Table 5.

Associations between acceptability and nonadherence among women randomized to dapivirine vaginal ring

	N (%)	Nonadherence, at Month 12a
		aRRb	95% CI	p value
Acceptability measures from month-3 ACASI (N = 1058)
Use attributes
Sometimes/usually uncomfortable to have ring inside every day	136 (13)	1.07	(0.73, 1.56)	0.72
Very/somewhat difficult to insert	150 (14)	1.01	(0.70, 1.46)	0.95
Some/most of the time aware of ring during normal activities	216 (20)	1.24	(0.91, 1.69)	0.17
Effects on sex
Felt ring during sex	256 (24)	1.67	(1.26, 2.23)	< 0.001
Partner felt ring during sex (yes vs. no)	192 (18)	1.39	(0.99, 1.95)	0.06

	N (%)	Nonadherence, in last year of studyc
		aRRb	95% CI	p value
Acceptability measures from PUEV ACASI (N = 1042)
Use attributes
Problematic change to vaginal environment	87 (8)	1.57	(1.12, 2.21)	0.009
Mind wearing during menses	158 (15)	1.57	(1.06, 2.32)	0.02
Effects on sex
Mind wearing during sex	178 (17)	2.08	(1.52, 2.85)	< 0.001
Ring’s effect on sexual pleasured
Increases sexual pleasure	430 (41)	Ref	–	–
No change	582 (56)	1.40	(1.07, 1.83)	0.01
Decreases sexual pleasure	21 (2)	1.68	(0.82, 3.45)	0.16
Partner’s attitude
Ring acceptable to partner (no vs yes)	104 (10)	1.38	(0.98, 1.96)	0.07
General acceptability
Less than “very likely” to use in the future	345 (33)	1.31	(1.02, 1.68)	0.03

ACASI audio computer-assisted self-interview, CI confidence interval, PUEV product use end visit

^aMonth 12 ring had dapivirine release rate ≤ 0.9 mg/month (N = 165 of 1058; 16%)

^bAdjusted relative risk (aRR) estimated using separate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors for each acceptability measure. All models adjusted for country, total months of enrollment, and enrollment post adherence intervention initiation

^cThree rings in last year of study had dapivirine release rate ≤ 0.9 mg/month (N = 200 of 1042; 19%)

^dMissing response (N = 9)