Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

記住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新聞&特寫

« 較新的 | 較舊的 »
6 Feb 2009

Oral sex risk very low, but not zero, concludes systematic review

Many consider oral sex to be zero risk for HIV transmission and a safer alternative to penetrative sex but researchers analysing multiple studies on the topic are concluding that oral sex does carry some risk.

The risk of HIV transmission during oral sex is very low, but not zero, conclude researchers from Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the December 2008 issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers attempted to identify all the relevant observational studies on the topic, but found that, given the lack of data, it would be inappropriate to make summary estimates for the transmission risk through oral sex.

The authors conducted a systematic review (an analysis of all the medical research on a particular subject that meets predefined requirements). Cohort studies and other observational studies were included, while case reports and reviews were excluded.

The studies reviewed include data from heterosexual, lesbian and gay couples, covering both fellatio and cunnilingus.

Only ten studies were judged to be relevant enough to include in the review. All were from Europe or North America, and only three collected their data after the widespread introduction of combination therapy.

Methodological difficulties

The researchers comment on a number of challenges that researchers have encountered in researching this topic.
- Very few people report oral sex as their sole risk behaviour.

- If a person practices both unprotected oral sex and unprotected anal or vaginal sex, and acquires HIV, their infection is normally automatically attributed to the higher risk behaviour.

- Data on individuals' self-reported sexual behaviour is hard to collect accurately, especially when subjects may prefer to give more socially acceptable answers (i.e. not revealing unprotected anal or vaginal sex).

- Studies have frequently grouped all oral sex practices together, without distinguishing whether it was receptive or insertive, whether ejaculation occurred in the mouth, etc.

- Studies of serodiscordant couples (where one person is HIV-positive and the other is not) are likely to include people with well-controlled viral load, meaning that they are much less infectious than during primary infection stage.

- Studies that do identify a risk from oral sex are more likely to be published and reported than those which do not, because of the interest and comparative novelty of such a finding.

Estimates of the per-partner transmission risk
Five of the studies provided estimates of the risk of multiple oral sex acts during the life of a sero-discordant relationship.

Three of these studies gave that estimate as zero - no transmissions were reported.

The fourth study provided a figure of 1% for receptive fellatio.

The fifth study, from Sweden, provided a much higher estimate of 20%. However, the sample was very small (ten couples reporting oral sex as their only risk factor), and the review authors comment that the high estimate may be due to under-reporting of higher risk activity, or simply due to chance. Moreover, this is the only reviewed study which identified any HIV transmission among heterosexuals that could be attributed to oral sex.

Estimates of the per-partner incidence, per 100 person years
Three of the studies cited in the last section also reported estimates that calculated the transmission risk of multiple oral sex acts, but with the duration of the relationship stated. In each case, the estimate was zero.

Estimates of the per-study-participant transmission risk
Three further studies followed HIV-negative people who reported unprotected oral sex as their sole risk factor. However, the authors note that these studies have additional methodological limitations: the number of sexual partners and their HIV status is not known. This implies that the findings cannot be transferred to other populations where numbers of partners and HIV prevalence are different.

Two American studies gave estimates of 0% and 0.4% respectively, and the more recent Canadian Omega cohort provided a figure of 0.5%. Each study was conducted with gay and bisexual men.

Estimates of the per-act transmission risk
Three studies attempted to calculate the risk of HIV transmission during a single act of oral sex.

Two studies both provided zero estimates - no transmissions were reported.

The third study is Vittinghoff's often cited paper which used data from American gay or bisexual men who reported multiple risk behaviours. Mathematical models were employed to estimate the risk of different sexual acts, and unprotected receptive oral sex with ejaculation was calculated to have a 0.04% risk of HIV transmission. However, the review authors note that this estimate is based on sex with both infected and uninfected men - if the researchers had been able to exclude sex with HIV-negative partners, the figure would have been higher.

Conclusions
The authors note the paucity of data to inform this review. Reliable estimates would be important for prevention workers and clinicians advising people on the relative risks. Moreover, because of the low risk of transmission, "large and expensive studies" would be required to provide more precise estimates.

They also comment: "The fact that infected study participants with solely this exposure have remained difficult to identify may suggest that indeed the contribution of orogenital intercourse to HIV incidence remains low."

Nonetheless, they do recommend that "individuals should protect themselves using condoms or dental dams to minimise this small risk." - (Roger Pebody, December 16, 2008)

Reference
Baggaley RF et al. Systematic review of orogenital HIV-1 transmission probabilities. International Journal of Epidemiology 37 : 1255-65, 2008.

This report is republished with permission from aidsmap.com/NAM Publications. NAM's website, aidsmap.com is one of the world's foremost online HIV information resources. Website. Its new web site namlife.org, is an online resource for people who have been recently diagnosed and living with HIV.

讀者回應

1. 2009-02-06 20:59  
I dont know of anyone who will want a blowjob with condom. So which is a safer activity, to give a bj without condom or to get fucked with condom?
2. 2009-02-06 23:06  
Can they print an Executive Summary please, I did not get through all that scientific jargon. Help!
3. 2009-02-07 09:35  
Matevam .....you are so funny !!!!

Anyway we are to be careful withourselves. No one can help us in this area.

Do it at our own risk. The books , the medical journal etc can only guide us , in the end , we are to exercise the care and protection.

If only our BFs ( including us ) can be faithful ??? Like animals , perhaps we fight it hard at times.....
4. 2009-02-08 16:09  
If a couple is strictly monogamous and both have been tested free of any STIs (including HIV), then there is no issue of risks.

However, there is no such guarantee when it comes to anonymous encounters, hence the use of condoms even for oral sex is encouraged.

If that is not done, precautions that can be taken include:
* Not brushing, flossing and using mouth wash 2 hours before performing oral sex - This is to reduce the possibility of having openings/cuts/wounds in the oral cavity.
* Have the other person ejaculate OUTSIDE of the mouth.
* Use mouth wash AFTER the act to kill any germs/bacteria etc.

Take care!
5. 2009-02-08 21:11  
the first comment got it right.... who would want to get a blowjob with a condom on and who would want to suck on a piece of latex

Who would want AIDS too... I know I know.... the risk is there ..oral and anal

it just seems such a lousy trade off ...grrr.. nothing niceer than cum in my belly or in my butt
6. 2009-02-09 01:32  
Researchers have concluded after extensive study that crossing the road could result is you getting run over. Moreover, after further extensive study, experts have concluded that in flying, there is a possibility that you, and maybe a few hundred others, could go down with the plane and ...... guess what? ...... die. In a further study, experts concluded that many people will contract cancer and guess what? ........ die. What does all this mean? Well, it means that there are many experts out there with opinions. Expert opinions are like ass-holes, everybody has one. The bottom line, use your fucking head girl!
7. 2009-02-09 01:58  
Sex should not be stressful it should be enjoyable.

Bottom line, if your partner is not faithful to you then go get yourself a blood test so that you're not at risk of getting it from him. I know, because I have experienced it; thankfully I am clean.

The thing is, everyone is out there for their own sole enjoyment of sex and not being committed to just one person. Yeah, its good to experiment when you've discovered the joys of 'the dark side' however who is going to be responsible if you don't respect yourself and your own health?

End the arrogance, end the slutty-ness, be committed, stay safe and be safe.
8. 2009-02-09 15:48  
man, we live in a dangerous world. be careful out there even when having fun

i supposed the safest form of oral sex would be to use the tenga deep throat cup from tengatango.com ? LOL!
9. 2009-02-09 16:10  
One guy on Fridae wrote: 'Good boys swallow, bad ones spit"; they both run a risk. But let me refine this affirmation.
One did not have to wait for the AidsMap and others' conclusions to know what is basic -or should be- knowledge.>
I came out of the closet I was 17, I am 54 now.
I have practiced both anal sex (safe, since the Aids crisis) and oral - I swallow.
As long as one does not have a cut, a bad tooth, delicate gums or bleeding gums, the contact of sperm with any part of your mouth
will not put one into danger, otherwise should sperm enter into the blood stream through a cut or bleeding gums is sure suicide.
I personally consult my dentist every three months and after oral sex I brush my teeth and gargle with Listerine.
This is the opinion I can offer, just adding that as a matter of precaution I also test twice a years with 5 separate tests for Hepetatis C.

33longchamp
10. 2009-02-10 03:02  
my God, all this science making my head go ga-ga!
i need a BJ now!
:P
11. 2009-02-10 04:49  
Reading some of these posts, i have the impression that the forum has been infiltrated by Focus on the Family secret agents... "slutty-ness", "the joys of the dark side", commitment as the only way... wow!

Anyway,we must be careful of paranoia... the study fails to mention that out of 40 million cases of HIV there is not one PROVEN case of male-male oral transmission... the statistics are all based on suspected cases, theoretical models, and unproven assumptions... yet, partner tracing and tracking studies in Europe in the '90s seem to suggest that almost all (if not all) the HIV-infected individuals who reported oral sex as the only risk factor were mistaken or dishonest... even accepting that there are risks of infection from unprotected oral sex, the calculated risk is so small that it's like saying that taking the bus to work is dangerous.

Nature has designed us guys to be sluts... monogamy is society's way to tame male sexuality so that men can be fathers and husbands... so, unless we plan on procreating, there is no need for us gay guys to conform to the straight model... we should enjoy our sexuality without letting imposed "morality" or HIV paranoia castrate us... if you ALWAYS play safe for anal sex, you don't have to worry about unfaithful boyfriends, HIV+ sex partners, a wild night at the sauna, or however you want to celebrate your sexuality and physicality.
12. 2009-02-10 05:20  
bah, big discovery. there's no zero % of risk in anything. We might even get hit by a thunder, or be swallowed by an earthquake.
we can just be reasonably cautions, that's all, and not doing stupid excessive things with people we don't know at all. if i ever get a condom in my mouth due to paranoia, i swear i'll bite it as revenge. it gives me chills.
13. 2009-02-10 12:07  
Speaking of paranoia, some of my friends just will not eat sashimi, raw oysters and/or street food in Thailand or other developing countries no matter how tasty! I've eaten all of those a million times and never once got sick...
14. 2009-02-11 00:10  
I wish people wouldn't fall into the trap of making a disease a basis for moral condemnation. The virus doesn't care who it infects. It's a medical issue.

It doesn't matter whether you've a monogamous tendency, or one that makes you want to spread your seed wide and far (and I think guys are split 50: 50 on this according to the research), everyone should always follow safer sex procedures.

I think it's also worth remembering that many more people probably die from smoking, and heart disease caused by unhealthy lifestyles and diet, both avoidable.


15. 2009-02-11 08:38  
The focus of this research is frustrating, since it seems more concerned with establishing an accurate estimate of per-act transmission risk -- which is needed as a variable in an epidemiological equation -- than establishing relevant qualities of occasions when oral transmission occurred, which is important for educators to advise our audience members about circumstances when they should consider alternatives to oral sex.
16. 2009-02-11 16:37  
To Post #14 steveuk: Love yr statement...if only ppl cld pay more attention to their bad diet & lifestyle habits instead of obsessing over other people's bedroom morals...lol
17. 2009-02-12 04:19  
Anyone who claims to have gotten HIV from oral sex is in denial.. they don't want to admit they were bottom and had unprotected sex.
18. 2009-02-12 10:04  
Some people seem to just want to discredit assertions made by those who believe they DID get HIV from oral sex so as to make them selves feel confident their sexual practices are 100% safe they are obviously the ones in denial, they don't know the individual case histories of those that believe such and seem to be covering for their own basic fears or simply want to continue encouraging others to continue to suck their syphilis infested stumps, sorry folks there is no real 100% safe sex there is always elements of risk when sleeping with strangers and not knowing their sexual history, sure there is safer sex practices but I repeat "no 100% guarantee" risks either from faulty condoms, to cuts in mouths etc. are self evident.
Celibacy till finding suitable companionship IS an option especially for those who value the quality of their life.
19. 2009-02-14 04:58  
there are increasing numbers of reports of unknown transmissions.
please read:
www.immaculateinfection.com

20. 2009-06-05 15:45  
I personally know of a few people (about 5) who insist they got HIV from oral sex. Many of them took cum in the mouth.

I don't think they are lying. One of them admitted unprotected anal sex and he tested negative a year later. So if he is willing to admit that, then I don't see why he would lie.

ALso, if a person says they got it from oral sex, then it would make their future partners less confident to be with them right? Isn't easier to say, "you can only get it by being a bottom so if I have HIV, you can still blow me?"

I mean, what is the lie here. That oral sex has NO risk - unprotected anal is the ONLY risk? Or that guys who got it while still having safer sex are lying because of shame.

Perhaps, there is a some investment about keeping the "sex party" going when people say "oral sex is totally safe". Especially from certain poz HIV prevention workers?

But on a less judgmental not, I think most HIV prevention workers would rather not discuss oral sex HIV transmission to openly, for fear that so many men would just say "fuck it" may as well do anal without a condom if "nothing is safe".

Though, I think the latter reasoning -though I have heard it said before -belittles gay men by assuming we are all fatalists who are in it mainly for please. Sure some guys are, but many more of us aren't - we have sex for the connection.

BTW I once sucked off a guy in a bathhouse while he wore a condom. (He insisted). It was very hot. He felt enough of the action. And I felt no fear of any disease - especially syphilis or herpes - which increased my enjoyment. Condoms come in flavours too and polyurethane ones don't have a taste at all and the getter can feel almost everything. Plastic condom is the way to go for oral.

...unless you like the thought of having syphilis in your throat?








21. 2009-06-05 22:07  
Oh and I just want to add. It's all about viral load. If a guy has high viral load when you suck him - maybe he is in the window period - then the chances of getting HIV from oral sex are going to be much higher than if he has a low viral load. That is one of the reasons that health people are urging us in North America to get tested and then test and then treated if poz, so as to lower the viral load in poz people. (whether the health folks REALLY want to have people live longer without side effects or death from the meds is a whole other debate - but I do know people who have gained at least 10 to 15 years while on the meds - but not without side effects; sometimes horrible and disfiguring ones)

SO don't just go down on anyone thinking you are in the clear unless you know his status and/or viral load. And even then tests are only every 3 t six months....
22. 2010-06-30 21:46  
wanna read something stupid and unlikely to happen? lol
When you have found that special someone before you guys gonna have sex or even sucking each others...you both must be tested for all STDs including HIV.
And stay together for the rest of your life..makesure you both dont meet any other guys NO EXCEPTION lol
YOu can have bareback swallow cum and all the rest hehehe

請先登入再使用此功能。

請選擇新聞及專欄版本

精選個人檔案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

讚好

合作夥伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement