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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Maria F Gallo; Markus J Steiner; Marcia M Hobbs; Mark A Weaver; Theresa Hatzell Hoke; Kathleen Van Damme; Denise J Jamieson; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2010-12
Authors: Terri L Walsh; Ron G Frezieres; Karen Peacock; Anita L Nelson; Virginia A Clark; Leslie Bernstein; Brian G D Wraxall Journal: Contraception Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: M F Gallo; F M Behets; M J Steiner; S C Thomsen; W Ombidi; S Luchters; C Toroitich-Ruto; M M Hobbs Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Loren W Galvão; Laurione C Oliveira; Juan Díaz; Dhong-Jin Kim; Nádia Marchi; Johannes van Dam; Roger F Castilho; Michael Chen; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: Contraception Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Maria F Gallo; Frieda M Behets; Markus J Steiner; Marcia M Hobbs; Theresa Hatzell Hoke; Kathleen Van Damme; Louisette Ralimamonjy; Leonardine Raharimalala; Myron S Cohen Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Maurizio Macaluso; Richard Blackwell; Denise J Jamieson; Andrzej Kulczycki; Michael P Chen; Rachel Akers; Dhong-jin Kim; Ann Duerr Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Alexandra M Minnis; Markus J Steiner; Maria F Gallo; Lee Warner; Marcia M Hobbs; Ariane van der Straten; Tsungai Chipato; Maurizio Macaluso; Nancy S Padian Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-09-09 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ariane van der Straten; Elizabeth T Montgomery; Miriam Hartmann; Alexandra Minnis Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Margaret C Snead; Johan H Melendez; Athena P Kourtis; Dorothy M Chaney; Teresa M Brown; Carolyn M Black; Christine K Mauck; Jill L Schwartz; Jonathan M Zenilman; Denise J Jamieson; Maurizio Macaluso; Gustavo F Doncel Journal: Contraception Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Kate S Wilson; Ruth Deya; Krista Yuhas; Jane Simoni; Ann Vander Stoep; Juma Shafi; Walter Jaoko; James P Hughes; Barbra A Richardson; R Scott McClelland Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2016-09
Authors: Margaret C Snead; Athena P Kourtis; Johan H Melendez; Carolyn M Black; Christine K Mauck; Ana Penman-Aguilar; Dorothy M Chaney; Maria F Gallo; Denise J Jamieson; Maurizio Macaluso; Gustavo F Doncel Journal: Contraception Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Andrea Thurman; Terry Jacot; Johan Melendez; Thomas Kimble; Margaret Snead; Roxanne Jamshidi; Angie Wheeless; David F Archer; Gustavo F Doncel; Christine Mauck Journal: Contraception Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Terri L Walsh; Margaret C Snead; Breione J St Claire; Jill L Schwartz; Christine K Mauck; Ron G Frezieres; Diana L Blithe; David F Archer; Kurt T Barnhart; Jeffrey T Jensen; Anita L Nelson; Michael A Thomas; Livia S Wan; Mark A Weaver Journal: Contraception Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 3.375