The World Health Organization (WHO) convened a Guideline Development Group (GDG) meeting from to 31 July 2019 to review global guidance on contraceptive eligibility for women at high risk of HIV acquisition to and determine whether revisions to the fifth edition of the Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (MEC) were needed. The issue was deemed critical, particularly for sub-Saharan Africa, given the high lifetime risk of acquiring HIV alongside the importance of hormonal contraception in offering women and adolescent girls' choice and in reducing their risk of unintended pregnancy, a common threat to the health, well-being and lives of women and adolescent girls.
The GDG consisted of 28 participants from 19 countries, including experts in family planning and HIV, representatives from affected populations, clinicians, epidemiologists, researchers, programme managers, policy-makers and guideline methodologists. The GDG considered the following factors when formulating recommendations for each contraceptive method:
 quality of the evidence (i.e. GRADE profile) 1  values and preferences of contraceptive users  balance of benefits and harms  priority of the problem  equity and human rights  feasibility.
In formulating these recommendations, the GDG kept at the centre of their deliberations the individuals most affected by the recommendations -that is, those women wanting to prevent pregnancy who are at a high risk of HIV acquisition.
Through consensus, the GDG agreed to the following new recommendations. These revisions mean that women at a high risk of HIV can use all methods of contraception without restriction.
 Women at a high risk of HIV infection are eligible to use all progestogen-only contraceptive methods without restriction (MEC Category 1), including progestogen-only pill (POPs), intramuscular and subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM and DMPA-SC), norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN), levonorgestrel (LNG) implants and etonogestrel (ETG) implants.
 Women at a high risk of HIV infection are eligible to use copper-bearing intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) and LNG-IUDs without restriction (MEC Category 1). In considering the 1 GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (for further information, see: ).
use of IUDs, many women at a high risk of HIV are also at risk of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs); for these women, providers should refer to the MEC recommendation on women at an increased risk of STIs, and the Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use: third edition on STI screening before IUD insertion.
 Women at a high risk of HIV infection are eligible to use all combined hormonal contraceptive methods without restriction (MEC Category 1), including combined oral contraceptives (COCs), combined injectable contraceptives (CICs), combined contraceptive patches and combined vaginal rings.
These recommendations were strongly informed by new epidemiological evidence, particularly from one high-quality randomized clinical trial (the ECHO trial), which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in HIV acquisition among women using the three contraceptive methods studied: DMPA-IM, Cu-IUDs and LNG implants. This high-quality evidence superseded the previously available observational evidence of low and low-to-moderate quality. For COCs and NET-EN injectables, evidence of low and low-tomoderate quality from observational studies indicated no increased risk of HIV infection. While no direct evidence was available for DMPA-SC, LNG-IUDs or ETG implants, there was no biological or clinical reason to believe that a lower hormonal dose, different delivery mechanism or different progestogen would modify HIV risk. A consideration of women's values, preferences, views and concerns regarding contraceptive methods provided support for optimizing informed contraceptive choice and the availability of a wide range of contraceptive options.
There are several key messages from this guidance for policymakers, programme managers and health-care providers.  A woman's risk of HIV does not restrict her contraceptive choice.
 Efforts to expand contraceptive method options and ensure full and equitable access to family planning services must continue.
 A renewed emphasis on HIV/STI testing and prevention services is urgently needed, including the integration of family planning and HIV/STI services as appropriate, along with sexual and reproductive health packages.

# PROGESTOGEN-ONLY CONTRACEPTIVES
Progestogen-only contraceptives (POCs) do not protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. If there is a risk of STI/HIV, the correct and consistent use of condoms is recommended. When used correctly and consistently, condoms offer one of the most effective methods of protection against STIs, including HIV. Female condoms are effective and safe, but are not used as widely as male condoms by national programmes.

# Condition MEC category
Clarification/evidence POP DMPA/ NET-EN

# LNG/ ETG
High risk of HIV 1 1 1 EVIDENCE: High-quality evidence from one randomized clinical trial observed no statistically significant differences in HIV acquisition between: DMPA-IM versus Cu-IUD, DMPA-IM versus LNG implant, and Cu-IUD versus LNG implant. Of the low-to-moderate-quality evidence from 14 observational studies, some studies suggested a possible increased risk of HIV with progestogen-only injectable use, which was most likely due to unmeasured confounding. Low-quality evidence from 3 observational studies did not suggest an increased HIV risk for implant users. No studies of sufficient quality were identified for POPs.
Cu-IUD: copper-bearing intrauterine device; DMPA: depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (injectable); IM: intramuscular; LNG/ETG: levonorgestrel and etonogestrel (implants); MEC: Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use; NET-EN: norethisterone enanthate (injectable); POP: progestogen-only pill

