Comparison of cycle control with a combined contraceptive vaginal ring and oral levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol

U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2024

The 2024 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR) addresses a selected group of common, yet sometimes complex, issues regarding initiation and use of specific contraceptive methods. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25-27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. SPR (CDC. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016;65[No. RR-4]:1-66). Notable updates include 1) updated recommendations for provision of medications for intrauterine device placement, 2) updated recommendations for bleeding irregularities during implant use, 3) new recommendations for testosterone use and risk for pregnancy, and 4) new recommendations for self-administration of injectable contraception. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024

The 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by persons who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25-27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016:65[No. RR-3]:1-103). Notable updates include 1) the addition of recommendations for persons with chronic kidney disease; 2) revisions to the recommendations for persons with certain characteristics or medical conditions (i.e., breastfeeding, postpartum, postabortion, obesity, surgery, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism with or without anticoagulant therapy, thrombophilia, superficial venous thrombosis, valvular heart disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, high risk for HIV infection, cirrhosis, liver tumor, sickle cell disease, solid organ transplantation, and drug interactions with antiretrovirals used for prevention or treatment of HIV infection); and 3) inclusion of new contraceptive methods, including new doses or formulations of combined oral contraceptives, contraceptive patches, vaginal rings, progestin-only pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and vaginal pH modulator. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

Oestrogens in oral contraception: considerations for tailoring prescription to women's needs

BACKGROUND

The oestrogenic component of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) has changed over years with the aim of reducing oestrogen-related side effects and risks, whilst maintaining oestrogen beneficial effects, particularly on cycle control.

PURPOSE

To describe the pharmacological profiles of different oestrogens commonly used in COCs to provide insights on contraceptive prescription tailored to women's needs.

RESULTS

All COCs ensure a high contraceptive efficacy. COCs containing the natural oestrogens oestradiol (E2), oestradiol valerate (E2V) and estetrol (E4) have limited impact on liver metabolism, lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, haemostasis and sex hormone binding globulin levels, compared with ethinylestradiol (EE). COCs with E2 and E2V appear also to entail a lower elevation of the risk of venous thromboembolism vs. EE-containing pills. No epidemiological data are available for E4-COC. E2- and E2V-containing COCs seem to exert a less stabilising oestrogenic effect on the endometrium compared with EE-COCs. The E4-COC results in a predictable bleeding pattern with a high rate of scheduled bleeding and minimal unscheduled bleeding per cycle. Based on in vitro and in vivo animal data, E4 seems to be associated with a lower effect on cell breast proliferation.

CONCLUSION

Today various COCs contain different oestrogens. Prescribers must be familiar with the different properties of each oestrogen for a tailored contraceptive recommendation, considering their safety and contraceptive efficacy, as well as women's needs and preferences.

An overview of contraception in women with obesity

The use of safe and effective contraception is essential for preventing unplanned pregnancy in women of all body sizes. When counseling women with obesity about contraception, it is important to consider the pharmacokinetic alterations of obesity on various modern contraceptive methods. However, evidence is reassuring that most contraceptive methods are safe and effective in women with obesity. Individual countries and the World Health Organization have published Medical Eligibility Criteria to guide contraceptive selection in women with medical issues including obesity. When choosing contraception, specific risks of the method relative to any underlying medical disorders must also be balanced against the risks of unintended pregnancy in this group.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics assessment of oestriol and trimegestone containing vaginal rings in healthy women with childbearing potential

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oestriol (E3) and trimegestone (TMG) in healthy women after application of three different vaginal rings over 21 days. The vaginal rings had a nominal delivery rate of 0.413/0.050 mg/day (Test 1), 0.311/0.090 mg/day (Test 2) and 0.209/0.137 mg/day (Test 3) E3/TMG.

METHODS

Thirty-five healthy women were randomised to receive a single application of Test 1, 2 or 3 (Clinical Trial NCT03343912). The E3 and TMG plasma concentration was determined by LC-MS/MS. Oestradiol (E2) and progesterone (PG) serum concentrations, and bleeding patern were determined as pharmacodynamic parameters. Safety was assessed by evaluation of adverse events and local tolerability.

RESULTS

The total and maximum exposure of E3 and TMG increased in a proportional ratio to dose. However, not in a magnitude which was expected from the dose differences for E3. During Test 2 and 3 treatment all E2 and PG values remained on a well suppressed level until end of treatment. E2 and PG serum levels increased distinctly earlier after ring removal with Test 1 compared to Test 2 and 3. Test 3 achieved 95.24% of "no bleeding" days under treatment followed by Test 1 (91.67%), and Test 2 (86.15%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Test 3 formulation presented the best dose combination of E3/TMG for contraception. Moreover, all vaginal rings were well tolerated.

