western Africa (28%, 95%CI: 13–51%) reported higher proportions of pregnancy events than reference groups. Together, these variables have a moderating effect on pregnancy events (p < 0.0001), explaining 63% of heterogeneity in trials. Results describe how, over time, more stringent contraceptive requirements reduced pregnancy events, which ensured necessary statistical power but limited reproductive choice by participants. With the move toward continuing PLP on experimental products, trialists can utilize estimated pregnancy events reported here to inform strategies that accommodate participants’ changing fertility preferences.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Increasingly over the past several decades, HIV prevention programs and studies have adopted rights-based approaches to amplify the voices of and achieve equitable access for marginalized groups [1,2,3,4]. Yet, there remains a call for programs and trials to adopt gender transformative approaches, or practices that strengthen systems promoting gender equality [5,6,7]. At the intersection of these approaches are pregnant and lactating populations (PLP), who have often been categorically excluded from clinical trials. Pregnancy has typically been an exclusion criterion for trial participation, as historically the priority has been to protect the developing fetus from the unknown effects of experimental products [8, 9]. Despite fetal safety concerns for using pregnancy as an exclusion criterion, the result has been a pervasive evidence gap on appropriate prevention and treatment options during pregnancy and breastfeeding [10,11,12,13,14]. This protectionist approach has left pregnant people with uncertain evidence-based prevention options despite being 2–3 times more likely to acquire HIV during pregnancy [15] and 4 times more likely to acquire HIV in the post-partum period [16]. Moreover, a lack of pregnancy-specific pharmacokinetic data has left providers with limited information to ensure PLP and their fetuses are not exposed to inadequate or toxic doses of prevention therapies [17].
Historically, HIV biomedical trials were not prescriptive in terms of contraceptives required. Until recently, in most biomedical HIV prevention trials, a participant who became pregnant was immediately discontinued from the study product and, in many cases, involuntarily disenrolled from the trial [8, 9, 11, 18,19,20]. As such, pregnancy was interpreted as a liability from a trial implementation standpoint when attrition of study participants due to pregnancy reduced the trial’s power to detect statistically significant differences in effectiveness between products and comparators [9]. A 2013 meta-analysis found that pregnancy rates in microbicide trials were problematically high, leading the authors to recommend the introduction of methods to reduce pregnancy risk to preserve the statistical power of these trials [21]. Around the same time, many biomedical HIV prevention trials began requiring female participants of reproductive age to use highly effective contraceptives (e.g. hormonal oral contraceptive pills, patch, implant, IUD, etc.) [13, 18, 22], which many trials directly provided.
Considering that most biomedical trials require product use for 12 months or longer, it is important to recognize the implication of these requirements on participants’ reproductive choice. Required contraceptive methods may not align with participants’ fertility preferences, which may shift over time [23, 24]. Mandates to be on certain methods for extended periods challenge the rights-based and gender transformative approaches the research community is working toward [13]. Moreover, with the growing need to generate evidence for HIV prevention products for PLP, there is a call to revisit how trialists can modify pregnancy and contraceptive requirements to promote reproductive choice as well as trials’ ultimate aim of testing product effectiveness, thereby reducing the evidence gap [12, 13, 24]. As of mid-2023, two trials were designed and implemented to assess the safety of the dapivirine vaginal ring and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in pregnancy and during breastfeeding [25]. Additionally, a study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a twice-yearly injectable lenacapavir for PrEP does not require contraception and is allowing participants who become pregnant to remain on the study drug.
To further the conversation about inclusion of PLP in trials, we conducted a meta-analysis of pregnancy data in biomedical HIV prevention trials in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We sought to examine pregnancy events by biomedical product, while also considering the effects of contraceptive requirements, region, and time period in which the trial was conducted. Understanding the frequency at which participants become pregnant, including trends in pregnancy rates as contraceptive requirements for participants have evolved, will enable trialists to develop a deeper understanding of how contraceptive requirements impact trial participation and selection bias into trials. Our goal was to support trialists in moving toward gender transformative trials that acknowledge and address participants’ shifting fertility preferences during implementation, while also providing estimates to inform sampling strategies and the inclusion of PLP in trials.
Methods
We conducted this meta-analysis of reported pregnancy events in biomedical HIV prevention trials in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [26]. A protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (ID# CRD42022334034).
Databases and Search Terms
With support from a reference librarian, we searched for peer-reviewed literature from five databases representing research on biomedical HIV prevention products from SSA: African Index Medicus, Embase, Global Health, PubMed, and Scopus. Within each database, we searched for literature using the following terms, which include three main constructs: (biomedical prevention products) AND (pregnancy events) AND (sub-Saharan Africa). Appendix A contains a comprehensive list of search terms.
Eligibility Criteria
To be included in this meta-analysis, an article met all criteria in Table 1. Generally, we included peer-reviewed literature reporting counts or rates of pregnancies among participants in biomedical HIV prevention trials in SSA. Studies were published between 2001 and 2022, representing a period of substantial diversity in products under study. We included studies examining microbicide gels, diaphragms, vaccines, vaginal rings, injectable PrEP, and oral PrEP. We excluded articles reporting on trials of HIV prevention interventions that were not biomedical products, studies conducted exclusively among persons who could not become pregnant, and studies that did not adequately disaggregate key outcomes data by SSA country/site.
Citation Screening and Data Management
From each database, we downloaded search results into EndNote files, in which citations were de-duplicated. We then uploaded the de-duplicated list into Covidence, a web-based systematic review data management application. We used a multi-phased screening strategy to determine inclusion. The first stage consisted of a title/abstract review in which articles were flagged as of interest or irrelevant. The second stage consisted of a full text review to ensure all criteria were met. A team of three reviewers ensured that each article was reviewed twice at each stage. Conflicts among reviewers were addressed through discussion until consensus was reached.
Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a standardized, Excel-based extraction form. Differences in data extraction were resolved through consensus and referral to a third reviewer as necessary. The following information was extracted from each study: (a) study identification: author(s), year of publication; (2) study description: country, trial start and end years, trial name and design, study objectives, biomedical and placebo products examined, contraceptive requirements; (3) outcomes: number of pregnancies events reported overall, and per treatment and control groups, where available, or pregnancy incidence (per 100 person-years). Where necessary, we searched online for study protocols, including via ClinicalTrials.gov, to gather information that was not readily available from the manuscript (e.g., trial contraceptive requirements). Regarding language, since trials referred to participants who can become pregnant as women or female participants (more nuanced gender identity was not reported), data extracted from manuscripts and reported here also describe PLP as women for consistency and to more closely align language with primary results.