# INTRAUTERINE DEVICES
Intrauterine devices (IUDs) do not protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. If there is a risk of STI/HIV, the correct and consistent use of condoms is recommended. When used correctly and consistently, condoms offer one of the most effective methods of protection against STIs, including HIV. Female condoms are effective and safe, but are not used as widely as male condoms by national programmes. Access to sexual and reproductive health services and information, including a comprehensive range of contraceptive methods, is fundamental to the rights and well-being of women and adolescent girls (1)(2)(3)(4). There is a wide range of hormonal and non-hormonal modern contraceptive methods providing substantial individual and public health benefits. A core part of the work of the World Health Organization (WHO) is the development and maintenance of up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on contraceptive safety for individuals with particular medical conditions or medically relevant characteristics (5). The Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (the MEC), fifth edition, offers national policy-makers and family planning programmes a comprehensive set of recommendations on the medical safety of contraceptive methods, allowing for the informed development of national policies, protocols and programmes (5). Global guidance about medical safety and eligibility facilitates the removal of unnecessary medical barriers to contraception.
For over 20 years, the MEC has been used by countries to maximize safety and improve the quality of contraceptive care offered. Guidance about safety is kept up to date through continuous monitoring and reviews of published literature. In 2015, WHO released the fifth edition of the MEC (5). This edition contains more than 2000 recommendations for 25 different contraceptive methods, within the context of more than 80 medical conditions or medically relevant personal characteristics. Depending on the individual, more than one condition may need to be considered when making an informed contraceptive choice (5). The recommendations in the MEC are based on several considerations, including whether the use of a contraceptive method worsens the medical condition or creates additional health risks, and whether the condition makes the contraceptive method less effective (5).
The MEC is part of a set of tools aiming to improve contraceptive coverage and care throughout the world. The MEC informs decisions about who might use a particular contraceptive method, through information and guidance about the safety and appropriateness of contraceptive care. The Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use (the SPR) provides guidance on how to safely and effectively use various contraceptive methods (6). WHO produces a range of tools to support the use and implementation of contraceptive guidance, such as the MEC wheel and the Global handbook for providers (7,8).
Since 1996, the MEC has applied a four-category scale to indicate medical eligibility for particular contraceptive methods in the presence of particular conditions or individual characteristics (e.g. at high risk of HIV). For each condition or characteristic, contraceptive methods are placed into one of four numbered categories: 1. A condition for which there is no restriction for the use of contraceptive method. 2. A condition where the advantages of using the method generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks. 3. A condition where the theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages of using the method. 4. A condition which represents an unacceptable health risk if the contraceptive method is used.
The interpretation and application of the categories in practice are shown in Table 1.
In the past, there has been mixed evidence about whether hormonal contraceptive methods -particularly depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) -are associated with an increased risk of HIV acquisition. The available evidence consisted of theoretical biological data and observational studies with important limitations. In 2016, the independent Method not to be used BACKGROUND 1

# Guideline Development Group
The development of this guidance statement was undertaken by the independent Guideline Development Group (GDG) and an additional panel of external reviewers. The GDG consisted of 28 participants from 19 countries, including experts in family planning and HIV, representatives from affected populations, clinicians, epidemiologists, researchers, programme managers, policymakers and guideline methodologists (see Annex 1). Following WHO guidance, months prior to the July 2019 meeting of the GDG, the name and brief biography of each proposed GDG member was published at the WHO website (. int/reproductivehealth/publications/contraceptives-methods-hiv).
The public was able to view and provide input on any perceived or real conflicts of interest of the proposed members. WHO responded to all comments and accordingly adjusted the final composition of the GDG. Prior to the GDG meeting, the WHO Secretariat and the GDG reviewed the members' declarations of interests (Annex 2) and found no conflicts of interest sufficient to preclude anyone from participating in the deliberations or the development of the recommendations. The members of the GDG were also asked to declare any new conflicts of interest at the start of the meeting. None were declared. 2 For further information, see: 

# Guideline development process
This guidance statement was prepared according to the standards and requirements specified in the WHO handbook for guideline development (11). This process is used to ensure that WHO guidelines are of the highest quality and follow a transparent, systematic process. Key steps of the guideline process include determining the critical questions and outcomes, retrieving the evidence, synthesizing and grading the evidence, presenting it using a structured approach, and formulating recommendations.
WHO's Family Planning Guideline Steering Group determined the critical questions and outcomes to be considered by the GDG. Distinct types of evidence were identified as essential to review. These included the health evidence (randomized trials and observational epidemiological data), the evidence on biological plausibility and the data on the values and preferences of contraceptive users.
Applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, 2 multiple factors are considered when formulating recommendations (12). These include the quality of the epidemiological evidence (found in the GRADE evidence profiles, which are prepared based on up-to-date Guideline Development Group (GDG) for the MEC reviewed the accumulating evidence regarding women at high risk of acquiring HIV (9). The GDG concluded that there remained uncertainty about whether the increased risk of HIV acquisition seen in some observational studies was a real effect of the contraceptive method used or whether it was a statistical artefact resulting from key limitations of observational studies (residual confounding in particular) (9). There also continued to be uncertainty about the clinical relevance of the biological data. In addition, there was concern that previous attempts to inform women of the uncertainty about both the epidemiological and biological data (through the use of a MEC clarification, indicated by an asterisk had not been effective. Given these concerns, the GDG concluded that MEC guidance should be changed. Thus, in 2017, the recommendation for progestogenonly injectable use among women at high risk of HIV infection was changed from MEC Category 1 (no restrictions to use, with a clarification) to MEC Category 2 (the benefits of use outweigh the risks), with an accompanying clarification (9).
This new classification indicated that progestogen-only injectables could be used by women at high risk of HIV, because the advantages of these methods generally outweighed the possible disadvantages, and it highlighted that, when choosing these methods, there might need to be extra consideration of possible HIV acquisition, and counselling.
As part of the 2017 revision, WHO reaffirmed its commitment to monitoring and assessing any new evidence relevant to contraceptive safety. New information, including results from a large, multinational randomized clinical trial (RCT) (10), led WHO to convene another GDG meeting in July 2019 to review all the available evidence and assess whether the MEC guidance needed revision.

# METHODS OF GUIDELINE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT
systematic reviews); the values and preferences of contraceptive users; the balance of benefit and harms; the priority of the problem; equity and human rights; acceptability; and feasibility. The human rights principles and standards described in WHO's guidance, Ensuring human rights in the provision of contraceptive information and services, were incorporated into deliberations (1). Owing to the focus on contraceptive safety, opportunity costs were not formally assessed during the formulation of the recommendations, since costs may vary widely throughout different regions (13). The GRADE evidence-to-decision framework (a tool encompassing quality of evidence, balance of benefits versus harms, values and preferences, priority of the problem, equity and human rights, feasibility) was used to ensure that recommendations were based on the consideration of all standards (11).

# Evidence Retrieval
Existing WHO recommendations on the use of specific contraceptive methods by women at high risk of HIV were reviewed in accordance with procedures outlined by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee and the GRADE approach to evidence review (11,12). Three systematic reviews were conducted in preparation for the GDG meeting: two reviews pertained to the epidemiological evidence and the third review synthesized qualitative or quantitative studies on users' values, preferences, views and concerns regarding contraceptive methods. The two systematic reviews of epidemiological evidence conducted for the GDG meeting were:
- An updated systematic review on hormonal contraception and risk of HIV acquisition was conducted to include new studies published since 2016, when the last systematic review was undertaken (14). The review question was:  Among women at risk of HIV, does use of a hormonal contraceptive method compared with non-use of a hormonal contraceptive method (or use of another specific hormonal contraceptive method) increase risk of HIV acquisition?
- A systematic review on copper-bearing intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and risk of HIV acquisition was also conducted. The review questions were:  Among women at risk of HIV, does use of a Cu-IUD compared with use of another non-hormonal contraceptive method or no contraceptive method increase risk of HIV acquisition?
 Among women at risk of HIV, does use of a Cu-IUD compared with use of a specific hormonal contraceptive method increase risk of HIV acquisition?
The selection criteria for the systematic reviews are listed in Table 2.
The same study designs, population, comparators and outcomes were considered for all the contraceptive methods reviewed.
Women of reproductive age at risk of HIV infection (women who were not living with HIV at baseline)
Use of a specific contraceptive method:  hormonal contraception (injectables, oral contraceptives, implants, patches, rings or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices)  copper-bearing intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs)
One of two comparison groups: 1. non-use of a hormonal contraceptive method (either no contraceptive use or use of a non-hormonal method such as condoms or other barrier method, withdrawal, Cu-IUD or tubal ligation/vasectomy) 2. use of another specific method of hormonal contraception
Incident, laboratory-confirmed HIV infection in women
The two systematic reviews were conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses (PRISMA) (15). The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies published in any language in the peer-reviewed literature up to 26 June 2019. For individual studies, the risk of bias was assessed using a quality framework described in the previous review (14). Studies were classified into three levels: 1. "Unlikely to inform the primary question": studies that had (a) no adjustment for any measure of condom use or (b) unclear measurement of exposure to contraception. 2. "Informative but with important limitations": studies that had none of the flaws described above, but that still had the potential for unmeasured or residual confounding. 3. "Informative with few limitations": studies that had none of the above flaws -likely to be a randomized clinical trial (RCT) that was assessed as having a low risk of bias on standard criteria for evaluating RCTs.
The focus of the systematic reviews was on information from studies that were considered "informative but with important limitations" or "informative with few limitations." to fall into levels 2 and 3.
The values and preferences of contraceptive users were incorporated in multiple ways. First, an updated systematic review of qualitative or quantitative studies on users' values, preferences, views and concerns regarding the contraceptive methods considered under the Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (MEC) guidelines was conducted (16). This review covered studies from any country published in the peer-reviewed literature between January 2005 and December 2017. Just prior to the GDG meeting in July 2019, this review was informally updated for studies in either the peer-reviewed or grey literature that specifically looked at the values and preferences of contraceptive users relating to the issue of hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition. Second, because the updated systematic review did not identify any information specific to key populations at risk of HIV, consultative engagements were conducted in May through July of 2019, including a global online survey of sex workers and participatory focus group discussions with female sex workers in Zimbabwe (through the Sisters with a Voice programme). Third, stakeholders representing specific affected populations, including women living with HIV, and young women, contributed their perspectives through a presentation and discussion of critical perspectives at the GDG meeting.
An update about the biological data on the theoretical effect that contraception may have on HIV acquisition was prepared, reviewed and discussed at the GDG meeting, including consideration of the theoretical plausibility of individual methods of hormonal contraception having an influence on HIV acquisition.

