07/30/2007
Viva Gel, a New Sexual Lubricant, Said to Block HIV and Herpes
Australian researchers at the pharmaceutical company Starpharma say they have developed a gel which "inactivates" both the HIV and Herpes viruses:
"Lead researcher Dr Jeremy Paull from Melbourne-based pharmaceutical company Starpharma told the International AIDS Society conference in Sydney the gel would be used by heterosexual men who apply it directly to themselves before sex. It would be most useful in sub-Saharan African nations where the HIV epidemic is mostly seen among heterosexuals. The active ingredient in the microbicide is dendrimer, a molecule which binds itself to the viruses and prevents them from infecting healthy cells, Dr Paull said. Recent trials on animals have shown it is between 85 and 100 per cent effective at blocking both viruses. Safety trials of the gel are now underway in humans. The first results, presented at the congress, show it is safe and well tolerated in healthy men, uncircumcised or not."
It seems to make sense that it would be effective on gay men as well.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:35 AM EST by Andy in AIDS/HIV, Australia, Health, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
These developments are wonderful but they could potentially lull people into a false sense of security. HIV is a tricky disease. Condoms are still more effective in preventing the spread of all STDs including HIV and herpes.
Posted by: David | Jul 30, 2007 10:57:12 AM
Why don't we wait until the trials are finished and the effectiveness of this gel is (or isn't) verified—and can be quantified—before we sound the alarm about people being "lulled into a false sense of security?"
I don't think anybody is going to run out and have unprotected sex this weekend because an anti-HIV, anti-herpes gel that's just barely into human trials is 80-85% effective in animals.
When and if a gel or other microbicide is approved against HIV, AND researchers and the FDA have agreed upon a rating of how effective it is against HIV (and herpes), THEN intelligent people will be able to make an informed decision as to whether they want to use it alone, use it with condoms, use condoms instead, skip sex entirely, or whatever.
I know some nervous nellies view every advance in HIV prevention or treatment as dangerous because it may negatively affect people's prevention regimens. They need to get over themselves.
It's not 1986. People are not dying in the streets. Effective treatments are available. Several new classes of anti-HIV drugs are in development. And there's a reasonable chance that an effective antimicrobial gel or lube will give us all another weapon in our prevention arsenal. This is all good news. Every development brings its own challenges. We'll deal with them as they arrive.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 30, 2007 11:29:58 AM
Why can't they inject dendrimer into the bodies of people with HIV and herpes? couldn't it bind between 85 and 100 per cent of the viruses?
Posted by: NATE | Jul 30, 2007 11:31:19 AM
For the straight guys (mostly) and the certain segment of the gay community who make no pretense of ever wearing a condom, this will help slow down the spread of HIV.
While no method, short of complete abstinence, is 100% reliable, this development is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Rude Boy | Jul 30, 2007 11:34:29 AM
I'm assuming it is really only effective with a condom, otherwise, I don't see it working very well. Vaginal intercourse is already fairly safe, though with herpes sores present (or other sores or infections), the rate of transmission skyrockets. With receptive anal intercourse the transmission rate is 2% or 1 in 50, but this will increase with any type of blood or infection. This is considered a high rate of transmission. Reducing this by 85% would be nice, bringing it down to the level seen with men who are exclusively tops--but the real plus would be to eliminate herpes, which is the main co-infectious agent in many types of transmission.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jul 30, 2007 11:45:46 AM
Actually, I don't see how it would be effective for the guy or gal on the bottom. The gel, it seems, is applied to the penis, then any fluid containing HIV it comes in contact with binds to the anti-virus. How's the one on the recieving end of the ejaculation protected? "To make sense" is a lot like "assuming". Benny Hill wasn't a genius for nothing.
Posted by: M Hill | Jul 30, 2007 12:04:20 PM
Um, NATE, I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but you can't inject every substance into the human body. Rubbing alcohol kills viruses as well, but you can't inject it into people!
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 30, 2007 12:30:10 PM
24play,
People ARE dying in the streets. They're just dying about twenty years later than they were in 1986. The average life expectancy for AIDS is sixteen years now, which, yes, is better than it was, but that doesn't mean anyone should let their guard down. The treatments are unpleasant, as well, moreso as the disease progresses.
Posted by: cokepoet | Jul 30, 2007 12:51:01 PM
Cokepoet,
Your numbers are outdated. Estimated median survival for young people diagnosed with HIV (and treated with HAART) today is more than 35 years:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/2/87
Lead researcher Dr. Nicolai Lohse of Odense University Hospital summarized the news this way: "Patients with HIV can have a life expectancy comparable to diabetics. As a result, they will need to ensure they plan properly for the future."
I know the comparison of HIV to diabetes drives Gabriel Rotello and The Blade's Kevin Naff insane. But then the truth often has that effect.
Say it with me now: manageable chronic illness.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 30, 2007 1:09:03 PM
Any topical gel would have to work primarily by attacking bodily fluids. If your dick is rubbing inside a vagina or an asshole (but especially an asshole), you're going to have countless moments of contact when the gel is rubbed off. I can't see how it would be much more effective than pulling out before ejaculation, but here's hoping.
For people who think of HIV as a manageable chronic illness—go for it. Hopefully, more people will decide to pursue manageable chronic health.
