4.4 Article

HIV genital shedding and safety of Carraguard use by HIV-infected women: a crossover trial in Thailand

期刊

AIDS
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 717-722

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328333bf89

关键词

-

资金

  1. US CDC
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the safety, including impact on genital HIV RNA shedding, of Carraguard vaginal gel in HIV-infected women. Design: This is a randomized, controlled, crossover study of Carraguard in HIV-infected women in Thailand. Methods: Each woman (CD4(+) cell count 51-500 cells/mu l and not on antiretroviral therapy) used each treatment (Carraguard, methylcellulose placebo, and no-product) once daily for 7 days during each 1-month period (3-week wash-out). Women were randomized to one of the six possible treatment sequences. Safety assessments were conducted at baseline (pregel), 15 min postgel, day 7, and day 14, and included HIV RNA measurements in cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) specimens. Results: Sixty women were enrolled, and 99% of scheduled study visits were completed. At baseline, median age (34 years), CD4(+) lymphocyte count (296 cells/ml), plasma HIV viral load (4.6 log(10) copies/ml), CVL HIV viral load (3.1 log(10) total copies per CVL), and sexual behaviors were similar among randomization groups. HIV viral load, leukocyte and hemoglobin levels, and epithelial cell counts in CVLs were lower 15 min after application of Carraguard or placebo compared with no product; CVL HIV viral load was still lower at day 7 but returned to baseline by day 14. Carraguard use was not associated with prevalent or incident genital findings or abnormal vaginal flora. Conclusion: Carraguard appears to be well tolerated for once-daily vaginal use by HIV-infected women. The observed reduction in CVL HIV viral load in the gel months may be clinically relevant but could have resulted from interference with sample collection by study gels. (C) 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据