# Evidence Synthesis
Epidemiological data were synthesized and evaluated according to the GRADE approach to evidence review (12).
Based on this, randomized trials begin with a grade for strength of evidence of "high", and observational studies start with a grade of "low". The risk of bias was assessed for the summarized data using standard GRADE methods (17).
Factors that could lower the evidence grade were limitations in the evidence (bias), inconsistency between studies, imprecision of estimates, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). Randomized trials were assessed for bias by systematically evaluating for inadequate randomization/ allocation concealment; inadequate blinding of treatments; attrition and failure to use intention-to-treat analyses; selective outcome reporting; and crossover/contamination (17).
Observational studies were assessed for bias by examining whether there was failure to develop and apply appropriate eligibility criteria, flawed measurement of exposures or outcomes, failure to adequately address confounding, or incomplete follow-up (17). Factors that could increase the evidence grade of observational studies included the presence of a dose-response relationship, a large magnitude of observed associations, and adjustment for plausible confounders affecting observed associations (22).

# Formulation of recommendations
Findings from the systematic reviews and associated GRADE evidence profiles (Annex 3) were presented at the GDG meeting.
A presentation on the biological plausibility of hormonal contraception modifying the risk of HIV acquisition, and several presentations on contraceptive users' values and preferences, were also given. These inputs were used to develop an evidence-to-decision framework (Annex 4), which served as the basis for the GDG's deliberations during the meeting (12). All recommendations were arrived at by consensus.
After the GDG's recommendations were made, a small writing group prepared a draft guidance statement summarizing the decision and associated rationale. The draft was reviewed by the entire GDG and the external review group (see Annex 1). Comments received from the GDG and the external review group were considered and addressed by the writing group. The final version of this guidance statement was approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee on 22 August 2019.

# SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 3
The Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO) Study 3 was the primary source of new evidence since the WHO last reviewed recommendations on contraception for women at high risk of HIV (9). The ECHO Study was a large randomized clinical trial (RCT) conducted in Eswatini, Kenya, South Africa and Zambia specifically designed to compare HIV incidence among users of three contraceptive methods: intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), levonorgestrel (LNG) implants and copper-bearing intrauterine 3 For further information, see:  devices (Cu-IUDs) (10). The trial randomized 7829 HIVseronegative women, aged between 16 and 35 years, who desired effective contraception and consented to be randomized to one of the three contraceptive methods. There was no group of non-users of contraception in the ECHO trial because all of the women enrolled desired effective contraception. Women returned every three months for HIV testing, contraceptive counselling, safety monitoring, behavioural assessment and a comprehensive package of HIV prevention services; for up to months. The main (primary) comparisons used a modified intention-to-treat analysis. In addition, pre-planned (secondary) analyses were conducted, restricted to continuous use of the assigned contraceptive method and adjusted for a number of important confounders, including vaginal sex without a condom, a new sexual partner in the previous three months, and more than one sexual partner.
Statistical significance in the ECHO trial was taken to be a P-value less than 0.04 for the primary comparisons. No statistically significant associations were found for any of the primary comparisons between the three contraceptive methods (Annex 3). The quality of the evidence from this RCT was rated as high, due to its large size, strong randomization and allocation procedures, high follow-up rates, high continuation of the allocated contraceptive method, objective measurement of HIV incidence and comprehensive analysis of the results.
Other evidence on hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition published since the 2016 review ( 14) was included in the evaluation of the body of evidence, along with a systematic review on Cu-IUDs and risk of HIV acquisition (Annex 3). For hormonal contraception, one new observational study and updated estimates from a previously included study were identified (23,24). Adding this evidence to the previous 14 observational studies (14) did not change the conclusions of the previous review. Thus, the body of observational evidence suggested some concern about an increased risk of HIV acquisition with DMPA-IM use, but was generally reassuring for other methods of hormonal contraception. For intrauterine devices (IUDs), two observational studies did not suggest an increased risk of HIV acquisition with Cu-IUD use (23,25). The quality of evidence from these observational studies was rated as low and low-to-moderate.

# Progestogen-only injectables
One RCT (the ECHO trial) observed no statistically significant differences in HIV acquisition when comparing DMPA-IM versus Cu-IUD, and DMPA-IM versus LNG implant (10). The quality of the evidence from this RCT was rated as high.
Evidence from 14 observational studies of DMPA-IM, norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN) or unspecified progestogenonly injectables considered to be "informative but with important limitations" was assessed (14,23,24). Additional data from one new observational study and updated estimates from a previously included study did not change the conclusions of the previous review of observational evidence (14). The quality of the evidence from the observational studies was rated as low and low-to-moderate due to limitations that included unmeasured confounding.

# Progestogen-only implants
Three observational studies considered to be "informative but with important limitations" assessed implants. One had been included in the previous review (26), one provided an updated point estimate to that used for the previous review (24) and one provided an entirely new estimate of risk (23). Two of the studies assessed LNG implants (24,26) and the third assessed women using either LNG or etonogestrel implants (23). None of the three studies suggested an increased risk of HIV acquisition with implant use, consistent with the conclusion of the previous review (14). The quality of the evidence from these studies was rated as low.

# Progestogen-only pills
No studies considered "informative but with important limitations" or "informative with few limitations" were identified for progestogen-only pills.

