Questions on the effectiveness of the vaginal contraceptive film

May 19, 2010 4:00 AM

Questions on the effectiveness of the vaginal contraceptive film (VCF) and how the effectiveness of contraceptives is measured. maybe NSFW

I'm a guy, and I'm very interested in using the VCF as a contraceptive sometimes with certain partners.

Apothecus, the company that produce the product state the effectiveness as 96% (condoms 96%, the pill 98%). I was unable to find the study that produced this result.

I would guess that as this is a new product it's not possible to tell it's accuracy to within 2%, and therefore that it has a good chance of being as effective as condoms. (although obviously it could be a little worse as well) So looking for clarification.

My reasoning is that the sample size couldn't have been that big - I guess they would have tested maybe 1000 couples if that, not 100, 000. and so it could come out a couple of % different each time. Whereas with condoms there have been multiple studies.

There is also a figure of 70% effectiveness for this product floating round the web. Anyone know where this comes from as this would be a deal breaker obviously.

From reading wikipedia, I don't see any method you can combine with this to make it more effective apart from condoms, the pill etc which would defeat the purpose, but if you have an idea would be interested.

I am aware that this method has certain disadvantages compared to condoms.

Thanks.

posted by Not Supplied to health & fitness (6 answers total)

Sorry there's a mistake in there. The quoted effectiveness is VCF 94%, condoms 96%, the pill 98%.

A link to the product website here
posted by Not Supplied at 4:11 AM on May 19, 2010

Do these help?

Study published in 1980: "C-film was used by 168 women for 1 and one-half years from December 1977 to May 1979 for a total period of 2161 months. Only 1 pregnancy occurred, thus giving a pregnancy rate of 0.56/100 women-years."

Study published in 1999: "382 in the film group.... The cumulative 6-month probability of pregnancy during typical use was... 24.9% in the film group."

Study in 2004: "The probability of pregnancy during 6 months of typical use of the spermicide was... 12% ([95% confidence limits] 7%, 17%) in the film group...."
posted by Houstonian at 4:33 AM on May 19, 2010

Well, all I can tell you is that the films aren't new. They're great in comparison to the contraceptive inserts (ensure, etc), and when I used them, I didn't get pregnant. They're neater, there's no noticeable taste, and if I'm remembering right, you can put them in up to an hour before intercourse (and a minimum of 15 minutes before), which I liked for not having to stop in the middle of things. I'd combine them with fertility awareness if condoms aren't an option; either by tracking temperatures or observing cervical mucus or a combination of both.
posted by lemniskate at 5:12 AM on May 19, 2010

My recollection is the same as lemniskate's - the films aren't new, I used them for a while in the early 1990s. They were convenient and effective (well, effective inasmuch as I didn't get pregnant). I have an autoimmune disease so I cannot use any sort of hormonal birth control. My rhematologist recommended we still use condoms along with the films, though, for maximum protection. But the films (to me) were 100% preferable to the Sponge - much less messy, more spontaneity allowed, etc.
posted by Oriole Adams at 9:53 AM on May 19, 2010

Thanks for the replies.
posted by Not Supplied at 12:51 AM on May 20, 2010

Condoms are more reliable as far as "perfect use" rates go, but VCF sure beats nothing, and it beats the "typical use" rate for the pull-out method. If condoms are a no-go, VCF is definitely a feasible option. I'd sure recommend it over barriers like the diaphragm or cervical cap.
posted by girlstyle at 12:04 AM on May 22, 2010