It’s unknown whether topically applied ARVs used in prevention would enter the human bloodstream at levels so that if a person does contract HIV, that same ARV would be useless in fighting the disease. There is concern that using ARVs for prevention could drive up human resistance to these medications, in a similar way that using antibiotics to fight common colds can lead to their ineffectiveness in fighting bacterial infections later. “This issue needs to be studied carefully in both nonhuman primates and humans before large-scale clinical trials are commenced,” wrote 15 prominent U.S. and Canadian AIDS researchers in a paper published in the July 25 issue of Science.
In the harshly worded article, the researchers called for "some serious soul searching within the microbicide field," including better management and collaboration and more attention paid to underlying science, such as more rigorous testing on animals and trying out a variety of molecules that attack HIV at different points in the replication cycle of the virus in stead of focusing on just one strategy.
"We’re still very hopeful that an effective microbicide will come out of this," says Robert Grant, lead author of the article and an immunologist at the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology at the University of California, San Francisco. "At this stage, I think we should keep as many options open as possible. We do not have a proven concept."
He warns that it would be a mistake for researchers to invest all of their time and resources into ARVs, given that "It's not precisely known whether ARVs will work for prevention."
To date, no microbicide has worked successfully to prevent the spread of HIV. But, like efforts to develop an HIV vaccine, hope keeps researchers trying and donors giving, says Anna Forbes, deputy director of the Global Campaign for Microbicides, a Washington, D.C.–based coalition of 300 nongovernmental organizations working on the issue. "It would change the landscape considerably for women," Forbes says. "Think about the difference the Pill made in a decade. Microbicides have that same potential."
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentOn this World AIDS Day --- I am saddened once again to have a major article on microbicides published in an important publication --- that negates, denies, ignores and silences gay men, other men who have sex with men, and the pressing need for rectal microbicides for both women and men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it is troubling to see the term microbicide as being something only applied vaginally to protect against HIV. This is very narrow, and therefore, incorrect. Microbicides are being studied for both vaginal AND rectal application - to protect during vaginal intercourse as well as anal intercourse.
Men who have sex with men around the world are 19x more likely to be HIV+ in comparison to the general population. Do they not deserve a mention as being an important population who could benefit from microbicides? Millions and millions of men are already infected, and many millions more are at risk.
There is a significant amount of research dedicated to the development of safe, EFFECTIVE, and acceptable rectal microbicides. Considering unprotected anal intercourse is a common behavior among HUMANS (women included), and considering that it is much more efficient at transmitting HIV compared to unprotected vaginal intercourse (5 to 80 times more so), does it not deserve a couple of words in this article?
To learn more about rectal microbicides - including scientific endeavors and advocacy efforts - please visit the home of IRMA - International Rectal Microbicide Adocates - http://www.rectalmicrobicides.org
Thank you,
Jim Pickett, IRMA Chair
Jim, in the eyes of much of this country, HIV is "gods way of punishing homosexuality." I understand not wanting to see real issues as well as your organizations good work sidestepped, but you could also be glad to see articles that make clear that it's not a "gay" a problem. Not that I'd expect to see those people reading articles on a science website, but....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's interesting, though, that those religious radicals wound up coincidentally close to the mark. Diseases aren't Gods way of punishing groups of people whose behavior it doesn't like, they're Natures way of keeping populations in check. Every year, it becomes clearer and clearer that the most critical problems we face stem from overpopulation, and as our population happily spirals out of whack unsustainably, (thanks in no small part to those very same religions urging uncontrolled breeding) HIV performs a definite biological function. With the big picture in mind, it is even more unfortunate that homosexual couples are suffering from HIV, as it's been shown over the years that homosexuality is an effect of, and part of the solution to overpopulation.
Gay men, and other men who have sex with men, are in fact, on average, 19 times more likely to be HIV positive compared to the general population ---- a GLOBAL statistic. It is not only a "gay" problem, but HIV among gay men and other men who have sex with men has, sadly, been silenced, denied and negated in much of the world. And millions are dying because of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee http://irma-rectalmicrobicides.blogspot.com/2008/11/oh-humanity.html
See http://irma-rectalmicrobicides.blogspot.com/2008/08/piot-rails-against-homophobia-at-aids.html
See http://irma-rectalmicrobicides.blogspot.com/2008/08/global-aids-prevention-gives-short.html
Hot Black, you really need to provide some evidence for this outrageous statement: "in the eyes of much of this country, HIV is "gods way of punishing homosexuality." Which country are you talking about? How many is much? A majority? It would be great to know where you get your information or is it just your opinion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that a significant number of Americans view homosexuality as a sin deserving punishment like AIDs. I wouldn't say the majority, but enough to make a difference. I've been to almost every state in this nation and I have found anti-homosexuality sentiments almost everywhere (not always from radicals, not always from conservatives). I think it good that the scientific community doesn't advertise their work towards helping gay men with AIDs. The sad truth is that scientific research requires funding, and taking on something like HIV requires emense funding the likes of which can only come from governements and very wealthy philanthropists. It would be best for everyone if the controversy associated with homosexuality were kept at the edge of the disscussion. Once we find effective treatments and possibly cures or vacines, we can take that knowledge and apply it to homosexual men. It's not that we don't care about the gay men of the world, it's that the best way to help them is to approach the problem with minimal participation from them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many natural ways to rid your body of HIV. In contrast with the traditional antiviral cocktails of medicine today, which cost thousands, have severe side effects, and comes with the double edged sword delema,meaning if the virus doesn’t kill you the cocktails will, this medicine is all natural.Please visit this site for the full information about this subject……http://pushgood-nomorehiv.blogspot.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishi ! thanks for sharing this informative post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://simplestdtesting.com/resources