Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Acceptability of Potential Rectal Microbicide Delivery Systems for HIV Prevention: A Randomized Crossover Trial

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We assessed the acceptability of three of over-the-counter products representative of potential rectal microbicide (RM) delivery systems. From 2009 to 2010, 117 HIV-uninfected males (79 %) and females (21 %) who engage in receptive anal intercourse participated in a 6-week randomized crossover acceptability trial. Participants received each of three products (enema, lubricant-filled applicator, suppository) every 2 weeks in a randomized sequence. CASI and T-ACASI scales assessed product acceptability via Likert responses. Factor analysis was used to identify underlying factors measured by each scale. Random effects models were fit to examine age and gender effects on product acceptability. Three underlying factors were identified: Satisfaction with Product Use, Sexual Pleasure, and Ease of Product Use. For acceptability, the applicator ranked highest; however, differences between product acceptability scores were greatest among females and younger participants. These findings indicate that RM delivery systems impact their acceptability and should be considered early in RM development to enhance potential use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosenberger JG, Reece M, Schick V, et al. Sexual behaviors and situational characteristics of most recent male-partnered sexual event among gay and bisexually identified men in the United States. J Sex Med. 2011;8(11):3040–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reece M, Herbenick D, Schick V, Sanders SA, Dodge B, Fortenberry JD. Condom use rates in a national probability sample of males and females ages 14 to 94 in the United States. J Sex Med. 2010;7(Suppl 5):266–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, Sanders SA, Dodge B, Fortenberry JD. Sexual behavior in the United States: results from a national probability sample of men and women ages 14–94. J Sex Med. 2010;7(Suppl 5):255–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F, McKirnan D, MacQueen K, Buchbinder SP. Per-contact risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission between male sexual partners. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150(3):306–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Varghese B, Maher JE, Peterman TA, Branson BM, Steketee RW. Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex act, and condom use. Sex Transm Dis. 2002;29(1):38–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mantell JE, Myer L, Carballo-Dieguez A, et al. Microbicide acceptability research: current approaches and future directions. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(2):319–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gross M, Celum CL, Tabet SR, Kelly CW, Coletti AS, Chesney MA. Acceptability of a bioadhesive nonoxynol-9 gel delivered by an applicator as a rectal microbicide. Sex Transm Dis. 1999;26(10):572–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Carballo-Dieguez A, Exner T, Dolezal C, Pickard R, Lin P, Mayer KH. Rectal microbicide acceptability: results of a volume escalation trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(4):224–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ventuneac A, Carballo-Dieguez A, McGowan I, et al. Acceptability of UC781 gel as a rectal microbicide among HIV-uninfected women and men. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(3):618–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Anton PA, Cranston RD, Kashuba A, et al. RMP-02/MTN-006: a Phase 1 rectal safety, acceptability, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic study of tenofovir 1 % gel compared with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2012. [Epub ahead of print].

  11. McGowan I, Hoesley C, Andrew P, et al. MTN-007: a Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled rectal safety and acceptability study of tenofovir 1 % Gel. 19th conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections. Seattle, 2012 [abstract 34LB].

  12. Carballo-Dieguez A, Dolezal C, Bauermeister JA, O’Brien W, Ventuneac A, Mayer K. Preference for gel over suppository as delivery vehicle for a rectal microbicide: results of a randomised, crossover acceptability trial among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect. 2008;84(6):483–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Coly A, Gorbach PM. Microbicide acceptability research: recent findings and evolution across phases of product development. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2008;3(5):581–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carballo-Dieguez A, Bauermeister J, Ventuneac A, Dolezal C, Mayer K. Why rectal douches may be acceptable rectal-microbicide delivery vehicles for men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2009;37(4):228–33.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gross M, Buchbinder SP, Celum C, Heagerty P, Seage GR 3rd. Rectal microbicides for U.S. gay men. Are clinical trials needed? Are they feasible? HIVNET vaccine preparedness study protocol team. Sex Transm Dis. 1998;25(6):296–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Carballo-Dieguez A, Stein Z, Saez H, Dolezal C, Nieves-Rosa L, Diaz F. 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(7):1117–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Carballo-Dieguez A, O’Sullivan LF, Lin P, Dolezal C, Pollack L, Catania J. Awareness and attitudes regarding microbicides and Nonoxynol-9 use in a probability sample of gay men. AIDS Behav. 2007;11(2):271–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Javanbakht M, Murphy R, Gorbach P, LeBlanc MA, Pickett J. Preference and practices relating to lubricant use during anal intercourse: implications for rectal microbicides. Sex Health. 2010;7(2):193–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gorbach PM, Weiss RE, Fuchs E, et al. The slippery slope: lubricant use and rectal sexually transmitted infections: a newly identified risk. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(1):59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stahlman S, Gorbach PM. Rectal behaviors: a global overview. Microbicides 2012. Sydney, 2012.

  21. Weiss RE. Modeling longitudinal data. New York: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Martino JL, Vermund SH. Vaginal douching: evidence for risks or benefits to women’s health. Epidemiol Rev. 2002;24(2):109–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gorbach P M, Borgerding JA, Coumi N, et al. Effects of Partnership Change on Gel Adherence in HPTN 035. Microbicides 2010. Pittsburgh, 2010.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by UCLA MDP funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIAID IPCP U19 #AI0606414), Center for HIV Identification, Prevention and Treatment Services (CHIPTS) funding from the National Institutes of Health (P30 #MH58107), and UCLA Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIAID #AI28697: Mucosal Immunology Laboratory Core (MICL)). The authors would like to recognize the contributions of Elena Khanukhova and Edward Robbie to this study. The authors would also like to thank all study participants, without whom this study would not have been possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, 650 Charles E. Young Dr., South CHS 41-295A, P.O. Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, USA

    Heather A. Pines, Pamina M. Gorbach, Kristen Hess, Ryan Murphy & Joelle Brown

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Robert E. Weiss

  3. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Terry Saunders & Peter A. Anton

  4. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Ross D. Cranston

Authors
  1. Heather A. Pines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamina M. Gorbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert E. Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kristen Hess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ryan Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Terry Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joelle Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter A. Anton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ross D. Cranston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather A. Pines.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pines, H.A., Gorbach, P.M., Weiss, R.E. et al. Acceptability of Potential Rectal Microbicide Delivery Systems for HIV Prevention: A Randomized Crossover Trial. AIDS Behav 17, 1002–1015 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0358-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0358-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation