Rectal microbicide acceptability: Results of a volume escalation trial

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 224-229

  Carballo Diéguez, Alex ^a   Exner, Theresa ^a   Dolezal, Curtis ^a   Pickard, Robert ^b,c   Lin, Peter ^a   Mayer, Kenneth H ^b,c  

^a NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b FENWAY INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MICROBICIDE;

ADULT; ANUS INTERCOURSE; ARTICLE; CONDOM; GEL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LUBRICATION; MALE; SEXUAL INTERCOURSE; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VISCOSITY;

ADMINISTRATION, RECTAL; ADULT; ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; GELS; HIV INFECTIONS; HOMOSEXUALITY, MALE; HUMANS; MALE; RISK; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNSAFE SEX;

EID: 34247194325     PISSN: 01485717     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.olq.0000233715.59239.83     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Kingsley LA, Detels R, Kaslow R, et al. Risk factors for seroconversion to human immunodeficiency virus among male homosexuals. Results from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. Lancet 1987; 1:345-349.
2. Mantell JE, Myer L, Carballo-Diéguez A, et al. Microbicide acceptability research: Current approaches and future directions. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60:319-330.
3. Severy LJ, Newcomer S. Critical issues in contraceptive and STI acceptability research. Journal of Social Issues 2005; 61:45.
4. Carballo-Diéguez A, Stein Z, Saez H, et al. Frequent use of lubricants for anal sex among men who have sex with men: The HIV-prevention potential of a microbicidal gel. Am J Public Health 2000; 90:1117-1121.
5. Marks G, Mansergh G, Crepaz S, et al. Future HIV prevention options men who have sex with men: Intention to use a potential microbicide during anal intercourse. AIDS Behav 2000; 4:279-287.
6. Rader M, Marks G, Mansergh G, et al. Preferences about the characteristics of future HIV prevention products among men who have sex with men. AIDS Educ Prev 2001; 13:149-159.
7. Celum C. Evaluation of safety and toxicity of rectal microbicides: Lessons learned from the first phase 1 trial of N-9 for rectal use. AIDS 2001; 15:S46.
8. Gross M. Assessing rectal microbicide acceptability: A case study, some lessons, and some questions. AIDS 2001; 15:S46.
9. Gross M, Celum C, Tabet S, et al. Acceptability of a bioadhesive nonoxynol-9 gel delivered by an applicator as a rectal microbicide. Sex Transm Dis 1999; 26:572-578.
10. Tabet SR, Surawicz C, Horton S, et al. Safety and toxicity of nonoxynol-9 gel as a rectal microbicide. Sex Transm Dis 1999; 26:564-571.
11. Bjarnason I, Nigel B, Celum C, et al. Models and tools. In: Roehr Gross, Mayer, eds. Rectal Microbicides That Protect Against HIV Infection, Report for the Workshop: Baltimore, MD, June 7-8, 2001. American Foundation for AIDS Research, 2001:13-18.
12. Woodsong. Covert use of topical microbicides: Implications for acceptability and use. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2004; 30:94-98.
13. Foss AM, Vickerman PT, Heise L, et al. Shifts in condom use following microbicide introduction: Should we be concerned? AIDS 2003; 17:1227-1237.
14. Rockefeller Foundation Microbicides Initiative. Mobilization for Microbicides: The Decisive Decade. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation Microbicide Initiative Science Working Group, 2002.
15. Carballo-Diéguez A, Balan I, Morrow, et al. Acceptability of tenofovir gel as a vaginal microbicide by male participants in a phase I clinical trial (HPTN 050).