In their response to our paper, das Neves et al.[1] argue that the recent failures of candidate microbicides could have been caused by poor drug delivery systems. They state ‘poor outcomes obtained in clinical trials may result mostly from poor drug delivery systems design, not from increased women's vulnerability to HIV due to microbicide local toxicity or differences in nonadherence between study arms as argued by van de Wijgert and Shattock’ [2]. We agree that the optimization of vaginal drug delivery needs more attention. We also agree that poor drug delivery may explain lack of efficacy in clinical trials. However, we believe that poor drug delivery alone is unlikely to explain increased HIV incidence in the microbicide arm of a clinical trial compared to the placebo arm, which was the focus of our paper. The presence of vaginal fluids dilutes vaginal gels by about 10–30%, with increased dilution over time [3–6]. A study [3,4] that simulated this dilution effect using simulant vaginal fluid found that the dilution not only resulted in better gel coverage of the cervical and vaginal mucosa, but also in more gel leakage and faster gel erosion. Dilution may also result in a lower concentration of the active ingredient in the gel. This is of concern for microbicide candidates containing antiretroviral drugs, but is less of a concern for the polyanions. Although these dilution effects may explain lack of efficacy, they are not likely to cause harm. It should be noted, however, that gel leakage often translates into poor acceptability, which in turn is likely to reduce adherence with gel use. As was discussed in our paper, differences in adherence between the microbicide and placebo arms of a clinical trial may indeed explain trial results in the direction of harm [2]. The effect of semen on microbicide efficacy is more complex. Semen not only introduces a much larger dilution effect than vaginal fluids, but also changes the vaginal pH and contains proteins that may competitively inhibit binding of the active ingredient in the microbicide to HIV or its receptors. A recent study [7] showed that seminal plasma (and particularly the proteins lactoferrin and fibronectin) significantly interfered with the in-vitro activity of the polyanions cellulose sulfate and PRO-2000, which translated into a reduction in protection from HSV2 challenge in the HSV2 mouse model. Again, this could explain lack of efficacy of these candidate microbicides, but would only lead to clinical trial results in the direction of harm if other biological mechanisms (such as changes in epithelial integrity or local immunity) are also present. The interaction between a microbicide and semen could result in such harmful biological mechanisms, and this needs to be carefully evaluated in preclinical and early clinical trials. Even more recently, it was shown that peptides in semen form amyloid fibrils that capture HIV and promote attachment to target cells [8]. The effects of different microbicides and placebos on this newly described mechanism of HIV transmission have not yet been studied. In summary, even though we believe that poor drug delivery alone is unlikely to explain harmful clinical trial results, we very much agree with das Neves et al.[1] that vaginal drug delivery needs more attention, and that antiviral activity and safety testing of candidate microbicides should be performed in the presence of genital secretions and semen.
Read full abstract