Development of a simple liquid chromatography method for dissolution testing of low dose desogestrel and ethinylestradiol tablets

Accurate quantitation of low dose, multi-active dissolution samples poses unique challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, often resulting in separate HPLC methods for each active or the use of multiple detectors for increased sensitivity. In this study, we report a fast, isocratic HPLC method utilizing only UV detection for dissolution testing of low dose desogestrel and ethinylestradiol tablets. Rapid separation is completed in 5 min using isocratic elution at a flow rate of 0.45 mL/min, with a column temperature at 30 °C, an injection volume of 50 μL and the detection wavelength at 200 nm. After extensive method development and optimization, the cyano stationary phase was used to overcome the large difference in hydrophobicity for desogestrel and ethinylestradiol, providing balanced retention for both analytes under isocratic elution. Chromatography modeling software was used to provide a rapid analysis of multiple columns and chromatography conditions. The optimized method boasts fast and efficient separation through use of a short, small I.D. column and a large injection volume of dissolution solution to achieve high sensitivity. The stable baseline from an isocratic separation allows low detection wavelengths to be used, resulting in accurate and precise quantitation of both desogestrel and ethinylestradiol. The method has been successfully validated for specificity, linearity, accuracy and precision in the range of 75 - 600 ng/mL for desogestrel and 10 - 80 ng/mL for ethinylestradiol using both HPLC and UHPLC systems. The method robustness was characterized using a design of experiment approach, and the operational design region of the method was established.

Bleeding profile associated with 1-year use of the segesterone acetate/ethinyl estradiol contraceptive vaginal system: pooled analysis from Phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVES

To describe bleeding patterns among users of the segesterone acetate (SA) and ethinyl estradiol (EE) contraceptive vaginal system (CVS), and identify factors associated with unscheduled bleeding/spotting (B/S).

STUDY DESIGN

We pooled results from two multicenter, single-arm, open-label, pivotal, phase 3 studies of the SA/EE CVS conducted in 17 US and 7 international sites. Participants (age 18-40 years; BMI ≤29 kg/m2) followed a 21/7-day in/out schedule of CVS use for up to 13 cycles and recorded vaginal bleeding daily in paper diaries. Scheduled and unscheduled B/S were summarized by cycle. We used multiple logistic regression to identify factors associated with unscheduled bleeding/spotting, based on the first 4 cycles only.

RESULTS

Analysis included data from 2070 participants (16,408 cycles). Ninety-eight percent documented scheduled B/S [mean (SD): 4.9 (1.1) days/cycle)]. Absence of scheduled B/S was 5-8% of women/cycle. Unscheduled B/S ranged from 13.2% to 21.7% of women per cycle. Few women (1.8%) discontinued prematurely due to unacceptable bleeding. Black women were more likely to report unscheduled B/S than White women [Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.14-1.94]. Women with fewer years of schooling [

CONCLUSIONS

Participants using the SA/EE CVS up to 13 cycles reported good cycle control. Discontinuation due to unacceptable bleeding was very low. Further research into demographic/other differences with reported unscheduled bleeding is warranted.

IMPLICATIONS

Since good cycle control is a key factor influencing contraceptive selection, adherence and continuation of combined hormonal contraceptives, the favorable bleeding profiles experienced by women during the SA/EE CVS clinical trials provide reassuring information for prospective users.

Collapse

Key Words

• Bleeding patterns
• Combined hormonal contraceptives
• Contraceptive vaginal system
• Nestorone
• Segesterone acetate

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adolescent
• Adult
• Drug Combinations
• Ethinyl Estradiol/adverse effects
• Female
• Humans
• Menstruation/drug effects
• Pregnenediones/adverse effects
• Young Adult

Collapse

Grants

• HD43379003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43374003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43371003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43372003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43382003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43376003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43375003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43378003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43381003 NIDDK NIH HHS
• HD43373003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43366003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43377003 NICHD NIH HHS
• HD43380003 NCI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Carolina Sales Vieira Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes, 3900 - Campus Universitário - Monte Alegre, CEP: 14049-900, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.; Population Council, 1230 York Avenue, New York City, NY, 10065, USA..
Ian S Fraser The University of New South Wales, School of Women's and Children's Health, Royal Hospital for Women, Barker Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
Marlena G Plagianos Population Council, 1230 York Avenue, New York City, NY, 10065, USA
Anne E Burke Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA
Carolyn L Westhoff Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, NY 10032, USA
Jeffrey Jensen Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, USA
Vivian Brache Profamilia, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Luis Bahamondes Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Science, University of Campinas, Caixa Postal 6181, CEP 13084-971, Campinas, SP, Brazil
Ruth Merkatz Population Council, 1230 York Avenue, New York City, NY, 10065, USA
Regine Sitruk-Ware Population Council, 1230 York Avenue, New York City, NY, 10065, USA
Diana L Blithe Contraceptive Development Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Collapse

No. 329-Canadian Contraception Consensus Part 4 of 4 Chapter 9: Combined Hormonal Contraception

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for health care providers on the use of contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy and on the promotion of healthy sexuality.

OUTCOMES

Overall efficacy of cited contraceptive methods, assessing reduction in pregnancy rate, safety, and side effects; the effect of cited contraceptive methods on sexual health and general well-being; and the availability of cited contraceptive methods in Canada.

EVIDENCE

Medline and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles in English on subjects related to contraception, sexuality, and sexual health from January 1994 to December 2015 in order to update the Canadian Contraception Consensus published February-April 2004. Relevant Canadian government publications and position papers from appropriate health and family planning organizations were also reviewed.

VALUES

The quality of the evidence is rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations for practice are ranked according to the method described in this report.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi-objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision.COCP versus placeboCOCP, with a step-down oestrogen and step-up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I² = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment.COCP versus other medical treatmentsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events.Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS)The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatmentsCOCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.ProgestogensCVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.

