Safety of carrageenan-based gels as preventive microbicides: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carrageenan-containing gels researched for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have shown promising results for human papillomavirus prevention in women, but not in men. We conducted a narrative review to assess the safety of these gels for genital use. METHODS: We searched PubMed using MeSH terms and keywords on 5 November 2023. Title/abstract of articles were screened to identify relevant ones. Full-text screening determined eligibility: empirical study evaluating safety of carrageenan-containing gel(s) for genital use. RESULTS: Of the 125 identified records, 15 were eligible, comprising 14 (10 randomised controlled trials and 4 cohorts) unique study populations. Studies included women only (n=11), men only (n=1) or both (n=3); number of participants ranged from 4 to 6202. Safety was assessed for vaginal (n=13), penile (n=3) and anal use (n=2). Most studies assessed safety of Carraguard (53%), followed by Divine9 (14%), and one each of iota-carrageenan gel, lambda-carrageenan gel, Carvir, PC-6500 (griffithsin and carrageenan) and PC-1005 (MIV-150/zinc acetate/carrageenan). Safety assessment relied on self-report (80.0%), testing for STIs (53.3%), investigator-identified genital findings (93.3%) and/or testing for changes in genital flora (60.0%). Adverse events (AEs) were described by investigators as mostly mild, (mostly) comparable between groups, not observed and/or not significant for vaginal and penile use. Only one study, assessing anal use of carrageenan, reported a significantly higher proportion of AEs in the carrageenan compared with placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Carrageenan-based gels are generally well tolerated for vaginal and penile, but not anal use. Studies on carrageenan gel's safety for anal use are scarce.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".