# Intrauterine devices
One RCT (the ECHO trial) observed no statistically significant differences in HIV acquisition between DMPA-IM and Cu-IUD, or Cu-IUD and LNG implants (10). The quality of the evidence from this RCT was rated as high.
Two observational studies considered "informative but with important limitations" did not observe an association with HIV acquisition when comparing Cu-IUD use with tubal ligation or no contraceptive method use, DMPA-IM, NET-EN or implants (23,25). The quality of this observational evidence was rated as low.
No evidence was identified for LNG-IUDs.

# Combined hormonal contraceptives
Eleven observational studies deemed "informative but with important limitations" assessed the use of combined oral contraceptives (COC). (It was assumed that studies that did not specify the oral contraceptive type examined mostly, if not exclusively, examined COC use.) All of these studies were included in the previous review, while an updated estimate came from one newly available study (14,24). Overall, these studies suggested no association between COC use and HIV acquisition. The quality of the evidence was rated as low-to-moderate.
No evidence was identified for the combined contraceptive patch, ring or injectable.

# Additional evidence considered by the GDG

# VALUES AND PREFERENCES OF CONTRACEPTIVE USERS
The systematic review identified 375 studies from all regions of the world (27). Across studies, women's values and preferences centred on themes of choice and available options, ease of use, side-effect profiles and contraceptive efficacy. Contextual factors, such as the contraceptive methods available, counselling from providers, and the opinions of social networks, influenced decision-making. From the grey literature, two additional studies were identified that were relevant to hormonal contraception and HIV specifically (28,29). Both found that messages from the 4 "Free" means the freedom and ability to make a voluntary decision about contraceptive use without barriers or coercion; informed means complete, correct and clear information has been given about all the options, plus details about the chosen method 2017 WHO guidance were difficult for providers to explain fully and may not be completely understood by clients.
The online survey of sex workers from multiple global regions found that individual preferences around contraception varied widely and could change over time; ongoing partnership and dialogue with sex workers is essential to understanding evolving priorities. In participatory focus groups, Zimbabwean sex workers said their contraceptive choices were shaped by a wide range of factors, including cost, accessibility, the way sex workers are treated at clinics, the influence of male partners, and contraceptive side-effects. Sex without a condom was common, and there was a need to strengthen access to HIV/STI prevention and contraceptive services.
The community stakeholder presentation emphasized that, for some women, any level of increased HIV risk would be too high.
It also highlighted that the ECHO trial was not set up to assess the difference in the risk of HIV acquisition between contraceptive users and non-users. Community stakeholders also emphasized that there was a lack of true contraceptive choice for many women and girls, saying the guidance should emphasize full, free and informed contraceptive choice, 4 the procurement of a range of contraceptive methods, and investment in integrated contraception and HIV services.
The Guideline Development Group (GDG) reviewed, and discussed extensively, the new epidemiological and biological evidence, as well as related information about values and preferences, equity and human rights, and feasibility. After deliberating on all of the available evidence, the GDG recommended that the MEC category for DMPA and Cu-IUD should be changed to MEC Category 1. The GDG noted that there was no evidence regarding DMPA-SC and LNG-IUD, and only limited new information regarding NET-EN. Until more information becomes available, the GDG judged it was appropriate to follow the same approach as previously used, i.e. grouping all progestogen-only injectables together (DMPA-IM, DMPA-SC and NET-EN) as MEC Category 1, and to assign the same MEC category to the LNG-IUD as to the Cu-IUD (MEC Category 1).
One key portion of the GDG's deliberations related to evaluating evidence from the Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO) Study (see Annex 3). The GDG gave particular attention to this information because of its ability to address unmeasured confounding -a major cause of uncertainty when interpreting results from observational studies. The GDG recognized that the ECHO trial did not address the etiological or causal question of whether DMPA increases the risk of HIV acquisition when compared with not using any contraception. Nevertheless, since the MEC provides guidance for women wishing to use contraception, results from the ECHO trial about the comparative risk of HIV acquisition among users of the three contraceptives tested were highly pertinent to the GDG's deliberations. Furthermore, the GDG noted that the high incidence of HIV infection experienced by each contraceptive group during the ECHO trial was similar to the background incidence assumed when designing the trial. This was deemed to be indirect evidence addressing the question, suggesting no increased risk of HIV acquisition among users of these contraceptives compared with women not using any contraception.
The ECHO trial was considered to be a well conducted study that provided high-quality evidence that superseded the low and low-to-moderate-quality observational evidence previously available to the GDG. This direct epidemiological evidence, from a trial specifically designed to address the issue, was judged to be more informative than theoretical biological evidence.
The reasons for considering the ECHO trial to be of high quality included its large size; robust randomization methods; good adherence to the allocated contraceptive method; a low attrition rate; regular, standardized and objective outcome measurements; and a blinded, comprehensive analysis of the data (including sensitivity analyses for postulated confounders such as sexual activity and condom use). Although women and providers of services in the ECHO trial could not be blinded to the intervention allocation, there was no evidence that this led to the different groups of participants acting, or being managed, differently with respect to important issues such as HIV prevention counselling. This ensured that residual confounding, particularly in relation to condom use or sexual activity, was highly unlikely to have affected the ECHO trial.
The GDG noted that although the ECHO trial was designed to detect a 50% increase in the risk of HIV acquisition between contraceptive groups assessed, the observed high HIV incidence and small losses to follow up meant that it could detect a 30% increase. When considering the ECHO trial results, the GDG focused on the point estimates for each primary comparison. The group noted that none of the point estimates for the primary comparisons were statistically significant. The 96% confidence intervals surrounding these point estimates included unity, and so encompassed the possibility of a small increased or decreased difference in risk between contraceptives. The GDG acknowledged, however, that for an individual woman at a high risk of HIV, any change in this risk may be important.
After a full discussion, the GDG judged that unmeasured confounding was the most likely explanation for the apparent increased risk of HIV acquisition among DMPA-IM users seen in some observational studies.
The GDG's decisions to revise the MEC classifications for DMPA and IUDs were further grounded by the values and preferences of women towards optimizing informed contraceptive choice and the availability of a wide range of contraceptive options, based on a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence, consultative engagements with sex workers and the perspectives of GDG members representing specific affected populations.
In previous editions of the MEC, IUDs were classified as MEC Category 2 for women at a high risk of HIV. This recommendation was given because of the absence of high-quality, direct evidence about the risk of acquiring HIV among IUD users. In addition, there was an assumption that most women at a high risk of HIV were also at an increased risk of other STIs. The ECHO trial provided direct, high-quality evidence about the risk of HIV acquisition risk among women using the Cu-IUD, enabling the GDG to review its recommendation regarding these women. Any new evidence related to IUD use in women at a high risk of other STIs will be reviewed for the next MEC update.
The GDG was concerned about the high rates of both HIV and STIs among women in the ECHO trial, reflecting the background risk factors among women seeking contraception in the study areas. The high incidence of HIV was particularly striking given the extensive efforts made during the ECHO trial to provide HIV prevention counselling and interventions. Thus, while the GDG concluded that the risk of HIV acquisition was not affected by the contraceptive method used, it emphasized the need for renewed efforts to reduce the incidence of HIV and STIs.

# IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY-MAKERS, PROGRAMME MANAGERS AND HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS 5
While the main audiences for the Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (MEC) are policy-makers and programme managers, a fundamental tenet of the MEC is that they are woman-centred. The following were the key messages that came from the deliberations of the Guideline Development Group.

# A woman's risk of HIV should not restrict her contraceptive choice
While a risk of HIV should not restrict a woman's choice to use hormonal contraception or an intrauterine device, it is important to note that these methods do not protect her against acquiring HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI). The new MEC recommendations should not be interpreted as indicating that HIV and STI testing and prevention are no longer important. Indeed, the Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO) Study highlighted the critical need to strengthen and expand HIV and STI prevention services (10). Testing for HIV and STIs should be part of high-quality family planning services for women at risk, particularly for those living in areas of high HIV and STI incidence.

# Efforts to expand access to contraceptive options must continue
Women have the right to a range of short-acting, long-acting and permanent contraceptive methods, as well as to emergency contraception (1). A comprehensive range of contraceptive methods enables women to respond to changing needs and preferences during their reproductive lives. Informed decisionmaking and woman-centred, high-quality counselling are key components in the human rights-based provision of contraceptive information and services (2). The ECHO trial reinforced that offering a range of methods is possible and acceptable to women (10). Family planning and HIV services should be included in national universal health coverage initiatives. Efforts to expand safe and effective contraceptive options, and to ensure their availability and the access to them, must continue. Technical resources are available to support countries to introduce more contraceptive options into their programmes and services (Box 1).

# A renewed emphasis on HIV and STI prevention services is urgently needed
The ECHO trial showed high rates of both HIV and STIs in the study sites (10), highlighting the need for appropriate prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all STIs. Current HIV prevention measures remain unavailable or unsatisfactory for many women and adolescent girls living in settings of high HIV incidence. In such areas, the integration of family planning and HIV prevention services for all women is essential if the health of women and adolescent girls is to be improved. In settings of low HIV prevalence, there is a need for family planning providers to evaluate personal risk factors that may increase a woman's risk of acquiring HIV and then to provide appropriate services. The ECHO trial also showed that syndromic management did not decrease the prevalence of STIs at baseline and at the end of follow-up. STI programmes need to be strengthened, including a move towards diagnostic management.
 In settings with high HIV prevalence, HIV testing and prevention should be included in family planning services. HIV testing should be offered to all women and to partners of all women with HIV. HIV prevention options should be offered to all women, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), as recommended in WHO guidelines (30). The offer of PrEP to women could also be considered where HIV incidence is high (but below 3/100 person-years overall) following, for example, a simple risk assessment. A risk assessment could include: desire to take PrEP (reflecting a self-identified risk); history of an STI; more than one sex partner in the last six months; or women with a sex partner with HIV who is not virally supressed on antiretroviral therapy.
 In settings with low HIV prevalence, the routine offer of HIV testing and prevention services in family planning settings is unlikely to be cost-effective. HIV testing and prevention services could nonetheless be offered to women who request these services.

