Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275794

Randomized, placebo controlled phase I trial of the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and acceptability of a 90 day tenofovir plus levonorgestrel vaginal ring used continuously or cyclically in women: The CONRAD 138 study

Andrea R Thurman 1,*, Vivian Brache 2, Leila Cochon 2, Louise A Ouattara 1, Neelima Chandra 1, Terry Jacot 1, Nazita Yousefieh 1, Meredith R Clark 1, Melissa Peet 1, Homaira Hanif 1, Jill L Schwartz 1, Susan Ju 1, Mark A Marzinke 3, David W Erikson 4, Urvi Parikh 5, Betsy C Herold 6, Raina N Fichorova 7, Elizabeth Tolley 8, Gustavo F Doncel 1
Editor: Vanessa Carels9
PMCID: PMC9550080  PMID: 36215267

Abstract

Multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), which prevent sexually transmitted infection(s) and unintended pregnancy, are highly desirable to women. In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase I study, women used a placebo or tenofovir (TFV) and levonorgestrel (LNG) intravaginal ring (IVR), either continuously or cyclically (three, 28-day cycles with a 3 day interruption in between each cycle), for 90 days. Sixty-eight women were screened; 47 were randomized to 4 arms: TFV/LNG or placebo IVRs used continuously or cyclically (4:4:1:1). Safety was assessed by adverse events and changes from baseline in mucosal histology and immune mediators. TFV concentrations were evaluated in multiple compartments. LNG concentration was determined in serum. Modeled TFV pharmacodynamic antiviral activity was evaluated in vaginal and rectal fluids and cervicovaginal tissue ex vivo. LNG pharmacodynamics was assessed with cervical mucus quality and anovulation. All IVRs were safe with no serious adverse events nor significant changes in genital tract histology, immune cell density or secreted soluble proteins from baseline. Median vaginal fluid TFV concentrations were >500 ng/mg throughout 90d. TFV-diphosphate tissue concentrations exceeded 1,000 fmol/mg within 72hrs of IVR insertion. Mean serum LNG concentrations exceeded 200 pg/mL within 2h of TFV/LNG use, decreasing quickly after IVR removal. Vaginal fluid of women using TFV-containing IVRs had significantly greater inhibitory activity (87–98% versus 10% at baseline; p<0.01) against HIV replication in vitro. There was a >10-fold reduction in HIV p24 antigen production from ectocervical tissues after TFV/LNG exposure. TFV/LNG IVR users had significantly higher rates of anovulation, lower Insler scores and poorer/abnormal cervical mucus sperm penetration. Most TFV/LNG IVR users reported no change in menstrual cycles or fewer days of and/or lighter bleeding. All IVRs were safe. Active rings delivered high TFV concentrations locally. LNG caused changes in cervical mucus, sperm penetration, and ovulation compatible with contraceptive efficacy.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03279120.

Introduction

Multi-purpose prevention technologies (MPTs), products that offer protection against multiple sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) or STIs and unintended pregnancy, are urgently needed to reduce these global health burdens. Over 37 million people worldwide are infected with HIV-1 and 22.4 million live in sub-Saharan Africa [1]. Almost half of all pregnancies worldwide, estimated to be over 100 million annually, are unintended [24]. Unfortunately, highly effective contraceptives (e.g., sterilization, intrauterine devices, hormonal contraception) typically provide no protection against STIs, while barrier methods that protect against STIs (e.g., male or female condoms), have unacceptably high contraceptive failure rates with typical use [5].

CONRAD 128 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235662) was a first-in-woman, randomized, placebo controlled, double blind phase I trial to study the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and acceptability of the tenofovir (TFV) intravaginal ring (IVR), the TFV/levonorgestrel (LNG) IVR or placebo IVR worn continuously over approximately 15 days of use [6, 7]. As is often done in first-in-human assessments of investigational new drugs, initial exposure duration was limited to less than the full expected product use duration, but long enough to assess safety with daily use and to establish drug concentrations at steady state. In this initial study, participants inserted the study IVR at the end of menses and removed it prior to the start of the next menses and therefore the impact of the IVR on menstrual bleeding was not assessed [6]. To limit exposure of this investigational product to male partners, sexual abstinence was required during product use [6]. While the CONRAD 128 study was able to establish safety and the initial PK profile and some exploratory PD endpoints, the CONRAD 138 study, described in this manuscript, builds upon and expands these previous data [6, 7].

CONRAD 138, was the first-in-woman study to evaluate the TFV/LNG or placebo IVR over the full 3 months duration using the IVRs in either a continuous or interrupted use regimen (4 treatment/dosing arms). The objectives of the study were to describe the safety (primary objective), acceptability and PK (secondary objectives) and PD (exploratory objective) of the TFV/LNG IVR versus the placebo IVR, over the full 90 days. Because previous data support that some women may want to remove a continuous IVR intermittently [812] and that cyclic removal may impact menstrual bleeding, participants were also randomized to use the TFV/LNG or placebo IVR either continuously for 90 days, or in an interrupted, cyclic manner, wearing the IVR for three 28 day cycles, with a 3 day removal in between each cycle. After initial safety was established with the CONRAD 128 study [6], CONRAD 138 expanded the study population to include women with asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis and allowed sexual activity during product use. This allows for the current data to be applicable to a larger population of target users.

Materials and methods

Clinical study

The study visits and procedures are summarized in S1 Table. CONRAD A15-138, the ENRICH (Evaluating New Ring Choices) study, was an outpatient, randomized, partially blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel study conducted at the CONRAD Intramural Clinical Research Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) (Norfolk, VA) and PROFAMILIA (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic). The study was approved by the Advarra Institutional Review Board (IRB) (#Pro00022358) and Comisiòn Nacional de Bioetica (#030–2017), respectively, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03279120).

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to any study procedures. Enrolled participants were healthy, 18–50 years old, had a body mass index (BMI) less than 30 kg/m2, and reported no use of exogenous hormones and regular menstrual cycles. Participants were not at risk of pregnancy due to consistent condom use, sterilization (of the participant or her male sexual partner), or heterosexual abstinence. Women were excluded if they used depot medroxyprogesterone acetate in the last 10 months, were currently breastfeeding, or had a hysterectomy. All women underwent a screening visit (Visit 1, (V1)) to detect the presence of exclusion factors (e.g. symptomatic bacterial vaginosis, and other active current STIs) (S1 Table). Ovulation was confirmed during screening by a luteal phase serum progesterone (P4) level of ≥3.0 ng/mL at visit 2 (V2) (S1 Table). Qualified participants were enrolled and underwent baseline genital tissue sampling in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle at visit 3 (V3) and were randomized to one of 4 study arms as described below. In the follicular phase of the subsequent menstrual cycle (menstrual cycle day 6 ± 1 day), we obtained additional baseline vaginal and rectal fluid samples and then participants initiated IVR use at visit 4 (V4) in the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle (S1 Table). Cervico-vaginal (CV) and rectal fluid for PK and microbiome analyses were obtained at least monthly (S1 Table). For participants assigned to wear the IVR in a cyclic manner, the IVR was removed at the end of months 1 and 2 (visits 13 (V13) and 22 (V22) respectively), cleaned with 70% isopropyl alcohol, dried, photographed, and kept in a sterile carrying case in the clinic for 3 days and then reinserted at the next visit.

All participants had the IVR removed at visit 31 (V31). At this end of treatment visit, the IVRs were cleaned with 70% isopropyl alcohol, photographed and sent to the laboratory for processing of residual drug concentration (for active IVRs) and objective biomarkers of adherence (for placebo IVRs). Based on self-report and observations of IVR use in the clinic, for the continuous arms, the total number of days with the IVR was determined as (the last day of IVR removal–the first day of IVR insertion + 1)–the total number of days of unintentional IVR removal. The expected number of days with the IVR for continuous use was 90 days. For the interrupted arms, the total number of days with the IVR was determined as (the last day of IVR removal–the first day of IVR insertion +1)–(the total number of days of scheduled and unintentional IVR removal). The expected number of days with the IVR for interrupted use was 84 days.

Adherence was also assessed by objective biomarkers including residual glycerin content and penetrated bioanalytes, for placebo IVR users. Glycerin present in water extracts of IVRs was measured using an enzymatic, colorimetric assay according to manufacturer’s instructions (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) as previously reported [13]. In addition, the concentration of bioanalytes that penetrated the placebo IVRs were quantitated using the CBQCA Assay, a fluorescence-based total protein assay (Thermo-Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) [13]. The CBQCA reagent reacted with any biological material containing free amine groups in the IVR extracts to generate a fluorescent signal. Because active TFV/LNG IVRs needed to be processed to calculate residual TFV and in vivo drug release, the adherence biomarker assessment was done in placebo IVRs only. Ring residual TFV and in vivo TFV release data were also analyzed showing all rings have been used. These data were reported and correlated with the vaginal microbiota and PK in a separate manuscript [14], due to the abundance and complexity of these data.

Post treatment PK was assessed in vaginal tissue and vaginal and rectal fluids at 48 hours, 72 hours, or 5 days post IVR removal (S1 Table). All participants completed an acceptability questionnaire prior to IVR insertion at V3, at the end of month 1 (V13) and the end of treatment (V31). A subset of participants completed an in-depth interview (IDI), conducted by FHI360 via phone at the end of treatment (V31). Acceptability data, other than impact on the menstrual cycle, are being published separately.

Randomization

At V3 (enrollment), eligible participants were randomized to one of four study arms: continuous TFV/LNG IVR, interrupted TFV/LNG IVR, continuous placebo IVR, or interrupted placebo IVR. We utilized electronic randomization within the Medrio electronic data capture system in a 4:4:1:1 ratio. Participants were randomized to study arm and also received a random time point assignment at V3 for 24, 48, or 72 hours post-IVR insertion sample collection at V5, given the inability to collect all three biopsies from the same woman, every 24 hours, due to safety and feasibility concerns. At Visit 26 or 27 (V26, V27), participants received a random time point assignment for post-IVR removal sample collection (48 hours, 72 hours or 5 days) at the post treatment visit, Visit 32 (V32) (S1 Table).

The randomization scheme was stratified by site and treatment group to maintain balance within each treatment group with respect to the number of participants randomized to each sampling time point. Trial participants, laboratory staff, investigators, and statistical/data analysts were blinded to study treatment and dosing regimen to the extent possible.

Study product

TFV/LNG and placebo IVRs were manufactured under current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) at Particle Sciences (Bethlehem, PA) using manufacturing processes previously described [15, 16]. The placebo IVR has a similar appearance and dimensions to the TFV/LNG IVR; in lieu of TFV in the hollow reservoir core segment, a pre-gelatinized starch was used as a non-eluting filler. The TFV/LNG IVR is comprised of a hollow hydrophilic polyurethane reservoir sheath with a 55 mm outer diameter; the IVR is filled with a drug-loaded semisolid core containing ~1.2–1.6 g TFV per IVR, glycerol and water. The TFV/LNG IVR has a 2 cm-long solid hydrophobic polyurethane reservoir segment loaded with 6 mg LNG. The TFV/LNG IVR was designed to release approximately 8–10 mg/day of TFV and 20 μg/day of LNG for 90 days in vivo. The IVRs do not require cold chain storage and were stored at room temperature. The mean force (in Newtons) to compress the IVRs to 10% of the diameter (F10) was 2.40 (range 1.78–2.99) for the placebo IVR and 1.86 (range 1.40–2.30) for the TFV/LNG IVR; these values are within the range of other commercially available IVRs [17].

Clinical and sub-clinical safety assessments

Adverse events

Adverse events (AEs) were the primary safety measure, along with any changes at the end of treatment in safety laboratory (complete blood count, fasting lipids, and comprehensive chemistry panel) measurements from baseline. We monitored AEs at each study visit, starting with the enrollment visit, (V3 S1 Table) and thus all reported AEs appeared during treatment and are considered treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), whether they are related or not to the interventions. We graded each AE for severity, (mild, moderate, severe, potentially life threatening or death) using the DAIDS tables for grading the severity of adverse events (http://rsc.tech-res.com/clinical-research-sites/safety-reporting/daids-grading-tables) and relationship to study product or study procedures (graded as related versus not related). This process included assignment of relatedness by the clinical site PI and confirmation of classification by the Sponsor’s Medical Director. All AEs were coded with the appropriate MDR code for the clinical study report and for data presentation. A suspected adverse reaction was defined as any AE for which there was a reasonable possibility that the study product caused the event. An AE was considered “serious” if, in the view of either the investigator or the sponsor, it resulted in death, was immediately life threatening, required an unplanned in patient hospitalization or resulted in persistent or significant disability or incapacity. Finally, we considered a AE to be unexpected if it was not listed in the investigator brochure, was not listed at the specificity or severity that has been observed; or, was not consistent with the risk information described in the general investigational plan.

In response to findings of genital ulcers with the use of another IVR containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) [18], we added additional 4 quadrant inspection pelvic exams with a lighted speculum, so that each participant had at least 13 pelvic exams for safety assessment after IVR insertion (S1 Table). We contacted participants 1 to 2 weeks after final genital sampling to ask about AEs experienced and medications taken since the last visit.

Density and phenotype of immune cells in ectocervical tissue

One ectocervical biopsy at pre-insertion baseline (V3) and at the end of treatment (V31) was placed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for 24–48 hours, transferred to an embedding cassette, and processed as per our immunohistochemistry protocol [19] for immune markers at the Profamilia site (S1 Table). For the EVMS site, the ectocervical biopsy was placed in an empty cryovial and transferred to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the biopsy was cut in to two pieces, if possible, with one portion being processed as above in formalin for detection of CD45, CD3, CD8, and HLA-DR. The other piece, if available, was processed by cryopreservation for detection of CD4 and CCR5. Additional methodology is contained within the S1 File.

Secreted soluble proteins from the cervico-vaginal mucosa

At visits 4 and 29, a cervico-vaginal fluid lavage (CVL) was collected in 4ml normal saline after speculum insertion and lavage of the cervical fornices and vaginal walls, avoiding spraying directly into the cervical os. The concentration of soluble proteins in the supernatant was then measured by multiplex electrochemiluminescence assay and ELISA, using procedures established under accreditation by the College of American Pathologists [6]. See S1 File for additional information.

Pharmacokinetic assessments

Tenofovir pharmacokinetics

TFV concentrations in plasma, rectal fluid, vaginal fluid, and vaginal tissue biopsies were collected throughout product use at multiple time points (S1 Table) and determined via a previously described liquid chromatographic-tandem mass spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) analysis [20]. Vaginal fluid was collected on Dacron swabs, and rectal fluid was collected on Merocell sponges; TFV concentrations were determined from matrix and collection device-specific calibration standards. See S1 File for assay lower limits and additional PK parameter details.

Levonorgestrel pharmacokinetics and sex hormone binding globulin

Serum LNG concentrations were obtained at multiple visits throughout the study (S1 Table) and were measured with a Shimadzu Nexera-LCMS-8050 liquid chromatography-tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) platform (Shimadzu Scientific, Kyoto, Japan) using a modification of a previously published method [21]. See S1 File for additional PK parameter details.

Pharmacodynamic assessments

Anti-human immunodeficiency virus activity in cervico-vaginal fluid lavage and rectal fluids

A CVL was collected at baseline (prior to IVR insertion), month 1, and in month 3 near the end of treatment (V29) (S1 Table). An aliquot of the supernatant was processed for evaluation of anti-HIV activity. Rectal fluid was collected using Merocell sponges at V4 and V29 (S1 Table). Rectal fluid was eluted from rectal sponges in 400 μL of PBS. Briefly, TZM-bl cells were incubated with CVL supernatant or rectal fluid at a 1:16 final dilution. Anti-HIV activity was determined by infecting cells with 3000 TCID50 of HIV-1Ba-L and measuring luminescence after 48 hours using Bright-GloTM (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI). Percent inhibition of HIV-1Ba-L was determined based on deviations from the HIV-1-only control as previously described [2224].

Anti-herpes simplex virus type-2 activity in vaginal and rectal fluids

Vaginal fluid was obtained by direct aspirate from the posterior vaginal fornix using a 2.5 mL vaginal fluid aspirator at baseline pre-insertion (V4) and at the end of treatment (V29) (S1 Table) (CarTika Medical, Maple Grove, MN) and immediately transferred to a cryovial and stored at -80 ⁰C until processing. Thawed samples were diluted with 400 μL of normal saline and centrifuged at 2,000 rpm for 7 minutes at 4°C. Rectal fluid was eluted from rectal sponges in 400 μL of normal saline. The activity of the fluid against HSV-2 was measured by plaque reduction assay as previously described [25]. Virus was mixed 1:1 with cervico-vaginal fluid (CVF), rectal fluid or control buffer before infecting Vero cells in duplicate and the percent change in number of plaques quantified [25].

We also tested anti-HSV-2 activity from Dacron swabs obtained after IVR use (at days 10, 21, 32, 42, 63, 84) (S1 Table) in a subset of participants, using a different assay method with HEC1a cells. In this second analysis, vaginal swabs were placed in 200μl of HEC1A media for 5–10 minutes. Then the swabs were centrifuged to extract the CVF/media from the swab. HEC1A cells were seeded in 48 well plates and the following day were treated for total of 6 hours with the CVF/media in duplicates. In the last hour of incubation cells were infected with about 1X10-3 multiplicity of infection (MOI) per well HSV-2(G) isolate (ATCC, VR-734) for an hour. The treatment and inoculum were removed and fresh media was added and cells were incubated for 5 days. HSV-2 DNA was evaluated by a quantitative RT-PCR amplification of cell culture supernatants on day 5 using SYBR-green (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). Supernatants (6 μl) were amplified using the forward primer 5′- TCGCCAGCACAAACTCAT -3′ and the reverse primer 5′- CCACCGACCTCAAGTACAAC -3′ targeting glyprotein B of HSV-g isolate. The amount of HSV-2 DNA in all treated wells was compared to untreated control. Results are presented as relative HSV-2 DNA expression of each well to untreated control, with a reduction of DNA expression equal to higher inhibition.

p24 antigen production by tissue biopsies infected ex vivo with HIV-1BaL

One vaginal and one ectocervical biopsy were collected at baseline and one ectocervical biopsy was collected at the end of treatment (S1 Table). Tissues were placed in cryovials filled with chilled RPMI 1640 media (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (ATCC, Manassas, VA) and 100 U/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) (cRPMI). The CV biopsies were exposed to HIV-1BaL (5x104 TCID50/mL), within 30 minutes of collection, in presence of Interleukin-2 human (hIL-2) (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) at a final concentration of 100 U/mL. CV biopsies were washed 2–3 hours after virus exposure and then cultured in cRPMI media (500 μL) containing IL-2 for 21 days. Data was analyzed as previously reported [26]. See S1 File for additional details.

Levonorgestrel pharmacodynamic surrogate assessment

The potential for contraceptive efficacy was modeled by several surrogates, including ovulation during IVR use, categorized as any serum P4 of ≥ 3 ng/mL during a 28 day period, as previously described [27]. To detect ovulation and time cervical mucus assessments, participants returned approximately twice weekly after IVR initiation, to have serum estradiol (E2) and P4 measured. We performed a cervical mucus check for Insler score [28] and sperm penetration assay (modified slide test) [2933] at the next regularly scheduled visit, usually within 48 hours, if the serum E2 was between 75–150 pg/mL. If the serum E2 was over 150 pg/mL, indicating imminent follicular development, we brought the participant in for a cervical mucus check within 24 hours. If the serum E2 did not reach 75 pg/mL before the end of each month (i.e. days 28, 59 and 90), we collected cervical mucus at the end of the month 1 (V13) month 2 (V22) or month 3 (V31) visits (S1 Table). See S1 File.

