The diaphragm with and without spermicide. A randomized, comparative efficacy trial. A comparative study of the safety and efficacy of FemCap, a new vaginal barrier contraceptive, and the Ortho All-Flex diaphragm. The FemCap Investigators' Group. Contraceptive effectiveness of two spermicides: a randomized trial. A phase II randomized controlled trial of a novel male contraception, an intra-vas device. An effective hormonal male contraceptive using testosterone undecanoate with oral or injectable norethisterone preparations. A multicenter comparative trial of triphasic and monophasic, low-dose combined oral contraceptives. Levonorgestrel implants (Norplant II) for male contraception clinical trials: combination with transdermal and injectable testosterone. Investigation of hormonal male contraception in African men: suppression of spermatogenesis by oral desogestrel with depot testosterone. A study of the vaginal contraceptive sponge used with and without the fertility awareness method.
To determine the relative contraceptive efficacy of a diaphragm used with spermicide as compared to one used without.
                Two hundred sixteen women entered the study between September 1985 and December 1990. Of these, 84 were randomly assigned to the diaphragm-only group and 80 to the diaphragm-with-spermicide group as their primary method of contraception. In addition, a spermicide-only group was planned originally to serve as a control group to assess the contribution to efficacy made by a spermicide alone. Thirty-nine women were randomly assigned to this group, and 13 selected themselves for it. All were followed for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome variable was accidental pregnancy. The statistical difference between the two diaphragm groups was analyzed.
                The 12-month "typical use" failure rates for the diaphragm-only group were 28.6 per 100 women and for the diaphragm-with-spermicide group, 21.2. The 12-month cumulative consistent-use failure rates were 19.3 per 100 women for the diaphragm-only group as compared to 12.3 per 100 women for users of a diaphragm with spermicide.
                Although the consistent use rates were not significantly different, this study had low statistical power and hence gives no support to the hypothesis that adjunctive spermicide use fails to improve the effectiveness of the diaphragm method, especially in view of the magnitude and direction of the difference observed. Unless a study with sufficient power proves that the use of a diaphragm alone is statistically as effective as use of a diaphragm with spermicide, use of a spermicide in conjunction with the diaphragm continues to be the appropriate clinical recommendation. The FemCap is a new silicone rubber barrier contraceptive shaped like a sailor's hat, with a dome that covers the cervix, a rim that fits into the fornices, and a brim that conforms to the vaginal walls around the cervix. It was designed to result in fewer dislodgments and less pressure on the urethra than the cervical cap and diaphragm, respectively, and to require less clinician time for fitting. This was a phase II/III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel group study of 841 women at risk for pregnancy. A subset of 42 women at one site underwent colposcopy. Women were randomized to use the FemCap or Ortho All-Flex contraceptive diaphragm, both with 2% nonoxynol-9 spermicide, for 28 weeks. The objectives were to compare the two devices with regard to their safety and acceptability and to determine whether the probability of pregnancy among FemCap users was no worse than that of the diaphragm (meaning not more than 6 percentage points higher). The 6-month Kaplan-Meier cumulative unadjusted typical use pregnancy probabilities were 13.5% among FemCap users and 7.9% among diaphragm users. The adjusted risk of pregnancy among FemCap users was 1.96 times that among diaphragm users, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 3.01. Clinical equivalence (noninferiority) of the FemCap compared with the diaphragm, as defined in this study, would mean that the true risk of pregnancy among FemCap users was no more than 1.73 times the pregnancy risk of diaphragm users. Because the observed upper 95% confidence limit (and even the point estimate) exceeded 1.73, the probability of pregnancy among FemCap users, compared with that among diaphragm users, did not meet the definition of clinical equivalence used in this study. The FemCap was believed to be safe and was associated with significantly fewer urinary tract infections. More women reported problems with the FemCap with regard to insertion, dislodgement, and especially removal, although their general assessments were positive. The two devices were comparable with regard to safety and acceptability, but a 6-point difference in the true 6-month pregnancy probabilities of the two devices could not be ruled out. Further studies are needed to determine whether design modifications can simplify insertion and removal. We conducted a multinational randomized trial to determine whether a spermicidal film containing 72 mg of nonoxynol-9 per film was at least as effective in preventing pregnancy as a foaming tablet containing 100 mg of nonoxynol-9 per tablet.
                Between September 1995 and July 1997, 765 women aged 18-35 years who had no evidence of subfecundity were randomly assigned to use one of the two spermicides as their only contraceptive method at every coital act for 28 weeks. Participants were asked to keep coital diaries throughout the study period. Pregnancy tests were performed on a scheduled basis. Each participant was followed for 28 weeks or until she stopped considering the spermicide as her primary method of contraception.
                The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 6-month probability of pregnancy during typical use of the spermicide was 28.0% in the tablet group and 24.9% in the film group (P = .78, one-tailed test). The study had nearly 75% power to have detected a difference of seven percentage points between groups. Results were almost identical when the analysis included only months when the participants reported use of the spermicide during every coital act. Reported levels of sexual activity and compliance with use of the spermicide were high in both groups.
                The contraceptive effectiveness of these two spermicidal products appeared similar. Both products were associated with a fairly high risk of pregnancy in this young, highly sexually active population. The aim of this study was to introduce a novel male contraceptive method, an intra-vas device (IVD), and to assess the efficacy, safety and satisfaction of recipients compared with no-scalpel vasectomy (NSV). A phase II randomized controlled trial was conducted in China in 2003. Two hundred and eighty-eight male subjects seeking vasectomy were randomly assigned to the IVD or NSV group. Follow up included a telephone questionnaire on the 14th postoperative day and visits at the third and 12th postoperative months. The follow-up rates at the three time points were 100%, 100% and 96.5% respectively. There was no technical failure in any subject. The surgical conditions were similar in both groups, but the IVD group experienced an additional 5 min of operative time (p<0.001). The IVD group recovered normal activity and sexual intercourse more rapidly (both p<0.05). The azoospermia rate was lower in the IVD group than in the NSV group at the third and 12th postoperative months. The rate of contraceptive success based on semen analyses was similar in both groups, especially at the 12th postoperative month (94.3% in the IVD group vs. 98.6% in the NSV group; p=0.054). The IVD group had less risk of complications (i.e. pain, congestive epididymitis and sperm granuloma). More subjects reported satisfaction with IVD sterilization than with NSV. The two procedures were similar in terms of surgical complications. The IVD was slightly less effective, but had a lower risk of later adverse events than the NSV technique. The IVD group also reported a higher level of satisfaction. Suppression of spermatogenesis to azoospermia is the goal of hormonal male contraception based on T combined with gestagens. The combination of the long-acting T, ester testosterone undecanoate (TU), with norethisterone (NET) enanthate (E) showed high efficacy. In the present study, we tested the validity of this approach by varying the NET dose and mode of application. The aim of the study was to achieve high rates of suppression of spermatogenesis as reflected by sperm counts, monitor gonadotropins as well as other hormones, and evaluate any possible side effects. In a phase II clinical trial, groups of normal volunteers received: 1000 mg TU im at wk 2, 6, 12, and 18 combined with 200 mg NETE im at wk 0, 6, 12, and 18 (group I); 1000 mg TU im and 400 mg NETE im at wk 0, 6, 12, and 18 (group II); and 1000 mg TU im at wk 0, 6, 12, and 18 with daily oral NET acetate (NETA) from wk 0 to 24 (group III). In all groups marked suppression of gonadotropins resulted in a significant decrease of spermatogenesis and azoospermia in 13/14, 11/12, and 12/14 men in groups I to III, respectively. The remaining men all had less than 1 million sperm/ml. Reversible side effects included increase in body weight, erythrocytes, hemoglobin, and hematocrit and decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and alkaline phosphatase in all groups and increase in liver enzymes in the oral NETA group. This study documents the high efficacy of TU in combination with NET and confirms that this dose and mode of application (1000 mg TU im every 6 wk plus 400 mg NETE im every 6 wk or plus 10 mg daily oral NETA) is as effective as the previously reported regimen containing 1000 mg TU + 200 mg NETE im every 6 wk. The contraceptive efficacy of this combination of TU and NETE should be evaluated in further clinical trials. A comparative multicenter clinical trial of two combined oral contraceptives (OCs) was conducted at clinics located in the Sudan, Sri Lanka, Chile, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. The trial was designed to determine if there were differences in efficacy, safety and acceptability between a triphasic and a low-dose monophasic OC. This report includes analysis of 1088 women. At each center, subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two OCs. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 4, 8 and 12 months after admission. There were two accidental pregnancies attributed to user failure reported during the study period; one in the triphasic group and one in the monophasic group. Adverse experiences were mainly minor with headaches and dizziness being the most common complaints; frequency of reports was similar in both groups. Cycle control was good in both groups with women in the triphasic group reporting fewer complaints of intermenstrual bleeding. Both OCs were safe and effective. Recent studies demonstrate that combinations of androgens and progestagens are highly effective in the suppression of spermatogenesis in normal volunteers. To test whether progestagen and androgen delivery systems designed to produce steady serum levels will be as effective as other androgen plus progestagen combinations, we compared Norplant II and testosterone (T) transdermal patch to T patch alone on the suppression of spermatogenesis in normal men. Thirty-nine healthy male volunteers (age, 20-45 yr) were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group 1 (n = 19) received two transdermal T patches daily (Testoderm TTS, each patch designed to deliver about 5 mg/d T) alone, and group 2 (n = 