CONTEXT: Condoms made of latex are not comfortable or appropriate for all consumers. Polyurethane condoms may provide a needed alternative. METHODS: In a double-masked study, 805 monogamous couples were randomized to use either the polyurethane condom or the latex condom for six months. Couples recorded the frequency of intercourse, of condom use and of breakage and slippage throughout the trial in coital diaries and in detailed reports on the first five uses. Breakage and slippage rates were determined, and typical-use and consistent-use pregnancy rates were calculated using life-table analysis, adjusted for use of emergency contraception. RESULTS: The six-month pregnancy rate during typical use (adjusted for use of emergency contraception) was 4.8% for the polyurethane condom and 6.3% for the latex condom. Similarly adjusted pregnancy rates during consistent use over six completed menstrual cycles--2.4% for the polyurethane condom and 1.1% for the latex condom--did not differ significantly. Clinical failure rates (including breakage and slippage occurring during either intercourse or withdrawal) were 8.5% for the polyurethane condom and 1.6% for the latex condom. In general, male participants were more satisfied with the latex condom, and users of latex were significantly less likely to drop out of the study for condom-related reasons than were users of polyurethane. CONCLUSIONS: Although polyurethane and latex condoms provide equivalent levels of contraceptive protection, the polyurethane condom's higher frequency of breakage and slippage suggests that this condom may confer less protection from sexually transmitted infections than does the latex condom.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Condoms made of latex are not comfortable or appropriate for all consumers. Polyurethane condoms may provide a needed alternative. METHODS: In a double-masked study, 805 monogamous couples were randomized to use either the polyurethane condom or the latex condom for six months. Couples recorded the frequency of intercourse, of condom use and of breakage and slippage throughout the trial in coital diaries and in detailed reports on the first five uses. Breakage and slippage rates were determined, and typical-use and consistent-use pregnancy rates were calculated using life-table analysis, adjusted for use of emergency contraception. RESULTS: The six-month pregnancy rate during typical use (adjusted for use of emergency contraception) was 4.8% for the polyurethane condom and 6.3% for the latex condom. Similarly adjusted pregnancy rates during consistent use over six completed menstrual cycles--2.4% for the polyurethane condom and 1.1% for the latex condom--did not differ significantly. Clinical failure rates (including breakage and slippage occurring during either intercourse or withdrawal) were 8.5% for the polyurethane condom and 1.6% for the latex condom. In general, male participants were more satisfied with the latex condom, and users of latex were significantly less likely to drop out of the study for condom-related reasons than were users of polyurethane. CONCLUSIONS: Although polyurethane and latex condoms provide equivalent levels of contraceptive protection, the polyurethane condom's higher frequency of breakage and slippage suggests that this condom may confer less protection from sexually transmitted infections than does the latex condom.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adult; Age Factors; Americas; Barrier Methods; Behavior; California; Condom; Contraception; Contraception Failure; Contraceptive Methods; Contraceptive Usage; Couples; Demographic Factors; Developed Countries; Family And Household; Family Characteristics; Family Planning; Heterosexuals; North America; Northern America; Population; Population Characteristics; Psychological Factors; Research Report; Satisfaction; Sex Behavior; United States; Urban Population
Authors: Jeffrey F Peipert; Qiuhong Zhao; Laura Meints; Benjamin J Peipert; Colleen A Redding; Jenifer E Allsworth Journal: Contraception Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Caroline F Allen; Shelley S Lees; Nicola A Desmond; Geoff Der; Betty Chiduo; Ian Hambleton; Louise Knight; Andrew Vallely; David A Ross; Richard J Hayes Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Elizabeth G Raymond; Pai Lien Chen; Bosny Pierre-Louis; Joanne Luoto; Kurt T Barnhart; Lynn Bradley; Mitchell D Creinin; Alfred Poindexter; Livia Wan; Mark Martens; Robert Schenken; Cate F Nicholas; Richard Blackwell Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 4.615