Hormonal Contraception and HIV-1 Acquisition: Biological Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to effective affordable contraception is critical for individual and public health. A wide range of hormonal contraceptives (HCs), which differ in composition, concentration of the progestin component, frequency of dosage, and method of administration, is currently available globally. However, the options are rather limited in settings with restricted economic resources that frequently overlap with areas of high HIV-1 prevalence. The predominant contraceptive used in sub-Saharan Africa is the progestin-only three-monthly injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Determination of whether HCs affect HIV-1 acquisition has been hampered by behavioral differences potentially confounding clinical observational data. Meta-analysis of these studies shows a significant association between depot medroxyprogesterone acetate use and increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition, raising important concerns. No association was found for combined oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, nor for the two-monthly injectable contraceptive norethisterone enanthate, although data for norethisterone enanthate are limited. Susceptibility to HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections may, however, be dependent on the type of progestin present in the formulation. Several underlying biological mechanisms that may mediate the effect of HCs on HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infection acquisition have been identified in clinical, animal, and ex vivo studies. A substantial gap exists in the translation of basic research into clinical practice and public health policy. To bridge this gap, we review the current knowledge of underlying mechanisms and biological effects of commonly used progestins. The review sheds light on issues critical for an informed choice of progestins for the identification of safe, effective, acceptable, and affordable contraceptive methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".