Acceptability assessments

We used a good clinical practices (GCP) and code of federal regulations (CFR) compliant, professionally administered electronic survey system for participants to answer questions about any menstrual cycle changes with product use, opinions on product characteristics, impact on the menstrual cycle, and the acceptability of the study products. Participants answered survey questions in private areas of both clinics at baseline prior to IVR insertion (V3), after one month of use and at the end of treatment. The impact of the IVRs on the participant’s menstrual cycle is reported in this manuscript.

Sample size and statistical analyses

Sample size for this phase I study was primarily based on the size of similar studies and feasibility, although statistical differences were considered. We ultimately had 10 participants in the placebo arm, which was the number of placebo IVR assigned participants in our first in woman study of the rings [6]. In this previous study, we were able to demonstrate statistical differences in contraceptive and anti-viral surrogates between the placebo and active IVRs [6]. SAS® software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for analysis. The primary objective of the present study, safety, was compared using the Fisher’s exact test whenever possible for the reporting of AEs between treatment groups.

The randomized population (RP) included all randomized participants, who received their product randomization assignment and dosing assignment at enrollment (S1 Table). The treated population (TP) is a subset of RP and consisted of all randomized participants with any amount of IVR use. The evaluable population (EP) is a subset of TP and consisted of all randomized participants with any IVR use and contributing at least some follow-up safety or PK/PD data. The EP will be the primary analysis population for study objectives.

All data sets were examined for normality using the PROC UNIVARIATE procedure in SAS and examining the histogram, Q plot and the Shapiro Wilk statistic. All continuous variables were not normally distributed and therefore appropriate non-parametric statistical testing was then performed.

The proportion of participants reporting AEs were compared based on treatment group using a Fisher’s exact test whenever feasible or for low cell size or a Chi square test. The Wilcoxon signed rank sum test was used to compare paired changes from baseline, pre-insertion (visit 4) to month 1 (HIV inhibition by CVL) and or baseline pre-insertion to month 3 (end of treatment) for safety endpoints to the end of treatment values (e.g. density of tissue lymphocytes and concentrations of secreted soluble proteins) as these data are not normally distributed. Similarly, the Kruskall Wallis test was used to compare safety endpoints among the 4 independent treatment/dosing groups at the end of treatment.

PK analysis included descriptive summaries by sampling time point of: TFV concentrations in plasma, vaginal fluid, rectal fluid, and vaginal tissue; TFV-diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations in vaginal tissue and LNG and SHBG concentrations in serum. For summaries of concentrations, measurements below the level of quantification (BLQ) were imputed as 0.5* lower limit of quantification (LLOQ).

PD endpoints including anti-HIV-1 activity in vaginal and rectal fluids and anti-HSV-2 activity in vaginal and rectal fluids, p24 antigen production from CV tissues after ex vivo infection with HIV-1BaL (at the EVMS site only), HSV-2 infectivity in vaginal tissue (HSV-2 DNA fold change on day 12, cumulatively, and AUC) (at the EVMS site only), and cervical mucus quality (Insler) score and sperm penetration assay results were summarized using descriptive statistics by time points. For anti-HIV and p24 antigen production endpoints, an ANOVA model was used to test if the mean values of TFV/LNG (continuous) differed from placebo (continuous), TFV/LNG (interrupted) differed from placebo (interrupted), and pooled TFV/LNG differed from pooled placebo. Baseline was defined as the pre-insertion measurement. Within group changes from baseline were compared using paired t-tests (Wilcoxon signed rank sum test for non-parametric data). Categorical PD endpoints of qualitative measurement of TFV and sperm migration were summarized by time point using number and percent of participants in each category. Proportions of participants in each category were compared by chi square or Fisher exact test, depending on the cell size.

PK versus PD correlations were performed using a Spearman correlation coefficient, as these data were not normally distributed. The log10 normalized data were used for investigating any linear relationship between PK and PD variables. For the anti-HSV2 post hoc analyses of data obtained using the HEC1a cell assay, we used receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis, to categorize the anti-HSV2 activity for each sample as inhibitory/positive or non-inhibitory/negative. Once categorized in this manner, the anti-HSV2 data from placebo IVR users versus TFVLNG exposed visits versus TFV/LNG IVR removal visits was compared with Fisher’s exact test.

Nominal p-values are reported, unadjusted for multiple analyses and considered significant at p < 0.05.

Results

Study population

The first participant was enrolled in October 2017, and the last participant completed the study in December 2018. As summarized in Fig 1, 68 participants were screened and 47 enrolled in the study (37 randomized to the TFV/LNG IVR and 10 randomized to the placebo IVR). The most common reasons for screen failures were serum progesterone < 3 ng/mL in the baseline luteal phase, indicative of anovulation at V2 (n = 10), and an STI at screening (n = 6). All women in the placebo arms completed the study. Seven participants in the TFV/LNG arms did not complete the study due to personal reasons (Fig 1). No participant was withdrawn from the study due to AEs. The demographic data of the randomized participants are summarized in Table 1. One participant in the interrupted TFV/LNG arm was not included in the enrolled population due to protocol violations.

Fig 1. Disposition of participants.

Fig 1

Table 1. Demographic and baseline characteristics treated population.

TFV/LNG (Continuous) TFV/LNG (Interrupted) Placebo (Continuous) Placebo (Interrupted) Total TFV/LNG Total Placebo
(n = 18) (n = 18) (n = 5) (n = 5) (n = 36) (n = 10)
Age (years)
Mean (SD) 37.8 (5.2) 36.7 (6.8) 33.6 (4.2) 33.6 (6.8) 37.3 (6.0) 33.6 (5.3)
Body Mass Index (kg/m2)
Mean (Standard Deviation, SD) 27.0 (2.7) 25.1 (2.7) 26.6 (2.5) 23.8 (2.5) 26.0 (2.8) 25.2 (2.8)
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latina 12 (66.7%) 9 (50.0%) 3 (60.0%) 4 (80.0%) 21 (58.3%) 7 (70.0%)
Not Hispanic/Latina 6 (33.3%) 9 (50.0%) 2 (40.0%) 1 (20.0%) 15 (41.7%) 3 (30.0%)
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 1 (5.6%) 0 0 1 (2.8%) 0
Asian 0 1 (5.6%) 0 0 1 (2.8%) 0
Mixed Race 11 (61.1%) 8 (44.4%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 19 (52.8%) 5 (50%)
Black/African American 3 (16.7%) 4 (22.2%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 7 (19.4%) 3 (30%)
White 4 (22.2%) 4 (22.2%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 8 (22.2%) 2 (20%)
Education (years)
Mean (SD) 11.4 (3.9) 12.4 (3.6) 12.0 (4.0) 12.6 (2.3) 11.9 (3.7) 12.3 (3.1)
Contraceptive Method Used in Study
Sterilization of either partner 15 (83.3%) 13 (72.2%) 3 (60.0%) 4 (80.0%) 28 (77.8%) 7 (70.0)
Abstinence 2 (11.1%) 1 (5.6%) 0 1 (20.0%) 3 (8.3%) 1 (10.0%)
Non-spermicidal condoms 1 (5.6%) 4 (22.2%) 2 (40.0%) 0 5 (13.9%) 2 (20.0%)
Study Partner Status
Living with study partner 13 (72.2%) 13 (72.2%) 4 (80.0%) 2 (40.0%) 26 (72.2%) 6 (60.0%)
Not living with study partner 2 (11.1%) 4 (22.2%) 0 0 6 (16.7%) 0
No study partner 3 (16.7%) 1 (5.6%) 1 (20.0%) 3 (60.0%) 4 (11.1%) 4 (40.0%)
Was the participant ever pregnant?
Yes 18 (100%) 16 (88.9%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%) 34 (94.4%) 10 (100%)
No 0 2 (11.1%) 0 0 2 (5.6%) 0

Expulsions and adherence

Based on participant diary responses, mean adherence (proportion of days IVR was used of the total expected days of use) with continuous treatment was 93.26% and 99.78% for TFV/LNG and placebo, respectively. Eight and 3 participants were 100% compliant, 6 and 2 participants were ≥ 80% to < 100% compliant, and 2 and 0 participants were < 80% compliant for continuous TFV/LNG and placebo ring use, respectively. With interrupted treatment, mean compliance (proportion of days IVR was used of the total expected days of use) was 93.85% and 100% for TFV/LNG and placebo, respectively. All but 3 participants were 100% compliant with the treatment regimen: 1 participant assigned to TFV/LNG was ≥ 80%—< 100% compliant, and 2 participants were < 80% compliant, both in TFV/LNG.

Analysis of the placebo IVRs showed a median residual glycerin of 0.01 and 0.02 mM for the placebo cyclic and continuous groups respectively (p = 0.34) Post use, the placebo IVRs contained a median of 5,790 and 15,010 μg/mL of penetrated bioanalytes in the cyclic and continuous cohorts respectively (p = 0.17).

Participants reported no spontaneous ring expulsions during treatment.

Safety endpoints

Duration of use and adverse events

There were no serious adverse events (SAEs), unexpected AEs or deaths. Overall, the incidence of participants experiencing AEs was generally similar across treatments. As shown in Table 2, there were no statistically significant differences (calculated using exact methods) in the proportion of participants in each treatment and dosing group reporting various types of AEs. The most common AEs (≥ 5% overall) were vaginal discharge, viral upper respiratory tract infection, influenza, malaise, nausea, back pain, abdominal pain lower, diarrhea, and decreased hemoglobin.

Table 2. Summary of duration of use, total dose received and adverse events.
TFV/LNG (Continuous) (N = 18) TFV/LNG (Interrupted) (N = 18) Placebo (Continuous) (N = 5) Placebo (Interrupted) (N = 5) Fisher exact P value
Total Number of AEs 41 46 7 14 NA
Total Number of SAEs 0 0 0 0 NA
Number (%) of Subjects Reporting at Least One:
AE 15 (83.3%) 15 (83.3%) 3 (60.0%) 5 (100%) 0.57
AE by Severity [1]
Grade 1: Mild 8 (44.4%) 10 (55.6%) 1 (20.0%) 1 (20.0%) 0.43
Grade 2: Moderate 4 (22.2%) 5 (27.8%) 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0.39
Grade 3: Severe 3 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (20.0%) 0.29
AE by Relationship to Study Treatment [2]
Not Related 8 (44.4%) 12 (66.7%) 1 (20.0%) 5 (100%) 0.09
Related 7 (38.9%) 3 (16.7%) 2 (40.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Related Grade ≥ 3 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) NA
AE by Relationship to Study Procedure [3]
Not Related 14 (77.8%) 15 (83.3%) 3 (60.0%) 4 (80.0%) 0.38
Related 1 (5.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (20.0%)
AE Leading to:
Dose Interruption 1 (5.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1.00
Discontinuation of Study Drug 1 (5.6%) 1 (5.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1.00
Duration of Use and Total Dose Received
Mean (SD) Duration of IVR Use (Days) 83.9 (15.9) 78.8 (23.3) 89.8 (2.6) 87.6 (1.5)
Mean (SD) Total dose of TFV received (mg) 855.3 (332.6) 808.3 (418.9) NA NA
Mean (SD) Total dose of LNG received (μg) 1,637.2 (491.0) 1,661.7 (493.1) NA NA

TEAEs are AEs reported or observed during treatment whether they were considered related to treatment or not.

[1] Subjects reporting more than one adverse event are counted only once using the highest severity.

[2] Subjects reporting more than one adverse event are counted only once using the closest relationship to study drug (ie, related or unrelated).

[3] Subjects reporting more than one adverse event are counted only once using the closest relationship to study procedure (ie, related or unrelated).

P values for proportion of participants reporting AEs per dosing group calculated with Fisher’s exact test.

Most AEs were assessed as mild or moderate and the combined incidence of reports of mild or moderate AEs was not different from the 4 study groups (Fisher exact p value = 0.64). The Grade 3 AEs included amoebiasis, decreased hemoglobin, and diarrhea reported by one participant each in continuous TFV/LNG treatment, and post procedural hemorrhage reported by one participant in interrupted placebo treatment. None of the Grade 3 AEs were considered related to study treatment or study procedure (Table 2).

AEs assessed by the investigator as related to study treatment or study procedure was also not statistically different based on randomization to treatment or dosing group (Table 2).

One AE, in the continuous TFV/LNG arm, a 1 cm. vaginal epithelial disruption was considered related to study drug use and was detected at visit 18 (approximately 45 days of IVR use) and led to dose interruption. This mild disruption resolved completely within 10 days. Two unrelated AEs, decreased hemoglobin in a continuous TFV/LNG participant and dysmenorrhea in an interrupted TFV/LNG participant, led to discontinuation of study drug.

The mean duration of treatment in days and mean (SD) total TFV (mg) and LNG (μg) received during the study, by treatment and dosing regimen is detailed in Table 2. Two participants in the continuous TFV/LNG treatment had missing IVR removal data and were excluded from exposure analysis (the calculation of duration of exposure) but included in total dose received calculations.

Mean values for hematology and serum chemistry parameters were within normal ranges at baseline and end of treatment. No clinically meaningful or dose-related mean changes from baseline were observed.

Ectocervical immune cells and epithelium

No statistically significant changes from baseline in the density and phenotype of ectocervical mucosal immune cells and HIV-1 target cells were observed across treatment groups and dosing regimens. In addition, there were no differences in immune cell population phenotypes at the end of treatment based on treatment or dosing regimen (Table 3). In a subset of cryopreserved samples, collected at the EVMS site (n = 12), there were no significant differences in CD4 and CCR5 cell density between TFV/LNG and placebo users (S2 Table). Comparison of CD4 and CCR5 data, however, is limited due to the small number of samples that could be portioned for cryopreservation.

Table 3. Immune cells in ectocervical tissue at the end of treatment (visit 31) based on treatment and dosing assignment.
TFVLNG continuous TFVLNG Interrupted Placebo Continuous Placebo Interrupted P
N Median IQR 25 IQR 75 N Median IQR 25 IQR 75 N Median IQR 25 IQR 75 N Median IQR 25 IQR 75
Histology
Epithelial Thickness (μm) 13 240 206.7 268 15 298 223.3 378.3 5 236.7 180 306.7 4 258.5 191.8 372.5 0.32
Number Cell Layers 13 17.4 16.3 19.5 15 21.7 19.7 23.3 5 16.2 13.3 20.5 4 17.3 14.1 24.2 0.23
Cells in the Ectocervical Epithelium (cells/mm2)
CD45 13 107.9 90.2 119.7 15 67.3 54.3 115.3 5 116.2 67.6 148.5 4 101.9 65.1 143.3 0.36
CD3 13 67.9 57.3 80.2 15 47.9 33.3 77.3 5 80.8 47.4 122.9 4 69.9 49.3 90.5 0.32
CD8 13 43.6 36.7 61.7 15 30.4 10.7 58.5 5 47.1 32 84.5 4 40.6 27.2 59 0.27
HLADR 13 36.7 30.3 46.2 15 36.5 30.8 50.2 5 65.7 20.5 78.7 4 30.7 25.7 50.3 0.82
Cells in the Ectocervical Lamina Propria (cells/mm2)
CD45 13 72 64 148 13 86.4 52 144 5 93.3 72 112 4 94 70 169.6 0.96
CD3 13 38.4 36 106.7 13 48 32 82.7 5 56 38.4 80 4 49.3 36 108.5 0.97
CD8 13 22.4 16 52 13 24 12 48 5 26.7 22.4 44.8 4 28 20 60.8 0.92
HLADR 13 42.7 28 48 13 48 40 64 5 44.8 32 50.7 4 43.3 32 44.7 0.62

IQR = Interquartile range

* p values determined using Kruskall Wallis test.

Secreted soluble proteins from cervico-vaginal mucosa

In paired comparisons, there were no significant changes from baseline at the end of treatment in any of the soluble markers of innate mucosal immunity and inflammatory response (all paired p values > 0.05). There were also no differences between the drug and dosing regimen cohorts in the soluble protein marker profiles at the end of treatment (all p values > 0.12, Table 4). Overall, the CVL immune marker profiles did not indicate a shift towards a pro-inflammatory or immuno-suppressed state.

Table 4. Comparison of independent group soluble proteins at end of treatment.
Variable (pg/mL/mg total protein) TFVLNG Continuous (n = 15) TFVLNG Interrupted (n = 16) Placebo Continuous (n = 5) Placebo Interrupted (n = 5) P value
Median IQR 25 IQR 75 Median IQR 25 IQR 75 Median IQR 25 IQR 75 Median IQR 25 IQR 75
Inflammatory
IL_1RA (x 105) 2.4 1.5 6.8 2.3 1.4 5.4 2.7 1.9 3.5 1.6 1.4 3.5 0.84
IL_1α 837.3 335.9 3805.6 760.8 460 3249 1406.2 849.2 5505.6 1329.9 328.9 2641 0.90
IL_6 17.6 4.7 45.6 17.5 6.1 86.6 6.5 0.9 30.4 22.9 19 25.6 0.81
IL_8 1535.6 560 3624 2811.5 586.2 4788.2 165.9 132.7 5764.8 1698.6 1034.2 3293.6 0.68
IP_10 25.8 8.1 85.9 22.4 8.7 52.2 11.1 9.9 14 18.1 11.9 30.2 0.84
GM_CSF 0.2 0 2.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 0 0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.51
MIP_1a 9.5 5.9 14.4 8.8 2.5 13.3 4.2 1 6.6 8.4 8.1 13.3 0.36
RANTES 13.5 1.3 148.4 5 0.6 11 1.8 1 5.1 16.9 2.7 26.4 0.57
TNF_α 1.7 0.4 5.4 1 0.4 11 0.9 0.2 2.1 1.1 0.4 6.7 0.83
Anti-Inflammatory or Anti-Microbial
IL_10 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 2.5 0.5
BD2 (x 105) 0.3 0.1 6.2 0.4 0.1 1.1 8.1 0.7 8.1 1.0 0.3 2.8 1.0
SLPI (x 105) 3.8 1.1 5.4 2.3 1.1 4.7 3.4 2.5 5.8 2.4 1.1 6.3 2.4

* p values determined using Kruskall Wallis test, IQR = Interquartile Range.

Tenofovir pharmacokinetic assessments

Tenofovir in plasma

Overall TFV plasma concentrations were very low (mean range 1.16–11.49 ng/mL) in both active treatment dosing groups throughout the study. Pre-insertion plasma concentrations (BLQ) were reached within 48 hours of IVR removal in both TFV/LNG IVR dosing groups. Calculated PK parameters for TFV in plasma are displayed in S3 Table.

Tenofovir in vaginal and rectal fluids

In the continuous treatment cohort, TFV in vaginal fluid was detectable within 2 hours of IVR insertion and gradually reached high levels (1,000 ng/mg) at 48 hours post-insertion. TFV levels in CVF remained high throughout day 63 of use (mean TFV 2760 ng/mg), declining in samples taken on days 73 and 84 (end of treatment, EOT) (mean TFV 1102 ng/mg). Within 48 hours of IVR removal, mean TFV concentrations decreased to those reported at 2 hours post insertion (mean TFV 5 ng/mg) (Fig 2A).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

a. Median (IQR) TFV (ng/mg) in vaginal fluid continuous dosing. b. Median (IQR) TFV (ng/mg) in vaginal fluid interrupted dosing. Black = IVR treatment, Green = post 3 day removal, Blue = end of treatment, Red = post IVR removal.

A similar pattern was observed for interrupted treatment (Fig 2B), except for the first month re-insertion visit (visit 14) and the second month re-insertion visit (visit 23) where mean TFV concentrations decreased significantly compared to continuous treatment following IVR removal (at Visit 14, 3780 and 143 ng/mg in continuous and interrupted treatment, respectively, p < 0.01; and at Visit 23, 2760 and 256 ng/mg in continuous and interrupted treatment, respectively, p < 0.01) (Fig 2B). Following reinsertion of the IVR, mean vaginal fluid TFV concentrations with interrupted treatment increased to those observed during continuous treatment; at day 73 of use, the mean TFV vaginal fluid concentration in the interrupted arm (2627 ng/mg) was significantly higher than in the continuous arm (1526 ng/mg) (p = 0.03). Calculated PK parameters for TFV in vaginal fluid are displayed in S3 Table.

TFV concentrations in rectal fluid were very low (< 10 ng/mg) (S3 Table). In continuous treatment, TFV was detectable in rectal fluid 24 hours post-insertion, then increased slightly through day 84 (mean range over treatment 0.13–2.06 ng/mg), and then decreased by 72 hours post-removal (range 0.0–0.2 ng/mg). A similar pattern was observed for interrupted treatment (medians range over treatment 0.50–6.29 ng/mg), although with more fluctuation.

Tenofovir and tenofovir-diphosphate in vaginal tissue

PK parameters for TFV and TFV-DP in vaginal tissue are displayed in S3 Table. In continuous treatment, TFV was detectable in vaginal tissue 24 hours post-insertion (median 28.6 ng/mg), reaching steady state soon after and maintaining high concentrations through the EOT (median 27.3 ng/mg) before decreasing below post-insertion concentrations at all post IVR removal time points (range 0.16–12.0 ng/mg). A similar pattern was observed for interrupted treatment. There was no statistically significant dosing regimen effect at any time point (p ≥ 0.24) and therefore median (IQR) TFV tissue concentrations among continuous (n = 14) and cyclic dosing (n = 16) regimen users are presented together (Fig 3A). There were non-significant differences among low TFV tissue concentrations at the three time-points post-ring removal. This is likely due to the fact that, for safety reasons, post IVR removal PK tissue biopsies were not taken at each time point from all participants, but rather smaller subsets of the whole had PK tissue biopsies taken at each time point post removal (see randomization section above).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

a. Median (IQR) tenofovir concentration (ng/mg) in vaginal tissue. b. Median (IQR) TFV-DP concentration (ng/mg) in vaginal tissue. Black = visit 5 (24, 48 or 72 hours post IVR insertion), Blue line = end of treatment; Red = post IVR removal.

In continuous treatment, median levels of TFV-DP, the active TFV metabolite, exceeded 100 fmol/mg and 1000 fmol/mg by 24 and 72 hours post-insertion, respectively, remaining high through the end of treatment (median 514 fmol/mg) and even up to 5 days post removal (median 440 fmol/mg). A generally similar pattern was observed for interrupted treatment, although with more variability. There was no statistically significant dosing regimen effect at any time point (all p values ≥ 0.25) and therefore median TFV-DP tissue concentration data for the two dosing cohorts (n = 20) are displayed together (Fig 3B).

Tenofovir pharmacodynamic assessments

Anti-viral activity against human immunodeficiency virus in vaginal fluids

There were no significant differences among the 4 treatment/dosing cohorts in the baseline HIV inhibition of the CVL supernatant, prior to IVR insertion (p = 0.49). As outlined in Table 5, there were no significant changes from baseline in the anti-HIV activity of the CVL among placebo IVR users (p values = 1.00). TFV/LNG IVR users experienced a significant increase in HIV inhibitory activity of the CVL at month 1 compared to baseline (p values < 0.01) and at the end of treatment compared to baseline (p values < 0.01) (Table 5, Fig 4A).

Table 5. In vitro HIV inhibitory activity of the CVL supernatant for each treatment and dosing regimen.
Variable Pre-Insertion Baseline (% HIV Inhibition) Month 1 (% HIV Inhibition) End of Treatment (% HIV Inhibition) P value
N Median IQR 25 IQR 75 N Median IQR 25 IQR 75 N Median IQR 25 IQR 75
TFVLNG IVR Continuous 18 9.47 -12.44 22.82 16 97.26 94.32 99.19 15 86.59 35.01 98.62 < 0.01
TFVLNG IVR Interrupted 18 11.57 0.77 21.61 17 97.89 95.61 99.14 16 93.60 66.10 96.97 < 0.01
Placebo IVR Continuous 5 0.44 -15.26 7.40 5 -6.94 -18.75 32.34 5 -35.37 -49.52 29.47 1.00
Placebo IVR Interrupted 5 4.39 -7.60 13.80 5 9.45 -38.29 37.10 5 -5.25 -20.68 4.99 1.00

* p values determined using Wilcoxon signed rank sum test to compare changes from baseline at month 1 and from baseline to month 3. Highest p value reported in table for each row.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

a. Inhibition of HIV growth in vitro by vaginal fluids of TFV/LNG IVR users (continuous and cyclic dosing regimens combined) at baseline and 1 and 3 months after use. b. Correlation between [TFV] and Anti-HIV activity in CVF TFV/LNG IVRs.

At month 1 and month 3 of ring use, the inhibitory activity of the CVL among TFV/LNG containing IVR users was significantly higher compared to placebo IVR users (both time point p values < 0.01). Among active IVR users, there was also no significant effect of dosing regimen in the HIV inhibitory activity of the CVL at month 1 (V11) (p = 0.96) or near the end of treatment (V29) (p = 0.71). HIV inhibition in CVF was directly correlated with TFV CVF concentrations (Spearman coefficient R = 0.80; p<0.001) (Fig 4B).

Anti-viral activity against human immunodeficiency virus in rectal fluids

The baseline mean values for percent HIV inhibition by rectal fluids were similar compared to the respective placebo group for both continuous TFV/LNG and interrupted TFV/LNG treatment. The mean percent changes from baseline to the end of treatment were not statistically significant compared to placebo (p = 0.87 [TFV/LNG in continuous treatment], p = 0.60 [TFV/LNG in both dosing regimens], and p = 0.55 [TFV/LNG in interrupted treatment]). Consistent with low rectal mucosal concentrations of TFV, discussed above, mean percent changes from baseline within the treatment arms were not statistically significant for percent inhibition (p > 0.05).

Human immunodeficiency virus infection of tissue biopsies infected ex vivo with HIV-1BaL

Although there was a clear, several fold decrease in HIV-1 p24 production in tissues exposed to TFV/LNG IVR versus baseline pre-insertion tissues or placebo IVR exposed tissues, overall these changes were not statistically significant, likely due the inherent variability of the assay [26]. In a post hoc analysis, we showed that p24 antigen production at baseline from ectocervical tissues and paired vaginal tissues was not different (all p values > 0.50). Furthermore, baseline p24 production was not different among treatment groups. Similarly, we found that p24 antigen production from ectocervical or vaginal tissues was similar post treatment for TFV/LNG continuous and TFV/LNG interrupted arms (all p values > 0.11). Therefore, as shown in Table 6, in a post hoc analysis, we compared p24 antigen production between baseline samples from all groups (all treatments and dosing regimens at baseline plus placebo samples) versus end of treatment samples in the TFV/LNG IVR groups and, although not statistically significant, found a >10 fold decrease in HIV-1 p24 antigen production from tissues post exposure to TFV (median AUCs are 1074 and 102 (below the limit of detection) for tissues not exposed and exposed to TFV, respectively; p = 0.20). HIV p24 tissue production (area under the curve, 21 day tissue culture) was inversely correlated with TFV concentrations in tissue (Spearman coefficient R = -0.27; p<0.04).

Table 6. p24 antigen production from ectocervical and vaginal tissue biopsies.
TX Group and P24 variable P24 antigen production (pg/mL) from placebo and baseline ectocervical and vaginal tissue biopsies P24 antigen production (pg/mL) from ectocervical tissue biopsies after 3 months of TFV/LNG IVR use P value
N Median IQR 25 IQR 75 N Median IQR 25 IQR 75
p24 SOFT 44 300 6 2613 12 6 6 2323 0.55
p24 Area Under Curve 44 1074 102 14,690 12 102 102 5481 0.23
p24 Cumulative 44 384 36 5371 12 36 36 2897 0.55
p24 Day 21 44 140 6 2388 12 6 6 2323 1.00

* p values calculated using a Kruskall Wallis test.

IQR = Interquartile Range.

Anti-viral activity against herpes simplex virus type 2 in vaginal and rectal fluids

Using the Vero cell plaque assay, the mean percent inhibition of HSV-2 by diluted vaginal fluid was not statistically different among the 4 independent dosing groups (p values > 0.10, data shown in S4 Table) at baseline, month 1 and month 3. There was a significant increase in HSV-2 inhibition from baseline to end of treatment in the TFV/LNG continuous arm (p = 0.02, S4 Table), but no significant changes were seen from baseline to the end of treatment for the TFV/LNG interrupted regimen and both placebo groups (p values > 0.15, S4 Table). Similarly, there was no significant change in percent inhibition of HSV-2 plaque formation when virus was mixed with rectal fluid in vitro.

In a post hoc assessment of anti-HSV-2 activity minimizing CVF dilution by using HEC1a cells and HSV-2 DNA PCR as endpoint (Fig 5A), we found a statistically significant (p<0.0001) difference between the inhibitory activity of combined placebo samples and those of continuous TFV/LNG IVR users, in combination with samples from interrupted IVR users when the ring was in situ (median HSV-2 inhibition = 4.4 vs 43.3, respectively, Fig 5A). In contrast, samples from TFV/LNG IVR interrupted dosing users when the IVR had been out for 3 days did not show significant differences from placebo (Fig 5A).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

a. Median (IQR) HSV2 DNA inhibition. b. Correlation HSV2 inhibition versus TFV in vaginal fluid (TFVLNG IVRs).

We determined a ROC threshold of 19.36 fold DNA inhibition to categorize sample anti-HSV activity as inhibitory/positive or non-inhibitory/negative. There was a statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test p<0.0001) difference associating TFV-releasing rings in situ versus placebo IVRs versus visits when the TFV/LNG IVR had been removed with anti-HSV activity in CVF. To verify this association, we found a statistically significant linear correlation (R = 0.54, p < 0.01) between the TFV vaginal fluid concentration and HSV-2 DNA inhibition, reinforcing the specificity of the antiviral effect (Fig 5B).

LNG PK assessments

LNG in serum

In continuous treatment, mean levels of LNG increased following IVR insertion to above 200 pg/mL by 4 hours post-insertion and remained above 200 pg/mL through visit 17 (month 2, approximately day 42 of IVR use). At the end of treatment mean LNG concentration in serum was 155.5 (46.8) pg/mL for continuous TFV/LNG IVR users (Fig 6). With interrupted treatment (Fig 6), mean levels of LNG increased following IVR insertion to above 200 pg/mL by 2 hours post-insertion and remained above 200 pg/mL through the end of treatment while the IVR was inserted. Consistent with periods of IVR non-use, mean LNG serum concentrations at Visit 14 (approximately day 32, after first 3 day interruption) and Visit 23 (approximately day 63, after 2nd 3 day interruption) decreased to near pre insertion levels following removal of the IVR, and were significantly lower at these re-insertion visits compared to continuous treatment at both time points.

Fig 6. Serum LNG (pg/mL) in TFV/LNG continuous IVR Users (n = 18) and in TFV/LNG interrupted IVR users IVR users (n = 17).

Fig 6

Although there were no statistically significant differences in SHBG between the continuous and interrupted treatment arms at any time point, a trend of greater mean values from the interrupted group versus the continuous treatment group after Visit 14 was observed (p ≥ 0.0514).

LNG PD assessment

We pre-specified the surrogate PD criteria for modeling pregnancy protection as the presence of one or more of the following surrogates of contraceptive efficacy (Table 7): anovulation (all serum progesterone measurements during the month of < 3 ng/mL), an Insler score of ≤ 10, indicating poor cervical mucus quality, and abnormal sperm penetration into the CM. More participants in TFV/LNG arms had cervical mucus scores ≤ 10, abnormal or poor sperm penetration assays and anovulatory cycles over 3 months compared to placebo arms (Table 7). All TFV/LNG IVR users had at least one surrogate of contraceptive efficacy. All Placebo IVR users ovulated monthly for 3 months.

Table 7. Pharmacodynamic surrogates of levonorgestrel activity.

Period and Variable TFV/LNG Continuous TFV/LNG Interrupted Placebo Continuous Placebo Interrupted
Cervical Mucus Insler Score (normal > 10)
Month 1 (N) 18 17 5 5
Mean (SD) 6.9 (3.3) 6.5 (3.6) 11.0 (3.3) 12.8 (1.1)
Median 6.0 5.0 11.0 12.0
% with score > 10 4 (22.2%) 3 (17.6%) 3 (60.0%) 5 (100%)
Month 2 (N) 16 16 5 5
Mean (SD) 7.0 (2.8) 7.5 (3.7) 10.2 (3.8) 12.2 (2.5)
Median 7.5 5.5 13.0 13.0
% with score > 10 1 (6.3%) 6 (37.5%) 3 (60.0%) 4 (80.0%)
Month 3 (N) 14 16 5 5
Mean (SD) 6.7 (2.4) 8.3 (3.4) 11.4 (2.7) 12.2 (1.9)
Median 7.0 7.0 12.0 13.0
% with score > 10 1 (7.1%) 6 (37.5%) 4 (80.0%) 4 (80.0%)
Sperm Migration Assay
Month 1 (N) 13 12 5 4
Normal 1 (5.6%) 2 (11.8%) 5 (100%) 3 (60.0%)
Month 2 (N) 15 11 4 5
Normal 4 (22.2%) 4 (23.5%) 4 (80.0%) 5 (100%)
Month 3 (N) 14 15 5 5
Normal 4 (22.2%) 4 (23.5%) (80.0%) 5 (100%)
Monthly Ovulation by Serum Progesterone
Month 1 (N) 18 17 5 5
Ovulation 7 (38.9%) 8 (47.1%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%)
Month 2 (N) 16 16 5 5
Ovulation 10 (62.5%) 8 (50.0%) 5 (100%) 5 (100.0%)
Month 3 (N) 14 16 5 5
Ovulation 10 (71.4%) 11 (68.8%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%)

Acceptability: Effect on menstrual cycle

Among all participants, 43.2% and 45% reported no changes in their menstrual cycle at month 1 and the end of treatment, respectively. Although placebo IVR users had the highest proportion of participants reporting no change to their menstrual cycle, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of women in the placebo groups or active dosing regimens reporting any particular menstrual cycle change (all p values > 0.22) (Table 8). The majority of TFV/LNG IVR users, whether the active IVR was used continuously or cyclically, reported either no change in their menstrual cycle or fewer days and/or lighter bleeding (Table 8). Between 14.3%– 25.0% of active IVR users reported at either month 1 or the end of treatment that they experienced heavier and or more days of menstrual bleeding, but this was not different from the proportion of placebo IVR users reporting this change at either month 1 or month 3 (p values > 0.22) (Table 8).

Table 8. Reported impact of IVR use on menstruation (percent of participants per group reporting impact, participants may report more than one menstrual related impact).

N (% of IVR users at time point) Regimen and Agent Chi square p value responses at month 1 Chi square p value responses at month 3
TFV/LNG Continuous TFV/LNG Interrupted Placebo Continuous and Interrupted
Month 1 (n = 18) End of Treatment (n = 16) Month 1 (n = 16) End of Treatment (n = 14) Month 1 (n = 10) End of Treatment (n = 10)
No change in cycle 8 (44.4) 6 (37.5) 6 (37.5) 6 (42.9) 5 (50.0) 6 (60.0) 0.81 0.52
Fewer days and/or lighter bleeding 6 (33.3) 5 (31.3) 6 (37.5) 5 (35.7) 4 (40.0) 2 (20.0) 0.93 0.70
Heavier and/or more days 4 (22.2) 4 (25.0) 4 (25.0) 2 (14.3) 1 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 0.63 0.22
More irregular menstrual bleeding 3 (16.7) 4 (25.0) 2 (12.5) 2 (14.3) 1 (10.0) 1 (10.0) 0.87 0.57

Discussion

The TFV/LNG IVR was safe and well tolerated. The IVR delivered high local tissue concentrations of TFV and TFV-DP. Altogether TFV and LNG PK and PD data support potential for contraceptive and HIV prevention efficacy for this MPT product. There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants randomized to one of the four treatment and dosing groups in their reports of various levels of AEs and the relatedness of these AEs to the study product or study procedures. Just prior to the start of this trial, a 90-day phase I study of an IVR releasing TDF, a prodrug of TFV, in sexually active women was prematurely terminated due to grade 1 genital ulcers in 8 of 12 women randomized to the TDF IVR [18]. In response to these events, we added 13 additional, four-quadrant cervico-vaginal exams to the study, in order to increase safety monitoring. One participant, randomized to the TFV/LNG IVR, who was not sexually active, presented with a 1 cm epithelial disruption of her left vaginal epithelium after approximately 45 days of IVR use. We removed her IVR and her epithelial disruption completely resolved within 10 days without additional treatment. The epithelial disruption was located in the mid left vaginal sidewall, not near the vaginal fornices and ectocervix where the IVR normally contacts the genital mucosa and where the majority of ulcers were found with the TDF IVR [18]. Despite this, we classified this AE as product related, since the participant was not sexually active and denied use of any other intravaginal products. We observed no other epithelial findings among any of the other 46 enrolled participants. Previously, an in vitro modeling study raised concern that TFV or more potent pro-drugs might impair wound healing in the female reproductive tract [34]. It was thought that this could potentially uncover safety signals when topical anti-retrovirals were used in sexually active women, as consensual vaginal intercourse can cause micro-trauma to the CV mucosa [35]. Unlike our previous first-in-woman trial [6], women enrolled in this study were permitted to engage in sexual activity. Although we did not collect data on the frequency of sexual intercourse, ninety percent of enrolled participants were sexually active. We found no evidence of mucosal disruption or ulcers associated with IVR use and sexual activity. Our data support that the TFV/LNG IVR, when used by healthy, sexually active women, does not cause genital ulceration or any other significant AEs.

Twelve of 18 TFV/LNG IVR continuous dosing users reported mild or moderate AEs versus 15 of 18 TFV/LNG IVR cyclic dosing users. While this difference was statistically significant, we do not believe that it is clinically relevant, as the difference is small and AEs were mostly mild and unrelated to product use.

Severe (Grade 3) AEs were observed only in participants in continuous TFV/LNG treatment and interrupted placebo treatment. The Grade 3 AEs included amoebiasis, decreased hemoglobin, and diarrhea reported by one participant each in continuous TFV/LNG treatment, and post procedural hemorrhage reported by one participant in interrupted placebo treatment. None of the Grade 3 AEs were considered related to study treatment or study procedure (Table 2).

AEs assessed by the investigator as related to study treatment occurred at similar frequencies within continuous treatment (38.9% and 40.0% in TFV/LNG and placebo, respectively). In interrupted treatment, the incidence of related AEs was higher in TFV/LNG than in placebo arms (16.7% and 0%, respectively); none of these related AEs occurred in more than one participant. Related AEs were more frequent in continuous TFV/LNG (38.9%) than interrupted TFV/LNG (16.7%) treatment.

We found that the majority of active IVR users reported no change in their menses or lighter bleeding/less bleeding days with IVR use. Our data are consistent with the previously tested 20 μg/day LNG IVR, which found that a quarter of the IVR users experienced some type of menstrual bleeding irregularity, but only 15% discontinued due to that reason [36, 37]. Breakthrough bleeding is one of the most common causes of discontinuation for progestin only contraceptives [38]. We hypothesized that breakthrough bleeding would occur more frequently with higher doses of progestins which, systemically, are associated with higher rates of anovulation [39]. In this study, we included the cyclic arm to determine the impact of IVR removals on menstrual bleeding patterns and because previous data from several contraceptive and HIV-1 prevention IVR trials support that some women prefer to remove the IVR with intercourse or menstrual bleeding [812]. Demonstration of acceptable menstrual bleeding patterns among the majority of active IVR users in this study is highly encouraging. Furthermore, our data support that intermittent removal of the TFV/LNG IVR does not appear to offer any improvement in menstrual bleeding patterns over continuous IVR use.

Although limited to the placebo IVR cohort (n = 10), analysis of the residual glycerin content indicated that the IVRs were used for 30 or more days based on previous data [13]. In placebo IVRs glycerin is fully expelled within approximately 1 month of use and therefore this assay is a good indicator of poor or non-adherence [13]. Median residual glycerin in used placebo IVRs from both dosing cohorts in this study (84–90 days of use) was similar to the median residual glycerin in placebo IVRs after 30 days of use in our previous adherence biomarker validation study [13]. The combined median levels of penetrated bioanalytes into used placebo IVRs from both dosing cohorts combined in this study was significantly higher than median concentrations measured among women using the placebo IVRs for 1 month in our previous validation study of these objective markers [13], indicating use for longer than 1 month.

Our previous first-in-woman study of the TFV and TFV/LNG IVRs was the first to report the impact of topical LNG on mucosal safety endpoints [6], such as CV immune cell populations and local cytokine and chemokine production. Unlike both depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and oral, systemic LNG combined with ethinyl estradiol [40, 41], the locally applied LNG combined with TFV in the IVR did not cause any significant changes in soluble CV biomarkers with up to 3 months of use. In the TDF ring study, the investigators noted several changes in CV cytokines and chemokines when sexually active women used the ring [42]. In the current study, we report no changes in these endpoints from baseline with the placebo or TFV/LNG IVRs.

An essential mechanism of the microdose LNG is the local effect on CM, which has been characterized with the LNG intrauterine system [43], but has not been correlated with plasma LNG concentrations measured from systemically administered contraceptives (reviewed in [44]). Steady state serum levels of LNG, measured by radio-immunoassay (RIA) in previous studies of the 20 μg/day LNG IVR, ranged from 187–682 pg/mL [39, 45, 46]. Serum concentrations of LNG in systemic, LNG contraceptive implant (Norplant, Jadelle) users generally exceed a mean of 200–300 pg/mL [4750], as measured by RIA. This range is often considered the systemic benchmark for contraceptive efficacy (reviewed in [44]). In our first study of the TFV/LNG IVR [6], we were able to use RIA to provide comparisons to previous RIA determined benchmark data from systemic, LNG based contraceptives [4750]. In this study, serum LNG concentrations were measured with LC-MS/MS, the current gold standard for LNG PK assessments [21], which does not have an established comparison to past benchmarks measured by RIA. However, our data support that the TFV/LNG IVR delivers levels of LNG consistent with previously tested LNG IVRs from the WHO [39, 45, 46] and in the range of effective systemic LNG implants [4750] and current, micro-dose LNG contraceptive intrauterine systems [51, 52]. Not surprisingly, we observed a significant decrease in serum LNG during IVR removal in the interrupted dosing arm, as compared to the continuous dosing arm. It is unknown whether these decreases in systemic LNG concentrations would reduce contraceptive efficacy with cyclic, interrupted use, but given that cyclic use does not improve bleeding profiles over continuous use, these data would support continuous use of the IVR as the preferred contraceptive modality. The impact of short drops in LNG plasma concentration on local contraceptive mechanisms such as those related to cervical mucus rheology, however, has not been clearly established.

In our previous study [6], we timed the only cervical mucus check based on the urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. In this study, we used twice weekly E2 and P4 serum testing to more precisely define ovulation and time the multiple cervical mucus checks. This was more accurate as all participants in the placebo arms showed evidence of monthly ovulation. The anovulation rate among TFV/LNG IVR users in this study was similar to or higher than that seen in previous studies of LNG micro-dose contraceptive IVRs [45, 5355].

The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and plasma steady state concentrations of TFV were well within the low range expected from topical, as opposed to oral, dosing of TFV [5658]. Surrogates of protection against HIV-1 for TFV containing topical microbicides are still modeled by concentrations of TFV in the CV aspirate and its association with HIV seroconversion in the CAPRISA 004 study, which utilized pre and post coital TFV vaginal gel, not a sustained-release topical TFV source, as provided by the TFV or TFV/LNG IVRs [59]. A CV aspirate TFV concentration over 100 ng/mL conferred an estimated 65% protection against HIV-1 acquisition, while a CV aspirate TFV concentration of over 1,000 ng/mL provided an estimated 76% protection against HIV-1 [59, 60]. Recently, TFV concentrations in vaginal fluid have been expressed as nanograms per milligram (ng/mg) of vaginal fluid, to more accurately normalize the concentration; thus the TFV concentrations in this study are given as ng/mg. We found that continuous TFV/LNG IVR users maintained high vaginal fluid TFV concentrations, above 1000 ng/mg, while cyclic users had decreases in mucosal TFV concentrations with 3 day removals, although the trough concentrations remained above 100 ng/mg and quickly returned to concentrations similar to continuous users with IVR re-insertion. Assuming a CVF density of about 1 (1 mg = 0.001 mL), mean TFV concentrations in CVF of TFV/LNG continuous ring users would be around 106 ng/mL, compatible with TFV gel CVF concentrations and prevention of HIV infection [56, 57, 59, 60].

Unlike in the previous study [6], we also measured TFV concentrations in rectal fluid. We found very low concentrations in rectal fluid, which is consistent with past studies of vaginal and rectal administration of TFV gel in macaques [61].

In past studies, tissue concentrations of TFV following the administration of TFV vaginal gel as a single dose, two doses, or 14 daily doses, with or without intercourse, were highly variable ranging from 5.3 ng/mg– 258 ng/mg [5658]. High TFV-DP concentrations were correlated with TFV concentrations of at least 10 ng/mg in tissue [5658]. In this study, both continuous and interrupted TFV/LNG IVR users maintained mean and median TFV tissue concentrations above 10 ng/mg. The dispersion of the data observed at end-of-treatment and after final ring removal may be due to differences in the rate of in vivo TFV release associated with vaginal microbial community states, as previously reported [14]. Although the in vivo release rates of TFV and LNG were not statistically different between the continuous and cyclic dosing groups (p values 0.65 and 0.22 respectively) (reported in [14]), higher than expected release rates were found associated to community state IV, poly-diverse, vaginal microbiota.

We did not obtain tissue for TFV PK at the end of the 3 day interruption in cyclic users, but found that for all IVR users, TFV tissue concentrations decreased below 10 ng/mg within 48 hours of IVR removal at the end of the study.

The benchmark of 1,000 fmol/mg for TFV-DP levels in tissue comes from PK and efficacy studies of TFV gel in macaques, demonstrating that TFV gel, when applied 30 minutes [62] or even 3 days [63] prior to simian human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) challenge, protected all or the majority of macaques, respectively. We found no impact of dosing regimen on TFV-DP concentrations. Within 72 hours of IVR insertion, mean and median tissue concentrations of TFV-DP in both the continuous and cyclic dosing cohorts ranged from 2314–4273 fmol/mg. Importantly TFV-DP levels remained high between 2–5 days after IVR removal at the end of treatment (Fig 3B). Thus, our data demonstrate that both dosing regimens for the TFV/LNG IVR resulted in high concentrations of TFV-DP in CV tissues, which remained high even after IVR removal.

The inhibitory activity of the vaginal secretions against HIV-1 at baseline was variable and similar to previous data in healthy women [6, 25, 64, 65]. Consistent with the high vaginal concentrations of TFV, once participants were exposed to TFV containing IVRs, the inhibitory activity of vaginal fluid against HIV-1 in vitro increased significantly from baseline at month 1 and at the end of treatment and similar to levels seen with use of TFV vaginal gel [6, 25, 66, 67]. Consistent with the PK data, we did not find any significant impact on HIV replication in vitro with rectal fluids obtained in the presence of TFV/LNG IVR use.

Our ex vivo CV tissue infection modeling surrogate showed that with TFV exposure, HIV p24 antigen production decreased by greater than 10 fold compared to baseline or placebo treated tissues. This did not reach statistical significance possibly due to the high inter and intra assay variability reported in p24 antigen production in ex vivo biopsy challenge experiments, especially at baseline and the small sample size [68]. However, we found a statistically significant correlation between inhibition levels and TFV concentrations in tissue.

Although not the primary outcomes of the trials, topical TFV gel reduced acquisition of genital HSV-2 compared to placebo in two phase IIb trials [6971]. In this study, as in our first study of the TFV/LNG IVR [6], levels of TFV in the CV aspirate were consistent with HSV-2 inhibition in vitro and in vivo [70, 72], but were not sufficient to consistently inhibit HSV-2 in the Vero cell plaque reduction assay, as dilution of the CVF with 400 μL was required to avoid cytotoxicity and perform the assay [67].

Our post hoc analysis using a HEC1a cell line assay and HSV-2 DNA PCR as an endpoint was able to demonstrate a significant and specific inhibition both using continuous and categorical endpoint variables. Furthermore, we found a significant PK/PD correlation between TFV concentrations in vaginal fluid and in vitro inhibition of HSV-2.

Similar to previous findings after approximately 2 weeks of use, using the TFV/LNG IVR for its intended duration of approximately 90 days showed no safety concerns, achieved LNG and TFV PK benchmarks, displayed PD surrogates of anti-HIV-1, HSV-2 and contraceptive activity, and demonstrated high TFV-DP tissue levels supporting potential pharmacological forgiveness. Importantly, we also showed that removing the IVR cyclically seemed to offer no advantage to regulating breakthrough bleeding, which in any case occurred in only few women due to the use of a micro-dose of LNG.

Conclusions

The TFV/LNG IVR was safe and well tolerated, and met PK/PD pre-specified levels, compatible with HIV, HSV and contraceptive activity. This IVR is capable of releasing in a controlled manner two very different drugs in amounts that differ by roughly 500-fold. Drug release from the IVRs achieved high local concentrations and low plasma levels, minimizing potential systemic AEs. Maintaining high local concentrations post IVR removal (dosing forgiveness) and multipurpose prevention of STIs and pregnancy are value-added features of this unique IVR. Because cyclic dosing did not offer an advantage in the menstrual bleeding pattern over continuous use, our data currently would support a preferred recommendation of continuous IVR use, as this regimen shows a more consistent PK/PD pattern. Long-lasting protective levels of TFV-DP in tissue, however, would also support ring removal for short periods. The ultimate efficacy of this unique MPT ring must be tested in future prevention trials.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOC)

S1 Table. Schedule of evaluations.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. CD4 and CCR5 positive cell density in cryopreserved samples.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Pharmacokinetic parameters.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Comparison of paired changes from baseline in percent HSV-2 inhibition by vaginal and rectal fluids using vero cell assay.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Supplemental methods.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. CONSORT 2010 flow diagram.

(DOC)

S1 Protocol

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study and the clinical development of the TFV/LNG ring were supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with funds from The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under Cooperative Agreements (AID-OAA-A-10-00068, AID-OAA-A-14-00010, and AID-OAA-A-14-00011). The Endocrine Technologies Core (ETC) at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC). In addition, some of Dr. David W. Erikson’s time and effort was supported by National Institutes of Health, (NIH) funding P51 OD011092. Gilead Sciences donated tenofovir active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No author reports any conflict of interest or any competing interests which interfered with the conduct of this study or interpretation of results.

References

  • 1.UNAIDS. Prevention Gap Report. http://wwwunaidsorg/sites/default/files/media_asset/2016-prevention-gap-report_enpdf [Internet]. 2016.
  • 2.Kott A. Rates of Unintended Pregnancy Remain High In Developing Regions. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2011;37(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(9):843–52. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506575 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4861155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Singh S, Sedgh G, Hussain R. Unintended pregnancy: worldwide levels, trends, and outcomes. Stud Fam Plann. 2010;41(4):241–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2010.00250.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Macaluso M, Blackwell R, Jamieson DJ, Kulczycki A, Chen MP, Akers R, et al. Efficacy of the male latex condom and of the female polyurethane condom as barriers to semen during intercourse: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(1):88–96. Epub 2007/04/11. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm046 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Thurman AR, Schwartz JL, Brache V, Clark MR, McCormick T, Chandra N, et al. Randomized, placebo controlled phase I trial of safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and acceptability of tenofovir and tenofovir plus levonorgestrel vaginal rings in women. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199778. Epub 2018/06/29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199778 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6023238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Thurman AR, Schwartz JL, Ravel J, Gajer P, Marzinke MA, Yousefieh N, et al. Vaginal microbiota and mucosal pharmacokinetics of tenofovir in healthy women using tenofovir and tenofovir/levonorgestrel vaginal rings. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0217229. Epub 2019/05/21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217229 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6527208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Baeten JM, Palanee-Phillips T, Brown ER, Schwartz K, Soto-Torres LE, Govender V, et al. Use of a Vaginal Ring Containing Dapivirine for HIV-1 Prevention in Women. N Engl J Med. 2016. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506110 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.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. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602046 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Koetsawang S, Ji G, Krishna U, Cuadros A, Dhall GI, Wyss R, et al. Microdose intravaginal levonorgestrel contraception: a multicentre clinical trial. II. Expulsions and removals. World Health Organization. Task Force on Long-Acting Systemic Agents for Fertility Regulation. Contraception. 1990;41(2):125–41. Epub 1990/02/01. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(90)90142-i . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Montgomery ET, van der Straten A, Cheng H, Wegner L, Masenga G, von Mollendorf C, et al. Vaginal ring adherence in sub-Saharan Africa: expulsion, removal, and perfect use. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(7):1787–98. doi: 10.1007/s10461-012-0248-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Smith DJ, Wakasiaka S, Hoang TD, Bwayo JJ, Del Rio C, Priddy FH. An evaluation of intravaginal rings as a potential HIV prevention device in urban Kenya: behaviors and attitudes that might influence uptake within a high-risk population. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17(6):1025–34. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0529 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2942749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jacot TA, Clark MR, Adedipe OE, Godbout S, Peele AG, Ju S, et al. Development and clinical assessment of new objective adherence markers for four microbicide delivery systems used in HIV prevention studies. Clin Transl Med. 2018;7(1):37. Epub 2018/11/08. doi: 10.1186/s40169-018-0213-6 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6219998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Thurman AR, Ravel J, Gajer P, Marzinke MA, Ouattara LA, Jacot T, et al. Vaginal Microbiota and Mucosal Pharmacokinetics of Tenofovir in Healthy Women Using a 90-Day Tenofovir/Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:799501. Epub 2022/03/31. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.799501 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8957918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Clark JT, Clark MR, Shelke NB, Johnson TJ, Smith EM, Andreasen AK, et al. Engineering a segmented dual-reservoir polyurethane intravaginal ring for simultaneous prevention of HIV transmission and unwanted pregnancy. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e88509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088509 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3943718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Johnson TJ, Clark MR, Albright TH, Nebeker JS, Tuitupou AL, Clark JT, et al. A 90-day tenofovir reservoir intravaginal ring for mucosal HIV prophylaxis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(12):6272–83. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01431-12 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3497207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sarkar NN. Steroidal contraceptive vaginal rings. Int J Clin Pract. 2003;57(5):392–5. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Keller MJ, Wood L, Billingsley JM, Ray LL, Goymer J, Sinclair S, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate intravaginal ring for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in sexually active women: a phase 1, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial. The lancet HIV. 2019;6(8):e498–e508. Epub 2019/07/20. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30145-6 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6719300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chandra N, Thurman AR, Anderson S, Cunningham TD, Yousefieh N, Mauck C, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate increases immune cell numbers and activation markers in human vaginal mucosal tissues. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2013;29(3):592–601. doi: 10.1089/aid.2012.0271 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3581024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hendrix CW, Andrade A, Bumpus NN, Kashuba AD, Marzinke MA, Moore A, et al. Dose Frequency Ranging Pharmacokinetic Study of Tenofovir-Emtricitabine After Directly Observed Dosing in Healthy Volunteers to Establish Adherence Benchmarks (HPTN 066). AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2016;32(1):32–43. Epub 2015/09/29. doi: 10.1089/AID.2015.0182 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4692123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Blue SW, Winchell AJ, Kaucher AV, Lieberman RA, Gilles CT, Pyra MN, et al. Simultaneous quantitation of multiple contraceptive hormones in human serum by LC-MS/MS. Contraception. 2018;97(4):363–9. Epub 2018/02/07. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.01.015 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5840044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wei X, Decker JM, Liu H, Zhang Z, Arani RB, Kilby JM, et al. Emergence of resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in patients receiving fusion inhibitor (T-20) monotherapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(6):1896–905. Epub 2002/05/23. doi: 10.1128/AAC.46.6.1896-1905.2002 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC127242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Corporation Promega. Luminescent Cell Viability Assay Technical Bulletin, TB2882015. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Corporation Promega. Bright-Glo Luciferase Assay System Technical Manual, TM0522015. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Keller MJ, Madan RP, Torres NM, Fazzari MJ, Cho S, Kalyoussef S, et al. A randomized trial to assess anti-HIV activity in female genital tract secretions and soluble mucosal immunity following application of 1% tenofovir gel. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e16475. Epub 2011/02/02. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016475 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3026837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Richardson-Harman N, Lackman-Smith C, Fletcher PS, Anton PA, Bremer JW, Dezzutti CS, et al. Multisite comparison of anti-human immunodeficiency virus microbicide activity in explant assays using a novel endpoint analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(11):3530–9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00673-09 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2772583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Speroff L, Vande Wiele RL. Regulation of the human menstrual cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;109(2):234–47. Epub 1971/01/15. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(71)90872-6 [pii]. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Insler V, Melmed H, Eichenbrenner I, Serr DM, Lunenfeld B. The Cervical Score: A Simple Semiquantitative Method for Monitoring of the Menstrual Cycle. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 1972;10(6):223–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Leader A, Wiseman D, Taylor PJ. The prediction of ovulation: a comparison of the basal body temperature graph, cervical mucus score, and real-time pelvic ultrasonography. Fertil Steril. 1985;43(3):385–8. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)48436-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nulsen J, Wheeler C, Ausmanas M, Blasco L. Cervical mucus changes in relationship to urinary luteinizing hormone. Fertil Steril. 1987;48(5):783–6. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abidogun KA, Ojengbede OA, Fatukasi UI. Prediction and detection of ovulation: an evaluation of the cervical mucus score. Afr J Med Med Sci. 1993;22(1):65–9. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.WHO. The World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Fourth ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pandya IJ, Mortimer D, Sawers RS. A standardized approach for evaluating the penetration of human spermatozoa into cervical mucus in vitro. Fertil Steril. 1986;45(3):357–65. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rodriguez-Garcia M, Patel MV, Shen Z, Bodwell J, Rossoll RM, Wira CR. Tenofovir Inhibits Wound Healing of Epithelial Cells and Fibroblasts from the Upper and Lower Human Female Reproductive Tract. Sci Rep. 2017;8:45725. doi: 10.1038/srep45725 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5377941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brawner BM, Sommers MS, Moore K, Aka-James R, Zink T, Brown KM, et al. Exploring Genitoanal Injury and HIV Risk Among Women: Menstrual Phase, Hormonal Birth Control, and Injury Frequency and Prevalence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(2):207–12. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000824 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4712081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Koetsawang S, Ji G, Krishna U, Cuadros A, Dhall GI, Wyss R, et al. Microdose intravaginal levonorgestrel contraception: a multicentre clinical trial. IV. Bleeding patterns. World Health Organization. Task Force on Long-Acting Systemic Agents for Fertility Regulation. Contraception. 1990;41(2):151–67. Epub 1990/02/01. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(90)90144-k . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ji G, Andrade AT, Souza JP. Menstrual blood loss with use of a vaginal ring releasing 20 micrograms levonorgestrel per day. World Health Organization. Task force on long-acting systemic agents for fertility regulation. Contraception. 1993;47(5):455–68. Epub 1993/05/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Polis CB, Hussain R, Berry A. There might be blood: a scoping review on women’s responses to contraceptive-induced menstrual bleeding changes. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):114. Epub 2018/06/27. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0561-0 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6020216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Xiao BL, Zhang XL, Feng DD. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of vaginal rings releasing low-dose levonorgestrel. Contraception. 1985;32(5):455–71. Epub 1985/11/01. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(85)90016-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Morrison C, Fichorova RN, Mauck C, Chen PL, Kwok C, Chipato T, et al. Cervical inflammation and immunity associated with hormonal contraception, pregnancy, and HIV-1 seroconversion. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes. 2014;66(2):109–17. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000103 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fichorova RN, Chen PL, Morrison CS, Doncel GF, Mendonca K, Kwok C, et al. The Contribution of Cervicovaginal Infections to the Immunomodulatory Effects of Hormonal Contraception. mBio. 2015;6(5):e00221–15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00221-15 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4556810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Keller MJ, Ray L, Atrio JM, Espinoza L, Sinclair S, Goymer J, et al. Early termination of a phase I trial of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vaginal ring. CROI 2018; Boston, MA2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Natavio MF, Taylor D, Lewis RA, Blumenthal P, Felix JC, Melamed A, et al. Temporal changes in cervical mucus after insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 2013;87(4):426–31. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.09.034 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cherala G, Edelman A, Dorflinger L, Stanczyk FZ. The elusive minimum threshold concentration of levonorgestrel for contraceptive efficacy. Contraception. 2016;94(2):104–8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.03.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Landgren BM, Johannisson E, Masironi B, Diczfalusy E. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic investigations with vaginal devices releasing levonorgestrel at a constant, near zero order rate. Contraception. 1982;26(6):567–85. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(82)90132-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Landgren BM, Aedo AR, Cekan SZ, Diczfalusy E. Pharmacokinetic studies with a vaginal delivery system releasing levonorgestrel at a near zero order rate for one year. Contraception. 1986;33(5):473–85. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(86)80006-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Croxatto HB, Diaz S, Miranda P, Elamsson K, Johansson ED. Plasma levels of levonorgestrel in women during longterm use of norplant. Contraception. 1981;23(2):197–209. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(81)90105-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sivin I, Wan L, Ranta S, Alvarez F, Brache V, Mishell DR Jr., et al. Levonorgestrel concentrations during 7 years of continuous use of Jadelle contraceptive implants. Contraception. 2001;64(1):43–9. Epub 2001/09/06. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(01)00226-8 [pii]. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Olsson SE, Odlind V, Johansson ED, Nordstrom ML. Plasma levels of levonorgestrel and free levonorgestrel index in women using NORPLANT implants or two covered rods (NORPLANT-2). Contraception. 1987;35(3):215–28. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(87)90024-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sivin I. Risks and benefits, advantages and disadvantages of levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants. Drug Saf. 2003;26(5):303–35. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200326050-00002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bayer Healthcare. Package Insert for Skyla Intrauterine System2000. Available from: http://labeling.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/Skyla_PI.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bayer Healthcare. Package Insert Mirena Intrauterine System; https://labeling.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/Mirena_PI.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Landgren BM, Aedo AR, Johannisson E, Cekan SZ. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of vaginal rings releasing levonorgestrel at a rate of 27 micrograms/24 hours: a pilot study. Contraception. 1994;49(2):139–50. Epub 1994/02/01. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(94)90089-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Landgren BM, Johannisson E, Xing S, Aedo AR, Diczfalusy E. A clinical pharmacological study of a new type of vaginal delivery system for levonorgestrel. Contraception. 1985;32(6):581–601. Epub 1985/12/01. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(85)80004-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.WHO Task Force on Fertility Regulating Agents. Intravaginal and intracervical devices for the delivery of fertility regulating agents Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 1979;11(1 Pt 2):461–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hendrix CW, Chen BA, Guddera V, Hoesley C, Justman J, Nakabiito C, et al. MTN-001: randomized pharmacokinetic cross-over study comparing tenofovir vaginal gel and oral tablets in vaginal tissue and other compartments. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e55013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055013 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3559346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Schwartz JL, Rountree RW, Kashuba ADM, Brache A, Creinin M, Poindexter A, et al. A Multi-Compartment, Single and Multiple Dose Pharmacokinetic Study of the Vaginal Candidate Microbicide 1% Tenofovir Gel. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Herold BC, Chen BA, Salata RA, Marzinke MA, Kelly CW, Dezzutti CS, et al. Impact of Sex on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of 1% Tenofovir Gel. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(3):375–82. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ913 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4706638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kashuba AD, Gengiah TN, Werner L, Yang KH, White NR, Karim QA, et al. Genital Tenofovir Concentrations Correlate With Protection Against HIV Infection in the CAPRISA 004 Trial: Importance of Adherence for Microbicide Effectiveness. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;69(3):264–9. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000607 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4505741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Karim SS, Kashuba AD, Werner L, Karim QA. Drug concentrations after topical and oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis: implications for HIV prevention in women. Lancet. 2011;378(9787):279–81. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60878-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3652579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Nuttall J, Kashuba A, Wang R, White N, Allen P, Roberts J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of tenofovir following intravaginal and intrarectal administration of tenofovir gel to rhesus macaques. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(1):103–9. Epub 2011/10/12. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00597-11 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3256015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Parikh UM, Dobard C, Sharma S, Cong ME, Jia H, Martin A, et al. Complete protection from repeated vaginal simian-human immunodeficiency virus exposures in macaques by a topical gel containing tenofovir alone or with emtricitabine. J Virol. 2009;83(20):10358–65. Epub 2009/08/07. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01073-09 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2753130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Dobard C, Sharma S, Martin A, Pau CP, Holder A, Kuklenyik Z, et al. Durable protection from vaginal simian-human immunodeficiency virus infection in macaques by tenofovir gel and its relationship to drug levels in tissue. J Virol. 2011;86(2):718–25. Epub 2011/11/11. doi: 10.1128/JVI.05842-11 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3255839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Thurman AR, Chandra N, Yousefieh N, Zalenskaya I, Kimble T, Asin S, et al. Comparison of Follicular and Luteal Phase Mucosal Markers of HIV Susceptibility in Healthy Women. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2016;32(6):547–60. doi: 10.1089/AID.2015.0264 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4892231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Chappell CA, Isaacs CE, Xu W, Meyn LA, Uranker K, Dezzutti CS, et al. The effect of menopause on the innate antiviral activity of cervicovaginal lavage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.045 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Schwartz JL, Weiner D, Kashuba A, Archer D, Brache V, Schreiber CA, et al. Multicompartmental Pharmacokinetics of Tenofovir 1% Gel Using the BAT 24 Regimen Versus Daily and Single Pericoital Dosing. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2014;30 Suppl 1:A37. doi: 10.1089/aid.2014.5060.abstract . [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Herold BC, Dezzutti CS, Richardson BA, Marrazzo J, Mesquita PM, Carpenter C, et al. Antiviral activity of genital tract secretions after oral or topical tenofovir pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(1):65–73. Epub 2014/01/25. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000110 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3981887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Richardson-Harman N, Parody R, Anton P, McGowan I, Doncel G, Thurman AR, et al. Analytical Advances in the Ex Vivo Challenge Efficacy Assay. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2017;33(4):395–403. doi: 10.1089/AID.2016.0073 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5372762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.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. doi: 10.1126/science.1193748 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3001187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Abdool Karim SS, Abdool Karim Q, Kharsany AB, Baxter C, Grobler AC, Werner L, et al. Tenofovir Gel for the Prevention of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):530–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1410649 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4562018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Marrazzo J, Rabe L, Kelly C, Livant E, Chirenje ZM, Richardson B, et al. Association of Tenofovir (TFV) Detection with Reduced Risk of Herpes Simplex virus Type-2 (HSV-2) Acquisition in the VOICE (MTN 003) Study. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2014;30 Suppl 1:A31. doi: 10.1089/aid.2014.5047a.abstract . [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Andrei G, Lisco A, Vanpouille C, Introini A, Balestra E, van den Oord J, et al. Topical tenofovir, a microbicide effective against HIV, inhibits herpes simplex virus-2 replication. Cell Host Microbe. 2011;10(4):379–89. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2011.08.015 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3201796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jamie Royle

22 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-23955

Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring in Women

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thurman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns. They feel the writing style and structure of the manuscript should be revised to aid readability and clarity. In additional they request improvements to the reporting of methodological aspects of the study, for example, they request more details about the statistical analyses presented and justification for the use of these analyses.

Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jamie Royle, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This study and the clinical development of the TFV/LNG ring were supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with funds from The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under Cooperative Agreements (AID-OAA-A-10-00068, AID-OAA-A-14-00010, and AID-OAA-A-14-00011). The Endocrine Technologies Core (ETC) at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) is supported by NIH Grant P51 OD011092 awarded to ONPRC. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions, PEPFAR, USAID or the United States Government.  The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.  No author reports any conflict of interest or any competing interests which interfered with the conduct of this study or interpretation of results.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study and the clinical development of the TFV/LNG ring were supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with funds from The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under Cooperative Agreements (AID-OAA-A-10-00068, AID-OAA-A-14-00010, and AID-OAA-A-14-00011). The Endocrine Technologies Core (ETC) at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) is supported by NIH Grant P51 OD011092 awarded to ONPRC. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions, PEPFAR, USAID or the United States Government.  The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.  No author reports any conflict of interest or any competing interests which interfered with the conduct of this study or interpretation of results.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A 4-arm randomized, placebo-controlled phase I safety trial was conducted which reported pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and acceptability. All IVRs were safe and no serious adverse events were encountered.

Minor revisions:

1- Page 10: Indicate if adverse events were collected according to a standardized method, e.g. by CTCAE.

2- Define the abbreviations SD and STD at their first occurrence.

3- Page 25, line 4: State the statistical method from which the paired p-values were estimated.

4- Provide a comprehensive statistical analysis section. State all statistical methods used, including chi square tests, and Spearman correlations.

5- To improve transparency, on each table indicate the statistical testing method(s) used to estimate the p-values.

Reviewer #2: MAJOR COMMENTS

As general comment, I highly recommend a complete re-writing of the manuscript to obtain a more formal, better structured text. As an example, try to keep the same scheme for describing methods in all the sub-sections of this section (as a guidance: which type of sample, when in the study, what to analyze in it). Finally, try to avoid so many abbreviations throughout the text (and always in titles), mainly the non-standard abbreviations (CM, CV, CVF, CVL….)

Statistical methods must be reviewed. The use of parametrical test with low sample size and disbalanced groups must be very well justified…if possible!

Finally, try to follow the style of your previous paper (PLOS one 2018), with some exceptions below recommended.

MINOR COMMENTS

Pg.5, Ln.12-23: The difference between the CONRAD 128 (15 days use) and this study (up to 90 days) is not apparent enough after a quick reading. Then, the wording should be improved. As a suggestion, split it in two paragraphs: The first one to summarize the CONRAD 128, including some results from this study to make more obvious that this study was completed. The second paragraph, dedicated to the current paper as a subsequent study from the former, finalizing with the objectives.

Pg.6. A scheme of activities and short description of visits is mandatory at the beginning of Methods sections. Throughout the section, refer to this figure when necessary and avoid the continuous quoting of “…prior to insertion….”, “….at the end of….”, or similar sentences.

Pg.6,Ln.14. The inclusion/exclusion criteria must be summarized.

Pg.6,Ln.20-22: The 4 arms are explained (and better explained) in Pg.8,Ln.8-11.

Pg.7, Ln.3: It is not clear if the ring was inserted at a specific time of the cycle (e.g., Days 1 to 5 of menstruation) or was inserted at any moment of the cycle, regardless the menstrual status.

Pg.7, Ln.4: Please explain the different extraction regimen “based on the randomization assignment”.

Pg.7, Ln5: Please explain how cervicovaginal (CV) tissue is used for PK purposes. In addition, abbreviation “CV” must be clarified since this is the first time of use (cervicovaginal).

Pg.7, Ln14: Please clarify when did you collect CM ….end of the month 1, 2 or 3 visit…

Pg.9,Ln11: …designed to release approximately 20 u/day. See Ln.6.

Pg.10,Ln 22: As stated above, please: Type of sample > when > what to do.

Pg.11,Ln 3-4: Since no further comments will be included, please consider to delete this sub-section.

Pg.11, Ln 7-13: This is an example of re-witting and simplification, as suggested above: At visits 4 and 29, a CV fluid lavage was collected in 4ml normal saline after speculum insertion and lavage of the cervical fornices and vaginal walls, avoiding spraying directly into the cervical os. The concentration of soluble proteins in the supernatant was then measured by multiplex electrochemiluminescence assay and ELISA, using procedures established under accreditation by the College of American Pathologists [6].

Pg.11,Ln21: ….a subset of XX participants….. Though again, since no further comments will be included, please consider to delete this sub-section.

Pg.12, Ln4: Strictly speaking, “Pharmacokinetics” (PK) is currently defined as the study of the time course of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. The measurement of drug concentration in tissues or the quantification of binding protein cannot be considered as PK. The sub-sections must be re-written following the previous recommendation and the times of quantification must be included on the text (Supplemental is not appropriate for this purpose).

Pg.13,Ln.8: This sub-section is described in much more detail than the other sub-sections. The style must be homogenized throughout the manuscript. Since there is a Supplemental, this sub-section must be reduced in agreement with the previous.

Pg.15,Ln.3: Contraceptive efficacy can only be measured by the follow-up for a long enough time of a cohort of sexually active women (please, see Pearl Index). In this sub-section the PD of LNG is addressed, as well described in its title.

Pg.15, Ln.10: Already described in Pg.7,Ln.21-23. Improve this content in pg.7 and delete this subsection in pg. 15.

Pg.15, Ln.16: Please confirm that the study was authorized by IRB an HA without a formal calculation of sample size.

Pg.16,Ln.1: A real PK analysis must include a description of the concentration/time curve….

Pg.16,Ln.11: “For select PD…” it is not acceptable, must be for all, unless a good explanation of selection criteria is provided.

Pg.16,Ln6-20: The statistical methods must be reviewed. The proposal of parametrical tests sound inadequate for such a low sample size and disbalanced between groups.

Pg.16.Ln.12: The ANCOVA model must be appropriately described. But prior, review the appropriateness of this statistical method.

Pg.16.Ln.17: It is not clear if paired t-test is used for the comparison of more than 2 times, which is inappropriate.

Pg.16.Ln.21: No description of the safety analysis is missing.

Pg.17,Ln.11: Please clarify: If the subject was allocated in one arm, the subject was randomized and therefore enrolled (by definition). Do you mean that she was not included on the analysis? Was the analysis ITT or PP or both? (Not specified on the Statistitics sub-section).

Pg.17,Ln.13: Demographic characteristics of participants.

Pg.20,Ln.1-2: Please delete, not necessary.

Pg.20,Ln.5-15: Please, use a table to show the exposed population by arm.

Pg.20,Ln.16: Please, include a sentence that all the AEs recorded were considered as TEAE (if so!).

20.19: In accordance with this sentence, the incidence of TEAE was lower in interrupted treatment than in placebo.

20.1-….:Please, use the classification by ICH-E2A to show the safety results, including the classification of AE by severity, causality and seriousness. Additionally, expectedness. And this classification should be explained in Methods.

23.13: Delete “(all…0.05)”

23.15: See 23.13.

23.16: of ….N…. samples. And the same in next pages, when p is > 0.05. The statistical significance level at p<0.05 is already established in Methods/Statistical methods (16.20).

24. To simplify this one and the following tables, you can choose between either Mean&SD (if data follow a Normal distribution) or alternatively, Median&Min-Max (if not normal).

27.1-9: Considering the limited sample size in the placebo group, the use of percentages is not appropriate. The description in absolute values (1/5… One of the 5 …. Etc.) is more adequate and simplifies the paragraph.

27.12-17: This comments correspond to Discussion.

28.10: Considering the high number of tables, avoid Table 5 and include only relevant results in the text.

30.2: Results must be shown. A figure is recommended.

34. This table can be included on the text.

38.19-23. The statistical methods (ROC, Fisher, Spearman…) must be described only on the Methods section, not in Results.

41.4. The higher frequency of TEAE in interrupted than in continuous treatment (Pg.21,Ln.6) must be discussed at any point of this section.

41.10. The inclusion of a not sexually active participant should be justified or commented.

42.2. How was resolved? With the removal of the ring? With additional treatment?

42.23. Avoid the direct relationship of bleeding irregularities and anemia. Menstrual irregularities can involve also amenorrhea, or irregular bleeding not necessarily excessive and hence not related with anemia. From other perspective, the potential reason for discontinuation is the irregular bleeding pattern, not the abnormal laboratory finding.

44.3. Clarify that the plasma levels refers to the steady state. Not necessary to specify the method of quantification.

44.8. The use of the same method of quantification does not guarantee that independent results can be directly compared.

Fig.2-3 The use of concentration/time CURVES is recommended (instead of bars). Please, taking in consideration that X-axis is time.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275794.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Apr 2022

Andrea Thurman, MD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Eastern Virginia Medical School/CONRAD

601 Colley Ave, Norfolk, VA 23507

Email: thurmaar@evms.edu, Phone: 210-380-5241

19 APR 2022

Dear Dr. Royle, Editorial Team Members and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript, PONE-D-21-23955, “Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring in Women”. We have addressed all of the reviewer’s comments and recommended edits below. We point to the page and line number(s) of the changes in a revised, tracked version of the manuscript. We hope that these changes make our manuscript acceptable for publication.

