Table IV.

Prospective cohort studies involving assessment of the effect of injectable contraceptives on the risk of HIV acquisition

References	Nos	Study site	Population studied	Incidence of HIV/100 woman-years	Risk [95% CI] of HIV acquisition versus non-hormonal method
Kapiga et al. (1998)	129 DMPA users versus 1241 other methods	Tanzania	Family planning clinic attendees	0.9 in DMPA users versus 4.1 in non-users	DMPA use 0.30 [0.07–1.26]
Kiddugavu et al. (2003)	635 users of injectable contraception versus 4267 non-hormonal method	Uganda	Community-based, women aged 15–49	2.2 in sometime users of DMPA versus 1.5 in non-users	Injectable contraception use 0.84 [0.41–1.72]
Morrison et al. (2007)	1536 users of DMPA versus 1412 users of non-hormonal contraception	Uganda and Zimbabwe	Family planning clinic attendees	3.11 in users of DMPA versus 2.55 in users of non-hormonal contraception	DMPA use 1.25 [0.89–1.78]
Myer et al. (2007)	603 DMPA users, 199 NET-EN users versus 3304 users of non-hormonal method	South Africa	Women attending cervical screening trial	2.62 in users of DMPA, 2.16 in NET-EN users versus 2.16 in users of non-hormonal contraception	DMPA use 0.96 [0.58–1.59], NET-EN 0.79 [0.31–2.02]
Baeten et al., 2007ba	369 DMPA users versus 568 users of non-hormonal method	Kenya	Commercial sex workers	14.13 in users of DMPA versus 6.49 in users of non-hormonal contraception	DMPA use 1.73 [1.28–2.34]
Kleinschmidt et al., 2007	108 DMPA users, 192 NET-EN users versus 251 non-hormonal method	South Africa	Family planning clinic attendees	1.1 in users of DMPA versus 7.5 in users of NET-EN versus 4.4 in users of non-hormonal contraception	DMPA use 0.46 [0.06–3.79], NET-EN 1.76 [0.64–4.84]

^aOf the on-going studies that have been reported in several publications (e.g. Martin et al., 1998, Lavreys et al., 2004a; Baeten et al., 2007b), only the latest results are included. DMPA, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate; NET-EN, norethindrone enanthate.