Analysis
Using data extracted from each article, we created an analytic file with pregnancy count information and relevant variables for the meta-analysis. The main outcome for the meta-analysis was pregnancy event count. For articles reporting pregnancy incidence or rates, we re-constructed those figures into pregnancy event data using rate and women-year information from the manuscript, as available. We defined the proportion of pregnancy events as the number of pregnancies over the number of women. This calculation differs from the proportion of women that became pregnant because participants could become pregnant multiple times. Anticipating heterogeneity in our main outcome due to the differences in studies included, we hypothesized four categorical variables may contribute to differences in pregnancy events and were therefore included as control variables in regression models (Table 2): biomedical product, contraceptive requirements, region within SSA, and trial start year.
We conducted meta-analyses in R (with metafor [27] and meta packages [28]) using random-effects models to estimate the pooled proportion of pregnancy events over women [29]. First, we calculated the logit transformation of the proportions and their standard errors to achieve a normal distribution [29,30,31]. We then pooled the individual proportion of pregnancy events and their sampling variances to calculate the weighted average proportion using the inverse variance method. Each study’s weight was calculated as the inverse of that study’s total variance. A study with a larger sample size has less variance and is therefore given more weight, which has a greater impact on the weighted average proportion [29,30,31]. Finally, we re-converted the logit transformed summary proportions to the original, non-transformed measurement to yield a true summary proportion. Forest plots were created to show the study-specific and pooled point estimate and confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity, or the amount of variation in outcomes among included studies, was assessed using the Q test (measuring presence of heterogeneity) [32] and I2 statistics (measuring degree of heterogeneity) [33].
We assessed sources of heterogeneity by conducting sub-group analyses and meta-regression by control variables. The sub-group analyses were conducted with a mixed effects model in which the random-effects model was used to combine study effects within each sub-group and the fixed-effect model was used to assess if the effect across the sub-groups varies from each other significantly [29]. For the meta-regression analyses, we first conducted four univariate models separately (e.g., each model tested one of the aforementioned control variables) due to potential multicollinearity resulting from interrelated variables [29, 34]. After finding no multicollinearity, we then ran a multivariate meta-regression model to assess both heterogeneity and the combined moderating effects of the four control variables of interest.
Lastly, we used The Evidence Project risk of bias tool to assess the quality of studies included in this meta-analysis [35]. This tool includes eight criteria: the first three criteria summarize the study design; the next three items focus on sampling and potential biases that may affect equivalence of the study groups or generalizability of the results; and the last two items consider confounding across study arms.
Results
We identified 2590 unique references through database searches (Fig. 1). A title/abstract review yielded 2286 irrelevant articles, with full texts of the remaining 304 articles reviewed for eligibility. Ultimately, 60 unique studies met all inclusion criteria (Table 3). However, we only included pregnancy data from one publication for each trial, even if multiple publications met the eligibility criteria. This yielded 37 unique references for inclusion, with 38 outcomes by product group in the analytic dataset.
Description of Studies
Of references included in the meta-analysis, 37% were from vaccine trials, with the second highest proportion reporting on microbicide trials. About half of studies (53%) began between 2001 and 2007 and only 13% reported a study start year between 2015 and 2022. Approximately one-third of references (31%) describe studies in Southern Africa, while 29% and 8% describe studies in Eastern and Western Africa, respectively. A map outlining country locations for included references is available in Fig. 2. An additional 32% were characterized as “multi-region” or having one site in various sub-regions of SSA. In terms of contraceptive requirements, 42% of studies required an effective method, including hormonal and long-acting methods, with an additional 19% requiring at least two methods. There were 5% of studies that did not require a contraceptive and 34% that encouraged condom use.
Quality Assessment
Summary scores for all references included in this meta-analysis are presented in Appendix B. All studies fully met the three criteria on study design. The two criteria assessing potential confounding across study arms were scored highly, with only one study not reporting comparisons of sociodemographic measures across groups at baseline [75]. For the sampling criteria, while all studies met the requirement on random selection of participants to the intervention, none met the requirement on random selection of participants for assessments. In terms of follow-up rate, among the 35 studies that reported these results, only five studies did not meet the retention rate of 80% or more [38, 42, 53, 79, 82].
Meta-analysis
Overall, the estimated pooled proportion of pregnancy events across included studies was 7.57% (95%CI: 5.56–10.22%) with high heterogeneity (Q = 3750.35, p < 0.01 and I2 = 99.04%). Figure 3 depicts the forest plot with the pooled estimate of all included studies. Results of the sub-group analysis and meta-regression are shown in Table 4.
Pooled proportion of pregnancy events from HIV biomedical prevention trials in sub-Saharan Africa, 2001–2022. CI confidence interval; I2 the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance; τ2 tau-squared is an estimate of the between-study variance; p p-value
Study Product
When examining pregnancy events by study product, the highest proportion of pregnancy events was among microbicide gel studies (12.22%, 95%CI: 8.04–18.16%) and oral PrEP trials (10.95%, 95%CI: 5.80–19.73%), with the lowest rate within a single injectable PrEP study (0.90%, 95%CI: 0.63–1.29%) (Fig. 4). Compared to microbicide gel studies, the odds of a pregnancy event in diaphragm/microbicide gel studies was 75% lower (OR = 0.25, 95%CI: 0.09–0.73, p = 0.01), 93% lower in the injectable PrEP study (OR = 0.07, 95%CI: 0.01–0.32, p < 0.001), and 76% lower in vaginal ring studies (OR = 0.24, 95%CI: 0.10–0.60, p < 0.01) (Table 4). These differences were statistically significant. Although the odds of a pregnancy event in oral PrEP studies and in vaccine studies were lower than microbicide gel studies, these differences were not statistically significant.
