Important note: Information in this article was accurate in May 2000. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
American Foundation for AIDS Research, May 2000
Dave Gilden
Microbicides 2000, a conference held March 13-16 in Alexandria, Virginia, signaled the rising interest in topical microbicides to prevent HIV, other STDs, pregnancy or all three. Over 600 people attended the three-day conference, nearly half of them from outside the U.S.
The continuing absence of an HIV vaccine and the lack of access to effective anti-HIV therapy in most parts of the world has sparked increasing demands for measures that provide better protection than condoms. Condoms are widely perceived as unacceptable to many men and to women, too, because they block sensuality and intimacy as well as sperm and microbes.
Most importantly, condoms rely on the initiative of the insertive sexual partner, leaving the receptive one at a disadvantage when disagreements over condom use arise. This physical difference compounds the unequal power balance existing for women in relations with men, such that they frequently have no recourse if their male partner refuses to wear condoms. Microbicides 2000 mostly considered vaginal microbicides that women could use with or without males’ knowledge. Some consideration was also given to rectal microbicides for both gay and straight sex.
The conference was more an examination of the evolving state of the field rather than an expression of concrete progress. Little was presented on new trial data for candidate microbicides. Nonetheless, in an initial lecture summarizing current trials, Ronald Roddy of Family Health International counted up 22 completed microbicide human trials and eight trials in progress.1 These trials represent about 20 products, but most of those in advanced testing involve substances that are already commercially available as spermicides. Different formulations of nonoxynol-9 (N-9) have received particular attention.
Large pharmaceutical companies are a critical missing partner in microbicide research. These companies have contributed greatly to the current array of 14 high-tech, high-cost anti-HIV drugs. They did provide some funding for the conference, but otherwise were virtually absent. Because of the large companies’ perception that microbicides are a low-tech, low-profit area chiefly of concern to Third World women, microbicide research has been left to nonprofit organizations and a few small companies. Funding largely comes from the National Institutes of Health. The Gates Foundation, the American Foundation for AIDS Research and the Rockefeller Foundation have made additional grants.
For the past four years, NIH funding has amounted to a modest $25 million per year. There are harbingers that microbicide research will accelerate: Financial and logistical support from the NIH’s Office of AIDS Research was critical for conducting Microbicides 2000. Also, Anthony Fauci, head of the NIH’s National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, in February added another $6.5 million to this year’s research pot. And in March, Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Connie Morella (R-MD) introduced a bill that would boost federal microbicide spending to $75 million by 2002.
As it is, many of the basic science presentations at Microbicides 2000 stemmed from research that has some applicability to microbicide development but was not directly aimed at this topic. This lack of focus was apparent from the beginning of the conference.
Dr. Ashley Haase of the University of Minnesota gave the first scientific talk at the conference.2 Haase has become well known for his work visualizing the HIV inside the cells of biopsied lymph nodes and other tissue. He uses a technique called in situ hybridization that homes in on specific HIV genes and labels them with a radioactive marker. Actively reproducing HIV shows up as dark grains within cells in long-exposure photographs.
Haase described his work on the steps that the simian immunodeficiency virus, the monkey version of HIV, takes to infect a macaque monkey when it is applied vaginally. This infection process becomes detectable in the third day after inoculating monkeys with the virus. At that time, the first SIV-containing cells are detectable in the lamina propria beneath the cervical membrane. By day 12, there is an explosion of SIV infection in lymph nodes throughout the monkeys’ bodies.
Curiously, the major cell type infected in this first stage is resting CD4+ T-helper cells, which produce only small amounts of HIV once they are infected. The proportion of SIV-infected activated CD4+ T-helper cells gradually rises in the following weeks. The slow rise in infected activated cells is unexpected given that activated T-helper cells are far more susceptible to SIV and HIV.
Since SIV is a model for HIV, the first steps when HIV infects humans probably closely parallels Haase’s findings in monkeys. The conference was left with Haase’s observation that HIV is a stealthy infection before it infects activated CD4+ T-helper cells in large numbers and rapidly spreads throughout the body, creating viral reservoirs in lymph nodes and among latently infected cells. Compounds that can fight HIV in the first few days of infection, before it gets out of hand, may have certain advantages over classic anti-HIV therapy.
So, what happens in the very first day of infection, when a microbicide could influence the outcome? . Dendritic cells previously were suspected to be HIV’s first target in the body. Dendritic cells capture microbes on mucosal surfaces and stimulate the appropriate antigen-specific T-cells in the lymph nodes. Their role in early HIV infection is still under investigation.