Genetic variation in the first-pass metabolism of ethinylestradiol, sex hormone binding globulin levels and venous thrombosis risk

BACKGROUND

Use of ethinylestradiol, one of the active ingredients in combined oral contraceptives, affects the incidence of venous thrombosis. To explain why some women develop thrombosis when using oral contraceptives and others do not, we hypothesized a role for the first-pass metabolism of ethinylestradiol in the liver. We set out to determine the association between genetic variation in the first-pass metabolism of ethinylestradiol, venous thrombosis risk and the effect on Sex-hormone-binding-globulin (SHBG) levels.

METHODS

Premenopausal women were included from two case-control studies: LETS (103 cases; 159 controls) and MEGA (397 cases; 796 controls). Haplotype-tagging SNPs were selected in 11 candidate genes; COMT, CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, SULT1A1, SULT1E1, UGT1A1, UGT1A3, UGT1A9, UGT2B7. Venous thrombosis risk was expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For SHBG levels, mean differences with 95%CI were estimated in combined oral contraceptive-using control subjects from the MEGA study.

RESULTS

Two copies of haplotype D in the UGT2B7 gene increased venous thrombosis risk (OR_LETS: 3.78; OR_MEGA: 2.61) as well as SHBG levels (mean difference 27.6nmol/L, 95%CI: -61.7 to 116.9 compared with no copies) in oral contraceptive users and not in non-users. In oral contraceptive users, haplotype A and B in the CYP3A4 gene were associated with venous thrombosis risk, but not in non-users; however, the effect on SHBG levels was not directional with the risk. None of the other haplotypes were associated with venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Genetic variation in the UGT2B7 gene may, in part, explain venous thrombosis risk in combined oral contraceptive users.

A Review of Hormonal Contraception and Venous Thromboembolism in Adolescents

BACKGROUND

The number of adolescents who are prescribed hormonal contraception (HC) for contraceptive and noncontraceptive indications is increasing. Approximately 1 of 4 female adolescents will use some form of HC by age 19 years. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a rare, but life-threatening complication associated with HC use. Although adolescents aged 15 to 19 years have the lowest absolute HC-associated VTE risk, they still account for 5.9% of HC-associated VTE. The absolute HC-associated VTE risk for those younger than 15 years of age is not well described.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this report are to describe the current literature regarding HC-associated VTE in adolescents, to review the coagulation cascade and in vivo coagulation, to highlight differences between the adolescent and adult coagulation profiles, to discuss coagulation profile changes related to HC use, and to identify knowledge deficits for future study.

CONCLUSION

The mechanisms and confounding variables that lead to HC-associated VTE in all adolescents are not well understood because many large HC studies exclude female adolescents younger than 18 years of age. Because of the paucity of data in this age group, observational studies and randomized controlled trials of VTE risk in adolescents on varying forms of HC are needed. Studies should include female adolescents across the entire adolescent age span (12-21 years) to better understand HC-associated VTE risk in this population.

Efficacy and safety of the contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with a combined oral contraceptive in Chinese women: a 1-year randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the monthly vaginal ring (NuvaRing; 15 μg ethinylestradiol [EE] and 120 μg etonogestrel per day) compared with a monophasic (21/7) combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 μg EE and 3 mg drospirenone in healthy Chinese women aged 18-40 years.

METHODS

This was a phase III, open-label, randomised multicentre trial conducted in China. Participants received NuvaRing or COC for 13 cycles (3 weeks of ring/pill treatment followed by a 1-week ring-free/pill-free period). Contraceptive efficacy was assessed by in-treatment pregnancies and expressed by the Pearl Index (PI; number of pregnancies/100 woman-years of use). Cycle control was assessed by unscheduled (breakthrough) and absence of scheduled (withdrawal) bleeding events. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

Participants were randomised either to the NuvaRing (n = 732) or to the COC (n = 214); 588 (82.4%) and 182 (78.4%) participants, respectively, completed the study. There were 10 in-treatment pregnancies in the NuvaRing group (PI 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92, 3.53) and five in the COC group (PI 3.12; 95% CI 1.01, 7.29). Breakthrough bleeding/spotting ranged from 18.6% (Cycle 1) to 4.2% (Cycle 11) for NuvaRing and from 21.6% (Cycle 1) to 7.9% (Cycle 11) for COC. Absence of withdrawal bleeding ranged from 8.6% (Cycle 1) to 3.0% (Cycle 11) for NuvaRing and from 14.6% (Cycle 1) to 6.4% (Cycle 5) for COC. For NuvaRing and COC, respectively, 26.6% and 25.0% of participants had treatment-related adverse events, and 7.0% and 9.1% discontinued the study as a result.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-monthly NuvaRing is efficacious and safe for use in Chinese women.

Efficacy of combined hormonal vaginal ring in comparison to combined hormonal pills in heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, acceptability and compliance of combined hormonal vaginal ring (CVR), with combined hormonal pills (CHP) in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective study was conducted in 50 women with HMB in age group of 25-40 years. Patients were divided in two groups of 25 each and followed for six treatment cycles. In each group, cycle comprised of three weeks of CVR (releases 15μg of EE and 120μg of the etonogestrel per day) or CHP (containing 30μgm of EE and 150μgm of LNG) use, followed by one ring or pill free week. After each cycle, patients were evaluated about the amount of blood loss and duration of bleeding by the pictoral blood assessment chart (PBAC), early bleeding (EWB), continued bleeding (CWB), intermenstrual bleeding, intended bleeding, compliance, and user acceptability. The collected data were analyzed using the Chi square test, t-test and ANOVA test.

