Randomized crossover trial comparing the eZ·on™ plastic condom and a latex condom

Abstract

This randomized crossover trial compared the breakage and slippage rates, safety, and acceptability of the recently developed polyurethane bi-directional eZ·on™ condom with a marketed latex condom. Three hundred sixty couples were asked to use 4 eZ·on condoms and 4 latex condoms. Like several other non-latex condoms tested to date, the eZ·on condom had a higher clinical breakage rate than its latex comparator, while the slippage rates were similar. The clinical breakage rate for the eZ·on condom was 5.6%, compared with 0.9% for the latex condom (difference = 4.76%, with upper 95% confidence bound on the difference = 6.26%). Thus, based on an a priori definition of a 2% clinically acceptable difference, the study failed to conclude equivalence relative to clinical breakage. The complete slippage rate for eZ·on was 1.6%; compared to 0.7% for latex (difference = 0.87%, with upper 95% confidence bound = 1.55%). Thus, based on an a priori definition of a 2% difference we concluded equivalence relative to complete slippage. The safety profile of the eZ·on condom was good and similar to the latex condom. The eZ·on was also found to be easier to don and remove than the latex condom. Although no overall preference existed for either condom, nearly 30%women and men strongly preferred the eZ·on condom to the latex condom. The eZ·on condom may be an acceptable alternative for couples unable or unwilling to use latex condoms.