One of the most relevant research advances pertaining to sexual transmission of HIV came out not at the conference, but the week before in Cell magazine.3 According to the authors, led by immunologist Yvette van Kooyk of the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, HIV tightly binds to a sticky molecule known as DC-SIGN on dendritic cells’ surface. DC-SIGN’s normal function is to bind with a molecule on T-cells and facilitate the cell-to-cell antigen-presenting interaction.
HIV envelope protein, gp120, turns out to be structured so that it too can bind to DC-SIGN. This binding stabilizes and protects HIV, which then becomes encased in a vesicle within the cell. The HIV supposedly remains there in whole form while the dendritic cell inadvertently transports it to the CD4+ T-helper cells in nearby lymph nodes. Once there, it tries to engage in its usual function of stimulating an immune response to the microbial antigens it has picked up. Since the HIV stays intact during this process, the dendritic cell unwittingly provides HIV with protection and transport to the susceptible CD4+ T-helper cells.
Based on these findings, researchers could formulate a small molecule to block the interaction between DC-SIGN and gp120. Such a compound would have immediate application as a topical microbicide or oral prophylaxis exquisitely targeted to the first step in HIV infection of the human body. Without major industry support, such a DC-SIGN blocking microbicide will be a long time in coming.
The extensive theoretical conversations at Microbicides 2000 that did revolve around inhibitors to HIV-cell binding and fusion4 could be irrelevant in light of the DC-SIGN report the previous week. These discussions focused on the way HIV latches onto and infects new cells via the CD4 and chemokine receptor molecules on cell membranes.
But none of the data concerning DC-SIGN absolutely rule out a role for CD4 blockers, and animal data do suggest that blocking this target can protect animals against HIV/SIV challenge. The initial steps in HIV transmission are hardly decided. Test-tube experiments form the basis of van Kooyk’s findings and have not been confirmed in the body. Other groups have come to different conclusions using different test techniques. At the Keystone Symposium on “Novel Biological Approaches to HIV-1 Infection,” which took place three weeks after Microbicides 2000, Christopher Miller of the University of California Davis presented contradictory observations on the first few days after macaque monkeys were vaginally exposed to SIV.5
Following in Ashley Haase’s footsteps, Miller for the first time could detect dendritic cells in the vaginal epithelium that were actually infected by SIV and producing new virions. By his estimate, around 10,000 cells, most of them dendritic cells, become actively infected in the first 18 hours after exposure. The envisioned CD4 and chemokine receptor blockers would definitely be valuable microbicides if this were the case.
For now, the conference had to be satisfied with the usual collection of surfactants and buffers, whose general mechanisms of action do not depend on the specific steps in HIV’s interaction with its target cells. These compounds are still the only compounds in human testing.
Surfactants are detergents that disrupt microbial and sperm membranes by emulsification. The best known such product is the over-the-counter spermicide nonoxynol-9. Surfactant-containing creams and gels have the advantage of being very broad in their killing ability, but they can damage cell membranes as well as those of the unwanted pathogens.
A common observation has been that N-9 causes thinning of vaginal walls. It gets worse: At the Microbicides 2000 conference, researchers looking into N-9’s use as a rectal microbicide showed that N-9 causes the rectum wall to slough off in both mice and humans.6 The mouse experiments were part of research on protection against herpes simplex virus. In that case, N-9 seemed to promote death from Herpes simplex even when very low amounts were applied rectally. As he spoke, Population Council researcher David Phillips displayed dramatic slides of denuded mouse rectal tissue and detached pieces of human rectal epithelial tissue that came out in post-N-9 rectal lavages.
The nonoxynol-9 formulation used in these experiments was the commercial lubricant Advantage-S. Phillips warned against the popular use of nonoxynol-9-containing lubricants during anal sex. Rather than protecting against viral infections, N-9 leaves a large area especially susceptible to them. The rectal walls fortunately recover within 10 to 12 hours, but by then the damage would have been done.
The Population Council is developing its own family of microbicides based on the food thickener carrageenan.7 Carrageenan is a seaweed (red algae) derivative that turns into a gel when mixed with water. It is a very large polysaccharide (starch) whose units contain negatively charged sulfate groups. (Other sulfated polysaccharides undergoing development as microbicides include dextrin sulfate and PRO2000.)