20) received combined Norplant II [Jadelle, four capsules delivering approximately 160 microg/d levonorgestrel (LNG)] plus T patch. Neither of these regimens were very effective, with suppression of spermatogenesis to severe oligozoospermia occurring in less than 60% of subjects. We then expanded the study to include two more groups to determine whether T patch or Norplant II was the main factor causing the inadequate suppression of spermatogenesis. Another 29 subjects were randomized to one of two groups. Group 3 (n = 15) received oral LNG (125 microg/d) plus T patch, and group 4 (n = 14) received Norplant II plus T enanthate (TE) injection (100 mg/wk i.m.). After a pretreatment phase of 4 wk, all subjects received treatment for 24 wk, followed by a recovery period of 12-24 wk. Steady-state serum LNG levels (800-1200 pmol/liter) were achieved from wk 3-24 after Norplant II insertion and decreased rapidly after the removal of the implants at wk 24. Trough serum LNG levels after oral LNG administration were at a comparable range (940-1300 pmol/liter). Azoospermia was achieved in 24%, 35%, 33%, and 93%, and severe oligozoospermia (<1 x 10(6)/ml) developed in 24%, 60%, 42%, and 100% of the subjects in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, during treatment phase. All subjects in the Norplant II plus TE groups had persistent sperm concentrations less than 3 x 10(6)/ml from wk 12 until the end of treatment. Concomitant with the marked suppression of spermatogenesis in the Norplant II plus TE group, serum FSH and LH levels were most decreased in this group compared with all other groups. In the T patch-only group, serum SHBG was not suppressed, and total serum T was higher than baseline levels. In the other three groups administered progestagens, serum SHBGs were significantly suppressed, and serum total T remained similar to baseline levels. Serum free T levels were not changed in any group. Except for a suppression of serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, there was no significant change in weight, hematocrit, clinical chemistry, or prostate-specific antigen levels in any of the treatment groups. Although more efficacious than T patch alone, Norplant II or oral LNG plus T patch was not as effective in suppressing spermatogenesis to severe oligo- or azoospermia as in previous reports using oral LNG plus TE. This relative lesser efficacy occurred despite the achievement of serum LNG levels by Norplant II that were equivalent to those reported after administration of oral LNG. Substituting the transdermal T delivery system with TE injections resulted in very effective suppression of sperm output. The difference in spermatogenesis suppression of these combined regimens is likely due to less T delivered by the transdermal patch compared with the TE weekly injections. We conclude that Norplant II implants plus TE 100 mg/wk were very efficient in suppressing spermatogenesis to a level acceptable for contraceptive efficacy. This study demonstrates that the dose or route of administration of androgens is critical for sperm suppression in combined androgen-progestagen regimens for hormonal male contraception. Suppression of spermatogenesis to azoospermia is required for effective hormonal male contraception, but the degree of suppression varies between ethnic groups. We here report the first study of hormonal suppression of spermatogenesis in two African centres using a regimen of oral progestogen with depot testosterone. METHODS A total of 31 healthy men (21 black) were recruited in Cape Town and 21 men in Sagamu, Nigeria. Subjects were randomized to take either 150 or 300 micro g desogestrel daily p.o. with testosterone pellets. In Cape Town, desogestrel was administered for 24 weeks with 400 mg testosterone re-administered 12 weekly. In Sagamu, desogestrel was administered for 52 weeks with 200 mg testosterone (later increased to 400 mg) re-administered 12-weekly.
                In Cape Town, 22 men completed at least 20 weeks treatment. Azoospermia was achieved in 8/10 and 8/12 men in the 150 micro g and 300 micro g desogestrel groups. Four men in Sagamu withdrew. Azoospermia was achieved in all 17 men in the two groups. There were no significant changes in lipoprotein or haemoglobin concentrations in any group.
                These data demonstrate that the combination of oral desogestrel with depot testosterone is an effective regimen for suppression of spermatogenesis in African as in Caucasian and Chinese men, with azoospermia achieved in a total of 83/98 (85%) men. The actual effectiveness rates of natural and barrier methods of family planning are lower than the theoretical ones. If couples accurately defined the limits of the fertile phase and used barriers at that time, then actual effectiveness might increase. A randomized, controlled clinical trial was initiated to determine the effectiveness of the contraceptive sponge used only during the fertile time and to compare this with sponge use at every intercourse. Recruitment problems and discontinuation forced the early termination of this study, but qualitative information about compliance and acceptability was collected. Common sponge problems were reported as were misuses of the sponge, but problems and misuse were not related. Determination of the fertile phase was reportedly easy, but complaints of and discontinuation for inconvenience occurred. For unplanned pregnancies, contraceptive behaviors around the time of conception are presented.
As only one underpowered study was identified, we cannot distinguish between the contraceptive effectiveness of the diaphragm with and without spermicide. We cannot draw any conclusion at this point. Randomized controlled trials with adequate numbers of participants would be required to adequately examine this issue. However, the study provides no evidence to change the commonly recommended practice of using the diaphragm with spermicide.