# BOX 2. WORK TO IDENTIFY WOMEN AT HIGH RISK OF HIV
A person's HIV risk depends on the incidence of HIV in the area where they live, and their individual risk factors. Family planning programmes must work closely with their national and subnational HIV programmes to use local epidemiological data to identify geographical areas and risk factors that put women at a high risk of HIV infection.

# Contraceptive methods and HIV acquisition
The existing body of evidence is sufficient to guide practice on intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), levonorgestrel (LNG) implants and copper-bearing intrauterine devices; additional observational data will not add substantially to the evidence base for these methods. However, in the absence of trial data similar to those in the ECHO Study (10), observational data about subcutaneous DMPA (DMPA-SC), LNG IUDs, etonogestrel implants, or future contraceptive or multi-purpose prevention technologies could still be useful, although unmeasured confounding would likely remain a concern. Studies should consider the potential impact of contraceptive use on other sexually transmitted infections as well as HIV. Additional research on the specific effects of contraception-related bleeding changes in relation to the risk of HIV or STI acquisition is also needed.

# HIV prevention
The Guideline Development Group was deeply concerned by the high HIV incidence found among women seeking family planning services in the ECHO Study sites, despite the fact that trial participants received an extensive HIV prevention package (including repeated HIV testing and counselling, partner HIV testing and condom distribution, as well as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) late in the study as this became the standard of care). More research is needed on ways to increase the acceptability and uptake of effective HIV prevention strategies for women at a high risk of HIV, tailored to settings of both high and low HIV prevalence and to women with a range of personal risk factors. In the ECHO trial, the uptake (and hence impact) of PrEP was minimal as it became available only late in the trial (10). Where it was available on site, as opposed to requiring referral to another site, acceptability and uptake were high. Ways to include HIV self-testing and PrEP in family planning services should be

# KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND AREAS FOR RESEARCH
explored. This should include behavioural and implementation science research on the effective integration of HIV and contraception services.

# Community involvement
The ECHO trial employed a range of strategies for directly engaging with civil society at the study site, and at regional and global levels (10). An in-depth assessment of the strengths and limitations of each strategy is likely to provide models for community engagement in contraceptive and HIV prevention research that could be adopted in the future.

# Increased funding for high-quality, policy-relevant research
The ECHO Study demonstrated that a well conducted, adequately powered randomized clinical trial is possible in contraceptive research, and can make an important contribution to global decision-making. Global policy should be based on comprehensive high-quality evidence, but additional investment in contraceptive research is critically overdue, including research addressing whether financial barriers affect the contraceptive choices of women.

# DISSEMINATION OF THIS GUIDANCE STATEMENT 7
The World Health Organization (WHO) will work to communicate this guidance statement clearly and widely. WHO will evaluate whether the guidance achieves its intentions. The guidance will be published on the WHO website and in a limited quantity of printed documents. The guidance will be widely disseminated through the WHO regional and country offices, Additionally, webinars for stakeholders in multiple languages will be organized during 2020 to ensure Member States and stakeholders are fully informed of the new recommendations. These opportunities will enable WHO to disseminate the updated guidance effectively and efficiently. Derivative communication products highlighting key counselling issues (e.g. short briefs for front-line health-care providers and community-based organizations) will be prepared in collaboration with WHO's implementing partners, and in consultation with the GDG during 2020.
A policy brief in the six official languages used by WHO will be developed to inform policy-makers about the contraception updates.
As part of the dissemination of the recommendations in this guidance statement, WHO will update its digital contraceptive decision-support tools -the MEC mobile app (31), the humanitarian contraceptive delivery app (32) and the postpartum compendium (33). These mobile applications are free to download and available for both iOS and Android platforms. Additionally, the Global handbook for family planning providers and the online Family Planning Training Resource Package will be updated accordingly (8,34).
WHO will continue to monitor the body of evidence informing these recommendations and will convene additional consultations when needed.

# ANNEX 1. GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND EVIDENCE SECRETARIAT

# Guideline Development Group

# ANNEX 2. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Following guidance issued on 24 September 2014 by the WHO Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics (CRE), and prior to the 29-31 July 2019 meeting, the name and brief biography of each proposed Guideline Development Group (GDG) member was published on the WHO website during 27 May to 10 June 2019 (/ reproductivehealth/publications/contraceptives-methods-hiv). The public was able to view and provide their comments to the WHO Secretariat using a general email address (hrx_info@who.int) regarding any perceived or real conflicts of interest of these proposed GDG members. In addition, prior to the public announcement period, the WHO Secretariat reviewed the curriculum vitae of each potential participant and conducted Internet searches (Google Scholar, Open Payments, PubMed) for information on potential financial and academic conflicts of interest related to the subject of the meeting. Following the public reporting period, and in consultation with CRE, official invitations for GDG membership were extended. Additionally, the WHO Secretariat reviewed potential financial and academic conflicts of interest related to the subject of the meeting of the proposed External Review Group: no conflicts were declared among this 11-member group.
Of the 28 experts who participated in this work, six declared an interest related to contraception. The WHO Secretariat, CRE and GDG reviewed all declarations and found no conflicts of interest sufficient to preclude anyone from participating in the deliberations or the development of the recommendations relevant to hormonal contraception and HIV. Accordingly, the six participants who declared interests related to contraception, as well as the other 22 participants, fully participated in the meeting's deliberations, discussions and final decisions. Although not all interests declared were specifically related to contraception and susceptibility to HIV, they are disclosed and summarized below.  b Few limitations noted in the trial, but not serious enough to downgrade the level of evidence. While the study was unblinded for participants and health-care providers, data were analysed centrally by statisticians who were blinded to the group. c Restricted to studies classified as "informative with but with important limitations".
d Some limitations or imprecision noted across the body of evidence, but not serious enough to downgrade the level of evidence.
e Evidence graded low to moderate due to consistent and precise results from well conducted observational studies, and coherence between studies of use versus non-use and head-to-head studies. While no direct evidence was available for combined contraceptive patch, combined contraceptive vaginal ring or combined injectable contraceptive, indirect evidence from COCs was used given that there was no biological or clinical reason to believe that a lower hormonal dose, different delivery mechanism, or different progestogen would modify HIV risk.

