Thirty years of safer-sex advice were thrown into confusion at the 2010 International Microbicides Conference yesterday [May 25] when a survey of lubricant use amongst a group of women and gay men found that those who used lubricants for anal sex were three times more likely to acquire gonorrhoea, chlamydia or syphilis than those who used none.
This effect was independent of the number of partners people had or how many times they had sex, and was also independent of whether they used condoms or not.
Researcher Pamina Gorbach of the University of California, Los Angeles, stressed that these results came from a small survey of a possibly unrepresentative group, and that her study was not powered to analyse the risk of various different lubricants. However, an accompanying study by Charlene Dezzutti of the University of Pittsburgh did find that some lubricants created more cellular damage than others.
These results imply that traditional messages about safer sex – "always use condoms and lube" - may have to be used with caution, at least until larger studies further investigate the apparent risk associated with lubricants and analyse which ones are the least harmful.
Gorbach’s survey was part of the U19 rectal microbicide research initiative funded by the US National Institutes of Health. Between October 2006 and December 2008, 879 men and women from the U19 programme completed computer-assisted self-interviews for the researchers about their sexual behaviour and were tested for rectal STIs – gonorrhoea, chlamydia and syphilis.
In order to include enough women who had had anal sex, half the interview group consisted of women who had had receptive anal intercourse (RAI) at least once in the last year, whereas gay men were only included if they had had RAI in the last month.
Just under half of the people interviewed (421 people, 47.6%) reported having had receptive anal sex within these criteria: 229 men having had it in the last month and 192 women in the last year. Of these, 302 completed the behavioural survey and all STI tests; the remaining data concern this group.
The group was 58% male and was a somewhat older group than many sex surveys, with a median age of about 40; 51% were African-American and the average socioeconomic status was poor, with 21% of the group classing themselves as homeless and 35% as disabled.
Three-quarters of the group (230 people) said they had used a lubricant during the last time they had had receptive anal intercourse. Lubricant use was less common in African-Americans (38.5%) and Hispanic people (58%). More HIV-positive people used a lubricant than HIV-negative people.
People used various kinds of lubricant: 67% had used a water-based one such as KY Jelly, 28% a silicone-based lubricant, 17% an oil-based lubricant such as Crisco, and 6% a numbing lubricant designed to deaden sensation.
One in twelve group members tested positive for a rectal STI (5.6% of women and 10.2% of men); only chlamydia and gonorrhoea were included in the analysis as syphilis is often transmitted orally.
Over one in nine (11.7%) of lubricant users were positive for a rectal STI compared with one in 22 (4.5%) who did not use lubricant: this was statistically significant (p=<0.05).
More than two-thirds (68%) of people diagnosed with rectal gonorrhoea and/or chlamydia had used a lube compared with a third of people who had not used a lube.
In multivariate analysis, using a lubricant was associated with a more than threefold greater risk of acquiring an STI (relative risk 3.15, 95% CI, 1.23 to 8.04). This was after controlling for number of partners, frequency of sex, condom use, gender and HIV status. In other words, lubricant use was not a surrogate marker for other risk behaviours but appeared to pose an independent risk. When syphilis was included in the analysis, the association of STIs with lubricant use was even stronger.
“What’s our take home message here?” Gorbach was asked. She said that her message would be that people should choose their lubricating substance carefully. Lubricants were not regulated like medicines: they were classed as ‘medical devices’ and did not have to undergo stringent safety testing. Many had ingredients that were ‘not friendly’ to the cells lining the rectum.
To underline this, another study (Russo) tested for toxicity six lubricants that can be bought over the counter in the USA. These were five water-based lubricants (Astroglide, Elbow Grease, ID Glide, KY Jelly and PRÉ vaginal lubricant) and one silicone-based one (Wet Platinum).
The physical properties of each lubricant were measured. Four lubricants (Astroglide, KY Jelly, ID Glide and Elbow Grease) were strongly hyperosmolar. This means that they would cause water to diffuse out of the cells lining the rectum into the rectum itself.
The lubes were tested on ‘friendly’ bacteria that are part of the normal vaginal flora. Astroglide killed off one species of Lactobacillus and KY Jelly, which contains the disinfectant clorhexidine, killed all species.
The four hyperosmolar lubricants stripped off the epithelium (outer layer) of cells from rectal tissue. In contrast, PRÉ and Wet Platinum caused relatively little damage. Astroglide caused almost as much damage as nonoxynol-9, the spermicide whose use has been shown to increase susceptibility to HIV.
As members of the audience commented, these studies do not imply that people should be advised not to use lubricant in anal sex, as this can cause trauma in itself. However, there is clearly an urgent need to conduct further research into sexual lubes, distinguish between harmful and harmless ones, and probably introduce more stringent safety checks for them before licensing them for over-the-counter sale.
References
Gorbach PM et al. Rectal lubricant use and risk for rectal STI. 2010 International Microbicides Conference, Pittsburgh, abstract 348, 2010.
Russo J et al. (presenter Dezzutti C) Safety and anti-HIV activity of over-the-counter lubricant gels. 2010 International Microbicides Conference, Pittsburgh, abstract 347, 2010.
This article was first published by NAM/Aidsmap.com and is republished with permission.
读者回应
i will die if sex without lubricant!!
hopefully this is not real >
If the second study has any validity, then it is also worrying for all the GLBT AND straight folk who have sloshed around with lube over the years since HIV/AIDs hit the N.American gay community. This leads one to wonder if the long-term effects of lube use could actually worsen one's or one's partners' health. A very troubling conclusion indeed...
Some lube manufacturers have tried to incorporate all or partial natural ingredients in their lubes, but I haven't seen any scientific safety or health studies on these or others. Isn't it time that the industry (and public health agencies) fund some sound scientific studies of these products since they are raking in the cash and selling it to us as a safer sex product? (or a safer sex messages).
“More cellular damage than others”. For gay sex, bareback create more friction and thus causes torsion (more cellular or tissue damage). For vaginal sex, female produce vaginal fluid, when being stimulated (via foreplay). What if someone having unprotected sex (without condom) but with lubricant, having sex with a female who are not aroused sexually, thus no or less vaginal fluid being produced? Isn’t that create friction then torsion which in turn creating a chance for (STIs- causing) bacteria or viruses to enter the body?
The survey is performed via computer-assisted self-interview. Would there be the chances of desirability bias.
“Average socioeconomic status was poor” Are the targeted respondents have the knowledge of safe sex? What is someone who is the insertive party who has STI having unprotected sex with the receptive party with lubricant? By the way, how poor people has the money to buy lub for sex? Why don’t they spend it on something better?
“21% of the group classing themselves as homeless” How these homeless individual have the access to internet to answer the survey? Where they have sex and where do they get the moment to buy lubricant and pay the motel (if he or she does)?
“17% using oil-based lubricant”. Oil-based lubricant is bad for rubber (condom). Thus, it is not surprise for someone who use oil-based lubricant with condom and have sex with someone who has STI being infected.
“Syphilis is often transimitted orally.” How do we link this statement with “Rectal lubricants may enhance the risk of STIs”
“More than two-thirds (68%) of people diagnosed with rectal gonorrhoea and/or chlamydia had used a lube compared with a third of people who had not used a lube.” Do this group of people practice safe sex?
For those who are not using lubricant, they are female or (gay) male who practice RAI? What are their current marital statuses? It is reasonable for a heterosexual couple to not to use condom and even lubricant during sexual intercourse.
No doubt, the chemical of the lube, the quality of the lube as well as the effectiveness of the lube in reducing friction is important, sharing this epidemiological article is important, but the way to present this data and the language use in telling people about this fact is much more important. Do present this article in a way that less confusing, as the article seems like educating public to not to use lube as it causes STIs.
Lubricant is for smoother sex - anal or not.
So now what, use saliva? or vegetable oil.
Just like another circumcision study reduce STD. Crap!!!
Condom with Listerine perhaps? lol
As we can see from the report, it seems that the silicone-based Wet Platinum is even better. If that's the case, we might want to reconsider recommending WATER-BASED lubricant. Rather, we might, if further research would support it, recommend using silicone-based lubricants, such as the studied Wet Platinum. The traditionally perceived gold standard-KY-might have to be uncrowned.
Health authorities might have overlooked the hyperosmolarity of water-based lubricants and focused on just its inertness to latex, the material used to make condoms. This research looks deeper into water-based lubricants' suitability by studying this previously overlooked property.
Fridae's own article says (notably not in BOLD type) "This effect was independent of the number of partners people had or how many times they had sex, and was also independent of whether they used condoms or not."
Umm, anyone who has taken a BS course in Psychology statisics will know this is guesswork at best. I hope Fridae isn't bowing to the same pressures of HYPE sells newspapers to get more hits on here.
"This effect was independent of the number of partners people had or how many times they had sex, and was also independent of whether they used condoms or not"
Common sense would suggest that the risk of infection increases with the frequency of sexual partners. Other studies have shown that Sexually Transmitted Infections increase in direct relation to bareback sex
Self-reporting (for a fee) supposes veracity on the part of the respondent. So there I am, homeless at a public health clinic and some stranger wants to know if I used a condom the last time I had sex. (Ok, I know I’m supposed to use a condom but will I still get the $50 if I say no? if I say no, is he gonna make me go to safe sex classes). Um, um, yes, I did. Now gimme my $50, dude!
Did they tested it too? lol
Just another speculation on an old topic- background script is easy to read: ANAL SEX IS BAD. BEING GAY IS BAD. etc etc etc
Give us some rest.
And... don't use Vaseline, luv - it is not condom-friendly, you know...
(you know?)
lol
You should note that these are studies at the early stages of research into this topic and as such cant be expected to answer all the question you want answers to
This report gives you up-to-date information on the situation. It makes no recommendations, so why the panic
Also note that they are talking about the rectal occurrence of these STI organisms.... not the diseases themselves
Given their properties, it's only to be expected that lubricants such as KY would carry a higher the risk of causing STD transmission because these properties lead to removal of more outer skin on the rectum. This reduces the amount of physical barrier and thus is expected to make it easier for STDs enter the blood stream.
So while we can't be sure specifically how much riskier it is to use KY rather than Wet Platinum, which we would need another larger study to investigate, we should believe that using Wet Platinum rather than the common KY should cut the risk of STDs.
I hope that further research is done in this direction: is silicone the better ingredient for lubricants? Or it it because Wet's formula is somehow unique which makes it less toxic (e.g. its pH value)? Or is water-based lubricants equally non-toxic if we change certain properties, such as adjusting the pH value to 7?
Now, if it turns out that silicone lubricants are categorically safer than water-based lubricants, then the next step would be for the WHO, FDA and UNAids, among others, to recommend silicone lubricants and discourage use of common water-based lubricants. An ISO standard for lubricants should be established. Preferably, a rectal lubricant standard should be separately established. This helps people who practice anal sex and doctors who insert their fingers or some tools into their patients' anus (e.g. to perform digital examination of prostate) to select a safer lubricant.
Also, I do believe that the subjects during the survey and research are of much concern (21% are homeless, 35% are classified as disabled, 51% are African-American). They can do better than this I reckon.
By the same token, if we know that a substance strips off the epithelium (outer layer) of cells from rectal tissue, and that a thinner layer of rectal skin makes infection more likely, then we can assume that using it leads to higher risk of STD.
It seems that many members have not read or understood the last paragraph of this article, which reads:
"As members of the audience commented, these studies do NOT imply that people should be advised not to use lubricant in anal sex, as this can cause trauma in itself. However, there is clearly an urgent need to conduct further research into sexual lubes, distinguish between harmful and harmless ones, and probably introduce more stringent safety checks for them before licensing them for over-the-counter sale."
No lube is bullshit, using no lube will cause damage to the anus. Who comes up with these false studies?
I just did my own study and found that eating burgers WITH fries helps me lose weight. What nonsense.
I think olive oil is best by the way
Anyway, don't have sex with strangers, but have great sex with friends you know
No lube is rough, and can lead to bleeding. All these stupid studies, who needs them? Just use common sense.
Dammit, don't most Fridae readers read the entire article.
*It does NOT say to not use lube
*It freely states that this is a PRELIMINARY study
*It acknowledges the (disturbing to me & others) types of individuals that were used in the study
*Although not insistently, it does suggest a possible COA (course of action) until further studies are completed: USE THE OTHER LUBES MENTIONED which are less likely to strip out some of the rectal lining.
I don't know about you, but I'm dumping all my lube, and going out and buying Wet Platinum and maybe Pre. Hell, it's worth the shot if it might help -- UNTIL FURTHER STUDIES SUGGEST OTHERWISE.
Get a gripe my friends. Use lube -- but choose it wisely!
请先登入再使用此功能。