The quote, "As a result, they will need to ensure they plan properly for the future" is unfortunate considering many—not all, but many—people in the US who are just now acquiring HIV did not plan properly in the first place. It can happen to anyone and we all make mistakes; this is not intended as a snarky attack, but it's the truth and maybe 24PLAY is right in saying the truth sometimes makes people insane.
I think what actually drives Rotello and Naff and others insane is the perception that arguing against the danger of HIV is really arguing for ignoring it as anything more than an inconvenience, which is potentially arguing for unsafe sex. Forgive me, 24PLAY, if that is not what you're arguing, but you should at least see where people are coming from with that concern.
We are making great strides with HIV, but there is no need to turn our backs on it, so to speak, when it could easily make a comeback or help lead to another, even more lethal virus.
Diabetes can not lead to that.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jul 30, 2007 1:35:27 PM
It does not stand to reason that if this gel works to reduce the risk of HIV infection for women, that it will be effective for reducing the risk of HIV among gay men. We definitely need more research into developing effective microbicidal agents. We also need for them to be tested for effectiveness among gay men.
Let's face it. A woman's vagina is very different from a man's anus. And for my perspective, thank God for that. We need to be loudly advocating for research into topical gels that are also going to be effective among gay men.
Posted by: Bloggernista | Jul 30, 2007 1:59:28 PM
Yes. AIDS is a more manageable disease nowadays, but people should be more specific about what that means.
Depending on your tolerance to them, AIDS meds can be pretty harsh causing fatigue and chronic diarhhea, etc. Not to mention the disease's financial strain.
"Manageable" diabetes is no piece of cake either.
Posted by: Marc | Jul 30, 2007 3:18:32 PM
Marc, I assume Dr. Lohse was making a precise estimate of the medical (and financial) impact of having HIV today when he compared it to diabetes. After all, he could have chosen to compare it to other chronic manageable illnesses, like hay fever or psoriasis.
Having had a grandfather who lived a long and vigorous life before succumbing to complications of diabetes (including having both legs amputated in his final years), I'd have to say Lohse's definitely in the right ballpark when he compares HIV and diabetes today.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 30, 2007 3:43:27 PM
Combined with condoms I think this has potential. As someone who has lived, like us all, with the paranoia of "will this be the time?" it is nice to have a little hope for the future.
As for ya'll that this it's a chronic and manageable illness, that may sound fine in your own head, but there are those of us who don't want to be infected with this "chronic illness" period. And while you may not, there are plenty of people using this logic as an excuse to have lots of risky sex, thereby increasing the risk of getting infected. This coupled with crystal meth is exactly why the rates of infection are up even though there are fewer people actually dying.
HIV may me survivable, but it is hardly chronic. There are plenty of diseases that you can survive but that doesn't mean no one cares whether they get them or not. You are not even considering the innocent people who are actively trying to avoid getting infected. I frankly don't want to have to live with the disease, its effects, drug side effects, or the fear and guilt of infecting someone even if I live to the age of 200 with it. So cut this "it's just like diabetes" crap.
Posted by: Brandon H | Jul 30, 2007 11:28:52 PM
Brandon,
1) If you don't like the diabetes comparison, take it up with Dr. Lohse. Better yet, prove his study wrong.
2) Nobody is suggesting the comparison to diabetes should leave people thinking getting HIV is no big deal. Diabetes is a big deal. But people who have it and take their health seriously can live long, full, vigorous lives.
3) Look up the definition of "chronic."
4) As for meth, sure it's a factor. But it's hugely overblown. You wanna know the real reason infections are still percolating along among gays? All the gay men kidding themselves that the whole fatuous "HIV–, U B 2" online game is going to keep them from becoming infected. A recent study showed that an uninfected gay man is MORE LIKELY to become infected from having unprotected sex with a partner who honestly tells him he's HIV– than from one who tells him he's HIV+. Why? Because so many guys who are HIV+ and on HAART have undetectable levels of virus in their blood that it's virtually impossible to catch HIV from them, and so many other guys who believe they are HIV- have actually seroconverted since their last HIV test, and they're all as infectious as can be.
5) As for your own fears of getting infected, don't share needles, use a condom every time, and if the condom breaks get a prescription for post-exposure prophylaxis from your doctor ASAP. I guarantee you'll never seroconvert, regardless of how many people out there are making bad choices.
6) And finally, anyone who has to inject talk of "innocent people" into an HIV discussion is talking out his ass. The vast majority of gay men are "actively trying to avoid getting infected." So keep your bullshit, good gays/bad gays mindset to yourself. You're responsible for you. Grow up.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 31, 2007 12:41:25 AM
I was recently diagnosed with HIV. At least people are trying- and its nice to give a shout out to the scientists and medical research people who are driven by the collective will of mankind to survive this pandemic as a race and hopefully by their passion for what each of them do and a salary for consciousness in all their efforts to stop such a threat to the enjoyment / procreation in and of and by the enjoyment of this lifetime.
Posted by: Jbeam23 | Aug 6, 2007 9:22:10 PM
what are the differences between gel and condom? since im searching girl friend on a herpes dating site called pozcupid.com. my partners may be interested in this news
Posted by: Simon | Jan 10, 2008 3:31:46 AM