Authors' response to ’Comment on ’Effects of injectable progestogen contraception versus the copper intrauterine device on HIV acquisition: sub-study of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial' '
- 10 October 2017
- journal article
- letter
- Published by BMJ in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
- Vol. 43 (4), 344
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101864
Abstract
We thank Quispe Calla and colleagues for their insightful comments1 on our article.2 We agree that basic science evidence showing that various progestogens increase HIV susceptibility is compelling. We also agree that randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are informative regarding the relative risks of HIV between contraceptive alternatives, but not the absolute risks …This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comment on ‘Effects of injectable progestogen contraception versus the copper intrauterine device on HIV acquisition: sub-study of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial’BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 2017
- Effects of injectable progestogen contraception versus the copper intrauterine device on HIV acquisition: sub-study of a pragmatic randomised controlled trialBMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 2017
- Effects of the copper intrauterine device versus injectable progestin contraception on pregnancy rates and method discontinuation among women attending termination of pregnancy services in South Africa: a pragmatic randomized controlled trialReproductive Health, 2016
- The effect of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate on postnatal depression: a randomised controlled trialBMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 2016
- Interpretation, communication, and mechanisms of associations between injectable contraception and HIV riskThe Lancet HIV, 2015
- Hypothesis: amenorrhea-inducing contraception may reduce HIV acquisition riskContraception, 2014