Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Essential Access Health | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The clinical study will compare two lubricated polyurethane male condoms of different thickness with a marketed lubricated control male condom made of natural rubber latex. This crossover study will randomize 300 heterosexual couples to the sequence in which they use five condoms of each of the three study condom types. The clinical failure (breakage and slippage) rates of the two polyurethane condoms will be compared to the clinical failure (breakage and slippage) rate of commercial natural rubber latex control condom using a statistical test of non-inferiority. The study will also compare the acceptability of the two polyurethane condom different thickness with that of the natural rubber latex control condom obtained from interviews and questionnaires with subject couples.
The clinical study will compare two lubricated polyurethane male condoms of different thickness and different sizes with a marketed lubricated control male condom made of natural rubber latex.
Couples entering the study will be expected to use 5 of each type of the 3 condoms in a randomised order. The identity of the condoms will be masked to both the couples and the investigators. The aim will be to recruit 300 heterosexual with the intent of achieving a minimum 1,000 uses of each condom type. Couples will report condom use events using a condom report form. The primary information collected will relate to condom breakage and slippage of the penis during use.
The total clinical failure rates (breakage and slippage) of the two polyurethane condoms will be compared to the clinical failure (breakage and slippage) rate of commercial natural rubber latex control condom using a statistical test of non-inferiority. The study will also compare the acceptability of the two polyurethane condom different thickness with that of the natural rubber latex control condom obtained from interviews and questionnaires with subject couples.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Latex Condom C | Active Comparator | Commercial Natural Rubber Latex Male Condom |
|
| Polyurethane Condom A | Experimental | Polyurethane Condom A (002) |
|
| Polyurethane Condom B | Experimental | Polyurethane Condom B (001) |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Latex Condom C, Polyurethane Condom A, Polyurethane Condom B | Device | Condom functionality study to determine failure rates |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Non Inferiority Analysis of Each of the Experimental Condoms Verses the Control Condom With Respect to Clinical Failure Rates (Combined Breakage and Slippage) as Per ISO 29943-1:2017. | To confirm each experimental condom is non-inferior to the control condom with respect to total clinical failure rate. The definition of total clinical failure rate as specified in ISO 29943-1:2017 will be used. The Total Clinical Failure Rate is Defined as the Number of Condoms with at least One Acute Failure Event (e.g. Clinical Breakage or Clinical Slippage) Divided by the Number of Condoms Used During Intercourse; Typically Reported as a Percentage; Any Condom which Experiences Multiple Clinical Failure Events Only Count as a Single Clinical Failure. To be eligible for inclusion in the non-inferiority analysis the each couple had to have used at least one of the appropriate experimental condoms and at least one control condom. This means that the numbers of participants and condoms reported in each of the two non-inferiority comparisons will differ. | Self Completion of Questionnaires Within 12 Hours of condom use. Questionnaires returned to investigators when receiving next set of 5 condoms. All sets of questionnaires returned within 9 weeks of couple starting. |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Grant R Burt | Sagami Rubber Industries Co., Ltd. | Study Chair |
| William D Potter, PhD | Stapleford Scientific Services Limited | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential Access Health | Los Angeles | California | 90010-2648 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 39232840 | Derived | Potter W, Burt G, Walsh T. Clinical breakage, slippage and acceptability of two commercial ultra-thin polyurethane male condoms compared to a commercial thin latex condom: a randomised, masked, 3 way crossover, multi centre controlled study (SAGCS 2). Reprod Health. 2024 Sep 4;21(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s12978-024-01873-3. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The total recruitment target was 300 couples consented couples (600 participants). Each couple to participate in each of the 6 arms using 5 condoms of each type in a randomized block sequence. The six randomized sequences were ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA.
Each couple received 5 of the first assigned condom at the start of the study along with a set of 5 blank condom reports. Couples also received a penis measuring kit.