Our amended funding statement is as follows: This study and the clinical development of the TFV/LNG ring were supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with funds from The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under Cooperative Agreements (AID-OAA-A-10-00068, AID-OAA-A-14-00010, and AID-OAA-A-14-00011). The Endocrine Technologies Core (ETC) at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) is supported by NIH Grant P51 OD011092 awarded to ONPRC. Tenofovir active pharmaceutical ingredient was donated by Gilead Sciences (Foster City, CA, USA).The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions, PEPFAR, USAID or the United States Government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No author reports any conflict of interest or any competing interests which interfered with the conduct of this study or interpretation of results.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

RESPONSE: We confirm that the manuscript is formatted per PLOS One’s style requirements. Headings are 18 font, 2nd level headings are 16 font, 3rd level headings are 14 font. Text is double-spaced at 12 font. The references are cited using Plos style in EndNote. Figures and Tables and Supplemental materials are labeled as per the journal style format.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This study and the clinical development of the TFV/LNG ring were supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with funds from The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under Cooperative Agreements (AID-OAA-A-10-00068, AID-OAA-A-14-00010, and AID-OAA-A-14-00011). The Endocrine Technologies Core (ETC) at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) is supported by NIH Grant P51 OD011092 awarded to ONPRC. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions, PEPFAR, USAID or the United States Government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No author reports any conflict of interest or any competing interests which interfered with the conduct of this study or interpretation of results.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

RESPONSE: We have amended funding information and placed it under the Funding Statement section.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study and the clinical development of the TFV/LNG ring were supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with funds from The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under Cooperative Agreements (AID-OAA-A-10-00068, AID-OAA-A-14-00010, and AID-OAA-A-14-00011). The Endocrine Technologies Core (ETC) at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) is supported by NIH Grant P51 OD011092 awarded to ONPRC. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions, PEPFAR, USAID or the United States Government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No author reports any conflict of interest or any competing interests which interfered with the conduct of this study or interpretation of results.”

RESPONSE: There are no funding related statements in the text of the manuscript. All funding related statements are now in the funding section.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

RESPONSE: This amended text is included in the body of the cover letter.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

RESPONSE: There are no ethical or legal restrictions on de-identified study endpoint data. The rest is not applicable.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

RESPONSE: We will deposit de-identified data with PLOS One as part of the manuscript submission.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

RESPONSE: Thank you

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

RESPONSE: We made the edits from reviewer #2 to the statistical methods below

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

RESPONSE: Thank you – we will also deposit the anonymized data as per requested above by the journal requirements.

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

RESPONSE: We made the edits and clarifications requested by reviewer #2 below.

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A 4-arm randomized, placebo-controlled phase I safety trial was conducted which reported pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and acceptability. All IVRs were safe and no serious adverse events were encountered.

Minor revisions:

1- Page 10: Indicate if adverse events were collected according to a standardized method, e.g. by CTCAE.

RESPONSE: We clarified on page 12 of the revised tracked manuscript that per protocol, adverse events were graded for severity, using the DAIDS tables for grading the severity of adverse events (http://rsc.tech-res.com/clinical-research-sites/safety-reporting/daids-grading-tables) and relationship to study product or study procedures (reported as related versus not related). Adverse events were coded with the appropriate MDR code for the clinical study report and for data presentation.

2- Define the abbreviations SD and STD at their first occurrence.

RESPONSE: “Standard deviation” is defined at the first occurrence, Table 1, and is uniformly abbreviated as SD now in Tables 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.

3- Page 25, line 4: State the statistical method from which the paired p-values were estimated.

RESPONSE: We added in the Sample size and statistical analyses section (pages 18 – 20) that the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test was used to compare paired changes from baseline, pre-insertion safety endpoints to the end of treatment values (e.g. density of tissue lymphocytes and concentrations of secreted soluble proteins) as these data are not normally distributed. Similarly, the Kruskall-Wallis test was used to compare safety endpoints among the 4 independent treatment/dosing groups at the end of treatment. We put this clarification in the Methods section because it applies to the statistical analyses presented for both immune cells and cytokines.

4- Provide a comprehensive statistical analysis section. State all statistical methods used, including chi square tests, and Spearman correlations.

RESPONSE: We have added on pages 19 and 20 all statistical tests used to compare safety, PK and PD data. We also added the correlation methods used to correlate PK and PD variables.

5- To improve transparency, on each table indicate the statistical testing method(s) used to estimate the p-values.

RESPONSE: The statistical test for calculating the p values has been added to the Table legend for Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Additional information about the statistical analyses has been added to the methods section, pages 19 and 20 in the revised tracked manuscript.

Reviewer #2: MAJOR COMMENTS

As general comment, I highly recommend a complete re-writing of the manuscript to obtain a more formal, better-structured text. As an example, try to keep the same scheme for describing methods in all the sub-sections of this section (as a guidance: which type of sample, when in the study, what to analyze in it). Finally, try to avoid so many abbreviations throughout the text (and always in titles), mainly the non-standard abbreviations (CM, CV, CVF, CVL….)

RESPONSE: We have edited the manuscript to a more formal writing style. In the past, many reviewers have asked that we either use a first person active language or that we use the third person past tense style. We have removed abbreviations from the section headings. We do believe that CV, CVF and CVL are standard abbreviations for this field and type of Phase I study and would therefore like to keep these abbreviations. In addition they are used frequently throughout the text. We have now spelled out cervical mucus. We have formatted the methods text as requested and agree that presenting sample type, when in the study and then specified in the statistical section the tests used to compare each endpoint. Due to the length of the manuscript, we added additional methods details in a supplemental methods section.

Statistical methods must be reviewed. The use of parametrical test with low sample size and disbalanced groups must be very well justified…if possible!

RESPONSE: As also requested by reviewer #1, we have added additional detail to the statistical methods section, pages 18 – 20, specifying which tests were used for each endpoint comparison. We added on page 19 that all data sets were examined for normality using the PROC UNIVARIATE procedure in SAS and examining the histogram, Q plot and the Shapiro Wilk statistic. All continuous variables were not normally distributed and therefore appropriate non-parametric statistical testing was performed. We also note on page 19 that the sample size for this phase 1 study, like most phase 1 studies and particularly those done previously in this field or specifically on this MPT product, was primarily based on the size of similar studies MPT IVRs [1]. For statistical comparisons, we note on page 19, lines 7 – 11, that the primary objective of the study, safety, was compared using exact statistical methods whenever possible for the reporting of TEAEs between treatment groups. For transparency, we have also added the Fisher exact test p values for proportion of participants reporting various TEAE categories to Table 2. We acknowledged on page 19, lines 9 – 11, that other statistical comparisons must be interpreted with caution for this phase 1 study due to the limited sample size, particularly for exploratory modeled PD objectives.

Finally, try to follow the style of your previous paper (PLOS one 2018), with some exceptions below recommended.

RESPONSE: As requested we have changed the methods section of this manuscript to reflect the style of our previous PLOS One ring manuscript (2018), explaining at what visits samples were collected, the sample collection specifics and then the sample analysis details. Because this is extensive information, we have also included a supplemental methods section to reduce main manuscript length.

MINOR COMMENTS

Pg.5, Ln.12-23: The difference between the CONRAD 128 (15 days use) and this study (up to 90 days) is not apparent enough after a quick reading. Then, the wording should be improved. As a suggestion, split it in two paragraphs: The first one to summarize the CONRAD 128, including some results from this study to make more obvious that this study was completed. The second paragraph, dedicated to the current paper as a subsequent study from the former, finalizing with the objectives.

RESPONSE: We agree that this is a very important distinction to make between the initial first-in-woman study of 15 days of continuous use (CONRAD 128) [1] and this first study of the TFV/LNG IVR for the full 90 day duration. We have added these details, as suggested in two paragraphs, to the introduction on pages 5 and 6 of the revised tracked manuscript.

Pg.6. A scheme of activities and short description of visits is mandatory at the beginning of Methods sections. Throughout the section, refer to this figure when necessary and avoid the continuous quoting of “…prior to insertion….”, “….at the end of….”, or similar sentences.

RESPONSE: We have moved the sentence “The study visits and procedures are summarized in Supplementary Table 1” to the beginning of the methods section, clinical study section, page 7 lines 1 – 2. Given that this study had 32 visits, we believe the best method to orient the reader to the multiple visits and endpoints is a standard schedule of evaluations table, with which most clinical study researchers are familiar. Throughout the manuscript, when we refer to visits, we have now cited Supplemental Table 1. Plos One format style has Table 1 describe the study population and therefore we chose, as we have done in our previous Plos One manuscripts, to outline the study visits in Supplemental Table 1.

Pg.6,Ln.14. The inclusion/exclusion criteria must be summarized.

RESPONSE: We have added additional inclusion and exclusion criteria to the main I/E criteria noted in the methods section, page 7.

Pg.6,Ln.20-22: The 4 arms are explained (and better explained) in Pg.8,Ln.8-11.

RESPONSE: We copied the randomization text on page 8 to better explain the study groups (now on pages 7 and 8) in the overall methods section. This allowed us to delete some of the redundant detail in the randomization section on page 10 of the revised tracked manuscript.

Pg.7, Ln.3: It is not clear if the ring was inserted at a specific time of the cycle (e.g., Days 1 to 5 of menstruation) or was inserted at any moment of the cycle, regardless the menstrual status.

RESPONSE: We have added in the methods section that IVR insertion at visit 4 was performed in the menstrual/follicular phase on day 6 ± 1 day of the menstrual cycle on page 8, lines 6 – 9.

Pg.7, Ln.4: Please explain the different extraction regimen “based on the randomization assignment”.

RESPONSE: We clarified, on page 8, lines 10 – 14, that the PK sampling time at visit 5 was based on a randomization where participants had blood and CV tissue for PK obtained at 24 OR 48 OR 72 hours after IVR insertion. We also clarified that this randomization was done because participants could not have CV tissue obtained at all three time points for safety reasons (page 8, lines 12 – 14). When CV tissue biopsies are taken, we place Monsel’s solution on the biopsy site to prevent bleeding. We don’t want the participants to have anything in the vagina for 5 days after a biopsy, including doing a repeat speculum exam to obtain more biopsies. This could result in bleeding from the biopsy site.

Pg.7, Ln5: Please explain how cervicovaginal (CV) tissue is used for PK purposes. In addition, abbreviation “CV” must be clarified since this is the first time of use (cervicovaginal).

RESPONSE: We now define CV at the first presentation on page 8. We also clarified that the tissue biopsies for PK were two vaginal tissue biopsies (page 15, line 7). In the methods section, we detail how the Marzinke central PK lab at Johns Hopkins processed the vaginal tissue for both tenofovir and tenofovir-diphosphate concentrations as part of the pharmacokinetic assessment of the rings. PK parameters are now presented in supplemental Table 3. We also detail in the discussion section (pages 53 – 55) how tissue concentrations of TFV in our current study compare to past studies in women using TFV topical vaginal gel [2-4].

Pg.7, Ln14: Please clarify when did you collect CM ….end of the month 1, 2 or 3 visit…

RESPONSE: We have added to the description of the timing of cervical mucus checks, in the methods section on pages 8 – 9 that “To detect ovulation and time cervical mucus assessments, participants returned approximately twice weekly after IVR initiation, to have serum estradiol (E2) and P4 measured. We performed a cervical mucus check for Insler score [7] and sperm penetration assay (modified slide test) [8-12] at the next regularly scheduled visit, usually within 48 hours, if the serum E2 was between 75 – 150 pg/mL. If the serum E2 was over 150 pg/mL, indicating imminent follicular development, we brought the participant in for a cervical mucus check within 24 hours. If the serum E2 did not reach 75 pg/mL before the end of each month (i.e. days 28, 59 and 90), we collected cervical mucus at the end of the month 1 (V13), month 2 (V22) or month 3 (V31) visits (S1 Table)”.

Pg.9,Ln11: …designed to release approximately 20 u/day. See Ln.6.

RESPONSE: Since the release rate was defined on page 11, line 11 as (20 ug/day), we deleted the redundant phrase on page 11, line 16.

Pg.10,Ln 22: As stated above, please: Type of sample > when > what to do.

RESPONSE: We have added a standard structure to the methods section, which explains type of sample, when collected and what methods were used to process the samples. We also added reference to the Supplemental Table 1, to direct the reader to the schedule of evaluations.

Pg.11,Ln 3-4: Since no further comments will be included, please consider to delete this sub-section.

RESPONSE: We agree and have deleted this sub-section on page 13 of the revised tracked manuscript.

Pg.11, Ln 7-13: This is an example of re-witting and simplification, as suggested above: At visits 4 and 29, a CV fluid lavage was collected in 4ml normal saline after speculum insertion and lavage of the cervical fornices and vaginal walls, avoiding spraying directly into the cervical os. The concentration of soluble proteins in the supernatant was then measured by multiplex electrochemiluminescence assay and ELISA, using procedures established under accreditation by the College of American Pathologists [6].

RESPONSE: Thank you for the alternative text. We have inserted this text on page 14, lines 3 - 7 based on your recommendation.

Pg.11,Ln21: ….a subset of XX participants….. Though again, since no further comments will be included, please consider to delete this sub-section.

RESPONSE: We agree and have deleted the text on page 14 regarding the individual qualitative interviews as these data will be reported separately.

Pg.12, Ln4: Strictly speaking, “Pharmacokinetics” (PK) is currently defined as the study of the time course of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. The measurement of drug concentration in tissues or the quantification of binding protein cannot be considered as PK. The sub-sections must be re-written following the previous recommendation and the times of quantification must be included on the text (Supplemental is not appropriate for this purpose).

RESPONSE: We agree with the Reviewer that we have not done a full ADME study with the rings, but we have collected enough drug concentration data in different compartments to present some key PK parameters, which illustrate how the rings perform and may achieve the desired effects. We have edited the methods section accordingly and added supplemental Table 3 with PK parameters. Because multiple samples were obtained from multiple matrices, we refer the reader to the S1 Table for each time point, to reduce word length. In addition, to make sure that the PK methods are defined in detail, while respecting the journal’s word limits, we have added ample information to the supplemental methods section on the calculation of PK parameters.

Pg.13,Ln.8: This sub-section is described in much more detail than the other sub-sections. The style must be homogenized throughout the manuscript. Since there is a Supplemental, this sub-section must be reduced in agreement with the previous.

RESPONSE: To assess anti-HSV2 activity (now pages 16 and 17 of the revised tracked manuscript), two methods were used. The Vero cell method has been previously reported ,and therefore we summarized it and added references (page 16). The method using HEC1A epithelial cells is a new method, developed and refined by our group and not previously reported; therefore, we chose to describe this method more comprehensively to enable others to reproduce.

Pg.15,Ln.3: Contraceptive efficacy can only be measured by the follow-up for a long enough time of a cohort of sexually active women (please, see Pearl Index). In this sub-section the PD of LNG is addressed, as well described in its title.

RESPONSE: We agree and have edited this section header on page 18 to clarify that this is LNG PD assessments as surrogates of contraceptive effect. In line with the type of study (Phase I), we have assessed LNG PD effects (e.g. anovulation, thickened cervical mucus) as surrogates of potential contraceptive activity.

Pg.15, Ln.10: Already described in Pg.7,Ln.21-23. Improve this content in pg.7 and delete this subsection in pg. 15.

RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation and have added detail and referenced our methods for the assessment of objective adherence biomarkers on page 9 as part of the clinical study methods. This allowed us to delete the redundant text on page 18 of the tracked manuscript.

Pg.15, Ln.16: Please confirm that the study was authorized by IRB and without a formal calculation of sample size.

RESPONSE: We confirm the text in the methods section, page 7 “The study was approved by the Advarra Institutional Review Board (IRB) (#Pro00022358) and Comisiòn Nacional de Bioetica (#030-2017), respectively, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03279120)”. The statistical summary in the approved protocol (also submitted to Plos One) states in the study synopsis and the statistical analyses summary sections the same verbage as reported in the manuscript, on page 19. Our group does several first in woman and phase I studies and it is the norm for these type of studies to be primarily descriptive in nature. We also note, and have added this to the manuscript, page 19, that the primary objective safety, was measured using TEAEs. For this endpoint, we used the Fisher exact test for comparisons, which is not dependent on sample size.

Pg.16,Ln.1: A real PK analysis must include a description of the concentration/time curve….

RESPONSE: We agree and have added the calculation of standard PK parameters to the supplemental methods section. We have also included the calculated PK parameter data for TFV in vaginal fluid and vaginal tissue, TFV-DP in vaginal tissue, TFV in plasma and LNG and SHBG in serum as Supplemental Table 3. Furthermore, following the Reviewer’s suggestion below, we have changed the figure to plot the data as concentration/time curves. The PK parameters are compared to established benchmarks for LNG contraceptive concentrations [13] and vaginal fluid TFV [14, 15] and vaginal tissue TFV-DP concentrations in regard to HIV antiviral activity [5, 6], which were previously established from either human cross sectional studies (LNG contraceptive PK [13] and vaginal fluid TFV [14, 15]), or SHIV infection experiments in non-human primates days [5, 6]. These references and the discussion of all these PK benchmarks are included in the discussion section pages 52 - 55. Because a Supplemental Table 3 was added, this makes the rectal and vaginal anti-HSV2 data now Supplemental Table 4.

Pg.16,Ln.11: “For select PD…” it is not acceptable, must be for all, unless a good explanation of selection criteria is provided.

RESPONSE: We apologize for this error. We have specified that for comparison of the anti-HIV inhibition and p24 antigen product between the 4 treatment/dosing groups an ANOVA model was used, page 20.

Pg.16,Ln6-20: The statistical methods must be reviewed. The proposal of parametrical tests sound inadequate for such a low sample size and disbalanced between groups.

RESPONSE: No parametric test has been used to statistically compare data sets following non-Gaussian distributions. As pointed out above, we have added the SAS code (PROC univariate) that we used to determine the normality of each endpoint data set on page 19. We specifically note on page 19 that all continuous variables were not normally distributed and therefore appropriate non-parametric statistical testing was performed. We now also note the statistical test used to compare data as footnotes in all tables. We note in the statistical methods section that the primary objective of the study, safety, was compared using exact statistical methods for the reporting of TEAEs between treatment groups on page 19. We acknowledge in the statistical analyses section that other statistical comparisons must be interpreted with caution for this phase 1 study due to the limited sample size, particularly for exploratory modeled PD objectives.

Pg.16.Ln.12: The ANCOVA model must be appropriately described. But prior, review the appropriateness of this statistical method.

RESPONSE: You are correct that the ANCOVA model, which we have used in the past to categorize “infected” versus “not infected” categories of the p24 antigen production PD model was not used or reported in this manuscript and therefore we have removed this model from the statistical methods section on page 20.

Pg.16.Ln.17: It is not clear if paired t-test is used for the comparison of more than 2 times, which is inappropriate.

RESPONSE: We have clarified in Table 6 that paired changes from baseline to month 1 and paired changes from baseline to month 3 were calculated using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. We recognize that multiple comparisons could have also been performed, but with only two time points from baseline, paired non-parametric analyses are also accurate. We added additional text in the methods section to clarify this statistical process (page 20, lines 1 – 7) for the HIV inhibition of vaginal fluids endpoint.

Pg.16.Ln.21: No description of the safety analysis is missing.

RESPONSE: As is typical for phase 1 studies, we clarified in the methods section (Safety Assessments sub-section) that the primary safety measure was treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). We added, based on reviewer #1’s comments how TEAEs were graded (NIH/NIAID/DAIDS criteria) and how relationship to study product or study procedures was determined on page 12, lines 8 - 10. The other sub-clinical safety assessments outlined in the methods section include the assessment of the density and phenotype of immune cells in ectocervical tissue and changes from baseline in the concentration of secreted soluble proteins from the CV mucosa.

Pg.17,Ln.11: Please clarify: If the subject was allocated in one arm, the subject was randomized and therefore enrolled (by definition). Do you mean that she was not included on the analysis? Was the analysis ITT or PP or both? (Not specified on the Statistitics sub-section).

RESPONSE: We have added a description of the randomized, treated and evaluable population to the statistical analysis section on page 19, lines 12 - 18

Pg.17,Ln.13: Demographic characteristics of participants.

RESPONSE: As per Plos One journal style, the title of the figure (in this case Figure 1) is listed after the paragraph in which the figure is referenced, on page 22, line 8. The title of Figure 1 is Disposition of participants. The title of Table 1 is Demographic and baseline characteristics treated population. Per Plos One formatting requirements, titles of tables are listed below the table on page 24.

Pg.20,Ln.1-2: Please delete, not necessary.

RESPONSE: We have deleted this text on page 25, lines 1 and 2.

Pg.20,Ln.5-15: Please, use a table to show the exposed population by arm.

RESPONSE: We agree that this is a more straightforward way to display exposure data and have included this text as data in the main safety table, Table 2.

Pg.20,Ln.16: Please, include a sentence that all the AEs recorded were considered as TEAE (if so!).

RESPONSE: We have included on page 12, lines 6 and 7 of the methods section, page 11, that TEAEs were monitored at every visit, starting with the enrollment visit and therefore all adverse events were considered to be TEAEs, not medical history.

20.19: In accordance with this sentence, the incidence of TEAE was lower in interrupted treatment than in placebo.

RESPONSE: We have clarified, using the Fisher exact statistical comparison of the proportion of participants in each of the 4 treatment/dosing groups reporting various levels of TEAEs and the p values are now displayed in Table 2. This clarifies that while there were trends, although none were statistically significant (page 25, lines 18 – 20).

20.1-….:Please, use the classification by ICH-E2A to show the safety results, including the classification of AE by severity, causality and seriousness. Additionally, expectedness. And this classification should be explained in Methods.

RESPONSE: We have outlined additional detail on the classification of severity of TEAEs (mild, moderate, severe, potentially life threatening and death) and gave the link for the DAIDS tables (http://rsc.tech-res.com/clinical-research-sites/safety-reporting/daids-grading-tables) which were used to grade the severity of TEAEs in this study on page 12, lines 6 - 20. We added definitions used for classifying a TEAE as suspected versus unexpected and serious (page 12, lines 12 – 20). We have added information to the results section that there were no SAEs, no unexpected TEAEs or deaths (page 25, line 16).

Page 23.13: Delete “(all…0.05)”

RESPONSE: This text has been deleted on page 30, line 5.

23.15: See 23.13.

RESPONSE: The text of all p values > 0.07 has been deleted on page 30, line 7.

23.16: of ….N…. samples. And the same in next pages, when p is > 0.05. The statistical significance level at p<0.05 is already established in Methods/Statistical methods (16.20).

RESPONSE: We added the detail that there were 12 ectocervical biopsies which could be split for standard formalin fixation versus cryopreservation (done at the EVMS site) for this analyses (page 30, line 8). We also changed the text to say that there were no statistically significant differences between the CD4 and CCR5 lymphocyte densities between TFV/LNG and placebo IVR groups (page 30, lines 8 and 9). However these conclusions, as we noted, are limited by the small sample size (displayed in Supplemental Table 2).

Page 24. To simplify this one and the following tables, you can choose between either Mean&SD (if data follow a Normal distribution) or alternatively, Median&Min-Max (if not normal).

RESPONSE: We agree that normally distributed data is displayed by Mean and SD and non-parametric data is best displayed by median with either IQR or min max. However, we would like to include both mean/SD and median to give the reader a better understanding of the data.

Page 27.1-9: Considering the limited sample size in the placebo group, the use of percentages is not appropriate. The description in absolute values (1/5… One of the 5 …. Etc.) is more adequate and simplifies the paragraph.

RESPONSE: We clarified in the methods section, that the proportions noted for adherence are the percent of expected days of use (page 9, lines 10 – 17). The percentages are not the percent of participants with perfect use. Specifically, based on self-report and observations of IVR use in the clinic, for the continuous arms, the total number of days with the IVR was determined as (the last day of IVR removal – the first day of IVR insertion + 1) – the total number of days of unintentional IVR removal. The expected number of days with the IVR for continuous use was 90 days. For the interrupted arms, the total number of days with the IVR was determined as (the last day of IVR removal – the first day of IVR insertion +1) – (the total number of days of scheduled and unintentional IVR removal). The expected number of days with the IVR for interrupted use was 84 days. We have added verbage to the results section (page 34, lines 2 and 3 and lines 7 and 8) to clarify that this is the mean proportion of days the IVR was used of the expected days of use. We also categorized the proportion of expected days used as 100%, ≥ 80% to < 100%, and < 80%.

Page 27.12-17: This comments correspond to Discussion.

RESPONSE: We agree and took out the comments from the results section (objective biomarkers) (page 34, lines 13 – 19) and placed these in to the discussion section (page 51, lines 14 – 23) regarding how these objective biomarker data compare to our previous validation study study [16].

28.10: Considering the high number of tables, avoid Table 5 and include only relevant results in the text.

RESPONSE: Given that bleeding abnormalities are the main reason that women discontinue effective progestin only based contraceptives [17], we would like to keep Table 5. It contains data that the field is looking for. We proposed a microdose of topical LNG (20ug/day) to reduce menstrual irregularities with this LNG MPT [18], and therefore, data on menstrual cycle impact, reported in this cohort over 3 months of use, represent unique and valuable information.

30.2: Results must be shown. A figure is recommended.

RESPONSE: We agree and have added the TFV in plasma PK data to Supplemental Table 3.

34. This table can be included on the text.

RESPONSE: We agree and have included the plasma TFV PK data in Supplemental Table 3

38.19-23. The statistical methods (ROC, Fisher, Spearman…) must be described only on the Methods section, not in Results.

RESPONSE: We agree and have moved the statistical methods used for the post hoc categorization of the anti-HSV2 data to the statistical methods section (page 21, lines 6 – 13).

41.4. The higher frequency of TEAE in interrupted than in continuous treatment (Pg.21,Ln.6) must be discussed at any point of this section.

RESPONSE: As stated above, we used the Fisher exact test to compare the proportion of participants in each study treatment (TFVLNG or placebo IVR) and each dosing regimen (continuous or interrupted) as this was the primary safety endpoint and we recognize that exact tests should be used when the sample size or cell sizes are low. Although there were some trends noted, there were no statistically significant differences in reports of various levels of TEAEs by participants randomized to the four cohorts studied. We have included the summary sentence: “The TFV/LNG IVR was safe and well tolerated. There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants randomized to one of the four treatment and dosing groups in their reports of various levels of TEAEs and the relatedness of these TEAEs to the study product or study procedures” as the top line assessment in the discussion section, pages 48 and 49.

41.10. The inclusion of a not sexually active participant should be justified or commented.

RESPONSE: We have added to the introduction that the initial first in woman study, CONRAD 128, did not allow sexual activity to limit exposure of a male partner to an IND product (page 6, lines 1 - 3). After proving safety in the first study, we allowed sexual activity in this 3 month use study because it was not feasible to limit participant’s sexual activity for this long. Furthermore topical tenofovir has been used previously as a topical gel by thousands of sexually active women in phase 2/3 efficacy trials [19-21]. However, as the 138 study was still a phase 1 study to assess safety, PK and model PD in women, we did not require participants to be heterosexually active as no endpoint in this study was related to a male partner, nor required timed intercourse and this study was not assessing sero-conversion.

42.2. How was resolved? With the removal of the ring? With additional treatment?

RESPONSE: We have added additional details on page 49, lines 9 – 10, to this participant’s finding and recovery. We removed her IVR and her epithelial disruption completely resolved within 10 days without additional treatment.

42.23. Avoid the direct relationship of bleeding irregularities and anemia. Menstrual irregularities can involve also amenorrhea, or irregular bleeding not necessarily excessive and hence not related with anemia. From other perspective, the potential reason for discontinuation is the irregular bleeding pattern, not the abnormal laboratory finding.

RESPONSE: We agree and have removed the verbage referring to serum hemoglobin and ferritin concentrations on page 51, lines 1 and 2.

44.3. Clarify that the plasma levels refers to the steady state. Not necessary to specify the method of quantification.

RESPONSE: That is correct, these are steady state concentrations of serum LNG in previous studies of the LNG implant (Norplant). We have added this clarification on page 52, lines 15 and 17.

44.8. The use of the same method of quantification does not guarantee that independent results can be directly compared.

RESPONSE: We completely agree. We have added additional detail on pages 52 and 53, to emphasize that the past contraceptive benchmarks for levonorgestrel were for systemic delivery (implants) and were established using RIA on page 52. Although we were able to use RIA in our first study, this method has been replaced with LC/MS-MS. We have added an additional reference [22] (reference 27 in the tracked revised manuscript), which also notes that RIA and LC/MS-MS quantification are not directly comparable.

Fig.2-3 The use of concentration/time CURVES is recommended (instead of bars). Please, taking in consideration that X-axis is time.

RESPONSE: We have changed the bar graphs showing mean (SD) in Figures 2 and 3 to concentration/time graphs. We have added that the X axis is time.

Again, we thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments. We hope that the edits and clarifications added makes our manuscript acceptable for publication in PLOS One.

Sincerely,

Andrea Thurman

REFERENCES FOR REVIEWER RESPONSE LETTER:

1. Thurman AR, Schwartz JL, Brache V, Clark MR, McCormick T, Chandra N, et al. Randomized, placebo controlled phase I trial of safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and acceptability of tenofovir and tenofovir plus levonorgestrel vaginal rings in women. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199778. Epub 2018/06/29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199778. PubMed PMID: 29953547; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6023238.

2. Schwartz JL, Rountree RW, Kashuba ADM, Brache A, Creinin M, Poindexter A, et al. A Multi-Compartment, Single and Multiple Dose Pharmacokinetic Study of the Vaginal Candidate Microbicide 1% Tenofovir Gel. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25974.

3. Herold BC, Chen BA, Salata RA, Marzinke MA, Kelly CW, Dezzutti CS, et al. Impact of Sex on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of 1% Tenofovir Gel. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(3):375-82. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ913. PubMed PMID: 26508513; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4706638.

4. Hendrix CW, Chen BA, Guddera V, Hoesley C, Justman J, Nakabiito C, et al. MTN-001: randomized pharmacokinetic cross-over study comparing tenofovir vaginal gel and oral tablets in vaginal tissue and other compartments. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e55013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055013. PubMed PMID: 23383037; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3559346.

5. Parikh UM, Dobard C, Sharma S, Cong ME, Jia H, Martin A, et al. Complete protection from repeated vaginal simian-human immunodeficiency virus exposures in macaques by a topical gel containing tenofovir alone or with emtricitabine. J Virol. 2009;83(20):10358-65. Epub 2009/08/07. doi: JVI.01073-09 [pii]

10.1128/JVI.01073-09. PubMed PMID: 19656878; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2753130.

6. Dobard C, Sharma S, Martin A, Pau CP, Holder A, Kuklenyik Z, et al. Durable protection from vaginal simian-human immunodeficiency virus infection in macaques by tenofovir gel and its relationship to drug levels in tissue. J Virol. 2011;86(2):718-25. Epub 2011/11/11. doi: JVI.05842-11 [pii]

10.1128/JVI.05842-11. PubMed PMID: 22072766; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3255839.

7. Insler V, Melmed H, Eichenbrenner I, Serr DM, Lunenfeld B. The Cervical Score: A Simple Semiquantitative Method for Monitoring of the Menstrual Cycle. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 1972;10(6):223-7.

8. Leader A, Wiseman D, Taylor PJ. The prediction of ovulation: a comparison of the basal body temperature graph, cervical mucus score, and real-time pelvic ultrasonography. Fertil Steril. 1985;43(3):385-8. PubMed PMID: 3884396.

9. Nulsen J, Wheeler C, Ausmanas M, Blasco L. Cervical mucus changes in relationship to urinary luteinizing hormone. Fertil Steril. 1987;48(5):783-6. PubMed PMID: 3311823.

10. Abidogun KA, Ojengbede OA, Fatukasi UI. Prediction and detection of ovulation: an evaluation of the cervical mucus score. Afr J Med Med Sci. 1993;22(1):65-9. PubMed PMID: 7839884.

11. Organization WH. The World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Fourth ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1999.

12. Pandya IJ, Mortimer D, Sawers RS. A standardized approach for evaluating the penetration of human spermatozoa into cervical mucus in vitro. Fertil Steril. 1986;45(3):357-65. PubMed PMID: 3949035.

13. Cherala G, Edelman A, Dorflinger L, Stanczyk FZ. The elusive minimum threshold concentration of levonorgestrel for contraceptive efficacy. Contraception. 2016;94(2):104-8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.03.010. PubMed PMID: 27000997.

14. Kashuba AD, Gengiah TN, Werner L, Yang KH, White NR, Karim QA, et al. Genital Tenofovir Concentrations Correlate With Protection Against HIV Infection in the CAPRISA 004 Trial: Importance of Adherence for Microbicide Effectiveness. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;69(3):264-9. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000607. PubMed PMID: 26181703; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4505741.

15. Karim SS, Kashuba AD, Werner L, Karim QA. Drug concentrations after topical and oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis: implications for HIV prevention in women. Lancet. 2011;378(9787):279-81. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60878-7. PubMed PMID: 21763939; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3652579.

16. Jacot TA, Clark MR, Adedipe OE, Godbout S, Peele AG, Ju S, et al. Development and clinical assessment of new objective adherence markers for four microbicide delivery systems used in HIV prevention studies. Clin Transl Med. 2018;7(1):37. Epub 2018/11/08. doi: 10.1186/s40169-018-0213-6. PubMed PMID: 30402770; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6219998.

17. Polis CB, Hussain R, Berry A. There might be blood: a scoping review on women's responses to contraceptive-induced menstrual bleeding changes. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):114. Epub 2018/06/27. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0561-0. PubMed PMID: 29940996; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6020216.

18. Xiao BL, Zhang XL, Feng DD. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of vaginal rings releasing low-dose levonorgestrel. Contraception. 1985;32(5):455-71. Epub 1985/11/01. PubMed PMID: 3936678.

19. Karim QA, Karim SSA, 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 Express. 2010;10.1126(1193748):1.

20. 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. Epub 2018/12/07. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30428-6. PubMed PMID: 30507409.

21. 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. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402269. PubMed PMID: 25651245; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4341965.

22. Blue SW, Winchell AJ, Kaucher AV, Lieberman RA, Gilles CT, Pyra MN, et al. Simultaneous quantitation of multiple contraceptive hormones in human serum by LC-MS/MS. Contraception. 2018;97(4):363-9. Epub 2018/02/07. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.01.015. PubMed PMID: 29407362; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5840044.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers THURMAN 20 APR 2022.docx

Decision Letter 1

Thomas Phillips

31 May 2022

PONE-D-21-23955R1Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring in WomenPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thurman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of major concerns. They request improvements to the reporting of methodological aspects of the study. Thee reviewers also note concerns about the statistical analyses presented. Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 14 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas Phillips, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Minor revisions: (Page numbers refer to those in the tracked changes version of revision 1.)

1- Page 19, Line 8 and Page 25, Line 19: Clarify the phrase "exact statistical methods."

2- Page 26, Line 4 and Page 29, Line 9: "Fisher's exact."

3- Tables 3, 4, 6, 7 and supplemental tables: Typically median, first and third quartiles are used to summarize non-normally distributed data.

4- The abbreviation STD appears in the supplemental tables.

Reviewer #2: • Contratulations by the improvement of the manuscript.

• Something that must be more obvious from the first reading is that you are comparing LVG/TNF ring vs placebo under TWO regimens of use (continuous vs cyclic), resulting in a 4-arms study. I’d suggest to include these ideas (2 products, 2 regimens) from the very beginning (title, abstract), etc.

• ABSTRACT: Please, follow the structure of introduction, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion (but avoid the section titles).

• Page 6, Line 6: The study hereby presented (CONRAD 138)…….(to better distinguish both studies).

• 7, 15-17: The quotation of some factors is not necessary: ….(e.g. ….infections).

• 9,3: Data of residual drug must be provided!!!!! If I’m not wrong, there are several comments to residual glycerin as adherence marker, but not residual drug. Data form LNG/TNF IVR must be provided, analyzed between regimens (continuous vs cyclic) and discussed if differences are seen.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275794.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Jun 2022

Andrea Thurman, MD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Eastern Virginia Medical School/CONRAD

601 Colley Ave, Norfolk, VA 23507

Email: thurmaar@evms.edu, Phone: 210-380-5241

8 JUN 2022

Dear Dr. Phillips, Editorial Team Members and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful second review of our manuscript, PONE-D-21-23955R1, “Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring in Women”. We have addressed all of the additional reviewer’s comments and recommended edits below. We point to the page and line number(s) of the changes in a revised, tracked version of the manuscript. We hope that these changes make our manuscript acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #1: Minor revisions: (Page numbers refer to those in the tracked changes version of revision 1.)

1- Page 19, Line 8 and Page 25, Line 19: Clarify the phrase "exact statistical methods."

ANSWER: We have clarified that we mean the Fisher’s exact test, which is not impacted by sample size. This clarification is now on page 18, line 6 of the revision #2 tracked manuscript

2- Page 26, Line 4 and Page 29, Line 9: "Fisher's exact."

ANSWER: We have made this correction, on page 8, line 22 of the tracked second revision.

3- Tables 3, 4, 6, 7 and supplemental tables: Typically median, first and third quartiles are used to summarize non-normally distributed data.

ANSWER: We have edited Tables 3, 4, 6 and 7 to show medians, with the 25th – 75th interquartile ranges for these non-normally distributed data.

4- The abbreviation STD appears in the supplemental tables.

ANSWER: We have revised the Tables 3, 4, 6 and 7 to only include median and interquartile ranges and deleted mean and standard deviation for these non-normally distributed data. In Table 1, standard deviation is correctly abbreviated as SD.

Reviewer #2: • Congratulations by the improvement of the manuscript.

• Something that must be more obvious from the first reading is that you are comparing LVG/TNF ring vs placebo under TWO regimens of use (continuous vs cyclic), resulting in a 4-arms study. I’d suggest to include these ideas (2 products, 2 regimens) from the very beginning (title, abstract), etc.

ANSWER: We have added the dosing regimen (continuous versus cyclic) in the title of the manuscript. Even with this addition to the title, the title is less than the 250 character limit (204 characters). We also added the clarification that this is a 4 arm study to the abstract and introduction.

• ABSTRACT: Please, follow the structure of introduction, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion (but avoid the section titles).

ANSWER: We have added an introductory statement to the abstract so that now the abstract has the introduction, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions highlighted in the correct order. We have stayed under the 300 word abstract limit (299 words) with these changes.

• Page 6, Line 6: The study hereby presented (CONRAD 138)…….(to better distinguish both studies).

ANSWER: We agree and made edits to the introduction (page 6 of the tracked second manuscript revision) to distinguish the first-in-woman 14 day study (CONRAD 128) from the current 90 day full duration of treatment study (CONRAD 138).

• 7, 15-17: The quotation of some factors is not necessary: ….(e.g. ….infections).

ANSWER: We agree that since the STI screenings are listed in Supplementary Table 1 and the study protocol, we have taken out the specific listings of exclusionary infections (active HSV-2, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Trichomonas vaginalis, HIV-1, and/or Hepatitis B). This deletion is found on page 7, lines 17 and 18.

• 9,3: Data of residual drug must be provided!!!!! If I’m not wrong, there are several comments to residual glycerin as adherence marker, but not residual drug. Data form LNG/TNF IVR must be provided, analyzed between regimens (continuous vs cyclic) and discussed if differences are seen.

