Performance of Male Condoms When Used With and Without a Silicone Placebo Vaginal Ring-A Randomized, Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND: The dapivirine vaginal ring reduced the risk of HIV infection by approximately 30% in Phase III trials. To ensure higher levels of protection against HIV and sexually transmitted infections, women should be counseled to use condoms when using the vaginal ring. This article evaluates the compatibility of male condoms with a placebo vaginal ring. METHODS: This was a 2-period crossover, randomized, noninferiority trial. Couples in 2 sites in the United States were randomized to male condom use, with and without a placebo silicone vaginal ring, and asked to use 4 male condoms in each period. The primary noninferiority end points were total clinical failure and their component failure events (clinical breakage or slippage). Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each failure mode and differences in performance of the 2 periods using the male condom without the ring as reference. Noninferiority was defined using a 3% margin at the 5% significance level. Safety and acceptability were also assessed. RESULTS: Seventy couples were enrolled, and 68 completed the trial with a total of 275 male condoms used in each period. Total condom clinical failure rates were 2.2% and 4.0% in the presence and absence of the vaginal ring, respectively, with a difference of -1.9% (95% confidence interval: -5.3% to 1.5%), thereby demonstrating noninferiority when used with the ring. There was no difference in safety between the 2 periods. DISCUSSION: Concurrent use of the placebo silicone vaginal ring had no significant effect on male condom functionality or safety outcomes.

Performance and Acceptability of the FC2 Female Condom When Used With and Without a Silicone Placebo Vaginal Ring-A Randomized, Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND: The silicone Dapivirine Vaginal Ring 25 mg, has been developed to provide an additional HIV prevention option for women. If approved for use, women will always be counselled to use condoms when using the vaginal ring for maximum protection. This paper evaluates the compatibility of female condoms with the ring. METHODS: This was a 2-period crossover, randomized noninferiority trial. Couples in 2 sites in the United States of America were randomized to FC2 Female Condom (FC2) with and without a placebo silicone ring and asked to use 4 female condoms in each period. The primary noninferiority endpoint was the clinical failure rate during intercourse or withdrawal (self-reported clinical breakage, slippage, misdirection, and invagination). Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each failure mode and differences in performance of the 2 periods, using the female condom without the ring as reference. Noninferiority was defined using an 8% margin at the 5% significance level. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-one couples were enrolled and 79 completed the trial using a total of 596 female condoms (297 and 299 with/without a ring inserted, respectively). Total female condom clinical failure was 14.1% and 15.7% in the presence and absence of a ring, respectively, with a difference of -2.1% (95% confidence interval: -7.8% to 3.6%), thereby demonstrating noninferiority when used with the ring. There were no differences in safety and tolerability between the 2 periods. DISCUSSION: Concurrent use of the placebo silicone vaginal ring had no significant effect on female condom functionality or safety outcomes.

Comparison of self-reported female condom failure and biomarker-confirmed semen exposure.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether rates of self-reported Woman's Condom (WC) clinical failure and semen exposure from a functionality study are comparable to results from a contraceptive efficacy substudy. STUDY DESIGN: We structured our comparative analysis to assess whether functionality studies might credibly supplant contraceptive efficacy studies when evaluating new female condom products. Couples not at risk of pregnancy in the functionality (breakage/slippage/invagination/penile misdirection) study and women in the contraceptive efficacy study completed condom self-reports and collected precoital and postcoital vaginal samples for up to four uses of the WC. Both studies used nearly identical self-report questions and the same self-sampling procedures and laboratory for prostatic specific antigen (PSA), a well-studied semen biomarker. We compared condom failure and semen exposure proportions using generalized estimating equations methods accounting for within-couple correlation. RESULTS: Ninety-five (95) efficacy substudy participants used 334 WC and 408 functionality participants used 1572 WC. Based on self-report, 19.2% WC (64 condoms) clinically failed in the efficacy substudy compared to 12.3% WC (194 condoms) in the functionality study (p=.03). Of the 207 WC efficacy uses with evaluable postcoital PSA levels, 14.5% (30 uses) resulted in semen exposure compared to 14.2% (184 uses) of the 1293 evaluable WC functionality study uses. CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating the ability of an experimental condom to prevent semen exposure, the rate of clinical condom failure reported by participants risking pregnancy in an efficacy substudy was significantly higher than the rate reported by participants not risking pregnancy in a functionality study. The rate of semen exposure, assessed by an objective biomarker was nearly identical for the two studies. IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest that an objective marker of semen exposure in functionality studies could provide a reasonable alternative to contraceptive efficacy studies in evaluating risk of unintended pregnancy and inferring protection from sexually transmitted infection than condom failure rates based on self-report.

Progesterone receptor modulator for emergency contraception: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy and adverse effects of CDB-2914, a new progesterone receptor modulator, to levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blinded noninferiority trial, enrolling healthy women seeking emergency contraception within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 50 mg of CDB-2914, plus a placebo 12 hours later or two doses of 0.75 mg of levonorgestrel taken 12 hours apart. Follow-up was scheduled 5 to 7 days after the expected onset of the next menstrual period. Posttreatment pregnancy was established by a positive urine test at follow-up and confirmed by quantitative serum beta-hCG. Daily diaries were used from the time of emergency contraception use until next menses to record adverse effects and sexual activity. RESULTS: Product efficacy was evaluable in 775 of CDB-2914 users and 774 of levonorgestrel users. Pregnancies occurred in 7 (0.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.2-1.6%) and 13 (1.7%, 95% confidence interval 0.8-2.6%) women, respectively. Based on the estimated cycle day of unprotected intercourse, 85% and 69% of anticipated pregnancies, respectively, were averted. Nausea was reported by a somewhat greater percentage of CDB-2914 than levonorgestrel users (29% compared with 24%, P=.03), but the distribution of other adverse effects was similar in both groups. Women in both groups experienced considerable variation in menstrual cycle length as compared with their reported individual normal cycle lengths. CONCLUSION: CDB-2914 is at least as effective as levonorgestrel in preventing pregnancies after unprotected intercourse and has a similar side effect profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Patterns of emergency contraception use by age and ethnicity from a randomized trial comparing advance provision and information only.

PURPOSE: This study measures the impact of the advance provision of emergency contraception (EC) among family planning clients at 31 clinics in California. METHODS: We randomized over 9000 clients to receive a packet containing either two 0.75-mg levonorgestrel pills (Plan B) or an identical packet containing EC information only. We conducted follow-up interviews on a subset of 1130 clients selected to optimize the age and ethnicity distribution. The interviews collected information on EC use, contraception, risk-taking behaviors and EC attitudes. RESULTS: Clients who received EC in advance were significantly more likely to have used EC (19%) than women who received information only (12%) (p=.0009). There were no significant differences between the contraceptive and risk-taking behavior of the two treatment groups. Study respondents of all ages and ethnicities expressed positive attitudes about EC. Nevertheless, even with EC on-hand, many respondents who reported unprotected intercourse decided not to take EC. CONCLUSION: More research should be done on the reasons women decide not to use EC even when readily available.

Contraceptive efficacy, safety, fit, and acceptability of a single-size diaphragm developed with end-user input.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate contraceptive efficacy, safety, acceptability, and fit of a single-size diaphragm used with contraceptive gel. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter trial in which 450 couples used the single-size diaphragm, 300 randomized to acid-buffering gel and 150 to nonoxynol-9, for at least 190 days and six menstrual cycles. Visits were at enrollment and after menstrual cycles 1, 3, and 6. Study outcomes included pregnancy probability, safety, acceptability, and fit. Pregnancy and safety were compared with an historical control group who used a standard diaphragm with these gels. RESULTS: Most (439/450 [98%]) women could be fitted with the single-size diaphragm. A total of 421 of 450 (94%) provided follow-up. The 35 study pregnancies yielded 6-month Kaplan-Meier cumulative typical use pregnancy probabilities per 100 women with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 10.4 (6.9-14.0) for all users and 9.6 (5.5-13.6) and 12.5 (5.4-19.5) with acid-buffering gel and nonoxynol-9, respectively. Historical control analysis yielded a propensity score-adjusted estimate of this pregnancy probability for the single-size diaphragm of 11.3 compared with 10.7 per 100 women for the standard diaphragm ([rounded] difference 0.7, 95% CI -3.6 to 4.9). Approximately half (51%) reported at least one urogenital event but compared favorably to the standard diaphragm in historical control analysis. Most (282/342 [82%]) liked the diaphragm. Results suggest that if provided by a clinician, 94% (95% CI 92-96%) could insert, correctly position, and remove the diaphragm. CONCLUSION: The single-size diaphragm was safe, as effective as a standard diaphragm, and acceptable when used with contraceptive gel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00578877.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a nonlatex condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.

CONTEXT: To reduce unintended pregnancy and HIV infection, it is critical to develop reliable male condoms that will attract consumers who reject conventional latex condoms. METHODS: In a prospective clinical trial conducted in 1998-2000, 830 monogamous couples were randomized in equal numbers to use either a nonlatex condom or a commercial natural latex condom for six months as their only method of birth control. Couples completed detailed reports for the first five condom uses and recorded intercourse and condom use in coital diaries. Pregnancy rates associated with typical and consistent condom use were calculated using life-table analysis. Rates of clinical failure (condom breakage or slippage) were determined for the first five condom uses. RESULTS: During the first five uses, the nonlatex condom had a higher frequency of breakage or slippage during intercourse or withdrawal (4.0%) than latex condoms (1.3%); the breakage rate for the nonlatex condom was about eight times that of latex condoms. The six-cycle typical-use pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between users of nonlatex (10.8%) and latex condoms (6.4%). The six-cycle consistent-use pregnancy rate was higher for nonlatex condom users than for latex condom users (4.9% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The data present strong indirect support for public health messages that promote the use of latex condoms and, for individuals who cannot or are unwilling to use latex condoms, the use of nonlatex condoms for prevention of pregnancy and disease.

Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to measure semen exposure resulting from male condom failures: implications for contraceptive efficacy and the prevention of sexually transmitted disease.

Accurate measurement of semen exposure resulting from condom failures can refine public health messages and improve predictions of condom efficacy in preventing pregnancy and HIV transmission. Eight hundred and thirty couples enrolled in a condom efficacy study were asked to collect a baseline sample of ejaculate from the inside of the first study condom they used and to collect a postcoital vaginal sample whenever a study condom broke or slipped off during intercourse. All samples were quantitatively tested for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a substance found only in human semen, using rocket immunoelectrophoresis, and inspected microscopically for presence of sperm. Sixty-eight baseline ejaculate samples collected from the inside of the first study condom by couples who subsequently experienced a condom failure averaged 13.4 microg PSA per swab and 79% of the samples averaged one or more sperm per high power field (hpf). Seventy-nine postcoital vaginal samples obtained after a condom break averaged 5.7 microg PSA per swab and only 38% averaged one or more sperm per hpf. The PSA results indicated a 50% reduction in semen exposure compared to baseline levels (p = 0.0001). Seventeen samples obtained after a condom slip-off averaged 2.5 microg PSA per swab and none of the samples averaged one or more sperm per hpf. The PSA results indicated an 80% reduction in semen exposure compared to baseline levels (p = 0.0001). Our results suggest that even condoms that fail reduce the risk of pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted disease compared to unprotected intercourse. We also used PSA results to adjust a model designed to predict consistent-use pregnancy rates from condom breakage and slippage data.

Effectiveness of the male latex condom: combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Although public health programs invest heavily in the male latex condom, its efficacy in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease has been based primarily on in vitro and retrospective studies. METHODS: We combine the results from two randomized, controlled contraceptive efficacy trials that used commercial latex condoms brands (Ramses Sensitol, LifeStyles, Trojan-Enz) in the control arms. Combining data from the two studies, we obtained longitudinal data covering 3526 menstrual cycles contributed by approximately 800 couples who used latex condoms exclusively for up to six menstrual cycles. Both trials also collected 3715 detailed breakage and slippage reports from the first five study condom uses. The second trial also tested 243 postcoital vaginal samples collected after the first study condom use for the presence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and spermatazoa. RESULTS: The combined clinical breakage rate for the first five condom uses was 0.4% for the three latex brands and the combined clinical slippage rate was 1.1%. The combined six-cycle typical-use pregnancy rate for the latex condoms was 7.0% (95% confidence interval 5.0-9.0). The combined six-cycle consistent-use pregnancy rate was 1.0% (95% confidence interval 0.0-2.1). PSA was detected in only 1.2% of postcoital vaginal samples collected after the first use of an intact study condom. There were no differences in performance or efficacy among the three latex brands tested. CONCLUSIONS: The male latex condoms rarely broke or slipped off during intercourse and provided high contraceptive efficacy, especially when used consistently. Risk of semen leakage from intact condoms was very low.

Male tolerance study of 1% C31G.

BACKGROUND: C31G is being studied as a vaginal contraceptive and microbicide. This study was conducted to ensure that male partners of the women in future trials of C31G will not be subjected to an undue risk of penile irritation. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blinded, single-center Phase I study in circumcised and uncircumcised men to assess penile irritation, safety and acceptability of seven consecutive daily doses of 1.0% C31G compared with a marketed spermicide, Extra Strength Gynol II(R) (3% nonoxynol-9) (ES Gynol II). Each participant was instructed to apply the study product to his penis at bedtime, to wash it off 6-10 h later, and to record any symptoms on a diary card. At the follow-up visit, a genital examination was performed and participants were again asked about adverse events and to complete an acceptability questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 36 men enrolled, 12.5% of C31G users and 16.7% of Extra Strength Gynol II users reported product-related adverse events (AEs). All product-related AEs were considered mild by the investigator, except for one in the ES Gynol II group. Both products were acceptable. CONCLUSION: The manner in which the products were used in this study is not the route by which men will be exposed to such products in actual use, and results should be considered in this light. Based on the observations in this study, C31G appears to be at least as safe and acceptable for male penile exposure as the marketed product ES Gynol II.

Prostate-specific antigen as a biomarker of condom failure: comparison of three laboratory assays and self-reported condom use problems in a randomized trial of female condom performance.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a biomarker for semen exposure, may provide a more objective measure of condom failure than subject self-reports. Methods for measuring PSA vary and their comparability with respect to assessing condom performance has not been adequately evaluated. This study compared results from three different PSA assays of vaginal samples collected by subjects in a randomized clinical trial which compared the performance of female condoms. STUDY DESIGN: We selected 30 pairs of pre- and post-coital vaginal samples from subjects who reported condom functionality problems or whose original PSA assay was positive. Samples were retested using three different PSA assays [quantitative enzyme-linked immunoassay (EIA), rocket immune-electrophoresis (RIE) and chromatographic immunoassay (CIA)]. We compared the proportion of condom uses where the post-coital PSA result indicated semen exposure for each of the three assays. RESULTS: Despite varying levels of sensitivity, the results from all three assays were remarkably consistent. Self-reported condom failures did not correlate well with positive PSA results, suggesting that exclusive reliance on either PSA or user self-report may be inadequate for assessing condom functionality. CONCLUSION: In combination with user self-report of condom failure, PSA testing provides a reliable, objective marker of condom functionality. Studies based on PSA testing may improve on conventional contraceptive clinical trials by offering a more direct assessment of a condom product's ability to prevent semen exposure.

Couples' acceptability of the SILCS diaphragm for microbicide delivery.

BACKGROUND: Disposable plastic applicators used in microbicide gel studies are expensive and have a negative environmental impact. The SILCS diaphragm is a barrier contraceptive that could offer a reusable delivery system. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-six couples in this randomized, cross-over study evaluated single- and double-sided gel delivery from a SILCS diaphragm compared with gel from an applicator. Couples used each gel scenario during two acts of intercourse and completed acceptability questionnaires after each. RESULTS: All three scenarios received favorable ratings for ease of application, acceptability and perceived effectiveness. Both female and male participants tended to rate the gel applicator significantly more favorably than either SILCS gel delivery scenarios for all attributes except messiness/leakage and effectiveness. Additionally, about 60% of female participants and about half of male participants preferred the gel applicator to either of the gel delivery systems using SILCS. The preference for the SILCS scenario for pregnancy protection was statistically significant for both sexes. Male participants were also significantly more likely to prefer the SILCS single-sided delivery system to the gel applicator for protection from sexually transmitted infection. CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, participants found the gel applicator to be more acceptable than either single- or double-sided gel delivery from a SILCS diaphragm. Further research of the SILCS as a microbicide delivery system should be implemented to assess its acceptability among study populations that reflect diverse potential user groups such as women and men from both low and high HIV prevalence settings including HIV-positive populations and with and without experience using female barrier methods.

Safety and acceptability of penile application of 2 candidate topical microbicides: BufferGel and PRO 2000 Gel: 3 randomized trials in healthy low-risk men and HIV-positive men.

OBJECTIVES: To assess safety and acceptability of penile application of BufferGel (ReProtect, Baltimore, MD) and PRO 2000 Gel (Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, MA)compared with placebo among low-risk sexually abstinent men and HIV-positive sexually abstinent men. DESIGN: Seventy-two healthy low-risk men (36 uncircumcised) and 25 HIV-positive men (12 uncircumcised) were enrolled in 3 double-blind, single-center studies as follows: 36 low-risk men in a study of BufferGel and K-Y Jelly (McNeil-PPC, Skillman, NJ) placebo; 36 low-risk men in a study of PRO 2000 Gel and vehicle placebo; and 25 HIV-positive men in a crossover study of BufferGel, PRO 2000 Gel, and K-Y Jelly placebo. METHODS: Participants applied product to the penis on 7 consecutive nights, kept study diaries, and were then interviewed and examined. Urine was tested for inflammation by leukocyte esterase. RESULTS: No serious adverse events (AEs) or urethral inflammation was detected. During use of BufferGel, 3 low-risk men (13%) reported 6 AEs and 2 HIV-positive men (8%) reported 3 AEs. During use of PRO 2000 Gel, 4 low-risk men (17%) reported 6 AEs and 1 HIV-positive participant (4%) had 1 AE. AE rates during use of BufferGel and PRO 2000 Gel use were not significantly different from rates observed during placebo. One low-risk man (4%) would object to his partners using BufferGel and 3 (13%) to PRO 2000 Gel. Two HIV-positive men (8%) reported they would object to partners using either BufferGel or PRO 2000 Gel. CONCLUSIONS: Daily application of BufferGel and PRO 2000 Gel directly to the penis consecutively for 7 days was generally safe and well tolerated among healthy low-risk men and HIV-positive men. These microbicides have acceptable safety profiles to proceed with planned phase 3 vaginal microbicide trials.