Contraceptive Requirements
The pooled proportions of pregnancy events decreased with stricter contraceptive requirements. This proportion was highest among studies without contraceptive requirements (20.51%, 95%CI: 6.71–48.08%) (Fig. 5), followed by condoms encouraged and/or provided (10.25%, 95%CI: 6.21–16.46%) and one effective method required (6.18%, 95%CI: 3.95–9.53%), and was lowest among studies that required two contraceptive methods (5.05%, 95%CI: 2.45–10.13%). Compared to the contraceptives not required sub-group, the odds of a pregnancy event in the two methods required group was 79% lower, which was significant (OR = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.05–0.91, p = 0.04) (Table 4). The odds of a pregnancy event in the condoms encouraged or one effective methods sub-groups was not significantly different from no contraceptives required.
SSA Sub-region
The pooled proportion of pregnancy events across studies in Southern Africa was 6.40% (95%CI: 3.91–10.32%), 8.28% in Eastern Africa (95%CI: 4.72–14.11%), 28.41% in Western Africa (95%CI: 13.24–50.78%), and 5.85% in multi-regional references (95%CI: 3.67–9.21%) (Fig. 6). The odds of a pregnancy event in the Western sub-group were about 6 times the odds in the Southern sub-group, which was significant (OR = 5.80, 95%CI: 1.96–17.22, p < 0.01) (Table 4). There was no significant difference in the odds of a pregnancy event between studies in the Eastern or multi-region sub-groups compared to the Southern sub-group.
Trial Start Year
The pooled proportion of pregnancy events decreased over time from an estimated 10.98% (95%CI: 7.66–15.51%) across studies started within 2001–2007, to 6.31% (95%CI: 3.88–10.12%) from 2008 to 2014, and 2.86% from 2015 to 2022 (95%CI: 1.33–6.05%) (Fig. 7). The odds of a pregnancy event across studies that started between 2015 and 2022 was 76% lower than studies started between 2001 and 2007, which was significantly different (OR = 0.24, 95%CI: 0.10–0.57, p < 0.01) (Table 4). There was no significant difference in the odds of a pregnancy event between studies starting within 2001–2007 and 2008–2014.
Meta-regression Results
Multiple meta-regression results indicate that product type, contraceptive requirement, SSA sub-region, and trial’s starting year together account for 63.17% of heterogeneity and have a significant moderating effect (QM(13) = 60.91, p < 0.0001). However, there was still a significant amount of residual heterogeneity that was not explained by these moderators (QE(24) = 533.57, p < 0.0001).
Discussion
Challenging fetal safety considerations, the historic exclusion of PLP from biomedical HIV prevention trials created an evidence gap around effective prevention options during pregnancy and breastfeeding [10,11,12,13,14]. In addition to the increased risk of HIV acquisition for PLP during these periods, acute maternal infection is associated with elevated risk of perinatal transmission [90]. Furthermore, in the absence of pregnancy-specific pharmacokinetic data, PLP and the developing fetus are at risk of receiving inadequate or even toxic doses of prevention medication, resulting in further harm [17]. Recent guidance has recommended changes within the ethical framing of research among PLP, including shifting from protecting PLP from research to protecting them through research [91]. Leading ethics guidelines strongly recommends that trialists strive toward a more equitable evidence base for under-represented groups [92] and review and address critical pregnancy-related evidence gaps [93].
We conducted this meta-analysis with the goal of providing insight into addressing participants’ shifting fertility preferences over the course of a study’s implementation period while also ensuring that studies remain adequately powered despite pregnancy-related attrition or inclusion of PLP. Over more than two decades covering 38 biomedical HIV prevention trials, we found an estimated pooled proportion of pregnancy events at nearly 8%, with heterogeneity partially explained by differences in study product, contraceptive requirements, region within SSA, and trial start year. Within each of these variables, the highest proportions of pregnancy events were attributed to microbicide trials, trials without contraceptive requirements, trials in Western Africa, and those launched between 2001 and 2007.
These results capture a complicated history surrounding pregnancy and HIV prevention trials. Notably, results indicate that earlier trials, especially microbicide gel trials in Western Africa, had higher proportions of pregnancy events than more recent trials. This can likely be attributed, in part, to more restrictive contraceptive requirements that have been applied by trials over time. That microbicide gel trials have higher proportions of pregnancy events than other products is likely confounded by both time and contraceptive requirements. A lack of access to contraceptives and high rates of pregnancy likely undermined the SAVVY and Cellulose Sulfate trials conducted in Western Africa, which were stopped early due to lack of effectiveness [79, 94]. Around this time, there was fervent discussion about the need for greater contraceptive requirements in trials [9]. An earlier meta-analysis that estimated high pregnancy rates in microbicide trials through 2012 (23.4 pregnancies per 100 woman-years) [21], also called for more comprehensive contraceptive requirements to improve sample size and power. As results of our analysis demonstrate, over time, trials typically moved toward requiring the use of a highly effective, non-barrier method, and in some cases two methods (one highly effective method plus condoms). However, even when two contraceptive methods were required, pregnancies still occurred in trials.
Regarding geographic disparities, we found that of three trials in Western Africa, where pregnancy events were significantly higher than other regions, all examined microbicide gels between 2001 and 2007. Thereafter, no trials were conducted in the region, which raises questions about regional representation within biomedical trials. Part of the motivation for conducting more recent trials in Eastern and Southern Africa may be due to academic affiliations or a need to conduct research in areas with growing HIV epidemics. The change in HIV prevalence in Southern Africa was much greater than in Western Africa over the past 20 years [95]. However, trials may also have shifted to Eastern and Southern Africa where contraceptive prevalence rates have historically been higher [96, 97], given the increased emphasis on contraceptive requirements over time.
Considering the increasing trend toward inclusion of PLP in trials, there is much to be learned from this history regarding the nuanced context against which people of reproductive potential participate in trials. Trialists must consider the multiple motivations behind individuals’ willingness to participate in prevention trials, as reasons for participation are multi-faceted and are not limited to addressing HIV prevention needs. Preventing acquisition of HIV and altruistic desires to support the community are commonly noted as primary motivators for participation [98], and yet qualitative research elucidates a more complex story. Individuals are also motivated by the potential for personal health benefits offered through trials, such as free health care and consistent HIV testing [99,100,101]. The VOICE trial of a vaginal gel with very low adherence but high retention found that participants quantitatively reported altruism as a primary motivator for participation, but qualitatively stated they were driven by the potential personal health benefits offered by the trial [100]. Qualitative interviews following the FEM-PrEP trial, another trial with low adherence and high retention, found that participants valued the access to monthly HIV testing even more than the access to the daily prevention product [102]. Cultural context and gendered social dynamics also directly influence participants’ desire to participate in trials or adhere to trial requirements [103], including contraceptive requirements. Some women may have constraints on decision-making autonomy regarding fertility preferences, and in SSA where fertility rates are generally high [104], they may feel societal or familial pressure to become pregnant [105, 106].
