Contraception
Volume 77, Issue 2 , Pages 130-137, February 2008

A Phase I study of the functional performance, safety and acceptability of the BufferGel® Duet™☆☆

  • Susan A. Ballagh

      Affiliations

    • CONRAD Clinical Research Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School Norfolk, VA 23507, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 757 446 7444; fax: +1 757 446 8998.
  • ,
  • Vivian Brache

      Affiliations

    • Profamilia, Zone 4, Apartado Postal 1053, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
  • ,
  • Christine Mauck

      Affiliations

    • CONRAD, Arlington, VA 22209, USA
  • ,
  • Marianne M. Callahan

      Affiliations

    • CONRAD, Arlington, VA 22209, USA
  • ,
  • Leila Cochon

      Affiliations

    • Profamilia, Zone 4, Apartado Postal 1053, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
  • ,
  • Angie Wheeless

      Affiliations

    • Family Health International, Durham, NC 27713, USA
  • ,
  • Thomas R. Moench

      Affiliations

    • ReProtect Inc., Baltimore, MD 21286, USA

Received 29 August 2007; received in revised form 20 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007. published online 03 January 2008.

Abstract 

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the functional performance of the BufferGel® Duet™, a buffering microbicide and spermicide gel applied to the cervix and vagina by a novel applicator that also serves as a mechanical barrier.

Study Design

This was a noncomparative Phase I safety trial in 30 healthy couples, aged 20–50 years, at low risk for sexually transmitted infections, who agreed to use the gel–device combination twice in 1 week and respond to detailed questionnaires about their experience. The female participants were examined with colposcopy before and 6–18 h after using the second device.

Results

Based on written instructions alone, 25 women successfully placed and 28 women successfully removed the device. Three women reported feeling the device dislodge around the time of intercourse. The product was equally acceptable to both men and women. Most users concluded that intercourse was the same or better with the device than with no product. About 73% would choose Duet over male condoms, and no one preferred the standard diaphragm. Colposcopic findings were noted in 79% of women with external genital findings (9) or cervicovaginal peeling (18) predominating. Only one finding breached the epithelium. Most product-related adverse events were mild (10/11) and confined to the genitourinary tract.

Conclusions

The successful placements and acceptability suggest that further product development is warranted and could target over-the-counter use. During increased duration of use or more frequent dosing, cervicovaginal monitoring is advised based on the extent of peeling and external colposcopic findings in this short-term study.

Keywords: Microbicide, Colposcopy, Spermicide, Prevention barrier, Contraception

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Support for this project was provided by CONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, under a Cooperative Agreement with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The study product was supplied by ReProtect, Baltimore, MD.

☆☆ The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID.

PII: S0010-7824(07)00455-6

doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.10.003

Contraception
Volume 77, Issue 2 , Pages 130-137, February 2008