Study Shows Condoms Reduce Transmission by 96% Per Act (male to female)

[lexyz22]

Editorial source: http://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/stds/news/online/%7B31ed8b2f-7ebc-493d-861f-94056e5a294f%7D/risk-for-hsv-2-transmission-using-condoms-associated-with-gender

Scientific Journal Source: Magaret AS, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;doi:10.1093/cid/civ908.

^^^^^

Found that use of condoms for 911 couples over the course of 1000 sex acts (however they measured this) was 1.3 transmissions aka: 96% Reduction.

Surely this is a larger percentage than what we have previously been led to believe?

Thats an incredibly low percentage of transmission, in a controlled study. They found that men often shed mostly from the penile shaft, which is why they are so effective if the male partner is sero-positive. 

Add anti virals into this study and i bet you would have a 0% transmission (just a hunch)

Thoughts?

Edited January 2, 2016 by lexyz22

[WilsoInAus]

I feel the country plays a role regarding education and sexual practices. I'd wonder if outbreaks or pending outbreaks are fully avoided! In developed countries, condom use means more males are infected outside the penile area initially. However studies show about 70% reduction male to female transmission through condom use in the US.

[Free73]

I always thought the 30% or 50% reduction statistic that gets thrown around was BS. I'm sure that condom use is highly effective in preventing spread of HSV2. Sure there may be a low percentage of people that do transmit while using condoms, but I have a hunch that the figure is very, very low and I also have a hunch that many people who are infected will lie about 'always' having used a condom which skews the perception that condoms are not as effective as they are.

It's  a shame because it would perhaps lead to less stigma around the virus if it was more widely acknowledged that condoms are more effective than perhaps the 'experts' suggest

[Terrell]

Infection outside the penile may be my situation because my outbreak was on my left lower scrotum base of penis always still wonder since I take antiviral can I grant my wife the unprotected sex she desire?

[elnino]

This is an interesting report. Thank you for posting, @lexyz22

I agree with the others that the effectiveness of condoms for male-to-female transmission is much greater than some say. I can say that I had sex for 4 years with a negative female, always using condoms and taking acyclovir, and it was NOT transmitted.

[Terrell]

1 hour ago, elnino said:

This is an interesting report. Thank you for posting, @lexyz22

I agree with the others that the effectiveness of condoms for male-to-female transmission is much greater than some say. I can say that I had sex for 4 years with a negative female, always using condoms and taking acyclovir, and it was NOT transmitted.

Did you ever have unprotected sex and not transmitt

[lexyz22]

9 hours ago, Terrell said:

Did you ever have unprotected sex and not transmitt

I know this is the flipside (female to male), but i had sex with my girlfriend probably around 50-100 times before i contracted it from her. The reason was due to a) She stopped taking antivirals and b) My foreskin got cut which allowed an open wound to rub against her vaginal mucosa 

[Terrell]

22 hours ago, mcmich said:

The drug was tested with Acyclovir. The two drugs have different modes but worked in a synergic fashion to drive HSV to undetectable levels. Only tested in animals (mice?) from what I read.

The phase 3 trials were for the drugs use against CMV, another double stranded dna virus that also belongs to the herpes virus group. Think there are 8 herpes viruses.....

 

 

13 hours ago, elnino said:

This is an interesting report. Thank you for posting, @lexyz22

I agree with the others that the effectiveness of condoms for male-to-female transmission is much greater than some say. I can say that I had sex for 4 years with a negative female, always using condoms and taking acyclovir, and it was NOT transmitted.

 

20 hours ago, stronghands87 said:

There was a guy promoting that on here a little while back. I'm actually friends  with him on Facebook. I never tried it, but supposedly he has been outbreak free for over a year after doing his parasite protocol.

 

1 hour ago, lexyz22 said:

I know this is the flipside (female to male), but i had sex with my girlfriend probably around 50-100 times before i contracted it from her. The reason was due to a) She stopped taking antivirals and b) My foreskin got cut which allowed an open wound to rub against her vaginal mucosa 

Okay I understand so antivirals really helped prevent transmission from her to you until she stopped 

[lexyz22]

34 minutes ago, Terrell said:

 

 

 

Okay I understand so antivirals really helped prevent transmission from her to you until she stopped 

Yep.