ANSWER: Thank you for this question. We found an intriguing relationship between TFV release rate from the rings and the composition of the vaginal microbiota. Higher than expected in vivo release rates were observed in women with community state type IVA/B, polydisperse microbiota. We have reported these data in a separate manuscript [Thurman AR, Ravel J, Gajer P, Marzinke MA, Ouattara LA, Jacot T, Peet MM, Clark MR, Doncel GF. Vaginal Microbiota and Mucosal Pharmacokinetics of Tenofovir in Healthy Women Using a 90-Day Tenofovir/Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022 Mar 8;12:799501. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.799501. PMID: 35350436; PMCID: PMC8957918.] describing detailed correlations with microbial community states and individual bacteria such as Prevotella bivia, Gardnerella vaginalis and lactobacillus species (now reference 14 in the second revision). This finding has also been observed in a study of the TFV and TFV/LNG IVRs in Kenyan women (Dabee et al., submitted). Conversely, release rates were similar and not statistically different between rings used continuously or cyclically. We have now clarifications about the included a statement and referenced this paper in methods (pages 9 and 10 in the tracked second revision) and in the discussion section (page 52, lines 17 – 22).

Thank you again for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. We hope that the additional revisions will make the manuscript acceptable for publication in PLoS One.

Sincerely,

Andrea Thurman

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REV2 THURMAN 8 JUN 2022.docx

Decision Letter 2

Jianhong Zhou

8 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-23955R2Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring used Continuously or Cyclically in WomenPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thurman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically, we require manuscripts must be presented in an intelligible fashion and be written in standard English. The reviewer raised multiple English language errors and has concerns about the way you presented your Abstract and the objectives of the study. Please note that PLOS ONE does not provide copyediting or proofs of accepted manuscripts. We therefore recommend that you carefully review your manuscript and correct any errors at this time.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianhong Zhou

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: OVERVIEW

Please adapt the abstract in accordance with below suggested changes.

Avoid abbreviations in titles (including section titles)

Discuss with the Editor the alternative of splitting the manuscript in 2 different but related papers.

MAJOR COMMENTS

The same order of objectives must be followed through the text. I understand that should be the one stated on the title: Safety, PK, PD, Acceptability. Then follow it in all sections: Pg5,Ln 8-9; Methods (Safety-> PK -> PD -> Acceptability), Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Safety must be always the first since it is the primary outcome.

A review of the manuscript by an expert in drug safety / pharmacovigilance is highly recommended. Some of the statements from authors should be carefully reassessed.

MINOR COMMMENTS

Pg1, Ln1: Typo error “59”

Pg4, Ln19-22: The manuscript is long and this paragraph does not add relevant information, please delete.

Pg6,Ln14: Please list exclusion criteria as you did inclusion. When they were evaluated is described elsewhere. Same for the next paragraphs, the visits are already described in S1 Table.

6,9. Randomization is described later.

7.4 Blood extraction timing is part of the PK methods.

7.8 Confirmation of anovulatory effect is part of the PD.

7 …. Etc.

10.5 If “The unit dose for the IVRs…” is true, then the placebo also release TFV and LNG…!!!! To avoid this type of mistake, describe first the similarities (manufacturing place, physical appearance) and then the drug content of the active product.

11.2 In accordance with Good Pharmacovigilance Practice, all AE must be recorded, and subsequently classified. This statement must be included, not only refer to TE (which of course are the relevant).

11. Delete “or …reaction”

12. As above requested, follow the order of sections.

12. 14 CVL abbreviation.

12.22 And CFR compliant also, I hope!!

16.22 Contraception was not investigated, women followed abstinence !!!

17.3-5 This limitation of the study must be transferred to Discussion section.

17.8 Delete (V3…)

17.9 Before this last paragraph, methodology to assess acceptability is missing.

17.19 “No participant…. Is a Safety result, no allocation of population.

31.1 No previous mention to “expulsions” in objectives, nor in methods…. Actually, no mention of expulsion in this paragraph beyond the title….

31.1 If you consider Adherence as part of Acceptability assessment, explain and merge. If you consider as part of follow-up, then must be described before main results: Safety > Pk>Pd>Accept.

45.5 A first paragraph of wrap-up is usually recommended at the beginning of the Discussion.

46.9 Cannot considered out of caution. Taking in consideration the occurrence of genital ulcers in this and in Keller’s studies, this AE must be considered as a serious concern to be carefully evaluated within the present and future clinical development. It would probably be considered as a risk by Health Authorities and probably, additional measures of safety surveillance will be required.

46.12-16 The two potential causes of ulcers are here confounded: 1-drug effect over the epithelium; 2-ring’s mechanical effect. COMMENT: both must be investigated in future trials.

47.8-9 SERIOUS INCONSISTENCY: TEAE means Treatment – Emergent……therefore, by definition, it is considered related with the treatment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: J. Algorta

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275794.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


11 Jul 2022

Andrea Thurman, MD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Eastern Virginia Medical School/CONRAD

601 Colley Ave, Norfolk, VA 23507

Email: thurmaar@evms.edu, Phone: 210-380-5241

11 JUL 2022

Dear Jianhong Zhou, Editorial Team Members and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful third review of our manuscript, PONE-D-21-23955R2, “Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring in Women”. We have addressed all of the additional reviewer’s comments and recommended edits below. We point to the page and line number(s) of the changes in a revised, tracked version of the manuscript. We hope that these changes make our manuscript acceptable for publication.

This manuscript was originally submitted to PLoS One on 29 JUL 2021. We thank the PLoS One team for continuing to solicit reviewers and academic editors for our work. This appears to be a third set of reviews, with an additional new reviewer and a third academic editor. As expected, there are some contradictions between what previous reviewers wanted added or deleted and the comments of the current reviewers, in particular the new reviewer. We will now delete additions, as recommended by Reviewer 2, which were previously requested in the first and second reviews of this manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: OVERVIEW

Please adapt the abstract in accordance with below suggested changes.

Response: Abstract adapted as per the suggestions below

Avoid abbreviations in titles (including section titles)

Response: We have removed all abbreviations from titles and sub-titles.

Discuss with the Editor the alternative of splitting the manuscript in 2 different but related papers.

Response: Our research group originally submitted this manuscript to PLoS One on July 29, 2021. This manuscript represents the main findings of the CONRAD 138 study. It has gone through multiple academic editors and reviews. In fact, during the year-long PLoS One review, we published a second, related manuscript of the relation between the vaginal microbiota and pharmacokinetics of tenofovir [1]. We very much want to publish the main findings of the CONRAD 138 study and think the way they are presented in the manuscript has conceptual unity. Therefore we prefer not to split the data and manuscript into two related paper. Furthermore, two previous sets of academic editors and reviewers were agreeable to present these data as a single manuscript.

MAJOR COMMENTS

The same order of objectives must be followed through the text. I understand that should be the one stated on the title: Safety, PK, PD, Acceptability. Then follow it in all sections: Pg5,Ln 8-9; Methods (Safety-> PK -> PD -> Acceptability), Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Safety must be always the first since it is the primary outcome.

Response: We have changed the order in the methods and results section to reflect the objectives of the study: Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability (effect on the menstrual cycle).

A review of the manuscript by an expert in drug safety / pharmacovigilance is highly recommended. Some of the statements from authors should be carefully reassessed.

Response: The manuscript has been reviewed by Dr. Jill Schwartz, MD, and Dr. Mark Marzinke, PhD, who currently are in charge of pharmacovigilance and pharmacology, respectively, at a large clinical contract research organization and John Hopkins School of Medicine. We have revised terminology regarding TEAE and clarified assessment and recording of all AEs as requested. The study was performed, and therefore reviewed and independently monitored, under an IND (#118,510) from the USFDA.

MINOR COMMMENTS

Pg1, Ln1: Typo error “59”

RESPONSE: The additional “59” in the title was removed

Pg4, Ln19-22: The manuscript is long and this paragraph does not add relevant information, please delete.

RESPONSE: We removed this text. Of note, during the initial review of this manuscript, a previous PLoS One reviewer requested these additional details.

Pg6,Ln14: Please list exclusion criteria as you did inclusion. When they were evaluated is described elsewhere. Same for the next paragraphs, the visits are already described in S1 Table.

RESPONSE: We added the exclusion criteria on page 6, lines 12 - 16.

Pages 6,9. Randomization is described later.

RESPONSE: We have deleted the details of the randomization explanation from pages 6 and 7, as this is repeated in the randomization section.

7.4 Blood extraction timing is part of the PK methods.

RESPONSE: We have deleted lines 4 – 8 of page 7, as the timing of the PK blood draws after initial IVR insertion is explained in the PK Methods section.

7.8 Confirmation of anovulatory effect is part of the PD.

RESPONSE: We have consolidated the methods we used for assessing levonorgestrel PD in to the Methods section (pages 16 and 17)

10.5 If “The unit dose for the IVRs…” is true, then the placebo also release TFV and LNG…!!!! To avoid this type of mistake, describe first the similarities (manufacturing place, physical appearance) and then the drug content of the active product.

RESPONSE: We have corrected the errors in explaining the active TFV/LNG IVR versus the placebo IVR on page 10, lines 7 – 21.

11.2 In accordance with Good Pharmacovigilance Practice, all AE must be recorded, and subsequently classified. This statement must be included, not only refer to TE (which of course are the relevant).

RESPONSE: As clarified in the Methods section, page 11, AEs were collected at each visit, starting with the enrollment visit, visit 3. AEs noted during screening (visits 1 and 2) would be medical history AEs. We clarified in the methods section that AEs were collected at each of the 32 visits, starting with visit 3 and were coded with the appropriate MDR code.

11. Delete “or …reaction”

RESPONSE: We deleted this phrase on page 11, line 18. Of note, this verbage was a requested addition during the first round of reviews.

12. As above requested, follow the order of sections.

RESPONSE: We have re-ordered the methods section to explain safety (both clinical and sub-clinical safety), PK, PD and acceptability assessments.

12. 14 CVL abbreviation.

RESPONSE: CVL (cervico-vaginal fluid lavage) is now defined on page 13, line 1.

12.22 And CFR compliant also, I hope!!

RESPONSE: Yes, CFR compliance was added, now on page 17, line 16.

16.22 Contraception was not investigated, women followed abstinence !!!

RESPONSE: We agree, and this is why the sub-title is pharmacodynamics surrogate. We have added that potential contraceptive efficacy was modeled by several surrogates to make it clear that we are not directly evaluating contraceptive efficacy or tracking pregnancy.

17.3-5 This limitation of the study must be transferred to Discussion section.

RESPONSE: We have deleted the verbage from the Statistical Analyses section (page 18, lines 10 – 12) and transferred this to the Discussion section, page 56, line 13.

17.8 Delete (V3…)

RESPONSE: Deleted

17.9 Before this last paragraph, methodology to assess acceptability is missing.

RESPONSE: We have moved the acceptability assessments to just prior to the sample size and statistical analyses section (page 17, lines 15 – 21) to keep the same order of Safety, PK, PD and Acceptability.

17.19 “No participant…. Is a Safety result, no allocation of population.

RESPONSE: We clarified that safety results are reported in the evaluable population. Page 18, lines 16 – 19.

31.1 No previous mention to “expulsions” in objectives, nor in methods…. Actually, no mention of expulsion in this paragraph beyond the title….

RESPONSE: The expulsions and adherence results section describes the study population’s compliance with the study product. We have therefore moved these results to the study population section, page 24. We also added the data that no participant reported a spontaneous IVR expulsion in the daily study diary.

31.1 If you consider Adherence as part of Acceptability assessment, explain and merge. If you consider as part of follow-up, then must be described before main results: Safety > Pk>Pd>Accept.

RESPONSE: We agree that adherence is part of the follow up of the study population. We have therefore moved these results to the study population section page 24.

45.5 A first paragraph of wrap-up is usually recommended at the beginning of the Discussion.

RESPONSE: We have added a wrap up sentence which summarizes PK and PD data to the beginning of the Discussion, page 50.

46.9 Cannot considered out of caution. Taking in consideration the occurrence of genital ulcers in this and in Keller’s studies, this AE must be considered as a serious concern to be carefully evaluated within the present and future clinical development. It would probably be considered as a risk by Health Authorities and probably, additional measures of safety surveillance will be required.

RESPONSE: We have now removed this verbage.

46.12-16 The two potential causes of ulcers are here confounded: 1-drug effect over the epithelium; 2-ring’s mechanical effect. COMMENT: both must be investigated in future trials.

RESPONSE: We agree and have cited drug effect (reference 34) and mechanical effect, as we clarified that 90% of patients enrolled in this trial were sexually active.

47.8-9 SERIOUS INCONSISTENCY: TEAE means Treatment – Emergent……therefore, by definition, it is considered related with the treatment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RESPONSE: To add clarity, we have changed the term treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to adverse events (AEs). There are treatment-emergent and treatment-related AEs. We considered TEAEs those AEs occurring during treatment, whether they were related to treatment or not. As noted in the Methods section, adverse events were collected at every visit after enrollment. Each AE was graded as to severity and relatedness to study product or study procedures. Not all AEs that occur during a trial are related to the study product or procedure. All AEs were monitored by an independent data monitor and reported to the FDA as part of the Clinical Study Report.

We hope that these third round of changes makes our manuscript acceptable for publication in PLoS One.

Sincerely

Andrea R. Thurman MD

1. Thurman AR, Ravel J, Gajer P, Marzinke MA, Ouattara LA, Jacot T, et al. Vaginal Microbiota and Mucosal Pharmacokinetics of Tenofovir in Healthy Women Using a 90-Day Tenofovir/Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:799501. Epub 20220308. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.799501. PubMed PMID: 35350436; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC8957918.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REV4 THURMAN 11 JUL 2022.docx

Decision Letter 3

Vanessa Carels

12 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-23955R3

Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring used Continuously or Cyclically in Women

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thurman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the final minor considerations raised by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

********** 

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thanks to the authors for this new effort and congratulations for the improvement. The questions were appropriately addressed and the present version, with only minor suggestions would be acceptable.

TITLE: Apologize for adding this suggestion now, but previous topics were of higher priority. Please, consider to add the name of the study at the end of the title: “Randomized …. used Continuously or Cyclically in Women: The CONRAD 138 Study”.

Pg.5, Ln.19: I assume that a contraceptive method was recommended, since sexual activity was allowed and there is a placebo arm. A sentence must be included in this section.

Pg.6, Ln.13: “(BV)” is not necessary, since it is not used later.

10, 15: Please, include the method, algorithm or scale used to determine relationship to AE to study product (as well done in the previous line specifying the DAIDS for severity).

46, 9-10: Sentence unclear, please review.

Pages 50-52: Considering this discussion and having in mind HIV protection objective, would you recommend the continuous or the intermittent use? Or this question is still unclear and must be elucidated in future studies? A sentence in the Conclusions section would be appropriate.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: J. Algorta, MD, PhD

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275794.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


22 Aug 2022

Andrea Thurman, MD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Eastern Virginia Medical School/CONRAD

601 Colley Ave, Norfolk, VA 23507

Email: thurmaar@evms.edu, Phone: 210-380-5241

22 AUG 2022

Dear Vanessa Carels, Editorial Team Members and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful fourth review of our manuscript, PONE-D-21-23955R3, “Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring in Women”. We have addressed all of the additional reviewer’s comments and recommended edits below. We point to the page and line number(s) of the changes in a revised, tracked version of the manuscript. We hope that these changes finally make our manuscript acceptable for publication.

REVIEWER COMMENTS:

Reviewer #2: Thanks to the authors for this new effort and congratulations for the improvement. The questions were appropriately addressed and the present version, with only minor suggestions would be acceptable.

TITLE: Apologize for adding this suggestion now, but previous topics were of higher priority. Please, consider to add the name of the study at the end of the title: “Randomized …. used Continuously or Cyclically in Women: The CONRAD 138 Study”.

RESPONSE: We have added “The CONRAD 138 Study” to the title.

Pg.5, Ln.19: I assume that a contraceptive method was recommended, since sexual activity was allowed and there is a placebo arm. A sentence must be included in this section.

RESPONSE: We included that participants could not be at risk of pregnancy due to the consistent use of condoms, sterilization or heterosexual abstinence on page 6, lines 10 – 12.

Pg.6, Ln.13: “(BV)” is not necessary, since it is not used later.

RESPONSE: This abbreviation has been deleted on page 6, line 15.

10, 15: Please, include the method, algorithm or scale used to determine relationship to AE to study product (as well done in the previous line specifying the DAIDS for severity).

RESPONSE: We clarified on page 10, line 15 that the relationship of the treatment emergent adverse event to study product or study procedures was graded as related or not related. This process included assignment of relatedness by the clinical site PI and confirmation of classification by the Sponsor’s Medical Director. We did not include other sub-divisions of this grading scale such as possibly related, probably related, etc.

46, 9-10: Sentence unclear, please review.

RESPONSE: We have re-written this sentence, now on page 46, lines 9 – 12 to state, “Twelve of 18 TFV/LNG IVR continuous dosing users reported mild or moderate AEs versus 15 of 18 TFV/LNG IVR cyclic dosing users. While this difference was statistically significant, we do not believe that it is clinically relevant, as the difference is small and AEs were mostly mild and unrelated to product use.”

Pages 50-52: Considering this discussion and having in mind HIV protection objective, would you recommend the continuous or the intermittent use? Or this question is still unclear and must be elucidated in future studies? A sentence in the Conclusions section would be appropriate.

RESPONSE: Our data appear to support a preferred recommendation for continuous IVR use, as this regimen shows a more consistent PK/PD profile. We have added clarification to the discussion section of LNG PK (page 49, lines 15 - 20) that although we do not know if the decreases in serum LNG concentration with IVR removal would ultimately impact contraceptive efficacy, the fact that interrupted use does not offer an advantage over continuous use in menstrual bleeding patterns, supports continuous use. We have also added a statement to the conclusion section, page 54, lines 5 - 10 stating that “Because cyclic dosing did not offer an advantage in the menstrual bleeding pattern over continuous use, our data currently would support a preferred recommendation of continuous IVR use, as this regimen shows a more consistent PK/PD pattern. Long-lasting protective levels of TFV-DP in tissue, however, would also support ring removal for short periods.”

Again, we thank the team for their thoughtful review and hope that this 4th revision makes the manuscript acceptable for publication in PLoS One.

Sincerely,

Andrea Thurman, MD

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REV5 THURMAN 22 AUG 2022.docx

Decision Letter 4

Vanessa Carels

26 Sep 2022

Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring used Continuously or Cyclically in Women : The CONRAD 138 Study

PONE-D-21-23955R4

Dear Dr. Thurman,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Vanessa Carels

28 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-23955R4

Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase I Trial of the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Acceptability of a 90 day Tenofovir Plus Levonorgestrel Vaginal Ring used Continuously or Cyclically in Women:  The CONRAD 138 Study

Dear Dr. Thurman:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

    (DOC)

    S1 Table. Schedule of evaluations.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. CD4 and CCR5 positive cell density in cryopreserved samples.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Pharmacokinetic parameters.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Comparison of paired changes from baseline in percent HSV-2 inhibition by vaginal and rectal fluids using vero cell assay.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Supplemental methods.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. CONSORT 2010 flow diagram.

    (DOC)

    S1 Protocol

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers THURMAN 20 APR 2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REV2 THURMAN 8 JUN 2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REV4 THURMAN 11 JUL 2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REV5 THURMAN 22 AUG 2022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES