Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

记住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新闻&特写

« 较新的 | 较旧的 »
9 Jun 2010

Rectal lubricants may enhance the risk of STIs

A survey of lubricant use amongst a group of gay men and women 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.

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

1. 2010-06-09 20:37  
How can one NOT use lubricant for anal sex?
2. 2010-06-09 20:46  
whoaw~!!
i will die if sex without lubricant!!
hopefully this is not real >
3. 2010-06-09 21:08  
it's IMPOSSIBLE to draw any conclusion from that study, not only because it's not representative, but also because it doesn't tell us what's the connection between a lubricant and sti. Whatever bacteria the lubricant is killing, such bacteria plays no role in protecting against sti. Are those 'researchers' sure that some form of 'raw' penetration didn't take place whether as a form of foreplay or a bb session? How would sti bacteria end up on the outer shell of a condom? if indeed there was a connection between a lubricant use and sti, wouldn't we all be aware of it, since most of us are testing lubricants and condoms as often as we can? My advice: forget about this strange 'study' and the suggestion linking sti with a lubricant use.
修改於2010-06-09 21:13:49
回应#4於於2010-06-09 22:21被作者删除。
5. 2010-06-09 22:22  
While it seems that the first National Institutes study may have some flaws/drawbacks, one wonders why more scientific studies on lubes have not appeared in the past. IF it is indeed the case that lubes represent a placebo effect, or worse, then their formulations will need a big re-think fast, as would all the messaging from the public health folks about the use of lubes.

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).
6. 2010-06-09 22:52  
so....what u guys reckon here? olive oil?
7. 2010-06-09 23:04  
Looks very scientific and analytical. The sample size is sound. May I know who are the targeted people (criteria of the respondents)?
“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.
8. 2010-06-09 23:15  
Sometimes certain "study" seem show a group of stupid researchers wasting $$$.

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
9. 2010-06-09 23:51  
This is stupid. How did they even find anyone at all who has anal sex without lube? Frankly, I think it's quite 100% impossible. I think the bleeding and torn to shreds ass resulting from lube-less ass sex would certainly be more conducive to passing ANYTHING.
10. 2010-06-10 00:44  
I think some members have misunderstood the intention of the researchers. The researchers have NOT suggested that people DON'T USE lubricant. They are only trying to find out WHICH lubricant is better. And it's relevant to review the conventional wisdom that any water-based lubricant is OK and that KY is the gold standard.

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.


11. 2010-06-10 02:04  
Seems a study of much ado about nothing. I really fail to see how using lubricants can encourage the expressions of certain STI. Many factors determine a positive transmission. If one has unsafe sex with an infected person with any type of a STI/HIV, other than standing a better chance of protection with a condom, the risk of infection is pretty much certain with or without lube. So far this study screams the promotion of one brand-Wet Platinum. Duh?! I wonder if it's laced with green tea for anti-oxidant? LOL. :P
12. 2010-06-10 02:06  
It is STUPID to throw up a survey (aka NOT a scientific study) and claim that lubricants *enhance* the probability of STD's.

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.
修改於2010-06-10 02:07:16
13. 2010-06-10 02:09  
Oh well, we should spit on it and ram it in from now on then. :-D
14. 2010-06-10 02:44  
How can a study in which 21% of recipients describe themselves as homeless be considered representative?

"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

15. 2010-06-10 04:17  
Yes that's nice, but I'd much rather be three times less likely to catch HIV, than the latter.
16. 2010-06-10 04:48  
lots of people I know don't use lubricants...
17. 2010-06-10 05:26  
Placing this alarming and inconclusive story is not helpful. It would be good if Fridae took a wait-and-see attitude in such cases.
18. 2010-06-10 06:01  
I prefer using spit as my lubricant.... have a top eat my ass, then suck his cock, and let him slide it on in.....
19. 2010-06-10 06:14  
Wow, the immediate slamming of this article is astounding. Can't you all at least keep an open mind as to what this article is about? It's not a conclusive finding, merely something new which needs to be further investigated and probably won't have definitive answers for years to come. In the meantime, I think it's only suggestive to be a bit more selective as to the brand of lubricant to use, as some are safer, in terms of cellular damage, than others. But if you want to keep your heads in the sand and continue on doing what you like, go ahead...
20. 2010-06-10 08:45  
I’m a little worried about the sample group. 21% homeless? 35% classified as disabled? 51% African-American? I have an image of researchers recruiting patients (for a fee) at an inner city public clinic. In any case, it’s not a group easily associated with safe sex and consistent condom use.