The couples were expected to use all 15 condoms within 9 weeks.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Couples Assigned to Sequence ABC | Couples assigned at random to use the condoms in order Condom A first followed by Condom B then Condom C. |
| FG001 | Couples Assigned to Sequence ACB | Couples assigned at random to use the condoms in order Condom A first followed by Condom C then Condom B. |
| FG002 | Couples Assigned to Sequence BAC | Couples assigned at random to use the condoms in order Condom B first followed by Condom A then Condom C. |
| FG003 | Couples Assigned to Sequence BCA | Couples assigned at random to use the condoms in order Condom B first followed by Condom C then Condom A. |
| FG004 | Couples Assigned to Sequence CAB | Couples assigned at random to use the condoms in order Condom C first followed by Condom A then Condom B. |
| FG005 | Couples Assigned to Sequence CBA | Couples assigned at random to use the condoms in order Condom C first followed by Condom B then Condom A. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Couples Used First Assigned Condom Set |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Couples Used Second Assigned Condom Set |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Couples Used Third Assigned Condom Set |
|
The baseline analysis population is the number of couples who were consented to join the study
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Overall Study Population | The total number of couples consented was 300 (600 participants). These were randomly assigned to the 6 arms of the study. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | The participants were recruited as monogamous sexually active couples. The total recruited populated consisted therefore of 300 men and 300 women. |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Non Inferiority Analysis of Each of the Experimental Condoms Verses the Control Condom With Respect to Clinical Failure Rates (Combined Breakage and Slippage) as Per ISO 29943-1:2017. | To confirm each experimental condom is non-inferior to the control condom with respect to total clinical failure rate. The definition of total clinical failure rate as specified in ISO 29943-1:2017 will be used. The Total Clinical Failure Rate is Defined as the Number of Condoms with at least One Acute Failure Event (e.g. Clinical Breakage or Clinical Slippage) Divided by the Number of Condoms Used During Intercourse; Typically Reported as a Percentage; Any Condom which Experiences Multiple Clinical Failure Events Only Count as a Single Clinical Failure. To be eligible for inclusion in the non-inferiority analysis the each couple had to have used at least one of the appropriate experimental condoms and at least one control condom. This means that the numbers of participants and condoms reported in each of the two non-inferiority comparisons will differ. | The number of participants and condoms used for the non-inferiority assessment of Condom A versus Condom C and the equivalent numbers in the non-inferiority assessment of Condom B versus Condom C differ because some men found Condom B to be too small to use. | Posted | Count of Units | Condom uses | Self Completion of Questionnaires Within 12 Hours of condom use. Questionnaires returned to investigators when receiving next set of 5 condoms. All sets of questionnaires returned within 9 weeks of couple starting. |
Participants completed report forms after each condom use. Each condom report elicited information about specific adverse event usually experienced when using condoms including discomfort caused by burning, irritation and itching sensations, rashes, constriction, decreased sensitivity and dryness. Participants were expected to use all 15 condoms within 9 weeks, which can therefore be regarded as the monitoring period for adverse event.
All adverse events were rated by severity (mild, moderate, severe), duration (only while wearing condom, 1 to 10 minutes after condom removed, 11 to 59 minutes after condom removed and more than 59 minutes after condom removed.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Polyurethane Condom A | Polyurethane Condom A (002) Control Latex Condom C, Polyurethane Condom A, Polyurethane Condom B: Condom functionality study to determine failure rates |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discomfort caused by irritation, burning sensation, itching or rash | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | Systematic Assessment |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild to moderate discomfort | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | Systematic Assessment | Causes of mild to moderate discomfort include burning, irritation, itching, rash, constriction, decreased sensitivity and dryness. |
All condom use events were self reported. There is a potential for misreporting the number of events.
Since the trial was masked it was not feasible to preselect men with smaller penises to use the smaller Condom B. Instead, a post hoc analysis of the association between penis size and clinical failure rates was conducted followed by a further non-inferiority analysis after excluding men with penis lengths exceeding the specified nominal length of Condom B (170 mm).
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Grant R Burt | Sagami | +33 607 54 52 41 | grantburt@sagami-europe.com |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Feb 5, 2021 | Apr 14, 2023 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
| Count of Participants |
| Participants |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Number of participants completing study as per protocol | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Condom uses |
| Condom uses |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 337 |
| 4 |
| 337 |
| 41 |
| 337 |
| EG001 | Polyurethane Condom B | Polyurethane Condom B (001) Control Latex Condom C, Polyurethane Condom A, Polyurethane Condom B: Condom functionality study to determine failure rates | 0 | 392 | 10 | 392 | 85 | 392 |
| EG002 | Control Latex Condom C | Commercial Natural Rubber Latex Male Condom Control Latex Condom C, Polyurethane Condom A, Polyurethane Condom B: Condom functionality study to determine failure rates | 0 | 332 | 20 | 332 | 87 | 332 |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| Clinical slippages |
|
| Successful Uses |
|
|