I strongly believe if condoms are used every time and you use antivirals, the chance of transmission is somewhere around 0.5-1% if that. I think alot of the stories on here are from people who have unprotected sex with people who dont realise they have it, or have an active outbreak.

I mean lets face it, condoms suck in terms of feeling.... but I've learnt my lesson the hard way, as have many people here.

[Terrell]

4 hours ago, lexyz22 said:

Yep.

I strongly believe if condoms are used every time and you use antivirals, the chance of transmission is somewhere around 0.5-1% if that. I think alot of the stories on here are from people who have unprotected sex with people who dont realise they have it, or have an active outbreak.

I mean lets face it, condoms suck in terms of feeling.... but I've learnt my lesson the hard way, as have many people here.

Yeah I used to always wear condooms then one day I didn't and boom can't trust nobody I just don't want to transmit it that's all

[bayern77]

This is big news! however,  I wonder why most females on here  who  got the virus, still got it when their partner were wearing protection.  It  seems this study is very legit, but a 96% is  hard to believe.  For example,  This study was done for Hsv-2(higher shedding %)  but some others have acquired Gsvh1 (low shedding %) while their partners were wearing protection and no antivirals .  Due to the low percentage of shedding with Gsvh1 it is hard to imagine that a condom would protect someone from getting  it.  I'm not saying you are 100% safe but 96% seems extremely high, but yet the vast majority that got Gsvh1 got it when their partners wore a condom correctly.  However, this is very interesting.  

Edited January 3, 2016 by bayern77

[mcmich]

Condoms are much lower protection...think I posted in past they are 40-60%......not sure on exact number.....

Anyway, they reason guys get it from girls is that the condom does not protect the base of your penis.....so the base of your shaft is unprotected. Also, if a girl gets on top and rides you...she is rubbing the unprotected base of your penis and stomach. So unless you stop going in before you run out of condom you can catch it. No cuts needed.

Wrestlers get herpes on their bodies. It is a bad problem. I posted on this also. Wrestlers are resting their face on opponents backs, arms, etc....skin is much thicker, yet it is a epidemic in the wrestling community. One University requires their wrestlers take antivirals all season long. Posted on this also.

I got it from oral sex performed on me...no cold sores present. 50% of all new genital infections are caused by HSV1. Posted on this too. 

 

[sickornotsick]

So I don't have symptoms on my genitals (penis/testicles)  but rather my thighs and groin area above genitals. My guess is this study doesn't apply to me because I most likely shed in the areas AROUND the actual genitals. Agree? Disagree?

Edited January 3, 2016 by sickornotsick

[stronghands87]

  Lol wait why was I quoted?

Edited January 3, 2016 by stronghands87
wrong thread

[lexyz22]

1 hour ago, mcmich said:

Condoms are much lower protection...think I posted in past they are 40-60%......not sure on exact number.....

 

I highly doubt the guys in this study fluked their results. I mean yeah i understand your point about the base of the penis, but the base of the penis doesnt have mucosa on it which is the main area of transmission. I'd have to look deeper into their research methods but im sure the couples analyzed weren't doing anything special to achieve that number. 

96% does seem high, but in my opinion, 40-60% seems very low. 

I think people in this community get stuck on certain numbers that get spread around, this is fresh research and ok, while it seems high, even if we take an average of both these studies (you failed to mention the study that provided 40-60% by the way), but for arguments sake lets say between 60 and 90%, so 75%reduction, i can believe that fully.

Not getting at you by the way, but it annoys me some of the stats that get thrown around.

[elnino]

23 hours ago, Terrell said:

Did you ever have unprotected sex and not transmitt

Never had unprotected sex. However, she performed plenty of unprotected oral on me and never contracted it on her mouth.

[Terrell]

51 minutes ago, elnino said:

Never had unprotected sex. However, she performed plenty of unprotected oral on me and never contracted it on her mouth.

Sorry not to be nosey but you said she performed oral and never contracted it wow 

[mcmich]

You can contract Herpes any where on the body!!!! Your arms, back, neck and face (outside of lips) are not mucosa, yet the disease is still spread to these areas. See links!

http://std.about.com/od/herpes/a/gladiatorum.htm

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/10/04/wrestlers-fight-%E2%80%98mat-herpes%E2%80%99-infection

From the community forum condoms reduce transmission 30-50%. Studies vary, seen lower, seen higher.....just don't feel like finding them all again. Posted them in the past, several times and like I said...was going off of memory, but at least it was not gut feel! Easy to google and find the stuff......

https://herpesopportunity.com/downloads/herpes-opportunity-disclosure-handout.pdf

[Lukeherpwalker]

Those are old crossover studies... 96 percent is the most up 3 date 

[valleynovascotia]

On 1/3/2016 at 6:16 PM, mcmich said:

Condoms are much lower protection...think I posted in past they are 40-60%......not sure on exact number.....

Anyway, they reason guys get it from girls is that the condom does not protect the base of your penis.....so the base of your shaft is unprotected. Also, if a girl gets on top and rides you...she is rubbing the unprotected base of your penis and stomach. So unless you stop going in before you run out of condom you can catch it. No cuts needed.

Wrestlers get herpes on their bodies. It is a bad problem. I posted on this also. Wrestlers are resting their face on opponents backs, arms, etc....skin is much thicker, yet it is a epidemic in the wrestling community. One University requires their wrestlers take antivirals all season long. Posted on this also.

I got it from oral sex performed on me...no cold sores present. 50% of all new genital infections are caused by HSV1. Posted on this too. 

 

Is there a type of shorts that you could use if you want to do mma I want to get back into it but paranoid that I might give it too someone.

[valleynovascotia]

Is this really true about 96% effective in preventing transmission? I was told transmission can be spread anywhere through the boxer shorts region.

[Lukeherpwalker]

On 1/3/2016 at 4:48 PM, sickornotsick said:

So I don't have symptoms on my genitals (penis/testicles)  but rather my thighs and groin area above genitals. My guess is this study doesn't apply to me because I most likely shed in the areas AROUND the actual genitals. Agree? Disagree?

Only shed from lesions in 

This area....if no sores lesion u only shed from penis.... Other skin is to thick 

[Divon]

Dont forget that its very important to mention that you are talking about per year transmission.

Studies that measure per year transmission do not translate to how much the condom blocks per act.

If you dont understand this lets change the number of times that each couple in the study has sex from 100 to infinte. The study will now tell us that condoms block 0%. 

So obviously if it reduces the risk by lets say 50% per year, it will reduce much more per act.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Divon

[WilsoInAus]

36 minutes ago, Divon said:

Dont forget that its very important to mention that you are talking about per year transmission.

Studies that measure per year transmission do not translate to how much the condom blocks per act.

If you dont understand this lets change the number of times that each couple in the study has sex from 100 to infinte. The study will now tell us that condoms block 0%. 

So obviously if it reduces the risk by lets say 50% per year, it will reduce much more per act.

I like your thinking, I do need to point out though for small transmission rates a 'force' that reduces the annual transmission (equivalent to 100 episodes for example) by 50% also reduces the per episode transmission by just over 50%.

For example to reduce an annual transmission probability from 8% to 4%, the per episode transmission chance (assuming 100 episodes) reduces by 52%.

{Given a transmission rate of t, then for small t the annual chance of infection equals 1 - (1-t)^100 and is approximately equal to ( t x 100). Hence to halve the annual chance, you halve the (t) being the per episode transmission chance.}

[Lukeherpwalker]

7 hours ago, WilsoInAus said:

I like your thinking, I do need to point out though for small transmission rates a 'force' that reduces the annual transmission (equivalent to 100 episodes for example) by 50% also reduces the per episode transmission by just over 50%.

For example to reduce an annual transmission probability from 8% to 4%, the per episode transmission chance (assuming 100 episodes) reduces by 52%.

{Given a transmission rate of t, then for small t the annual chance of infection equals 1 - (1-t)^100 and is approximately equal to ( t x 100). Hence to halve the annual chance, you halve the (t) being the per episode transmission chance.}

So 96% per act equals around 96% per year ?