RESULT

Reduction in PBAC score for CVR (70.73%) and CHP group (70.02%), duration of bleeding and incidence of EWB was comparable among the two groups. The incidence of intermenstrual bleeding was lower in CVR than in CHP group in cycle 3 and 4 with significant p value. The incidence of CWB was significantly lower and the incidence of intended bleeding pattern in CVR group was significantly higher in cycle 3, 4, 5 and 6, signifying better cycle control. Compliance was also higher in CVR (88%) than CHC (75.33% of all cycles).

CONCLUSION

This trial suggests that both the CVR and CHP are very effective short-term treatments for HMB in reproductive age group. However, women had better cycle control and compliance with CVR. This may be an attractive option among the wide variety of medications used to treat HMB.

Unscheduled bleeding and contraceptive choice: increasing satisfaction and continuation rates

Approximately half (51%) of the 6.6 million pregnancies in the US each year are unintended and half of those pregnancies (54%) occur among women not using contraception. Many women discontinue their contraceptives due to method dissatisfaction. Bothersome unscheduled bleeding is one of the main reasons cited by women for stopping a birth control method. Improving counseling and management of these side effects will aide in increasing satisfaction with contraceptive methods. The following review will discuss the bleeding profiles associated with the contraceptive options available in the US. A valuable resource from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, will be introduced. Definitions of the types of unscheduled bleeding are included, as well as strategies for treatment for each contraceptive method. The evidence whether or not anticipatory counseling increases continuation rates will also be reviewed.

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Side-Effects of Intravaginal Ring (Nuvaring(®)) With Combined Oral Hormonal Preparation in Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Combined Oral Contraceptive (COC) pills are being used in patients of abnormal uterine bleeding, especially adolescents and reproductive age women considering their need for contraception. It decreases the blood loss due to haemostatic effect of estrogen and also regularizes the cycle. Intravaginal route has been found to be effective and acceptable; Gastrointestinal absorption and hepatic first-pass metabolism is avoided and steady, uniform blood concentration is achieved. Bioavailability of estrogen and progestogen through oral and vaginal route are same. The convenience of once-a-month administration is another major advantage.

MATERIALS AND MATHODS

Sixty women fulfilling inclusion criteria were randomised into 2 groups in 1:1 ratio. In one group (n=30), monthly insertion of Nuvaring(®)) was done for three consecutive months. Nuvaring(®) releases 15μg ethinyl estradiol and 120 μg etonogesterol daily. The other group (n=30) received COC pill containing 30μg EE and 150 μg levonorgestrel for three consecutive months. Primary outcome measures were change in menstrual cycle pattern and pictorial Blood Loss Assessment chart (PBAC) score. Other Parameters included side effects, change in haemoglobin and weight. Data was analyzed by statistical software SPSS 20.

RESULTS

Both Nuvaring(®) and COC were found to significantly decrease blood loss in each cycle. Decrease in PBAC score was more in Nuvaring(®) group compared to COC, however difference was not significant. Ideal bleed (IB) was frequently higher for Nuvaring(®) group than COC in all 3 cycles, although no statistically significant difference was observed between groups (p-value=0.286). Late withdrawl, intermenstural spotting was higher in COC group. Compliance was better and women were more satisfied in Nuvaring(®) group compared to COC group. Minor side effects like headache, mastalgia, nausea and mood changes were seen in both groups, which were not significant. Continuation rate was significantly higher in Nuvaring® group. 30% women discontinued treatment in OCP group after 3 month compare to 10% in Nuvaring(®) group.

CONCLUSION

Present study shows Nuvaring(®) to be as effective as COC in controlling heavy menstural bleed, better cycle control, with minor acceptable systemic side effects.

The medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women

In the treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding, once a thorough history, physical examination, and indicated imaging studies are performed and all significant structural causes are excluded, medical management is the first-line approach. Determining the acuity of the bleeding, the patient's medical history, assessing risk factors, and establishing a diagnosis will individualize their medical regimen. In acute abnormal uterine bleeding with a normal uterus, parenteral estrogen, a multidose combined oral contraceptive regimen, a multidose progestin-only regimen, and tranexamic acid are all viable options, given the appropriate clinical scenario. Heavy menstrual bleeding can be treated with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, combined oral contraceptives, continuous oral progestins, and tranexamic acid with high efficacy. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may be utilized with hormonal methods and tranexamic acid to decrease menstrual bleeding. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists are indicated in patients with leiomyoma and abnormal uterine bleeding in preparation for surgical interventions. In women with inherited bleeding disorders all hormonal methods as well as tranexamic acid can be used to treat abnormal uterine bleeding. Women on anticoagulation therapy should consider using progestin-only methods as well as a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist to treat their heavy menstrual bleeding. Given these myriad options for medical treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding, many patients may avoid surgical intervention.

