Non-latex versus latex male condoms for contraception.

BACKGROUND The male condom, which consists of a thin sheath placed over the glans and shaft of the penis, is designed to prevent pregnancy by providing a physical barrier against the deposition of semen into the vagina during intercourse. Beginning in the 1990s, nonlatex male condoms made of polyurethane film or synthetic elastomers were developed as alternative male barrier methods for individuals with allergies, sensitivities or preferences that prevented the consistent use of condoms made of latex. OBJECTIVES The review sought to evaluate nonlatex male condoms in comparison with latex condoms in terms of contraceptive efficacy, breakage, slippage, safety and user preferences. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE using PubMed, EMBASE, Popline, and LILACS for randomized controlled trials of nonlatex condoms. The references of eligible publications were assessed for inclusion. We also wrote to the manufacturers of nonlatex condoms and known investigators in an attempt to locate any other published or unpublished trials not identified in our search. SELECTION CRITERIA The review included all randomized controlled trials identified in the literature search that evaluated a male nonlatex condom made of polyurethane film or synthetic elastomers in comparison with a latex condom. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We evaluated all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches for inclusion in the review. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the identified studies. We entered and analyzed data with RevMan 4.1. Peto odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the outcomes contraceptive efficacy, condom breakage and slippage, discontinuation of use, safety and user preference. The number of condoms, men, or women was used as the denominator for the ORs. Contraceptive efficacy, early discontinuation, and safety outcomes were also measured with survival analysis techniques and entered into "Additional tables." MAIN RESULTS While the eZ.on condom did not protect against pregnancy as well as its latex comparison condom, no differences were found in the typical-use efficacy in the comparisons between the Avanti and the Standard Tactylon and their latex counterparts. The nonlatex condoms were associated with higher rates of clinical breakage than their latex comparison condoms. The statistically significant odds ratios for clinical breakage for the nonlatex condoms versus their latex comparisons ranged from 2.6 (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3) to 5.0 (95% CI: 3.6 to 6.8). Few adverse events were reported. In almost all of the comparisons, substantial proportions of participants preferred the nonlatex condom or reported that they would recommend its use to others. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS Although the nonlatex condoms were associated with higher rates of clinical breakage than their latex comparison condoms, the new condoms still provide an acceptable alternative for those with allergies, sensitivities or preferences that might prevent the consistent use of latex condoms. The contraceptive efficacy of the nonlatex condoms requires more research.

[1]  K. Schulz,et al.  Surrogate end points in clinical research: hazardous to your health. , 2005, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  K. Schulz,et al.  Nonlatex vs. latex male condoms for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. , 2003, Contraception.

[3]  W. Potter,et al.  Clinical breakage, slippage and acceptability of a new commercial polyurethane condom: a randomized, controlled study. , 2003, Contraception.

[4]  K. Nanda,et al.  Contraceptive Effectiveness of a Polyurethane Condom and a Latex Condom: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  V. Clark,et al.  Evaluation of the efficacy of a nonlatex condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial. , 2003, Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health.

[6]  Kenneth F Schulz,et al.  For Personal Use. Only Reproduce with Permission from the Lancet Publishing Group. Exclusions before Randomisation Exclusions after Randomisation Sample Size Slippages in Randomised Trials: Exclusions and the Lost and Wayward , 2022 .

[7]  Kenneth F Schulz,et al.  Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering , 2002, The Lancet.

[8]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[9]  Karen A Robinson,et al.  Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  J. Guillebaud,et al.  Pilot study of short-term acceptability and breakage and slippage rates for the loose-fitting polyurethane male condom eZ·on™ bi-directional: a randomized cross-over trial , 2002, The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception.

[11]  D. Taylor,et al.  Randomized crossover trial comparing the eZ.on plastic condom and a latex condom. , 2001, Contraception.

[12]  R. Frezieres,et al.  Acceptability evaluation of a natural rubber latex, a polyurethane, and a new non-latex condom. , 2000, Contraception.

[13]  C. Mauck,et al.  Comparative evaluation of three Tactylon(TM) condoms and a latex condom during vaginal intercourse: breakage and slippage. , 2000, Contraception.

[14]  S. Weir,et al.  Association between condom use and HIV infection: a randomised study of self reported condom use measures. , 1999, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[15]  V. Clark,et al.  Evaluation of the efficacy of a polyurethane condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial. , 1999, Family planning perspectives.

[16]  J. Trussell,et al.  Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. , 1999, Family planning perspectives.

[17]  V. Clark,et al.  Breakage and acceptability of a polyurethane condom: a randomized, controlled study. , 1998, Family planning perspectives.

[18]  M. Warren,et al.  Safety, functionality and acceptability of a prototype polyurethane condom , 1997, Advances in contraception : the official journal of the Society for the Advancement of Contraception.

[19]  A. Chandra,et al.  Fertility, family planning, and women's health: new data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. , 1997, Vital and health statistics. Series 23, Data from the National Survey of Family Growth.

[20]  R. Frezieres,et al.  Study of the efficacy acceptability and safety of a non-latex (polyurethane) male condom. N01-HD-1-3109. Final report. Period covered: April 1 1991 - March 31 1997. , 1997 .

[21]  M. Free,et al.  Latex rubber condoms: predicting and extending shelf life. , 1996, Contraception.

[22]  M. Rosenberg,et al.  The male polyurethane condom: a review of current knowledge. , 1996, Contraception.

[23]  R. Frezieres,et al.  Controlled randomized evaluation of a commercially available polyurethane and latex condom (Avanti versus Ramses Sensitol). NO1-HD-1-3109. Final report. , 1996 .

[24]  J. Zenilman,et al.  Condom Use to Prevent Incident STDs: The Validity of Self‐Reported Condom Use , 1995, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[25]  J. Trussell,et al.  Standardized protocols for condom breakage and slippage trials: a proposal. , 1994, American journal of public health.

[26]  W. Pratt,et al.  AIDS-related behavior among women 15-44 years of age: United States, 1988 and 1990. , 1993, Advance data.

[27]  M. Steiner,et al.  Can condom users likely to experience condom failure be identified? , 1993, Family planning perspectives.

[28]  J. Billy,et al.  Condom characteristics: the perceptions and preferences of men in the United States. , 1993, Family planning perspectives.

[29]  J. Trussell,et al.  Condom performance during vaginal intercourse: comparison of Trojan-Enz and Tactylon condoms. , 1992, Contraception.

[30]  C. Lytle,et al.  Virus Leakage Through Natural Membrane Condoms , 1990, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[31]  G. Minuk,et al.  Condoms and hepatitis B virus infection. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.