Trial teams should balance participants’ myriad reasons for trial participation, as well as the need for evidence on safe and effective HIV prevention options for PLP. It is recommended that trial teams embrace a more gender transformative approach [107] to trials, which generally argues for adopting strategies that critically examine gender norms and dynamics while also strengthening systems that support gender equality. Applied to HIV prevention trials, trialists should responsibly loosen contraceptive requirements and allow for greater reproductive choice during trials. Where appropriate, this may include dropping the contraceptive requirement altogether or recruiting individuals who are actively seeking to become pregnant. A gender transformative approach would moreover ensure a comprehensive contraceptive method mix through direct provision rather than referrals. Many protocols reviewed for this meta-analysis stated that contraceptives were provided “per local standards,” which indicates inconsistent strategies for participant access to contraceptives across trials and sites within trials [108]. Instead, trialists should outline in protocols exactly which contraceptive methods will be available to participants via which strategy, and how participants will be guided to select their choice of contraceptive at the same visit during which they receive the study product.
Participants should also be permitted and supported to switch to contraceptive methods that better suit their needs and lifestyle over the course of the study. Apart from aligning with gender transformation, it may also have a direct impact on participant retention and adherence in prevention trials. Participation in the MTN-020/ASPIRE phase III trial required the use of highly effective contraceptive methods [69, 70]. ASPIRE improved uptake of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods with counseling and immediate access to at least four different contraceptive options, either delivered directly at the site or referred out to the public sector [109]. A qualitative component of APSIRE further recommended that trialists pre-emptively address concerns around potential impacts of contraceptive and study product on fertility to further support adherence to study product [110].
As trial teams responsibly loosen restrictions on contraceptive requirements, and therefore better prepare for pregnancies within trials, we also recommend that trial teams clearly outline in protocols the steps to be taken once a pregnancy is identified. Since consent forms were not reviewed as a part of this analysis, it is unclear the extent to which this information is consistently and clearly communicated to participants before a pregnancy occurs. Standard practice has been to remove participants from study products and, in some cases, disenroll them completely from the trial. For studies in which pregnancy would require discontinuation of study products, trialists should consider re-enrolling participants once they enter their postpartum period, if they do not already do so.
However, to better inform prevention options for PLP, certain trials should be encouraged to actively enroll PLP and re-consent those who become pregnant and who may be willing to stay on experimental products. Doing so would support the gathering of pre- or early-clinical data from PLP, contributing valuable information prior to drug authorization. However, inclusion of PLP may not be appropriate for all trials or trial phases. Leading international ethics guidelines recommend that research in PLP should only be initiated after careful consideration of the “best available data” from pre-clinical research in pregnant animal models, research in non-pregnant women, retrospective observational studies, and pregnancy registries, and when a favorable risk–benefit ratio is met [111]. For those trials in which PLP will be enrolled and encouraged to stay on product, protocols should clearly outline any additional monitoring or support participants would receive, including referrals or direct provision of antenatal care. The WHO/IMPAACT/IAS Call to Action and the AVAC/PHASES Think Tank report endorsed that product developers should remove contraception requirements in pre-licensure trials and allow participants who become pregnant to re-consent to stay on study drug and contribute pregnancy pharmacokinetic and safety data, once non-clinical reproductive toxicity data indicate no concerning signals and dosing for nonpregnant people is determined [112, 113]. In addition, the AVAC/PHASES Think Tank report recommended that HIV prevention trial sites actively facilitate and strongly consider providing access to sexual and reproductive health services that promote women’s health and autonomy, including contraceptive counseling, even when contraception requirements are not warranted [112]. A further consideration for trials including PLP is the need to track and examine safety data for PLP and their fetuses, which would inevitably include data on abortion. Collecting such data may be politically or legally onerous to collect in the many contexts where biomedical HIV prevention research is conducted given the growing restrictions on access to safe and legal abortions [114].
We aimed to highlight the need for more gender transformative approaches for PLP, and to support trial teams as they can use the results of this meta-analysis to better prepare for pregnancy in trials. There are benefits to moving toward gender transformative trials for trial teams, not just participants. The responsible loosening of contraceptive requirements and better preparing for pregnancies in trials will allow trial teams to generate much needed evidence on prevention strategies for PLP and the developing fetus. Moreover, current restrictions on pregnancy likely lead to selection bias into trials, namely, the inclusion of participants who do not plan to become pregnant. By making trials more inclusive, trial teams can attract a wider mix of participants that are more representative of the average end-user. Trial teams can use these results to estimate attrition rates from trials due to pregnancy given certain requirements, which can be considered in power calculations and sampling plans.
Limitations
This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of pregnancy events in biomedical HIV prevention trials over the past two decades. We used a rigorous approach to identify articles for inclusion in this meta-analysis; notwithstanding, certain articles or trials may have been inadvertently excluded. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the sub-group analyses are essentially bivariate analyses and do not take confounding into consideration. As such, interpreting the estimated proportion of pregnancy by year, for example, may be confounded by the fact that contraceptive requirements changed over time. However, the final multivariable meta-regression helps to address confounding of key variables. Also, although we anticipated heterogeneity in this meta-analysis—and sought to identify and prioritize certain variables that may contribute to this variation in pregnancy events—the four variables identified did not account for all heterogeneity. There may be other important considerations, and we encourage future meta-analyses to examine average participant age and trial phase as additional key variables contributing to variation in pregnancy events. Future studies might also consider how country-specific abortion laws contribute to heterogeneity, as access to safe and legal abortion may influence pregnancy events and other outcomes or safety data for PLP and their fetuses. Lastly, the validity of these results is dependent on the data quality from the original studies, though our assessment indicates generally low risk of bias for included studies. Further, we acknowledge that there could be publication bias inherent to the papers included. However, publication bias is more challenging to identify and quantify when the focus of the meta-analysis is not the main outcome of abstracted articles [115]. This meta-analysis reviewed a non-primary outcome (e.g., pregnancy events), making tests to assess publication bias less interpretable. Notably, as publication bias is typically an issue of small study effects [116], we highlight that 84% of studies included in this review had sample sizes greater than 50.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis found a roughly 8% estimated proportion of pregnancy events in biomedical HIV prevention trials in SSA over the past 20 years. Study product, contraceptive requirements, region where the study took place, and trial start year were all important in contributing to heterogeneity in the proportion of observed pregnancy events. Trial teams are faced with various responsibilities, including generating a scientific evidence base for this at-risk population as well as accommodating participant fertility choices. Trial teams can use these findings to reflect on the reality and motivations with which participants join trials, to adopt strategies that support participants’ shifting fertility preferences during trials, and to improve planning for pregnancies during trials, including implications for sampling, improving study power, and overall design. This might include better preparation for attrition due to pregnancy or for the opportunity for PLP to remain on study product, where ethics recommendations are met. Taken together, these considerations would provide a more gender transformative approach to how pregnancy is managed in biomedical HIV prevention trials.
Data Availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.
References
Ayala G, Sprague L, van der Merwe LL, Thomas RM, Chang J, Arreola S, et al. Peer- and community-led responses to HIV: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(12): e0260555.
Barr D, Amon JJ, Clayton M. Articulating a rights-based approach to HIV treatment and prevention interventions. Curr HIV Res. 2011;9(6):396–404.
Lippman SA, Maman S, MacPhail C, Twine R, Peacock D, Kahn K, et al. Conceptualizing community mobilization for HIV prevention: implications for HIV prevention programming in the African context. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e78208e-e.
African Commission on Human Rights. HIV, the law, and Human Rights in the African Human Rights System: Key Challenges and Opportunities for Rights-Based Responses. UNAIDS; 2018.
Dworkin SL, Treves-Kagan S, Lippman SA. Gender-transformative interventions to reduce HIV risks and violence with heterosexually-active men: a review of the global evidence. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(9):2845–63.
Kraft JM, Wilkins KG, Morales GJ, Widyono M, Middlestadt SE. An evidence review of gender-integrated interventions in reproductive and maternal-child health. J Health Commun. 2014;19(Suppl 1):122–41.
UNAIDS. Political declaration on HIV and AIDS: ending inequalities and getting back on track to end AIDS by 2030. UNAIDS Geneva; 2021.
Sibeko S, Baxter C, Yende N, Karim QA, Karim SSA. Contraceptive choices, pregnancy rates, and outcomes in a microbicide trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(4):895–904.
Sibeko S, Cohen GM, Moodley J. Contraception and pregnancy in microbicide trials. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;26(4):473–86.
Baylis F, Ballantyne A. Clinical research involving pregnant women: Springer; 2017.
Curno MJ, Rossi S, Hodges-Mameletzis I, Johnston R, Price MA, Heidari S. A systematic review of the inclusion (or exclusion) of women in HIV research: from clinical studies of antiretrovirals and vaccines to cure strategies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(2):181–8.
Davies N, Heffron R. Global and national guidance for the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis during peri-conception, pregnancy and breastfeeding. Sex Health. 2018;15(6):501–12.
Sullivan K, Mtande T, Jaffe E, Rosenberg N, Zimba C, Hoffman I, et al. Views among Malawian women about joining HIV prevention clinical trials when pregnant. AIDS Res Ther. 2020;17(1):27.
Wickremsinhe MN, Little MO, Carter AS, Sullivan KA, Lyerly AD. Beyond “vessels and vectors”: a global review of registered hiv-related clinical trials with pregnant women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(1):93–9.
Mugo NR, Heffron R, Donnell D, Wald A, Were EO, Rees H, et al. Increased risk of HIV-1 transmission in pregnancy: a prospective study among African HIV-1-serodiscordant couples. AIDS (London, England). 2011;25(15):1887–95.
Thomson KA, Hughes J, Baeten JM, John-Stewart G, Celum C, Cohen CR, et al. Increased risk of HIV acquisition among women throughout pregnancy and during the postpartum period: a prospective per-coital-act analysis among women with HIV-infected partners. J Infect Dis. 2018;218(1):16–25.
Colbers A, Mirochnick M, Schalkwijk S, Penazzato M, Townsend C, Burger D. Importance of prospective studies in pregnant and breastfeeding women living with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infectious Dis : Official Publ Infectious Dis Soc Am. 2019;69(7):1254–8.
Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, Grobler AC, Baxter C, Mansoor LE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science. 2010;329(5996):1168–74.
Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):399–410.
Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, Gomez K, Mgodi N, Nair G, et al. Tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(6):509–18.
Musekiwa A, Muchiri E, Manda SO, Mwambi HG. Pregnancy incidence and risk factors among women participating in vaginal microbicide trials for HIV prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10): e77014.
Moodley J, Naidoo S, Wand H, Ramjee G. Contraception use and impact on pregnancy prevention in women participating in an HIV prevention trial in South Africa. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2016;42(1):5–11.
Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO). Trial Consortium HIV incidence among women using intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, a copper intrauterine device, or a levonorgestrel implant for contraception: a randomised, multicentre, open-label trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10195):303–13.
Sullivan KA, Little MO, Rosenberg NE, Zimba C, Jaffe E, Gilbert S, et al. Women’s views about contraception requirements for biomedical research participation. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(5):e0216332-e.
AVAC. Including Pregnant and Lactating Populations in HIV Prevention Research 2023 [Available from: https://www.avac.org/including-plp.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000100.
Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48.
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153–60.
Wang N. How to Conduct a Meta-Analysis of Proportions in R: A Comprehensive Tutorial2018.
Sahai H, Ageel M. The analysis of variance: fixed, random and mixed models. Boston: Birkhauser; 2012.
Lipsey M, Wilson D. Practical meta-analysis. New York: Sage Publications; 2001.
Hedges LV, Olkin I. Chapter 9: Random effects models for effect sizes. In: Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, Cambridge; 1985. p. 189–203.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2003;327(7414):557–60.
Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. 2nd ed. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Armstrong KA, Denison JA, Yeh PT, O’Reilly KR, et al. The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):3.
von Mollendorf CE, Van Damme L, Moyes JA, Rees VH, Callahan MM, Mauck CK, et al. Results of a safety and feasibility study of the diaphragm used with ACIDFORM Gel or K-Y Jelly. Contraception. 2010;81(3):232–9.
Matthews LT, Sibeko S, Mansoor LE, Yende-Zuma N, Bangsberg DR, Karim QA. Women with pregnancies had lower adherence to 1% tenofovir vaginal gel as HIV preexposure prophylaxis in CAPRISA 004, a phase IIB randomized-controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(3): e56400.
Carraguard Phase IISAST. Expanded safety and acceptability of the candidate vaginal microbicide Carraguard(R) in South Africa. Contraception. 2010;82(6):563–71.
Skoler-Karpoff S, Ramjee G, Ahmed K, Altini L, Gheret Plagianos M, Friedland B, et al. Efficacy of Carraguard for prevention of HIV infection in women in South Africa: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9654):1977–87.
Gaffoor Z, Wand H, Street RA, Abbai N, Ramjee G. Predictors of perceived male partner concurrency among women at risk for HIV and STI acquisition in Durban. South Africa AIDS Res Ther. 2016;13:14.
van der Straten A, Napierala S, Cheng H, Mauck C, Depineres T, Dhlakama P, et al. A randomized controlled safety trial of the diaphragm and cellulose sulfate microbicide gel in sexually active women in Zimbabwe. Contraception. 2007;76(5):389–99.
Halpern V, Ogunsola F, Obunge O, Wang CH, Onyejepu N, Oduyebo O, et al. Effectiveness of cellulose sulfate vaginal gel for the prevention of HIV infection: results of a Phase III trial in Nigeria. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(11): e3784.
Nel A, van Niekerk N, Van Baelen B, Malherbe M, Mans W, Carter A, et al. Safety, adherence, and HIV-1 seroconversion among women using the dapivirine vaginal ring (DREAM): an open-label, extension study. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(2):e77–86.
Bakobaki JM, Lacey CJ, Bukenya MI, Nunn AJ, McCormack S, Byaruhanga RN, et al. A randomized controlled safety and acceptability trial of dextrin sulphate vaginal microbicide gel in sexually active women in Uganda. AIDS (London, England). 2005;19(18):2149–56.
Delany-Moretlwe S, Lombard C, Baron D, Bekker LG, Nkala B, Ahmed K, et al. Tenofovir 1% vaginal gel for prevention of HIV-1 infection in women in South Africa (FACTS-001): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(11):1241–50.
Rees H, Chersich MF, Munthali RJ, Brumskine W, Palanee-Phillips T, Nkala B, et al. HIV Incidence Among Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women in the FACTS-001 Trial: Implications for HIV Prevention, Especially PrEP Use. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021;88(4):376–83.
Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, Agot K, Lombaard J, Kapiga S, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):411–22.
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.
Nanda K, Callahan R, Taylor D, Wang M, Agot K, Jenkins D, et al. Medroxyprogesterone acetate levels among Kenyan women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate in the FEM-PrEP trial. Contraception. 2016;94(1):40–7.
Bakari M, Aboud S, Nilsson C, Francis J, Buma D, Moshiro C, et al. Broad and potent immune responses to a low dose intradermal HIV-1 DNA boosted with HIV-1 recombinant MVA among healthy adults in Tanzania. Vaccine. 2011;29(46):8417–28.
Balkus JE, Brown ER, Hillier SL, Coletti A, Ramjee G, Mgodi N, et al. Oral and injectable contraceptive use and HIV acquisition risk among women in four African countries: a secondary analysis of data from a microbicide trial. Contraception. 2016;93(1):25–31.
Delany-Moretlwe S, Hughes JP, Bock P, Ouma SG, Hunidzarira P, Kalonji D, et al. Cabotegravir for the prevention of HIV-1 in women: results from HPTN 084, a phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2022;399(10337):1779–89.
Churchyard G, Mlisana K, Karuna S, Williamson AL, Williamson C, Morris L, et al. Sequential Immunization with gp140 Boosts Immune Responses Primed by Modified Vaccinia Ankara or DNA in HIV-Uninfected South African Participants. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(9): e0161753.
Gray GE, Huang Y, Grunenberg N, Laher F, Roux S, Andersen-Nissen E, et al. Immune correlates of the Thai RV144 HIV vaccine regimen in South Africa. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(510):eaax1880.
Laher F, Moodie Z, Cohen KW, Grunenberg N, Bekker LG, Allen M, et al. Safety and immune responses after a 12-month booster in healthy HIV-uninfected adults in HVTN 100 in South Africa: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) and bivalent subtype C gp120/MF59 vaccines. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2): e1003038.
Gray GE, Allen M, Moodie Z, Churchyard G, Bekker LG, Nchabeleng M, et al. Safety and efficacy of the HVTN 503/Phambili study of a clade-B-based HIV-1 vaccine in South Africa: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled test-of-concept phase 2b study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11(7):507–15.
Latka MH, Fielding K, Gray GE, Bekker LG, Nchabeleng M, Mlisana K, et al. Pregnancy incidence and correlates during the HVTN 503 Phambili HIV vaccine trial conducted among South African women. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4): e31387.
Mpofu R, Otwombe K, Mlisana K, Nchabeleng M, Allen M, Kublin J, et al. Benign ethnic neutropenia in a South African population, and its association with HIV acquisition and adverse event reporting in an HIV vaccine clinical trial. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(1): e0241708.
Gray GE, Bekker LG, Laher F, Malahleha M, Allen M, Moodie Z, et al. Vaccine Efficacy of ALVAC-HIV and Bivalent Subtype C gp120-MF59 in Adults. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(12):1089–100.
Mgodi NM, Takuva S, Edupuganti S, Karuna S, Andrew P, Lazarus E, et al. A phase 2b study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of VRC01 broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody in reducing acquisition of HIV-1 infection in women in Sub-Saharan Africa: Baseline Findings. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021;87(1):680–7.
McCormack S, Ramjee G, Kamali A, Rees H, Crook AM, Gafos M, et al. PRO2000 vaginal gel for prevention of HIV-1 infection (Microbicides Development Programme 301): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1329–37.
Abaasa A, Crook A, Gafos M, Anywaine Z, Levin J, Wandiembe S, et al. Long-term consistent use of a vaginal microbicide gel among HIV-1 sero-discordant couples in a phase III clinical trial (MDP 301) in rural south-west Uganda. Trials. 2013;14:33.
Crook AM, Ford D, Gafos M, Hayes R, Kamali A, Kapiga S, et al. Injectable and oral contraceptives and risk of HIV acquisition in women: an analysis of data from the MDP301 trial. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1810–7.
Padian NS, van der Straten A, Ramjee G, Chipato T, de Bruyn G, Blanchard K, et al. Diaphragm and lubricant gel for prevention of HIV acquisition in southern African women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;370(9583):251–61.
Blanchard K, Bostrom A, Montgomery E, van der Straten A, Lince N, de Bruyn G, et al. Contraception use and effectiveness among women in a trial of the diaphragm for HIV prevention. Contraception. 2011;83(6):556–63.
Blanchard K, Holt K, Bostrom A, van der Straten A, Ramjee G, de Bruyn G, et al. Impact of learning HIV status on contraceptive use in the MIRA trial. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2011;37(4):204–8.
McCoy SI, Zheng W, Montgomery ET, Blanchard K, van der Straten A, de Bruyn G, et al. Oral and injectable contraception use and risk of HIV acquisition among women in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS (London, England). 2013;27(6):1001–9.
Akello CA, Bunge KE, Nakabiito C, Mirembe BG, Fowler MG, Mishra A, et al. Contraceptive use and pregnancy incidence among women participating in an HIV prevention trial. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(6):670–6.
Makanani B, Balkus JE, Jiao Y, Noguchi LM, Palanee-Phillips T, Mbilizi Y, et al. Pregnancy and infant outcomes among women using the dapivirine vaginal ring in early pregnancy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;79(5):566–72.
Balkus JE, Palanee-Phillips T, Reddy K, Siva S, Harkoo I, Nakabiito C, et al. Brief report: dapivirine vaginal ring use does not diminish the effectiveness of hormonal contraception. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;76(2):e47–51.
Mugo NR, Hong T, Celum C, Donnell D, Bukusi EA, John-Stewart G, et al. Pregnancy incidence and outcomes among women receiving preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(4):362–71.
Mugwanya KK, Donnell D, Celum C, Thomas KK, Ndase P, Mugo N, et al. Sexual behaviour of heterosexual men and women receiving antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: a longitudinal analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(12):1021–8.
Murnane PM, Heffron R, Ronald A, Bukusi EA, Donnell D, Mugo NR, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention does not diminish the pregnancy prevention effectiveness of hormonal contraception. AIDS (London, England). 2014;28(12):1825–30.
Kibengo FM, Ruzagira E, Katende D, Bwanika AN, Bahemuka U, Haberer JE, et al. Safety, adherence and acceptability of intermittent tenofovir/emtricitabine as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among HIV-uninfected Ugandan volunteers living in HIV-serodiscordant relationships: a randomized, clinical trial. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(9): e74314.
Vardas E, Kaleebu P, Bekker LG, Hoosen A, Chomba E, Johnson PR, et al. A phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant HIV type 1 vaccine based on adeno-associated virus. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2010;26(8):933–42.
Kibuuka H, Guwatudde D, Kimutai R, Maganga L, Maboko L, Watyema C, et al. Contraceptive use in women enrolled into preventive HIV vaccine trials: experience from a phase I/II trial in East Africa. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(4): e5164.
Kibuuka H, Kimutai R, Maboko L, Sawe F, Schunk MS, Kroidl A, et al. A phase 1/2 study of a multiclade HIV-1 DNA plasmid prime and recombinant adenovirus serotype 5 boost vaccine in HIV-Uninfected East Africans (RV 172). J Infect Dis. 2010;201(4):600–7.
Peterson L, Nanda K, Opoku BK, Ampofo WK, Owusu-Amoako M, Boakye AY, et al. SAVVY (C31G) gel for prevention of HIV infection in women: a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Ghana. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(12): e1312.
Feldblum PJ, Adeiga A, Bakare R, Wevill S, Lendvay A, Obadaki F, et al. SAVVY vaginal gel (C31G) for prevention of HIV infection: a randomized controlled trial in Nigeria. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(1): e1474.
Joachim A, Bauer A, Joseph S, Geldmacher C, Munseri PJ, Aboud S, et al. Boosting with subtype C CN54rgp140 protein adjuvanted with glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant after priming with HIV-DNA and HIV-MVA Is safe and enhances immune responses: a phase I trial. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5): e0155702.
Munseri PJ, Kroidl A, Nilsson C, Joachim A, Geldmacher C, Mann P, et al. Priming with a simplified intradermal HIV-1 DNA vaccine regimen followed by boosting with recombinant HIV-1 MVA vaccine is safe and immunogenic: a phase IIa randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4): e0119629.
Viegas EO, Kroidl A, Munseri PJ, Missanga M, Nilsson C, Tembe N, et al. Optimizing the immunogenicity of HIV prime-boost DNA-MVA-rgp140/GLA vaccines in a phase II randomized factorial trial design. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11): e0206838.
Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):423–34.
Kebaabetswe PM, Stirratt MJ, McLellan-Lemal E, Henderson FL, Gray SC, Rose CE, et al. Factors associated with adherence and concordance between measurement strategies in an HIV daily oral Tenofovir/Emtricitibine as pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep) clinical trial, Botswana, 2007–2010. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(5):758–69.
Gust DA, Soud F, Hardnett FP, Malotte CK, Rose C, Kebaabetswe P, et al. Evaluation of sexual risk behavior among study participants in the TDF2 PrEP study among heterosexual adults in Botswana. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73(5):556–63.
Nel A, Bekker LG, Bukusi E, Hellstrӧm E, Kotze P, Louw C, et al. Safety, acceptability and adherence of Dapivirine vaginal ring in a microbicide clinical trial conducted in multiple countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3): e0147743.
Nel A, van Niekerk N, Kapiga S, Bekker LG, Gama C, Gill K, et al. Safety and efficacy of a Dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV prevention in women. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2133–43.
Jaoko W, Karita E, Kayitenkore K, Omosa-Manyonyi G, Allen S, Than S, et al. Safety and immunogenicity study of Multiclade HIV-1 adenoviral vector vaccine alone or as boost following a multiclade HIV-1 DNA vaccine in Africa. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(9): e12873.
Schmidt C, Jaoko W, Omosa-Manyonyi G, Kaleebu P, Mpendo J, Nanvubya A, et al. Long-term follow-up of study participants from prophylactic HIV vaccine clinical trials in Africa. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(3):714–23.
Chi BH, Mbori-Ngacha D, Essajee S, Mofenson LM, Tsiouris F, Mahy M, et al. Accelerating progress towards the elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV: a narrative review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(8): e25571.