Carrageenan’s charge causes it to stick to viral envelopes and possibly target cell membranes. By covering up critical surface molecules in this manner, carrageenan disrupts the process by which viruses stick to and invade cells. Carrageenan may also affect some bacteria, but it has no apparent effect on sperm.
The Population Council’s current lead compound, PC-515, is categorized as GRAS (“generally recognized as safe”) by the FDA and is very cheap to make. It remains on vaginal walls for six to 18 hours, but cannot pass through them into the body due to its size. PC-515 is now undergoing phase 2 studies in Thailand and South Africa. Carrageenan was first proposed as a microbicide in the early 90s. Final testing will take at least five years and possibly longer, according to Phillips.
Cyanovirin, a particularly interesting HIV-cell fusion blocker ,comes from blue-green algae. It was discovered in a National Cancer Institute screening program for natural anti-HIV agents. A protein with a complicated structure, cyanovirin binds to the sugars attached to HIV envelope protein and prevents them from binding to cell surfaces. This mechanism would be active whether the HIV is binding to DC-SIGN or the CD4 and chemokine receptors. Cyanovirin is also active against herpes viruses.
As with carrageenan, development of cyanovirin has been exceedingly leisurely. The NCI cyanovirin program is now “languishing,” in the words of its chief, Michael Boyd. Apparently, the NCI’s production facilities, based on genetically manipulated cell cultures, have been diverted to other projects that the agency considers of higher priority. This is unfortunate: Cyanovirin is of particular interest because of its relative safety. It is 10,000 times more toxic to HIV than it is to cells.
Christopher Miller, in his Keystone talk, also described a small experiment he carried out with simple white vinegar douches after vaginally inoculating his female monkeys with SIV. By acidifying the vagina, the vinegar created a temporarily hostile environment that degrades SIV and, presumably, HIV too. (Earlier studies established that HIV also is very sensitive to acid.) Neither of the two monkeys douched within 15 minutes of HIV exposure became infected. Waiting 30 minutes or longer after each inoculation did not prevent Miller’s monkeys from contracting HIV, especially if they were inoculated twice four hours apart.
This test is hardly conclusive, but it does highlight the broad-spectrum antimicrobial (as well as spermicidal) powers of the normally acidic vaginal environment. At Microbicides 2000, Kenneth Mayer of Brown University described a pilot study using Buffergel, a gel that works to keep the vagina at its usual acid pH of 4.0.8 Buffergel is under development by Baltimore-based ReProtect.
The Brown University study tested Buffergel in women with bacterial vaginosis (BV), an imbalance in the normal vaginal bacteria that can predispose women to acquire HIV and other STDs. BV may make the vagina more vulnerable by neutralizing vaginal acidity and increasing the level of immune-stimulating cytokines. It also frequently causes vaginal discharges and abnormal odor. Two to three days after a six-day course (seven applications) of Buffergel, seven of ten women were negative for bacterial vaginosis. One month later, four were still negative and seven had no discharge. BufferGel has been found to be safe and well tolerated in studies conducted in Rhode Island, Thailand, India, Malawi, and Zimbabwe.
Bacterial vaginosis does its damage by eliminating the lactobacillus bacteria in the vagina. These bacteria are largely responsible for the acidic environment, and many strains protect further by producing the antimicrobial oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Hortense Faye-Ketté in a study of 1272 women in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, was able to correlate vaginitis with lack of lactobacilli, the hydrogen peroxide-producing strains in particular.9 None of the women with vaginal discharges had such strains, whereas 21% of the healthy women did. (By the way, new sensitive assays have found that Lactobacillus acidophilus, the species used to make yogurt, is not one of the normal vaginal strains.)
Lactobacilli accomplish their protective acidification by anaerobically metabolizing the glycogen that the vagina produces when stimulated by estrogen. Estrogen also has a more direct effect: Preston Marx of the Aaron Diamond Center in New York pointed out that estrogen protects by greatly thickening the vaginal wall.10 Topical estrogen therefore might have a valuable prophylactic role, especially in postmenopausal women and those on progesterone-based birth control pills. Marx tested his theory on monkeys given estrogen implants after their ovaries were removed. Such monkeys were protected from SIV introduced vaginally but not intravenously.
It would be easy enough to introduce the right lactobacilli, but Gianni Pozzi of the University of Siena (Italy) wants to go a step further. He proposes genetically engineering lactobacilli so that they produce cyanovirin in addition to their other beneficial qualities. Pozzi has already tried this technique on Streptococcus gordonii, a common harmless oral bacterium that can also colonize the vagina.11
A parallel study by Pozzi involved S. gordonii engineered to produce an anti-yeast antibody.12 The bacteria proved highly effective in controlling vaginal candidiasis in rats. One version was 100% protective for at least four weeks after treatment.
Topical monoclonal antibodies that bind to HIV envelope protein would be a highly effective measure that could prevent HIV infection for several days, Richard Cone of Johns Hopkins University and ReProtect told Microbicides 2000.13 These antibodies would mimic natural acquired immune protection without requiring exposure to disease-causing cells or viruses. They would target a particular protein on a microbe, causing it to be trapped on mucosal surfaces and unable to adhere to human cells. One initial experiment in monkeys using an SIV-HIV hybrid observed a promising degree of protection even with only modestly active antibodies.14
Cone noted that anti-sperm antibodies exist, too. Combinations of different antibodies could attack a broad range of STDs and sperm, as desired. Ideally, a daily vaginal pill or long-lived vaginal ring containing a mixture of antibodies could provide a simple means of protection that would have no disturbing effect on sexuality.
A major problem is that monoclonal antibodies are inordinately expensive. This hurdle has led Epicyte Pharmaceuticals of San Diego to suggest producing them cheaply in transgenic rice plants.15 The company has already created such plants to produce antibodies to herpes simplex.
In a world already awash with protests over genetically modified food, use of such techniques to produce microbicides may well provoke further controversy. A cyanovirin-producing lactobacillus could spread from woman to woman on its own – a chilling prospect. And from a commercial standpoint, how do can you sell a self-perpetuating product?
On the other hand, these altered organisms are not food but would be used in one organ for a specific medical purpose. The new genes they contain would have no function in the wider environment. Their expression in plants would not create pesticide-resistant insects or superweeds, nor would it create a toxic threat to people. These are the common objections to other types of genetically modified agricultural plants. And the antibodies, at least, would require further processing before use, so that they would always be a salable commodity.
Drug resistance on the part of the targeted microbes would remain an issue. This is the case with any medication with a microbe-specific target of action rather than general activity, such as acidity modification.
The risk of HIV transmission varies greatly from community to community across the globe. The background environmental factors that affect transmission are not yet well elucidated. Just determining those factors could aid considerably in HIV prevention, with or without a specifically anti-HIV microbicide.
At the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections last winter, Anne Buvé described a study she conducted to see what determined the varying HIV rates in different African cities.16 The massive study included two West African towns in which less than 5% of pregnant women have HIV and two in East Africa where more than 25% are infected. One thousand persons from the general population plus 300 sex workers were interviewed and tested in each city.
The study found that the main factors associated with high HIV rates are the level of other STDs, particularly genital herpes in men and trichomonas in women, and frequency of male circumcision (the men in the two West African towns were nearly all circumcised). Except for women’s age at first intercourse, which was younger in East Africa, there were no distinguishing variations in sexual behavior among the four cities. Number of lifetime sex partners and contact with prostitutes were both similar for all four cities.
These observations were confirmed by Thomas Quinn at Microbicides 2000, who added another factor to the interplay that affects the risk for transmission – low viral load in the person with the HIV.17 In a Johns Hopkins-Makere University study that was published two weeks later in the New England Journal of Medicine,18 researchers followed 415 “serodiscordant” heterosexual couples in rural Uganda for up to 30 months. The male partner was HIV-1-positive and the female partner was negative in 228 of the couples, and the reverse was true for 187 couples. No one became infected among the 50 circumcised HIV-negative men with HIV-positive wives. By comparison, 40 of the 137 uncircumcised HIV-negative men seroconverted. When an HIV-positive man was circumcised, the risk of HIV transmission to the women decreased 60%.
In this study population, condom use was very low and antiretroviral therapy nonexistent. The second major finding was that HIV sexual transmission risk is highly dependent on the infected person’s viral load. This correlation has been widely debated. The Ugandan study reported that one log (tenfold) increase in viral load raised the transmission risk 2.45 times. No one with a viral load below 1,500 copies/mL transmitted his or her HIV. Viral load turned out to be a much stronger predictor of transmission than the symptoms of STDs. STDs were specifically diagnosed only at the start and the end of the study, however.
