Contraceptive efficacy, safety, fit, and acceptability of a single-size diaphragm developed with end-user input.

Obstet Gynecol

CONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Arlington, Virginia; FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina; the California Family Health Council, Los Angeles, California; the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, Baltimore, Maryland; the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; and PATH, Seattle, Washington. Dr. Creinin is currently affiliated with the University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California.

Published: April 2015

Objective: To estimate contraceptive efficacy, safety, acceptability, and fit of a single-size diaphragm used with contraceptive gel.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter trial in which 450 couples used the single-size diaphragm, 300 randomized to acid-buffering gel and 150 to nonoxynol-9, for at least 190 days and six menstrual cycles. Visits were at enrollment and after menstrual cycles 1, 3, and 6. Study outcomes included pregnancy probability, safety, acceptability, and fit. Pregnancy and safety were compared with an historical control group who used a standard diaphragm with these gels.

Results: Most (439/450 [98%]) women could be fitted with the single-size diaphragm. A total of 421 of 450 (94%) provided follow-up. The 35 study pregnancies yielded 6-month Kaplan-Meier cumulative typical use pregnancy probabilities per 100 women with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 10.4 (6.9-14.0) for all users and 9.6 (5.5-13.6) and 12.5 (5.4-19.5) with acid-buffering gel and nonoxynol-9, respectively. Historical control analysis yielded a propensity score-adjusted estimate of this pregnancy probability for the single-size diaphragm of 11.3 compared with 10.7 per 100 women for the standard diaphragm ([rounded] difference 0.7, 95% CI -3.6 to 4.9). Approximately half (51%) reported at least one urogenital event but compared favorably to the standard diaphragm in historical control analysis. Most (282/342 [82%]) liked the diaphragm. Results suggest that if provided by a clinician, 94% (95% CI 92-96%) could insert, correctly position, and remove the diaphragm.

Conclusion: The single-size diaphragm was safe, as effective as a standard diaphragm, and acceptable when used with contraceptive gel.

Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00578877.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000721DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

single-size diaphragm
24
standard diaphragm
16
historical control
12
diaphragm
11
contraceptive efficacy
8
efficacy safety
8
safety acceptability
8
acceptability fit
8
acid-buffering gel
8
menstrual cycles
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!