# Balance is in favour of benefits of CHCs
Factor Explanation/evidence Judgement

# Values and preferences
Women have the right to informed decision-making. Women prefer to have choice in methods, full information regarding benefits versus harms, and to make a final decision in conjunction with their provider (informed decision-making). Contraception is unique among medicines because a woman's needs and preferences with regard to the characteristics of contraceptive methods will vary both between individual women and across a single individual's lifespan. Common themes in contraceptive preferences include that they are discreet, have minimal side-effects and are long-acting, reversible and easy to use. Women who use progestogen-only injectables generally like them for these reasons, and feel comfortable using them after counselling. Women's preferences for methods are limited by what they have knowledge of, what is available to them and other factors that foster or limit access. Offering women the choice of a range of methods is important from both a health and a rights perspective.
Support for optimizing informed contraceptive choice and the availability of a wide range of contraceptive options

# Priority of the problem
HIV is a serious illness and a major global epidemic. Unintended pregnancy is a very common problem globally, and the risks associated with it are highest where maternal mortality and severe morbidity are also common. Both are priorities for public health.
Effective contraception and HIV prevention are both public health priorities

# Equity and human rights
Human rights principles and standards from existing World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on human rights and contraception were followed by the Guideline Development Group (GDG) in its deliberations. These include non-discrimination, availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality, informed decision-making, privacy and confidentiality, participation, and accountability.
During its deliberations, the GDG considered both potential positive and negative effects of its considerations. For example, it considered and emphasized the continuing need for integrated family planning and HIV services in settings with high HIV incidence. It also emphasized the need for expanding and optimizing contraceptive options.
Recommendations within WHO's human rights guidance for contraception are paramount principles for decision-making on this topic
The importance of clear communication from WHO on this topic was underscored. This was reinforced by recent studies that suggested that messages based on the 2017 WHO guidance were difficult to explain and may not be fully understood by clients or providers.
Clear guidance and a woman-centred approach are essential for successful implementation

# Hormonal contraceptive method use and HIV acquisition in women
There was a previously published review on hormonal contraceptive use and HIV acquisition. The search strategies from that review were used to search for new evidence since.
The following four new publications were identified that met the inclusion criteria.

# Copper-bearing intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and HIV acquisition in women
A systematic review was conducted on Cu-IUD use and HIV acquisition in women. The following six articles met the inclusion criteria.

# Contraceptive values and preferences
A systematic review was conducted on contraceptive values and preferences. The protocol and methods are published, and the manuscript presenting the main results of the review is under review for publication. As this review did not identify information specific to key populations at risk of HIV, consultative engagements were conducted in the spring of 2019, including a global online survey of sex workers, and participatory focus group discussions with female sex workers in Zimbabwe through the Sisters with a Voice programme.
Presentations showing the findings from these engagements are listed below and available on request. A presentation shared by stakeholders representing affected populations to highlight their perspectives on the topic was part of the Guideline Development Group's discussions and is available on request.

# Evidence Secretariat

# WHO Secretariat
The WHO Secretariat attended the meeting and several WHO staff provided background presentations (Rachel Baggaley, Mary Lyn Gaffield, James Kiarie, Nancy Kidula). The WHO Secretariat was present to serve as a background resource, if request by the GDG. Neither WHO, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) nor the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) staff participated in the decisionmaking or formulation of the recommendations, which was the sole responsibility of the GDG. Several WHO staff contributed to the systematic reviews (Mary Lyn Gaffield, James Kiarie, Petrus Steyn) and the writing of the statement.  b Restricted to studies classified as "informative with but with important limitations". c Sample size is for the entire study population.

# WHO headquarters
d Some limitations or imprecision was noted across the body of evidence, but not serious enough to downgrade the level of evidence. e No direct evidence for ETG implants was identified for the comparisons of interest. For ETG implants, recommendations were extrapolated from the evidence on LNG implants.
f Few limitations noted in the trial, but not serious enough to downgrade the level of evidence.

# ANNEX 5: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Three systematic reviews were conducted as part of the development of this guidance statement. The details of the methods and search strategies are included in the reviews. Reviews published in peer-reviewed journals are available through open access. This appendix will be periodically updated as reviews are published. Access to unpublished reviews can be requested by sending an email to hrx-info@who.int.