Contraceptive Vaginal Rings: Do They Pose an Increased Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Aesthetic Surgery?

Nuvaring (Organon, Kenilworth, NJ) is a vaginal contraception ring inserted by the patient. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2001 for the prevention of pregnancy. The intent of this paper is to increase the awareness of Nuvaring among plastic surgeons, and to explore the risks associated with its use. We report the cases of two cosmetic surgery patients. These patients developed deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli in the postoperative period while using Nuvaring. The very advantages of the Nuvaring-the ease of use, the avoidance of daily administration, and the insertion and removal of the device by the patient-may lead to the failure of patients to recollect being on a vaginal ring for contraception.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Risk.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of a progestin- and estrogen-releasing ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer contraceptive vaginal ring

INTRODUCTION

Multiple studies confirm the safety and efficacy of the combined ethinyl estradiol (EE) and etonogestrel contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing®). Advantages of continuous drug delivery through the vagina compared to oral administration include stable levels of contraceptive steroids without the need for daily drug administration. Although the combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) avoids the problem of missed pills, clinical data do not support greater efficacy. Vaginal administration avoids first-pass hepatic effects; however, EE is a potent inducer of hepatic globulins regardless of the route of administration. Consequently, thromboembolic risk during CCVR use is similar to that with combined oral contraceptives. Some epidemiologic and database studies suggest that the risk of thromboembolism is increased among users of the CCVR compared to levonorgestrel-containing combined pills.

AREAS COVERED

This review examined the available literature for level 1 and level 2 evidence of the CCVR and its associated efficacy and safety. Studies are presented in table format with significant findings and conclusions described.

EXPERT OPINION

A prospective study with 33,235 woman-years of exposure and with greater ability to control for covariates did not demonstrate an elevation of risk. The safety profile of the CCVR appears to be the same as with other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Sexual life impact evaluation of different hormonal contraceptives on the basis of their methods of administration

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare sexual satisfaction with the use of three types of hormonal contraceptives.

METHODS

We have evaluated the sexological profile of 23 patients, treated with a subdermal hormonal contraceptive containing 68 mg etonogestrel. We have compared this profile to that of other two groups of previously studied patients: one consisting of 26 women treated with a vaginal ring releasing 120 µg/day of etonogestrel and 15 µg/day of ethinylestradiol (EE) and one consisting of 25 women treated with an oral contraceptive containing 20 µg of EE and 150 µg of desogestrel. A further group of 25 women, not in treatment with any type of hormonal contraceptive, has been studied as control group. The Interviewer Rating of Sexual Function (IRSF) has been completed by the patients at the beginning of the study and after cycles of 3 and 6 months of contraceptive usage.

RESULTS

All three types of hormonal contraceptives have increased positive indicators of patients' sexual life (sexual interest and fantasies, of orgasm number and intensity and satisfaction) and decreased negative ones (anxiousness, discomfort).

CONCLUSIONS

Subdermal contraception is slower than both intravaginal and oral hormonal contraceptives in giving these effects, but is more effective after a cycle of 6 months of usage.

Comparing the effects of low-dose contraceptive pills to control dysfunctional uterine bleeding by oral and vaginal methods

Background and Objective: Contraceptive pills are generally taken orally and can cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting and hypertension. The vaginal use of these pills can reduce such complications. Our objective was to compare the efficacy and side effects of low dose contraceptive pills by oral and vaginal route in the management of dysfunctional uterine bleeding-(DUB)

Methods: This comparative observational study was conducted at Beheshti and Alzahra (SA) teaching hospitals, affiliated to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in 2010-2011. One hundred women who presented with DUB were randomly assigned into two groups of equal number, receiving the low dose oral contraceptive pills by oral or vaginal route for three month. The amount and duration of bleeding were compared at the beginning and at the end of the study and side effects by these two methods compared.

Results: The results of this study showed that both oral and vaginal routes effectively reduced the duration and amount of bleeding due to DUB after three courses of treatment. This effect was better in the vaginal method compared with oral administration (P = 0.03). Regarding the side effects, nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in the oral group than in the vaginal group (P = 0.03). Vulvovaginitis infection was more frequent in the vaginal group than in the oral group (P = 0.03).

Conclusion: Low dose contraceptive pills are effective in reducing the amount, time, and duration of bleeding in patients with DUB. In addition, reduction of gastrointestinal side effects by vaginal route helps to use these pills by the patient with proper training of physicians, midwives and patients.

Counseling on vaginal delivery of contraceptive hormones: implications for women's body knowledge and sexual health

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers (HCPs) have an important role in helping women select the contraceptive method that best matches their needs and lifestyle. Recent surveys outline the need of women to be informed about all available choices, including the newest methods (particularly those not requiring daily administration), such as vaginal contraception.

METHODS

The most relevant publications on combined contraceptive vaginal ring are revised in the context of counseling as an opportunity to empower women in term of vaginal health and sexual functioning.

RESULTS

HCPs should explain the main characteristics of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring including the anatomical and physiological implications that make the vagina an ideal route of hormonal administration and the basic notions about functional modifications of the vagina during reproductive life. Clinical data on the vaginal ring should be summarized with regard to efficacy, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, cycle control and user acceptability, including recent findings on extra-contraceptive benefits (also compared to other hormonal contraceptives) on the vaginal flora and on sexual function.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal contraception offers various benefits and should always be discussed during contraceptive counseling. An open dialogue about vaginal contraception will also help enhance body knowledge and sexual health.

