Upload
gwendoline-porter
View
217
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Formulation Preference Trial To compare the relative acceptability of: Gel (FemGlide) Dosage: 35 mL Accordion-shaped enema bottle Suppository (Rectal Rocket) Dosage: 8 g 2.5 inches in length
Citation preview
Gel or Suppositories? Results of a Rectal Microbicide Formulation Preference Trial
Alex Carballo-Diéguez1, Curtis Dolezal1, Jose A. Bauermeister1, Ana Ventuneac1, William O’Brien2, Kenneth Mayer2,3
1. HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
2. Fenway Institute, Fenway Community Health, Boston, MA, USA3. Miriam Hospital/Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
HIV CENTER for Clinical and Behavioral StudiesHIV CENTER for Clinical and Behavioral Studiesat the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia Universityat the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University
This research is supported by a grant from NICHD (R01 046060).This research is supported by a grant from NICHD (R01 046060).
Acceptability Microbicides need to be not only
efficacious against HIV, but, equally important, products that people are willing and able to use
Placebo trials allow forecasts of the acceptability of different formulations
Formulation Preference Trial To compare the relative acceptability of:
Gel (FemGlide) Dosage: 35 mL Accordion-shaped
enema bottle
Suppository (Rectal Rocket) Dosage: 8 g 2.5 inches in length
Study Implementation Recruitment:
The Fenway Community Health – Boston, MA Between May 2005 - April 2007
Eligibility Criteria: 18 years of age or older; HIV-negative by self-report; Knowledgeable about HIV-transmission risk; Reported having had unprotected RAI in the prior year
and rated this behavior as involving some risk of HIV transmission to himself; and
Reported having had a male partner with whom he engaged in RAI at least once every two weeks.
Procedures Participants were sequentially randomized to Group A (gel)
or Group B (suppository) Inserted the product at home on 3 separate occasions up to
2 hours prior to RAI Returned to the clinic to complete an acceptability
assessment Received the second product (Group A, suppository; Group
B, gel) Used the product 3 times Returned to the clinic to complete an acceptability and
preference assessment
Baseline Demographics Sexual behavior in previous two months Intentions to use a rectal microbicide
Follow up Acceptability ratings:
Product properties Process of applying products For those reporting problems (leakage, etc.), how much they were
bothered by each problem Sexual satisfaction with product use
Product preference Product recommendations
Measures
Study Sample 41 years of age (18-60) Majority had high school education or higher 62% were employed $20,001-$40,000 average income 65% identified as White or European American 75% identified as gay Mean number of male partners in prior 2
months: 4.40 Mean of number of RAI occasions: 9.05 (slightly
more than half were unprotected)
Dislikedvery much
Likedvery much
GelGel Gel
SuppSupp Supp
COLOR SMELL CONSISTENCY
Liked very much
Disliked very much
Gel
Supp
Gel
Supp
Gel
Supp
Product Application Feeling Inside Feeling after 30 min
Not at all
Very much
Leakage Soiling Bloating Gassiness Cramps Bowel Diarrhea Pain/TraumaMovement
▲ Supp
o Gel
Liked very much
Disliked very much
▲ Supp
o Gel
Feeling With Condoms Without Condoms Partner’s sexual satisfaction Overall partner preferenceWith condoms
Without condoms
Partner’s sexual
satisfaction
Sexual Satisfaction
Overall partner
preference
N = 55
N = 22
25% 28%
72%75%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Participant's Product Preference Perceived Partner's Product Preference
Num
ber o
f Par
ticip
ants
(N =
77)
Gel
Suppository
Extremely likely
Extremely unlikely
Likely to use similar product Likely to use when no condoms
Gel
Supp
Gel
Supp
Gel was preferred over the suppository■ Physical properties
(color, smell, consistency)
■ Ease of application■ Feeling inside rectum immediately and after 30 min■ Less bothersome problems
(leakage, soiling, bloating, gassiness, cramps, diarrhea)
■ Feeling of product during sex■ Sexual satisfaction w/ product, w/ and w/o condoms■ Perceived partner sexual satisfaction ■ Overall partner acceptability
However…■ Smaller, more compact products would be
preferred
■ Participants did not want to have to wait for the product to become “activated”
■ Cost should be equal or only slightly more than a condom
■ Intentionality to use was higher for gel vs. suppository prior to and after the trial
Limitations
Smaller suppositories or suppositories with different characteristics (e.g., solubility, mode of application) may result in different acceptability ratings
Neither the gel nor the suppository carried an active ingredient
Small sample size
Thank you!
Alex Carballo-Diéguez, [email protected]