Introduction

Implications of lubricant use in men having sex with men (MSM) are poorly characterized, particularly associations with sexual behavior and rectal sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk.

Aim

We sought to clarify covariates associated with lubrication type including differing sexual preferences and rectal STI prevalence.

Methods

Primary English-speaking individuals ≥18 years old visiting San Francisco City Clinic (SFCC) between April and May of 2018 who endorsed lubricant use during receptive anal sex within the last 3 months were studied. Associations between lubrication type used and collected covariates were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for continuous variables and Chi-squared test for categorical variables. We used logistic regression to examine the association between lubrication type and rectal STI test result.

Main outcome measures

Rectal STI test positivity.

Results

From all enrolled participants, 179 completed the survey and endorsed use of a lubricant during receptive anal sex within the last 3 months. Silicone lubricant users had the most sexual partners in the last 3 months (13 [mean] ± 30 [SD], P= .0003) and were most likely to have a history of gonorrhea. Oil-based lubricant users had the most partners with whom they had receptive anal sex in the last 3 months (7 ± 6, P= .03). Water-based lubricant users most commonly used a condom in their last sexual encounter and had the fewest sexual partners in the last 3 months (4 ± 4, P= .0003). Spit/saliva lubricant use was associated with positive rectal STI result.

Conclusion

Silicone and oil-based lubricant users were more likely to report condomless receptive anal sex and to have a history of gonorrhea while spit/saliva lubricant use associated with positive rectal STI acquisition. Lee A, Gaither TW, Langston ME, et al. Lubrication Practices and Receptive Anal Sex: Implications for STI Transmission and Prevention. Sex Med 2021;9:100341.

Exposure to ambient air pollution has significant adverse health effects; however, whether air pollution is associated with urological cancer is largely unknown. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis with epidemiological studies, showing that a 5 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 exposure is associated with a 6%, 7%, and 9%, increased risk of overall urological, bladder, and kidney cancer, respectively; and a 10 μg/m3 increase in NO2 is linked to a 3%, 4%, and 4% higher risk of overall urological, bladder, and prostate cancer, respectively. Were these associations to reflect causal relationships, lowering PM2.5 levels to 5.8 μg/m3 could reduce the age-standardized rate of urological cancer by 1.5 ~ 27/100,000 across the 15 countries with the highest PM2.5 level from the top 30 countries with the highest urological cancer burden. Implementing global health policies that can improve air quality could potentially reduce the risk of urologic cancer and alleviate its burden.