Vaginal health in contraceptive vaginal ring users - A review

BACKGROUND

To provide an overview of the available data from clinical studies of vaginal conditions in women who use a vaginal ring as a contraceptive.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

Millions of women have already used the ethylene vinyl acetate vaginal ring that releases ethinylestradiol and etonogestrel for contraception. Because of its small size, more than four out of five women using the ring report that they do not feel it, even during sexual intercourse. No colposcopic or cytological changes have been observed in users, although approximately 10% have increased vaginal discharge. While in vitro studies have shown adhesion of Candida yeasts to the vaginal ring surface, clinical studies have not demonstrated a greater incidence of Candida infections compared to users of equivalent oral contraceptives. Some clinical studies suggest a lower incidence of bacterial vaginosis. No interaction exists between concomitant use of the vaginal ring and other drugs or products for vaginal use.

CONCLUSION

The use of a contraceptive vaginal ring does not alter the vaginal ecosystem and therefore does not substantially affect vaginal health.

Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a transdermal contraceptive patch or a contraceptive vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The transdermal patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, compliance (adherence), and safety of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs).

SEARCH METHODS

Through February 2013, we searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP for trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring. Earlier searches also included EMBASE. For the initial review, we contacted known researchers and manufacturers to identify other trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials comparing a transdermal contraceptive patch or a contraceptive vaginal ring with a COC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference was computed. We also assessed the quality of evidence for this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 18 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Of six patch studies, five examined the marketed patch containing norelgestromin plus ethinyl estradiol (EE); one studied a patch in development that contains levonorgestrel (LNG) plus EE. Of 12 vaginal ring trials, 11 examined the same marketing ring containing etonogestrel plus EE; one studied a ring being developed that contains nesterone plus EE.Contraceptive effectiveness was not significantly different for the patch or ring versus the comparison COC. Compliance data were limited. Patch users showed better compliance than COC users in three trials. For the norelgestromin plus EE patch, ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24). In the levonorgestrel plus EE patch report, patch users were less likely to have missed days of therapy (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.51). Of four vaginal ring trials, one found ring users had more noncompliance (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.87 to 8.52), while another showed more compliance with the regimen (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.68).More patch users discontinued early than COC users. ORs from two meta-analyses were 1.59 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.00) and 1.56 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.06) and another trial showed OR 2.57 (95% CI 0.99 to 6.64). Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events than COC users. Users of the norelgestromin-containing patch reported more breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. In the levonorgestrel-containing patch trial, patch users reported less vomiting, headaches, and fatigue.Of 11 ring trials with discontinuation data, two showed the ring group discontinued less than the COC group: OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.66) and OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88). Ring users were less likely to discontinue due to adverse events in one study (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70). Compared to the COC users, ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea but less vaginal dryness. Ring users also reported less nausea, acne, irritability, depression, and emotional lability than COC users.For cycle control, only one trial study showed a significant difference. Women in the patch group were less likely to have breakthrough bleeding and spotting. Seven ring studies had bleeding data; four trials showed the ring group generally had better cycle control than the COC group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness was not significantly different for the methods compared. Pregnancy data were available from half of the patch trials but two-thirds of ring trials. The patch could lead to more discontinuation than the COC. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group. Compliance data came from half of the patch studies and one-third of the ring trials. Patch users had more side effects than the COC group. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge.The quality of the evidence for this review was considered low for the patch and moderate for the ring. The main reasons for downgrading were lack of information on the randomization sequence generation or allocation concealment, the outcome assessment methods, high losses to follow up, and exclusions after randomization.

Iatrogenic unscheduled (breakthrough) endometrial bleeding

Erratic, "unscheduled", vaginal bleeding continues to be the greatest disadvantage associated with widespread use of long-acting, progestogen-only methods of contraception. As a consequence, it is also the main reason for premature discontinuation of use of these methods in most cultures. From other perspectives, these methods have high acceptability, very high contraceptive efficacy and a range of valuable, added, non-contraceptive health benefits. There has been widespread awareness of the variability of these vaginal bleeding patterns associated with long-acting methods for several decades and much research has been invested into studying their patterns and implications. Considerable research has also been directed towards trying to understand the underlying mechanisms responsible for the unpredictable bleeding. Much has been clarified about the multiple mechanisms contributing to the appearance of superficial, thin-walled fragile vessels within the endometrium of many of those women with troublesome bleeding, but there is still little understanding of why some women develop these vessels and others have no fragile vessels (and may therefore develop amenorrhea). We now have several medical approaches to reliably stopping a prolonged episode of troublesome bleeding, but no good therapy to produce long-lasting relief from recurrence of erratic bleeding in predisposed women. Future understanding of the variability in individual endometrial responses in different women may be a key to solving this frustrating symptom.

The combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing): evaluation of the clinical and pharmacological evidence

The NuvaRing((R)) is a vaginal ring contraceptive that releases a daily dose of 15 microg ethinylestradiol and 120 microg etonogestrel through the vaginal epithelium, thereby avoiding the daily fluctuations in serum levels typically observed with combined oral contraceptives. Each ring is designed for a single 3-week use followed by a 1-week ring-free period. The ring offers robust inhibition of ovulation, yielding a Pearl Index of 0.65 for European women in registration trials. The ring has the same contraindications as combined oral contraceptives. The vaginal ring is a highly effective, safe and well-tolerated method of hormonal contraception designed for reproductive-aged women who desire freedom from the daily pill.

Effect of missed combined hormonal contraceptives on contraceptive effectiveness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) are popular methods of reversible contraception in the United States, but adherence remains an issue as reflected in their lower rates of typical use effectiveness. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence on the effect of missed CHCs on pregnancy rates as well as surrogate measures of contraceptive effectiveness (e.g., ovulation, follicular development, changes in hormone levels, cervical mucus quality).

STUDY DESIGN

We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through April 2012. We included studies that examined measures of contraceptive effectiveness during cycles with extended hormone-free intervals or nonadherence (e.g., omission of pills, delayed patch replacement) on days not adjacent to the hormone-free interval. We used standard abstract forms and grading systems to summarize and assess the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1387 articles, of which 26 met our study selection criteria. There is wide variability in the amount of follicular development and risk of ovulation among women who extended the pill-free interval to 8-14 days; in general, the risk of ovulation was low, and among women who did ovulate, cycles were usually abnormal (i.e., low progesterone levels, small follicles and/or poor cervical mucus) (Level I, good, indirect to Level II-3, fair, indirect). Studies of women who missed one to four consecutive pills or 1-3 consecutive days of delay before patch replacement at times other than adjacent to the hormone-free interval reported little follicular activity and low risk of ovulation (Level I, fair, indirect to Level II-3, poor, indirect). Studies comparing 30 mcg versus 20 mcg mc ethinyl estradiol pills showed more follicular activity when 20 mcg ethinyl estradiol pills were missed (Level I, good, indirect).

CONCLUSION

Most of the studies in this evidence base relied on surrogate measures of pregnancy risk and ranged in quality. For studies providing indirect evidence on the effects of missed CHCs, it is unclear how differences in surrogate measures correspond to pregnancy risk. Fewer studies examined the transdermal patch and vaginal ring than combined oral contraceptives.

Current status of contraceptive vaginal rings

Contraceptive vaginal rings (CVR) offer a new, effective contraceptive option, expanding the available choices of hormonal contraception. Various ring prototypes have been evaluated: progestin-only rings and combined progestin-estrogen rings, as well as different combination of progestins and estrogens. The progestin-only ring is intended for continuous use, whereas the combined ring has been designed for cyclic 3-week in/1-week out use, although several studies have explored alternative schemes of extended use. However, only two ring designs have reached the market: NuvaRing, a 1-month combined ring that releases etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol, and Progering, a 3-month progesterone-releasing ring for use in lactating women. A one year Nestorone/ethinyl estradiol CVR is approaching the final stages of development, as the Population Council is preparing to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration. The main advantages of CVRs are their effectiveness (similar or slightly better than the pill), ease of use without the need of remembering a daily routine, user ability to control initiation and discontinuation, nearly constant release rate allowing for lower doses, greater bioavailability and good cycle control with the combined ring, in comparison with oral contraceptives. Current prototypes in development include rings releasing progesterone receptor modulators, which would provide estrogen-free contraception, as well as combined rings releasing estradiol, instead of ethinyl-estradiol, providing a safer profile. Furthermore, intensive efforts towards developing dual protection rings, providing both contraception and protection against reproductive tract infections, offer hope that this greatly needed technology will soon undergo clinical testing and will be in the hands of women worldwide in the near future.

The vaginal ring (NuvaRing®) for contraception in adolescent women

Adolescence is a phase of life of utmost importance for the present and future physical, psychological, and social health of individuals of both genders. Contraception as a preventive measure and behavior has to be integrated into this developmental context. The aim hereby is not only the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, but also the maintenance and promotion of reproductive and sexual health in a broader sense. This includes protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STI), preservation of fertility, promotion of a self-determined and satisfying sexual life, diminution of general health risks and prevention of diseases which may occur later in life. The vaginal contraceptive ring seems to respond to most of these needs except for protection against STI. In conclusion, the vaginal ring is for these reasons an important option in the contraceptive care of adolescents.

The state of hormonal contraception today: benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptives: combined estrogen and progestin contraceptives

Discussion of effective birth control methods can be a challenging process for clinicians because the adoption and consistent use of contraception may be influenced by patients' fears, myths, and misperceptions. Over the years, new progestins have been included in combination contraceptives or are used alone to provide effective contraception as well as to decrease androgenic side effects and ameliorate the symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Alternative delivery systems and regimens have also been introduced to improve tolerability and continuance and convenience of use. This is a review of estrogen and progestin combinations and their effects.

The combined vaginal contraceptive ring, nuvaring, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Combined oral contraceptives are known to confer a risk of venous thromboembolism, including cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), to otherwise healthy women. NuvaRing (Organon USA, Inc., Roseland, NJ) is a contraceptive vaginal ring that delivers 120 μg of etonogestrel and 15 μg of ethinyl estradiol per day. Its use has been associated with rare venous thromboembolic events, but few cases of CVST associated with NuvaRing have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a case that illustrates the increased risk of CVST associated with use of NuvaRing. We describe the case of a NuvaRing user who presented to our emergency department with a headache, who was diagnosed with CVST.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that NuvaRing has at least as much prothrombotic potential as combined oral contraceptives. Thus, emergency physicians should suspect serious venous thromboembolic events, including CVST, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, in NuvaRing users in the proper clinical setting.

Matched-pairs analysis of ovarian suppression during oral vs. vaginal hormonal contraceptive use

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to compare ovarian suppression during oral vs. vaginal hormonal contraceptive use. Secondary aims included comparison of endometrial thickness and bleeding patterns.

METHODS

In two open-label trials assessing ovarian suppression, 33 compliant women completed both studies. They first used oral contraceptive pills (OCs) [randomized to either 20 mcg ethinyl estradiol (EE)/100 mcg levonorgestrel (LNG) or 30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNG] and subsequently used contraceptive vaginal rings (CVRs) (daily release of 15 mcg EE/120 mcg etonogestrel), all 21/7-day regimens. Participants had at least one run-in cycle using each contraceptive method prior to evaluation. During one cycle of each method, women underwent biweekly transvaginal sonography to measure ovarian follicular diameters and endometrial thickness. We also noted presence of a corpus luteum or a ruptured follicle as a marker of ovulation. Participants recorded bleeding days on paper calendars. We used matched-pairs analyses as appropriate.

RESULTS

During follow-up, we identified at least one ovarian follicle ≥8 mm in 20/33 (61%) OC users and 12/33 (36%) CVR users (matched-pairs analysis, p=.02). Similar trends were seen for larger follicles; however, we had limited statistical power to evaluate these differences. Median follicular diameter among OC users was larger than median follicular diameter among CVR users (p=.01). We did not observe a corpus luteum or ruptured follicle in any participant during either study. Endometrial thickness was similar during OC and CVR use (mean 4.1±1.4 vs. 4.1±1.6 mm, p=.9), as was the number of bleeding or spotting days (mean 2.1±2.4 vs. 1.9±2.1, p=.8). Oral contraceptive pill dose was unrelated to follicle diameter, endometrial thickness or bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Ovarian follicles ≥8 mm were more common in 33 compliant women during OC use than during CVR use, indicating that CVR use results in greater ovarian suppression than OC use.

Examining the efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing)

The contraceptive vaginal ring is a novel contraceptive method that offers unique advantages. Intravaginal delivery of both estrogen and progesterone allows continuous release of medication, resulting in lower systemic levels. The use of long-term combined hormonal contraception enables improved cycle control compared with progesterone-only methods. The indications and usage of the NuvaRing^® are described along with the efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Overall, the contraceptive vaginal ring appears to be very effective, with a favorable side-effect profile, and is highly acceptable to most patients.

Vaginal ring contraception

The contraceptive vaginal ring is a relatively new combined hormonal contraceptive method. Ethinyl estradiol and etonogestrel are rapidly absorbed through the vaginal epithelium and result in a steady serum concentration. Studies have demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of the ring are equivalent to oral contraceptives (OCs). Patients report being highly satisfied with the vaginal ring and report fewer systemic side effects than do OC users. The ring provides effective cycle control as well as symptom relief for women with menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea and polycystic ovarian syndrome. A new combined contraceptive ring containing Nestorone and ethinyl estradiol is currently being investigated in a Phase 3 trial. A progesterone-releasing vaginal ring appropriate for lactating women is available in Chile and Peru. Recent studies have demonstrated that vaginal rings can also be effective means of delivering antiretroviral drugs that provide protection from HIV.

Why do women experience untimed pregnancies? A review of contraceptive failure rates

Contraceptive failure contributes to a substantial proportion of unintended pregnancy, particularly in the developed world. A number of socio-demographic factors seem to impact on the risk of a woman experiencing contraceptive failure. Many of the issues exist across cultural boundaries and are complex to address. In discussing the failure rates for individual contraceptive methods, this article will highlight the advantage of improving uptake of long-acting reversible methods of contraception which have a high efficacy and are less user-dependent than many of the other available methods.

Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a skin patch or vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The skin patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, adherence (compliance), and safety of the skin patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

For trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring, we searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We contacted manufacturers and researchers to identify other trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials comparing the skin patch or vaginal ring with a COC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference was computed.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 5 trials of the skin patch and 10 of the vaginal ring. Contraceptive effectiveness was similar for the patch or ring versus the comparison COC. More patch users discontinued early than COC users: ORs were 1.59 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.00), 1.56 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.06), and 2.57 (95% CI 0.99 to 6.64). Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events. Compared to COC users, patch users reported more breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Patch users reported more compliant cycles than the COC users in two trials: ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24). The ring trials generally showed similar discontinuation for ring and COC users. Ring users reported less nausea, acne, irritability, and depression than COC users. Ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea but less vaginal dryness. Ring users had similar adherence to COC users in two trials but less adherence in one. Cycle control was generally similar for the patch and COC, and was similar or better for the ring versus COC.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness was similar for the methods compared. The patch could lead to more discontinuation while the vaginal ring showed little difference. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group but more side effects. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge. High losses to follow up can affect the validity of the results.