Phexxi marketing material is misleading - Half as effective as advertised!

A

ahcadvocacy

New member
Burning genitalia aside, Phexxi is presenting their product as 86% effective with typical use... based on their 7 month clinical study. From their own product information:

The estimated Pearl Index, calculated based on data from the 7-cycle study, was 27.5 (95% CI: 22.4%, 33.5%).
Click to expand...

So, 27.5% failure rate over the course of a year with typical use. Less like a condom, more like withdrawal in terms of effectiveness. Planned parenthood quoted their seven-month result as the result from one year of use because of their misleading information. The Pearl index is a standard, most people would assume they mean a year. Shoutout to /@rebekahlynn who caught it as well.

I wish it were better! I'm all for more options! But it looks like it would be best used in combination with other methods. In the mean time, their marketing material is telling people it is twice as effective as it actually is. What can you do to help? If you're getting ads, report them - on Facebook and Instagram this falls under False Information > Health. Keep 'em honest! ETA: Ah, you can report em on youtube as well if you want.

Thanks! :)

ETA: Here's Dr. Jen Gunter on the matter for anybody who continues to be confused about this. :)

ETA2: Much older article about the limitations
 
@ahcadvocacy Thank you! I was so skeptical of the people shilling this stuff online! Someone suggested to me that the enthusiasm about it on social media was mostly coming from investors, not from potential users, and honestly that’s probably true because most women I know who use contraception, myself included, would not be comfortable with the worse-than-condoms effectiveness. Not to mention the insane cost.
 
@jjw Yeah I’m pretty sure I had a heated convo with him (or someone similar to him) a few months ago on my alt account. He was basically mansplaning vaginal/reproductive health to me. He tried to claim Phexxi was more effective than the pill by comparing Phexxi’s perfect use rate (93%) to the pill’s typical use rate (91%), when in reality, if you compare perfect use to perfect use and typical use to typical use, Phexxi clearly performs worse than most contraceptives on the market. I also said that Phexxi’s ingredients may be irritating/allergenic to some women, and he said that’s impossible because it’s formulated for the pH of the vagina. Last I checked, pH isn’t what causes allergic reactions. Honestly it just pissed me off that this unqualified dude was giving medical advice based on his financial interests.
 
@prayer4life Unqualified dude who obfuscates the facts cuz he just cares about his bottom line. Ugh. I'm sorry you had to deal with that.

Phexxi is specifically advertised as changing vaginal pH and that it's how it functions as a bc. To claim it doesn't do that goes against how the product claims to work! The ingredients are literally citric acid, lactic acid, and cream of tartar, all of which are acidic. Change in pH can cause irritation (some people experience burning sensations) and potentially throw off your natural flora which can lead to infections. And of course there's always a potential for allergic reactions with any product.
 
@ahcadvocacy Thank you so much for this PSA! It is wrong that women are given false hope essentially on this effectiveness. 7 months of a trial period is way too short for this type of data, it should be at least a year, since that’s how most BC is calculated with effectiveness. Also a 95 CI isn’t as good as a 99 CI, in case other BC is judged on that it would be another blow. I tried looking that up for other options but hit paywalls, but that may be worth an explore for others. It’s infuriating how this wrong information could be given over something so life changing and in some cases ruining as an unintended pregnancy. Another way I feel women who use birth control are disadvantaged, I highly doubt they’d try shady statistics for say, a blood pressure medication....
 
@ahcadvocacy First time hearing about this and it just seems like an unpleasant situation all around. Like I remember getting some freebies of spermicidal film in high school from a local women’s health clinic, and this seems about as effective but way less pleasant in terms of application, but also at a significantly higher price? And messing with vagina PH seems like a yeast infection waiting to happen since this is right in the vag as opposed to a copper iud chilling in the uterus
 
@ahcadvocacy The Pearl Index is itself misleading.

The calculation doesnt even make sense for a 7 month trial because PI = 100* (#pregnancies * 12)/(#women * #months)

The equation is terrible for any trial lasting less than 12 months because of that numerator value. It's also a documented thing that PI creeps up as time goes on and adherence to directions becomes more proficient.
 
@ahcadvocacy Thank you for the info! I've been seeing people push the product, regardless of what OP is talking about, and obviously are just men who are trying to improve the stock. It's condescending, misleading, and the misinformation is dangerous.

It seems like it can definitely be a good addition to condoms - for those it doesn't cause infections and irritation for. Other products have claimed to prevent pregnancy with the same or similar mechanism, but changing your vaginal pH can mess with its natural flora and cause problems. It's the reason douching and washing with soap isn't suggested.
 
@ahcadvocacy I think it's a great option for someone (who doesn't experience irritation from it) currently using condoms who wants another backup, or someone who currently uses condoms as a secondary method with the pill/patch etc and would like to drop the condoms. Although it is very expensive for what it is, especially when you're reasonably likely to react badly and may get infections.

It's a bit concerning to me that given it seems to increase infections and irritation, there wasn't any study on whether it would increase transmission of STIs - irritated and damaged skin is more likely to transmit or contract infection.
 
@briannas But, surely as investors in a women's health company, they are all feminists? Who listen, support, and care for women?

You need to stop talking about what you do not know.

Come on, lady.

Your "rant" is just that, a baseless tirade with 0 basis in reality.

Come on woman.

Read ALL of the information. Then re-read it. If people can't fukn read

You obviously seem upset by this.
Click to expand...

Right?
 
@katrina2017 It's tough. Some people have allergies to latex, some people want a method that isn't as reliant on a partner, some people just want a backup method to condoms. I think it's an option where someone is already considering spermicide as a complimentary method.
 
@ahcadvocacy True but I guess there is also female condoms. In New Zealand where I am, my theory is this phexxi stuff is unlikely to ever take off. Our govt subsidies the pill (a variety of combined and mini), jadelle (an arm implant), iuds (hormonal and non hormonal), Depo provera and condoms. All we pay is the doctors visit which can be less than $45 New Zealand ($30 American) and the prescription fee (5 dollars nz) and that's it. The doctors visit can even be much cheaper then $45 if someone has a low income. Public hospitals are free.
I doubt that this phexxi will ever take off or be offered here - it sounds unreliable. Female condoms are available but cost $10 for three. There is new diaphragm as well but that is very very limited and not and subsidised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Child Psych Material Recommendations
Replies
2
Views
77
laurarose8473839
L
M
Preflat Material
Replies
4
Views
76
tashie8195
T
Back
Top