The PHASES Working Group. Ending the evidence gap for pregnant women around HIV & co-infections: A call to action. Chapel Hill: PHASES; 2020.
UNAIDS and WHO. Ethical considerations in HIV prevention trials: UNAIDS and WHO guidance document. Geneva: UNAIDS and WHO; 2021.
Lyerly AD, Beigi R, Bekker LG, Chi BH, Cohn SE, Diallo DD, et al. Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project. J Int AIDS Soc. 2021;24(12): e25846.
Van Damme L, Govinden R, Mirembe FM, Guédou F, Solomon S, Becker ML, et al. Lack of effectiveness of cellulose sulfate gel for the prevention of vaginal HIV transmission. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(5):463–72.
Dwyer-Lindgren L, Cork MA, Sligar A, Steuben KM, Wilson KF, Provost NR, et al. Mapping HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa between 2000 and 2017. Nature. 2019;570(7760):189–93.
Sharan M, Ahmed S, May J, Soucat A. Family Planning Trends in Sub-Saharan Africa: Progress, Prospects, and Lessons Learned. Success Stories from A Dynamic Continent. 2011.
Boadu I. Coverage and determinants of modern contraceptive use in sub-Saharan Africa: further analysis of demographic and health surveys. Reprod Health. 2022;19(1):18.
Hanass-Hancock J, Carpenter B, Reddy T, Nzuza A, Gaffoor Z, Goga A, et al. Participants’ characteristics and motivations to screen for HIV vaccine and monoclonal antibody trials in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Trials. 2021;22(1):897.
Asiki G, Abaasa A, Ruzagira E, Kibengo F, Bahemuka U, Mulondo J, et al. Willingness to participate in HIV vaccine efficacy trials among high risk men and women from fishing communities along Lake Victoria in Uganda. Vaccine. 2013;31(44):5055–61.
Katz AWK, Mensch BS, Woeber K, Musara P, Etima J, van der Straten A. Understanding women’s motivations to participate in MTN-003/VOICE, a phase 2b HIV prevention trial with low adherence. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1):18.
Nyaoke BA, Mutua GN, Sajabi R, Nyasani D, Mureithi MW, Anzala OA. Volunteer motivators for participating in HIV vaccine clinical trials in Nairobi, Kenya. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(9): e0183788.
Magical thinking? FEM-PrEP tiral may have failed because participatns used testing as prevention [press release]. aidsmap2013.
Closson K, Lee L, Dietrich JJ, Beksinska ME, Hornschuh S, Smith P, et al. Gender and Power Dynamics of Social Relationships Shape Willingness to Participate in Biomedical HIV Prevention Research Among South African Adolescents and Young Adults. Frontiers in reproductive health. 2021;3: 639391.
World Bank. World Databank: Fertility rate, total (births per woman) - Sub-Saharan Africa 2023 [Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=ZG.
Teshale AB, Worku MG, Tesema GA. Fertility decision and its associated factors in Sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel multinomial logistic regression analysis. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):337.
Ahinkorah BO, Seidu AA, Armah-Ansah EK, Budu E, Ameyaw EK, Agbaglo E, et al. Drivers of desire for more children among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: implications for fertility control. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):778.
Interagency Gender Working Group. Gender Integration Continuum: Gender Equality Continuum Tool. USAID; 2013.
Macqueen KM, Johnson L, Alleman P, Akumatey B, Lawoyin T, Nyiama T. Pregnancy prevention practices among women with multiple partners in an HIV prevention trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;46(1):32–8.
Chappell CA, Harkoo I, Szydlo DW, Bunge KE, Singh D, Nakabiito C, et al. Contraceptive method switching among women living in sub-Saharan Africa participating in an HIV-1 prevention trial: a prospective cohort study. Contraception. 2019;100(3):214–8.
Leslie J, Kiweewa F, Palanee-Phillips T, Bunge K, Mhlanga F, Kamira B, et al. Experiences with simultaneous use of contraception and the vaginal ring for HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):175.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. 4th ed. Geneva: CIOMS; 2016.
AVAC/PHASES. Advancing HIV Prevention Research in Pregnancy and Lactating People (PLP): Think Tank Report & Action Plan. New York: AVAC; 2023.
World Health Organization. Research for informed choices: Accelerating the study of new drugs for HIV in pregnant and breastfeeding women. A Call to Action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
Sugarman J, Wenner DM, Rid A, Meltzer Henry L, Luna F, Klitzman R, et al. Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted. Science. 2023;380(6651):1224–6.
van Aert RCM, Wicherts JM, van Assen M. Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(4): e0215052.
Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2001;323(7304):101–5.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank members of the Coalition to Accelerate and Support Prevention Research (CASPR) working to advance the inclusion of pregnant and lactating populations in trials. We are especially grateful to Joyce Nganga for providing input into results interpretation. We are also appreciative of the support provided by Carol Manion, the FHI 360 reference librarian. Finally, the authors would like to thank those that reviewed this manuscript: Stacey Hannah from AVAC and Betsy Tolley and Mario Chen from FHI 360.
Funding
This research has been made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under Cooperative Agreement number AID-OAA-A-16–00031. The views and opinions presented here are the responsibility of FHI 360 and its partners and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.L. was responsible for study conceptualization and design, and K.M. provided overall supervision for the study. Reference screening was conducted by N.D. and C.W., with L.L. providing input on decisions when needed. N.D., C.W., and L.L. abstracted data from references. N.D. conducted the meta-analysis, with A.M. providing analysis supervision and results verification. L.L., M.C., B.L., D.N., C.S., N.E., and K.M. supported results interpretation. L.L. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript with support from N.D. All authors provided a critical review of the first draft. All authors read, provided feedback, and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethical Approval
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis, not human subjects research. FHI 360’s Office of International Research Ethics (1918056) confirmed that no ethical approval is required.
Consent to Participate
As this meta-analysis was not considered human subjects research and did not involve data collection with human subjects, consent to participate does not apply.
Consent to Publications
As this meta-analysis was not considered human subjects research and did not involve data collection with human subjects, consent to publish does not apply.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
See Table 5.
Appendix B
See Table 6.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lorenzetti, L., Dinh, N., Whitcomb, C. et al. Meta-analysis of Pregnancy Events in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for Gender Transformative Trials. AIDS Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-024-04459-z
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-024-04459-z