gel or suppositories results of a rectal microbicide formulation preference trial l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Gel or Suppositories? Results of a Rectal Microbicide Formulation Preference Trial PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Gel or Suppositories? Results of a Rectal Microbicide Formulation Preference Trial

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

Gel or Suppositories? Results of a Rectal Microbicide Formulation Preference Trial - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 175 Views
  • Uploaded on

HIV CENTER for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University. Gel or Suppositories? Results of a Rectal Microbicide Formulation Preference Trial.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Gel or Suppositories? Results of a Rectal Microbicide Formulation Preference Trial' - gabe


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
gel or suppositories results of a rectal microbicide formulation preference trial

HIV CENTER for Clinical and Behavioral Studies

at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University

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

HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Fenway Institute, Fenway Community Health, Boston, MA, USA

Miriam Hospital/Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

This research is supported by a grant from NICHD (R01 046060).

acceptability
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
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
slide4

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
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
measures
Measures
  • 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
study sample
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)
slide8

Liked

very much

Gel

Gel

Gel

Supp

Supp

Supp

Disliked

very much

COLOR

SMELL

CONSISTENCY

slide9

Liked very much

Gel

Gel

Gel

Supp

Supp

Supp

Disliked very much

Product Application Feeling Inside Feeling after 30 min

slide10

Very much

Not at all

Leakage Soiling Bloating Gassiness Cramps Bowel Diarrhea Pain/Trauma

Movement

▲ Supp

o Gel

slide11

Liked very much

▲ Supp

o Gel

Disliked very much

Overall partner preference

Partner’s sexual satisfaction

Feeling With CondomsWithout Condoms Partner’s sexual satisfaction Overall partner preference

Sexual Satisfaction

With condoms

Without condoms

slide12

N = 55

N = 22

slide13

Extremely likely

Gel

Gel

Supp

Supp

Extremely unlikely

Likely to use similar product

Likely to use when no condoms

gel was preferred over the suppository
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
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
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

Thank you!

Alex Carballo-Diéguez, Ph.D.

ac72@columbia.edu