title: Non-latex versus latex male condoms for contraception.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The male condom, which consists of a thin sheath placed over the glans and shaft of the penis, is designed to prevent pregnancy by providing a physical barrier against the deposition of semen into the vagina during intercourse. Beginning in the 1990s, nonlatex male condoms made of polyurethane film or synthetic elastomers were developed as alternative male barrier methods for individuals with allergies, sensitivities or preferences that prevented the consistent use of condoms made of latex.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The review sought to evaluate nonlatex male condoms in comparison with latex condoms in terms of contraceptive efficacy, breakage and slippage, safety, and user preferences.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched computerized databases for randomized controlled trials of nonlatex condoms. We also wrote to the manufacturers of nonlatex condoms and known investigators in an attempt to locate any other trials not identified in our search.
  
  
  METHODS
  The review included all randomized controlled trials identified in the literature search that evaluated a male nonlatex condom made of polyurethane film or synthetic elastomers in comparison with a latex condom.
  
  
  METHODS
  We evaluated all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches for inclusion. Two authors independently extracted data from the identified studies. We analyzed data with RevMan. The Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each outcome of contraceptive efficacy, condom breakage and slippage, discontinuation of use, safety, and user preference. Contraceptive efficacy, early discontinuation, and safety outcomes were also measured with survival analysis techniques.
  
  
  RESULTS
  While the eZ.on condom did not protect against pregnancy as well as its latex comparison condom, no differences were found in the typical-use efficacy between the Avanti and the Standard Tactylon and their latex counterparts. The nonlatex condoms had significantly higher rates of clinical breakage than their latex comparison condoms: the Peto OR for clinical breakage ranged from 2.6 (95% CI 1.6 to 4.3) to 5.0 (95% CI 3.6 to 6.8). Few adverse events were reported. Substantial proportions of participants preferred the nonlatex condom or reported that they would recommend its use to others.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although the nonlatex condoms were associated with higher rates of clinical breakage than their latex comparison condoms, the new condoms still provide an acceptable alternative for those with allergies, sensitivities, or preferences that might prevent the consistent use of latex condoms. The contraceptive efficacy of the nonlatex condoms requires more research.
authors.forename: M F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Gallo
authors.forename: D A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Grimes
authors.forename: L M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Lopez
authors.forename: K F
authors.initials: KF
authors.lastname: Schulz
mesh_terms: D017280:Condoms / Q000592:standards*; D003267:Contraception / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D007840:Latex; D008297:Male; D011137:Polystyrenes; D011140:Polyurethanes; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
chemical_list: D007840:Latex; D011137:Polystyrenes; D011140:Polyurethanes; C078515:Tactylon