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!
21. 2010-06-10 09:47  
Looking at the article photo... is it Vaseline on the top shelve?
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

22. 2010-06-10 10:31  
Given the potential to draw the wrong conclusions from research like this, can Fridae preface such articles with comments from a gay-friendly healthcare physician to put the article into context? It would be great if there was a healthcare professional that can make sure balanced views are always presented.
23. 2010-06-10 11:23  
I applaud garethboy (post #7) and LotusEater (post #19) for their objective and open minded analysis of this report. And also Fridae and its sources for reporting so accurately and non-sensationally on this issue.

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
回应#24於於2010-06-10 11:35被作者删除。
25. 2010-06-10 11:47  
There's always Shell Helix or Castrol....lol
回应#26於於2010-06-10 13:48被作者删除。
27. 2010-06-10 13:51  
While it's not conclusive how many times it is riskier to use KY rather than Wet Platinum, for example, the underlying scientific reasoning is unambiguous. The reference http://microbicides2010.org/files/LubesDezzuttiAbstract.pdf states that the properties of the lubricants are studied. [QUOTE Methods: Formulation characteristics (pH, osmolarity, and viscosity) were determined." QUOTE Results: "Elbow Grease, ID Glide, and KY Jelly were pH 4 to 5, 9 to 13-folds above isomolar, with varying degrees of viscosity."]

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.
28. 2010-06-10 13:57  
This article is quite absurd if you ask me. What?! They want us to stop using lube during anal sex?! It would hurt like hell if that's the case. LMAO

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.
29. 2010-06-10 19:50  
To really study this properly, they have to take a bunch of volunteers without STIs in their ass, and have a guy dripping with gonorrhea and/or chlamydia in his cock fuck them bare, some with various lubes, others without. Next, test all the bottoms and see if there is any difference in the prevalence of the STI transmission. Any volunteers?
回应#30於於2010-06-10 22:38被作者删除。
31. 2010-06-10 22:40  
#29: If we know that fire can burn wood, we don't need to test whether it can burn a building constructed in wood by burning the wooden building. We should just prevent fire from burning it.

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."
32. 2010-06-11 04:47  
Silicone based lube repels body fluids. Water based does not, since 67% used water based there is the problem.

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.
33. 2010-06-11 11:12  
wow, you can really lose weight eating burgers? what about pizza?

I think olive oil is best by the way

Anyway, don't have sex with strangers, but have great sex with friends you know
34. 2010-06-11 14:55  
I'm celebate (;-)) so non of it matters for now.. and when it does it won't be with some skanky stranger either
35. 2010-06-11 16:48  
Lubricant makers need to make effective and safe lubricants for same sex usage, especially in the anal, rectum area.
36. 2010-06-11 18:45  
If it's true, then what kind of lub we can use to have fun but can avoidto been affected by STD?
37. 2010-06-12 01:49  
Silicone lube acts as a barrier and repels body fluids, doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out how that helps.

No lube is rough, and can lead to bleeding. All these stupid studies, who needs them? Just use common sense.
38. 2010-06-19 14:58  
Totally ridiculous and useless: as lubricants are mostly (and should always) be used alongside condoms ,one wonders how VD can be transmitted through condoms.Bareback lovers are excited by the risk itself.So nothing new to them!!
39. 2010-06-19 14:58  
Totally ridiculous and useless: as lubricants are mostly (and should always) be used alongside condoms ,one wonders how VD can be transmitted through condoms.Bareback lovers are excited by the risk itself.So nothing new to them!!
40. 2010-06-21 11:23  
NO...NO...NO!!!!

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。

请选择新闻及专栏版本

精选个人档案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

赞好

合作伙伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement