Essential Access Health (formerly California Family Health Council), 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 600, Los Angeles, CA 90010.
Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30333.
Contraception. 2019 Nov;100(5):406-412. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.07.143. Epub 2019 Aug 2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
研究一项功能研究中报告的妇女避孕套(WC)临床失败率和精液暴露率是否与避孕功效子研究的结果相媲美。
我们构建了比较分析,以评估在评估新型女用避孕套产品时,功能研究是否可以可信地替代避孕功效研究。在功能(破裂/滑脱/内陷/阴茎误导)研究中没有怀孕风险的夫妇和避孕功效研究中的女性完成了避孕套自我报告,并在最多使用 4 次 WC 期间收集了性交前和性交后的阴道样本。这两项研究都使用了几乎相同的自我报告问题和相同的自我采样程序和实验室来检测前列腺特异性抗原(PSA),这是一种经过充分研究的精液生物标志物。我们使用广义估计方程方法比较了避孕套失败和精液暴露的比例,同时考虑了夫妇内相关性。
95 名避孕功效子研究参与者使用了 334 个 WC,408 名功能研究参与者使用了 1572 个 WC。根据自我报告,避孕功效子研究中有 19.2%的 WC(64 个避孕套)临床失败,而功能研究中有 12.3%的 WC(194 个避孕套)失败(p=.03)。在 207 次有可评估的性交后 PSA 水平的 WC 避孕功效使用中,有 14.5%(30 次使用)导致精液暴露,而在可评估的 1293 次 WC 功能研究使用中,有 14.2%(184 次使用)导致精液暴露。
在评估实验避孕套防止精液暴露的能力时,在避孕功效子研究中报告有怀孕风险的参与者报告的临床避孕套失败率明显高于在功能研究中报告无怀孕风险的参与者。使用客观生物标志物评估的精液暴露率在两项研究中几乎相同。
我们的结果表明,功能研究中精液暴露的客观标志物可能是评估意外怀孕风险和推断对性传播感染的保护作用的合理替代方法,优于基于自我报告的避孕套失败率。