PURPOSE: A crossover study was carried out in 405 couples to compare women's difficulties with three different devices that could be used to administer a microbicide and to evaluate adherence to use and preference for any one of the devices. METHODS: Couples used a single size diaphragm, a vaginal ring or disposable applicators for 1 month each in a randomly assigned order. RESULTS: Few women reported difficulty using the applicators or the ring; however, almost two-thirds reported difficulty using the diaphragm. Approximately 5%, 10% and 40% of the women and a similar but slightly lower percentage of their partners reported incorrect use of the applicator, vaginal ring and diaphragm, respectively. About half the women preferred the vaginal ring, while around half the men preferred the applicator. CONCLUSION: The release of microbicides from a vaginal ring is a lead worth pursuing. The diaphragm is the only one of the three devices that also offers mechanical protection, but it requires greater investment in patient education to ensure adherence to use.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: A crossover study was carried out in 405 couples to compare women's difficulties with three different devices that could be used to administer a microbicide and to evaluate adherence to use and preference for any one of the devices. METHODS: Couples used a single size diaphragm, a vaginal ring or disposable applicators for 1 month each in a randomly assigned order. RESULTS: Few women reported difficulty using the applicators or the ring; however, almost two-thirds reported difficulty using the diaphragm. Approximately 5%, 10% and 40% of the women and a similar but slightly lower percentage of their partners reported incorrect use of the applicator, vaginal ring and diaphragm, respectively. About half the women preferred the vaginal ring, while around half the men preferred the applicator. CONCLUSION: The release of microbicides from a vaginal ring is a lead worth pursuing. The diaphragm is the only one of the three devices that also offers mechanical protection, but it requires greater investment in patient education to ensure adherence to use.
Authors: Christopher McConville; Ian Major; David R Friend; Meredith R Clark; R Karl Malcolm Journal: Drug Deliv Transl Res Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.617
Authors: José das Neves; Francisca Araújo; Fernanda Andrade; Mansoor Amiji; Maria Fernanda Bahia; Bruno Sarmento Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Todd J Johnson; Priya Srinivasan; Theodore H Albright; Karen Watson-Buckheit; Lorna Rabe; Amy Martin; Chou-Pong Pau; R Michael Hendry; Ron Otten; Janet McNicholl; Robert Buckheit; James Smith; Patrick F Kiser Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: José A Bauermeister; Jesse M Golinkoff; Alex Carballo-Diéguez; Rebecca Giguere; Daniela López; Craig J Hoesley; Beatrice A Chen; Peter Anderson; Charlene S Dezzutti; Julie Strizki; Carol Sprinkle; Faye Heard; Wayne Hall; Cindy Jacobson; Jennifer Berthiaume; Ashley Mayo; Barbra A Richardson; Jeanna Piper Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-02
Authors: Kathleen Ridgeway; Elizabeth T Montgomery; Kevin Smith; Kristine Torjesen; Ariane van der Straten; Sharon L Achilles; Jennifer B Griffin Journal: Contraception Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 3.051
Authors: Peter Boyd; Delphine Desjardins; Sandeep Kumar; Susan M Fetherston; Roger Le-Grand; Nathalie Dereuddre-Bosquet; Berglind Helgadóttir; Ásgeir Bjarnason; Manjula Narasimhan; R Karl Malcolm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240