This study was designed to assess the safety, acceptability, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) responses to rectal administration of tenofovir (TFV) 1% vaginally formulated gel and oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). This study was designed as a phase 1, randomized, two-site (United States), double-blind, placebo-controlled study of sexually abstinent men and women. Eighteen participants received a single 300-mg exposure of oral TDF and were then randomized 2:1 to receive a single and then seven daily exposures of rectal TFV or hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) placebo gel. Safety endpoints included clinical adverse events (AEs) and mucosal safety parameters. Blood and colonic biopsies were collected for PK analyses and ex vivo HIV-1 challenge. No serious AEs were reported. However, AEs were significantly increased with 7-day TFV gel use, most prominently with gastrointestinal AEs ( p = 0.002). Only 25% of participants liked the TFV gel. Likelihood of use ''if somewhat protective'' was *75% in both groups. Indices of mucosal damage showed minimal changes. Tissue TFV diphosphate (TFV-DP) C max 30 min after single rectal exposure was 6-10 times greater than single oral exposure; tissue TFV-DP was 5.7 times greater following 7-day versus single rectal exposure. In vivo exposure correlated with significant ex vivo tissue infectibility suppression [single-rectal: p = 0.12, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) p = 0.006; 7-day rectal: p = 0.02, ANCOVA p = 0.005]. Tissue PK-PD was significantly correlated ( p = 0.002). We conclude that rectal dosing with TFV 1% gel resulted in greater TFV-DP tissue detection than oral dosing with reduced ex vivo biopsy infectibility, enabling PK-PD correlations. On the basis of increased gastrointestinal AEs, rectally applied, vaginally formulated TFV was not entirely safe or acceptable, suggesting the need for alternative rectal-specific formulations.

Background Variable adherence limits effectiveness of daily oral and intravaginal tenofovir-containing pre-exposure prophylaxis. Monthly vaginal antiretroviral rings are one approach to improve adherence and drug delivery. Methods MTN-013/IPM 026, a multi-site, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 48 HIV-negative U.S. women, evaluated vaginal rings containing dapivirine (25 mg) and maraviroc (100 mg), dapivirine-only, maraviroc-only, and placebo used continuously for 28 days. Safety was assessed by adverse events. Drug concentrations were quantified in plasma, cervicovaginal fluid (CVF), and cervical tissue. Cervical biopsy explants were challenged with HIV ex vivo to evaluate pharmacodynamics. Results There was no difference in related genitourinary adverse events between treatment arms compared to placebo. Dapivirine and maraviroc concentrations rose higher initially before falling more rapidly with the combination ring compared to relatively stable concentrations with the single drug rings. Dapivirine concentrations in CVF were 1 and 5 log10 greater than cervical tissue and plasma for both rings. Maraviroc was consistently detected only in CVF. Dapivirine and maraviroc CVF and dapivirine tissue concentrations dropped rapidly after ring removal. Cervical tissue showed a significant inverse linear relationship between HIV replication and dapivirine levels. Conclusions In this first study of a combination microbicide vaginal ring, all four rings were safe and well tolerated. Tissue dapivirine concentrations were 1,000 times greater than plasma concentrations and single drug rings had more stable pharmacokinetics. Dapivirine, but not maraviroc, demonstrated concentration-dependent inhibition of HIV-1 infection in cervical tissue. Since maraviroc concentrations were consistently detectable only in CVF and not in plasma, improved drug release of maraviroc rings is needed.

The increase of proinflammatory cytokines in vaginal secretions may serve as a surrogate marker of unwanted inflammatory reaction to microbicide products topically applied for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV-1. Interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-6 have been proposed as indicators of inflammation and increased risk of HIV-1 transmission; however, the lack of information regarding detection platforms optimal for vaginal fluids and interlaboratory variation limit their use for microbicide evaluation and other clinical applications. This study examines fluid matrix variants relevant to vaginal sampling techniques and proposes a model for interlaboratory comparisons across current cytokine detection technologies. IL-1β and IL-6 standards were measured by 12 laboratories in four countries, using 14 immunoassays and four detection platforms based on absorbance, chemiluminescence, electrochemiluminescence, and fluorescence. International reference preparations of cytokines with defined biological activity were spiked into (1) a defined medium simulating the composition of human vaginal fluid at pH 4.5 and 7.2, (2) physiologic salt solutions (phosphate-buffered saline and saline) commonly used for vaginal lavage sampling in clinical studies of cytokines, and (3) human blood serum. Assays were assessed for reproducibility, linearity, accuracy, and significantly detectable fold difference in cytokine level. Factors with significant impact on cytokine recovery were determined by Kruskal−Wallis analysis of variance with Dunn’s multiple comparison test and multiple regression models. All assays showed acceptable intra-assay reproducibility; however, most were associated with significant interlaboratory variation. The smallest reliably detectable cytokine differences (P < 0.05) derived from pooled interlaboratory data varied from 1.5- to 26-fold depending on assay, cytokine, and matrix type. IL-6 but not IL-1β determinations were lower in both saline and phosphate-buffered saline as compared to vaginal fluid matrix, with no significant effect of pH. The (electro)chemiluminescence-based assays were most discriminative and consistently detected <2-fold differences within each matrix type. The Luminex-based assays were less discriminative with lower reproducibility between laboratories. These results suggest the need for uniform vaginal sampling techniques and a better understanding of immunoassay platform differences and cross-validation before the biological significance of cytokine variations can be validated in clinical trials. This investigation provides the first standardized analytic approach for assessing differences in mucosal cytokine levels and may improve strategies for monitoring immune responses at the vaginal mucosal interface.