OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of 0.5% and 2% PRO 2000 gel in terms of local and systemic adverse events (AE) and the acceptability of gel use. DESIGN: A randomised placebo-controlled trial among healthy, sexually active African women aged 18-45 years. Between June 2003 and September 2004, 180 consenting women were randomly assigned to one of four groups: PRO 2000 gel (0.5% or 2%), placebo gel, or condom use only. Participants were screened for sexually transmitted infections, with HIV counselling and testing. Women randomly assigned to gel used this intravaginally twice a day for 28 days. Follow-up visits were fortnightly up to 6 weeks from enrolment, and comprised a physical examination including colposcopy, laboratory testing and questionnaire interviews. RESULTS: Ten women were lost to follow-up, none due to AE. Adherence with total gel doses was 69%. Observed rates of the primary toxicity endpoints, ulceration greater than 2 x 1 cm and clinically relevant coagulation abnormalities were, for PRO 2000 0.5%: 1.6% (95% CI 0.04% to 8.5%) and 0% (97.5% CI 0% to 5.7%), and for PRO 2000 2%: 0% and 0% (97.5% CI 0% to 5.9%). Women randomly assigned to active gels did not show an increased rate of AE. Gel use had no significant effect on haematology and biochemistry results. Women found gel use highly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Both concentrations of PRO 2000 gel were found to be safe and well tolerated. These data justified testing the gels in large-scale effectiveness trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of 0.5% and 2% PRO 2000 gel in terms of local and systemic adverse events (AE) and the acceptability of gel use. DESIGN: A randomised placebo-controlled trial among healthy, sexually active African women aged 18-45 years. Between June 2003 and September 2004, 180 consenting women were randomly assigned to one of four groups: PRO 2000 gel (0.5% or 2%), placebo gel, or condom use only. Participants were screened for sexually transmitted infections, with HIV counselling and testing. Women randomly assigned to gel used this intravaginally twice a day for 28 days. Follow-up visits were fortnightly up to 6 weeks from enrolment, and comprised a physical examination including colposcopy, laboratory testing and questionnaire interviews. RESULTS: Ten women were lost to follow-up, none due to AE. Adherence with total gel doses was 69%. Observed rates of the primary toxicity endpoints, ulceration greater than 2 x 1 cm and clinically relevant coagulation abnormalities were, for PRO 2000 0.5%: 1.6% (95% CI 0.04% to 8.5%) and 0% (97.5% CI 0% to 5.7%), and for PRO 2000 2%: 0% and 0% (97.5% CI 0% to 5.9%). Women randomly assigned to active gels did not show an increased rate of AE. Gel use had no significant effect on haematology and biochemistry results. Women found gel use highly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Both concentrations of PRO 2000 gel were found to be safe and well tolerated. These data justified testing the gels in large-scale effectiveness trials.
Authors: Kathleen M Morrow; Joseph L Fava; Rochelle K Rosen; Sara Vargas; Julia G Shaw; E Milu Kojic; Patrick F Kiser; David R Friend; David F Katz Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Sheena McCormack; Gita Ramjee; Anatoli Kamali; Helen Rees; Angela M Crook; Mitzy Gafos; Ute Jentsch; Robert Pool; Maureen Chisembele; Saidi Kapiga; Richard Mutemwa; Andrew Vallely; Thesla Palanee; Yuki Sookrajh; Charles J Lacey; Janet Darbyshire; Heiner Grosskurth; Albert Profy; Andrew Nunn; Richard Hayes; Jonathan Weber Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jacob J van den Berg; Rochelle K Rosen; Dana E Bregman; Lara A Thompson; Kathleen M Jensen; Patrick F Kiser; David F Katz; Karen Buckheit; Robert W Buckheit; Kathleen M Morrow Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2014-05
Authors: Peter A Anton; Terry Saunders; Julie Elliott; Elena Khanukhova; Robert Dennis; Amy Adler; Galen Cortina; Karen Tanner; John Boscardin; William G Cumberland; Ying Zhou; Ana Ventuneac; Alex Carballo-Diéguez; Lorna Rabe; Timothy McCormick; Henry Gabelnick; Christine Mauck; Ian McGowan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andreas B Eisingerich; Ana Wheelock; Gabriela B Gomez; Geoffrey P Garnett; Mark R Dybul; Peter K Piot Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Georgina C Morris; Rebecca C Wiggins; Sarah C Woodhall; J Martin Bland; Carol R Taylor; Vicky Jespers; Brigitta A Vcelar; Charles J Lacey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 3.240