Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health (MatCH), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lancet Glob Health. 2013 Sep;1(3):e146-52. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70054-8. Epub 2013 Aug 23.
New designs of female condom have been developed to reduce costs and improve acceptability. To secure regulatory approvals, clinical studies are needed to verify performance. We aimed to assess the functional performance and safety of three new condom types-the Woman's Condom, the VA worn-of-women (wow) Condom Feminine, and the Cupid female condom-against the existing second-generation female condom (FC2).
We did a randomised controlled, non-inferiority, four-period crossover trial at three sites in Shanghai, China, and one site in Durban, South Africa, between May 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2012. Participants aged 18-45 years who were sexually active, monogamous, not pregnant, and not sex workers, were eligible for inclusion if they were literate, had no known allergies to the study products; used a reliable, non-barrier method of contraception, and had no visible or reported sexually transmitted infections. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence with a Williams square design of size four to assign patients (1:1:1:1) to the FC2 control device, or the Woman's, VA wow, or Cupid condoms, with 12 potential allocations. Randomisation was stratified by site. Participants were not masked to condom type, but allocation was concealed from study investigators. The primary non-inferiority endpoints were total clinical failure and total female condom failure, with a non-inferiority margin of 3%. Women were asked to use five of each condom type and were interviewed after use of each type. We also assessed safety data for each type. We did both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses. We calculated frequencies and percentages for each failure event and estimated differences in performance with a generalised estimating equation model. This study is registered, number DOH-27-0113-4271.
616 women were assessed for eligibility, of whom 600 were randomly assigned to condom-type order (30, 120, and 150 women in the three sites in China, and 300 women in the site in South Africa). 572 women completed follow-up, with at least one condom of each type. Total female condom failure was 3·43% for FC2, 3·85% for the Woman's Condom (difference 0·42%, 90% CI -1·42 to 2·26), 3·02% for VA wow (-0·42%, -1·86 to 1·32), and 4·52% for Cupid (1·09%, -0·60 to 2·78); total clinical failure was 2·88%, 3·05% (0·17%, -1·48 to 1·81), 2·49% (-0·25%, -1·75 to 1·26), and 3·87% (0·99%, -0·55 to 2·52), respectively. Only two (<1%) participants, in South Africa, reported serious adverse events, unrelated to use of the study products.
Non-inferiority was shown for all condom failure events for the three new devices versus the FC2, within the predefined margin.
Universal Access to Female Condoms (UAFC).
为降低成本和提高可接受性,新设计了女性避孕套。为确保监管部门的批准,需要进行临床研究以验证性能。我们旨在评估三种新型避孕套——女性避孕套、VA 女性避孕套和丘比特女性避孕套——与第二代女性避孕套(FC2)相比的功能性能和安全性。
我们在中国上海的三个地点和南非德班的一个地点进行了一项随机对照、非劣效性、四期交叉试验,时间为 2011 年 5 月 1 日至 2012 年 1 月 31 日。参与者年龄在 18-45 岁之间,性行为活跃、一夫一妻制、未怀孕且不是性工作者,如果他们识字、对研究产品无已知过敏;使用可靠的、非屏障避孕方法,且无可见或报告的性传播感染,则有资格入选。我们使用计算机生成的随机序列和威廉姆斯方设计(大小为 4)将患者(1:1:1:1)随机分配到 FC2 对照装置或女性避孕套、女性避孕套、VA 女性避孕套或丘比特避孕套,有 12 种潜在的分配。分层按地点进行随机分组。参与者对避孕套类型没有进行盲法,但对研究调查人员隐瞒了分配情况。主要非劣效终点是总临床失败和总女性避孕套失败,非劣效性边界为 3%。要求女性使用每种避孕套类型各 5 个,并在使用每种类型后进行访谈。我们还评估了每种类型的安全性数据。我们进行了意向治疗和符合方案分析。我们为每个失败事件计算了频率和百分比,并使用广义估计方程模型估计了性能差异。该研究已注册,注册号为 DOH-27-0113-4271。
共有 616 名女性接受了资格评估,其中 600 名女性随机分配到避孕套类型顺序(中国三个地点的 30、120 和 150 名女性,以及南非地点的 300 名女性)。572 名女性完成了随访,至少使用了每种类型的一个避孕套。FC2 的总女性避孕套失败率为 3.43%,女性避孕套的总失败率为 3.85%(差异 0.42%,90%CI-1.42 至 2.26),VA 女性避孕套的总失败率为 3.02%(-0.42%,-1.86 至 1.32),丘比特避孕套的总失败率为 4.52%(1.09%,-0.60 至 2.78);总临床失败率为 2.88%、3.05%(0.17%,-1.48 至 1.81)、2.49%(-0.25%,-1.75 至 1.26)和 3.87%(0.99%,-0.55 至 2.52),分别。只有两名(<1%)参与者,在南非,报告了与使用研究产品无关的严重不良事件。
与 FC2 相比,三种新设备在所有避孕套失败事件中的非劣效性均在预设范围内。
女性避孕套普及(UAFC)。