4.4 Article

Expanded Phase I safety and acceptability study of 6% cellulose sulfate vaginal gel

Journal

AIDS
Volume 19, Issue 18, Pages 2157-2163

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.aids.0000194797.59046.8f

Keywords

cellulose sulphate; microbicide; vaginal gel; HIV prevention; sexually transmitted infections; phase I clinical trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: An expanded Phase I trial was performed to assess the safety and acceptability of 6% cellulose sulfate gel (CS) in comparison with K-Y Jelly. Methods: Sexually abstinent (cohort 1) and sexually active (cohort 11) women in India, Nigeria and Uganda applied 3.5 ml of either 6% CS gel or K-Y Jelly for seven consecutive days. Safety was assessed by symptoms and signs (including colposcopy) of genital irritation, review of adverse events, and by changes in vaginal health as assessed by microscopy. Results: One hundred and eighty women (90 on CS and 90 on K-Yjelly) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics of women in both gel groups were similar. In cohort 1, six (14%) women on CS and 12 (27%) on K-Y Jelly reported genital symptoms, two (in K-Y Jelly group) of whom withdrew from the study. New colposcopy findings or findings showing deterioration were detected in four (9%) women on CS and nine (21 %) women on K-Y Jelly in cohort I. Two women on CS and three on K-Y Jelly in cohort 11 reported genital symptoms. Five women (11%) in each gel group in cohort 11 had new colposcopy findings or findings showing deterioration. The differences between the gel groups were not statistically significant. The majority of women had no problem with their assigned product. Conclusion: A vaginal application of 6% cellulose sulfate twice daily for seven consecutive days is as safe and well tolerated as a similar regimen of K-Y Jelly. Further development of 6% CS for prevention of HIV and pregnancy is recommended. (c) 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available