Since HIV treatment is generally unavailable in Uganda, the viral load results will mainly benefit the citizens of other, richer countries. Whether circumcision receives recognition as a public health measure is questionable, though not unimaginable. In addition, the Ugandan data really do not necessarily predict transmission risk on an individual basis. Viral load in blood plasma – which the study measured – and in genital secretions do not absolutely correlate.
At Microbicides 2000, Robert Coombs of the University of Washington presented examples from his cohort of women with treatment-suppressed HIV in their blood but viral loads in their endocervical fluid as high as 15,000 copies/ml.19 Endocervical viral load in general did not match well with blood plasma viral load in Coombs’ study population of 550 women, and genital viral load variations were greater than the variations in plasma. The fluid within the cervix amounts to only about two teaspoons, but replicating HIV here occurs at a critical place as far as sexual transmission is concerned.
A similar situation exists in semen, according to Coombs’ earlier work.20 A Microbicides 2000 presentation by Christine Rouzioux of the Hôpital Neckar-Enfants Malades in Paris also described finding discrepancies between men’s plasma and seminal viral load, whether the men were treated or not.21 Rouzioux also stressed the importance of persistent HIV DNA within infected seminal cells, which includes lymphocytes. Cells containing HIV DNA frequently persevere in semen despite successful antiviral therapy and are a possible a source of transmission.22
Coombs thinks that the discordance in genital tract and blood plasma viral load arises because the genital lymph tissue operates as a separate compartment to combat the infections restricted to that region. The localized immune excitation by means of inflammatory cytokines also stimulates whatever HIV is present in the white blood cells, leading to a disruption in the balance between HIV and whatever antiviral drugs are present. The result is a viral flare-up that exposes sexual partners to HIV in addition to permitting viral evolution that may lead to drug resistance.
Among the pro-inflammatory cytokines, IL-1( was particularly correlated with detectable genital HIV in an examination of 34 women performed by Julie Villaneuva of the Centers for Disease Control.23 A higher vaginal white blood cell population was another associated factor. Both bacterial vaginosis and nonoxynol-9 increase vaginal IL-1( and white blood cell levels.
The female cervix’s internal location and complex, thinly covered structure make it a frequent battleground between sexually transmitted infections and the body’s immune defenses. Also, uterine contractions during sex aspirate semen into the cervix. These considerations make the cervix particularly susceptible to HIV.
Thomas Moench of ReProtect and Nancy Padian of the University of California San Francisco argued in a Microbicides 2000 poster that a diaphragm or similar barrier would provide valuable additional protection.24 Analogous to its role in contraception, a microbicide-laden diaphragm would serve as a trap for pathogens on the way to the cervix.
Ensuring that the proper distribution of microbicide and blockage of semen is even more problematic in the rectum. The rectum is of larger volume than the vagina and completely open internally. It also has a different, nonacidic microbial environment.
A diaphragm-like device would be unworkable there. At the very least, a comparatively large volume of microbicide would be necessary for rectal protection. Although there were several studies at Microbicides 2000 documenting the distribution of microbicide within the vagina (involving MRI scans), nothing appeared on how microbicides distribute themselves in the rectum or how that distribution changes during sex.
Another issue holding up progress is the continuing debate over ethical trial design. In the Johns Hopkins-Makere University study, persons found to have HIV were advised to tell their partners, but no effort was made to ensure that they did so. Increasing the risk of transmission was the lack of condom use or antiviral treatment. Although there was considerable discussion about proper trial design at Microbicides 2000, no objection was made to the conditions in this trial. Protest arose only after the New England Journal article came out. The lack of treatment or even counseling in this study meant that international standards of care were not maintained. As Marcia Angell, editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, observed in an editorial, such a study would be impermissible in an industrialized country. Ethically speaking, research subjects are supposed to receive standard-of-care treatment to protect them from obvious harm. This makes good scientific sense, too: A trial is only worthwhile if it shows whether an experimental intervention is better than standard treatment, not whether it is better than nothing at all.
The continuing debate over this study should serve as a warning about the design of microbicide trials in the future: Wherever they live, trial participants will have to be extensively counseled about safe sex, warned of known exposures to HIV, and advised of other methods to avoid the virus. Of course, if you do all that, it becomes hard to tell whether the microbicide works. Trials will have to enroll more people and/or last longer.
While the clinical trials process plods slowly along, much of the basic science has yet to be settled, and basic microbial design issues remain unclear. It seems that it will take a long time to arrive at a marketable microbicide. Still, the idea has growing appeal and could be embodied in a soft-tech approach feasible throughout the world. Many possible agents are already available. Toxicities and cost need not present much of an obstacle even for a microbicide with broad-spectrum activity. Although the details are unsettled, the technological hurdles do not appear that difficult – given sufficient political will.
1. Roddy R. Current Status of Microbicides Trials Including N-9. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
2. Haase AT. The Pathogenesis of Sexual Mucosal Transmission: Obstacles to and Opportunities for Prevention. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
3. Geijtenbeek TBH et al. DC-SIGN, a dendritic cell-specific HIV-1-binding protein that enhances trans-infection of T cells. Cell. March 3, 2000; 100(5):587-97.
4. Doms RW. Chemokine Receptors and HIV Entry. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
5. Miller CJ. Rapid Infection of Intraepithelial Dendritic Cells after Intravaginal Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) Exposure. HIV Keystone symposium. April 4-10, 2000, Keystone, CO; oral presentation 037.
6. Phillips DM et al. N-9 Causes Exfoliation of Sheets of Rectal Epithelium. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 44; abstract B19.
7. Phillips DM. Of Mice and Women – Assaying Vaginal Microbicides. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
8. Cu-Uvin S et al. Treatment of Bacterial Vaginosis with an Acidic Buffering Gel (Buffergel): Pilot Study. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 38, abstract B07.
9. Faye-Ketté H et al. Hydrogen Peroxide-Producing Lactobacilli in Women with and without Vaginal Discharge: Evidence for a Role in Vaginitis Prevalence. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 12, abstract A20.
10. Marx P et al. The Role of Female Hormones in the Enhancement and Prevention of SIV Vaginal Transmission. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
11. Pozzi G et al. Mucosal Delivery of Microbicides by Recombinant Commensal Bacteria: Expression of the HIV-Inactivating Protein Cyanovirin-N in Gram-Positive Bacteria. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 24, abstract A43.
12. Beninati C et al. Treatment of Experimental Candida Albicans Vaginitis by Mucosal Colonization with Recombinant Commensal Bacterial Secreting the Candidacidal Protein H6. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 24; abstract A44.
13. Cone R. et al. Mucosal Antibodies as Microbicides: Potent, Specific and Versatile. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
14. Mascola J et al. Role of IgG Antibody in Protection against Vaginal Transmission of an HIV-1/SIV Chimeric Virus. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
15. Briggs K et al. An Anti-HSV Antibody Produced in Transgenic Rice Plants Prevents Vaginal HSV-2 Infection in Mice. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 7, abstract A10.
16. Buvé A. Factors Determining Differences in Rate of Spread of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: Results from a Population Based Survey in Four African Cities. 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Jan 30-Feb 2 2000; oral presentation S28.
17. Quinn T. Viral Load and Treatment in Uganda. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
18. Quinn TC et al. Viral Load and Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1. New England Journal of Medicine. March 30, 2000; 342(13):921-9.
19. Coombs RW. Compartmentalization of HIV-1 in the Female Genital Tract: Implications for Assessing Antiretroviral Interventions. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
20. Speck CE. Risk factors for HIV-1 shedding in semen. American Journal of Epidemiology. Sept 15 1999; 150(6):622-31.
21. Rouzious C. HIV in Semen. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; oral presentation.
22. Vernazza PL et al. Potent antiretroviral treatment of HIV-infection results in suppression of the seminal shedding of HIV. AIDS. Jan 28 2000; 14(2):117-21.
23. Villanueva JM et al. Increased Levels of Vaginal Leukocytes and IL-1 Predict a High Virus Load in Genital Secretions of HIV-1-Infected Women. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 48, abstract B28.
24. Moench T et al. Disease Prevention by Protecting the Cervix. Microbicides 2000. March 13-16 2000, Alexandria, VA; page 43, abstract B17.
000510
AM000502
Copyright © 2000 by the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and first displayed on amfAR's Treatment Directory web site (http://www.amfar.org/gl). They appear on AEGIS with amfAR's permission. Organizations wishing to reprint or redistribute these materials should request authorization from amfAR's Department of Treatment Information Services (212/806-1600).
AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, iMetrikus, Inc., the National Library of Medicine, and donations from users like you. Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2000. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1990, 2000. AEGiS & the Sisters of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS and the Sisters of Saint. Elizabeth of Hungary, or the party credited as the provider of the content.