Efficacy and acceptability of two monophasic oral contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol and either desogestrel or gestodene

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.

Is hormonal treatment still an option in acne today?

Hormonal treatment is indicated in cases of papulopustular, nodular and conglobate acne in females with identified hyperandrogenism, in adult women who have monthly flare-ups and when standard therapeutic options are unsuccessful or inappropriate. This review summarizes the latest information on hormonal therapies including: combined oral contraceptives; anti-androgens, such as cyproterone acetate, spironolactone and flutamide; low-dose glucocorticoids and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. It also shares the authors' recommendations for treatment based on the studies discussed here, and personal experience.

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2013, we searched the computerized databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). For the initial review, we also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan. A second author verified the data entered. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements using a fixed-effect model. For categorical data, such as the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 49 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The trials included 85 weight change comparisons for 52 distinct contraceptive pairs (or placebos). The four trials with a placebo or no intervention group did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight change. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight change did not differ between groups where this was studied.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2012, we searched for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne in the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (Aug 2011). For the initial review, we wrote to researchers to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on facial lesion counts, both total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules); acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant, and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous data, we calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 31 trials with 12,579 participants. Of 24 comparisons made, 6 compared a COC to placebo, 17 different COCs, and 1 compared a COC to an antibiotic. Of nine placebo-controlled trials with data for analysis, all showed COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. A levonorgestrel-COC group had fewer total lesion counts (MD -9.98; 95% CI -16.51 to -3.45), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and were more likely to have a clinician assessment of clear or almost clear lesions and participant self-assessment of improved acne lesions. A norethindrone acetate COC had better results for clinician global assessment of no acne to mild acne (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.62). In two combined trials, a norgestimate COC showed reduced total lesion counts (MD-9.32; 95% CI -14.19 to -4.45), reduced inflammatory lesion and comedones counts, and more with clinician assessment of improved acne. For two combined trials of a drospirenone COC, the investigators' assessment of clear or almost clear skin favored the drospirenone group (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.99 to 4.59). In one trial, the drospirenone-COC group showed greater (more positive) percent changes for total lesion count (MD 29.08; 95% CI 3.13 to 55.03), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and papule and closed comedone counts. A dienogest-COC group had greater percentage decreases in total lesion count (MD -15.30; 95% CI -19.98 to -10.62) and inflammatory lesion count, and more women assessed with overall improvement of facial acne. A CMA-COC group had more 'responders,' those with 50% or greater decrease in facial papules and pustules (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.55)Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages were less clear, and data were limited for any particular comparison. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel. A COC with cyproterone acetate showed better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel, but the studies produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes, but results were not consistent. A drospirenone COC appeared to be more effective than norgestimate or nomegestrol acetate plus 17β-estradiol but less effective than cyproterone acetate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update yielded six new trials but no change in conclusions. The six COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since only one trial addressed this issue. The use of standardized methods for assessing acne severity would help in synthesizing results across trials as well as aid in interpretation.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2012, we searched for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne in the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (Aug 2011). For the initial review, we wrote to researchers to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on facial lesion counts, both total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules); acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant, and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous data, we calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 31 trials with 12,579 participants. Of 24 comparisons made, 6 compared a COC to placebo, 17 different COCs, and 1 compared a COC to an antibiotic. Of nine placebo-controlled trials with data for analysis, all showed COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. A levonorgestrel-COC group had fewer total lesion counts (MD -9.98; 95% CI -16.51 to -3.45), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and were more likely to have a clinician assessment of clear or almost clear lesions and participant self-assessment of improved acne lesions. A norethindrone acetate COC had better results for clinician global assessment of no acne to mild acne (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.62). In two combined trials, a norgestimate COC showed reduced total lesion counts (MD-9.32; 95% CI -14.19 to -4.45), reduced inflammatory lesion and comedones counts, and more with clinician assessment of improved acne. For two combined trials of a drospirenone COC, the investigators' assessment of clear or almost clear skin favored the drospirenone group (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.99 to 4.59). In one trial, the drospirenone-COC group showed greater (more positive) percent changes for total lesion count (MD 29.08; 95% CI 3.13 to 55.03), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and papule and closed comedone counts. A dienogest-COC group had greater percentage decreases in total lesion count (MD -15.30; 95% CI -19.98 to -10.62) and inflammatory lesion count, and more women assessed with overall improvement of facial acne. A CMA-COC group had more 'responders,' those with 50% or greater decrease in facial papules and pustules (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.55)Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages were less clear, and data were limited for any particular comparison. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel. A COC with cyproterone acetate showed better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel, but the studies produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes, but results were not consistent. A drospirenone COC appeared to be more effective than norgestimate or nomegestrol acetate plus 17β-estradiol but less effective than cyproterone acetate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update yielded six new trials but no change in conclusions. The six COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since only one trial addressed this issue. The use of standardized methods for assessing acne severity would help in synthesizing results across trials as well as aid in interpretation.

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Searches were conducted from January to May 2011. We also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan. A second author verified the data entered. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements using a fixed-effect model. For categorical data, such as the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 49 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The trials included 85 weight change comparisons for 52 distinct contraceptive pairs (or placebos). The four trials with a placebo or no intervention group did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight change. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight change did not differ between groups where this was studied.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

Types of progestogens in combined oral contraception: effectiveness and side-effects

BACKGROUND

The progestogen component of combined oral contraceptives (COC) has undergone changes since it was first recognised that it's chemical structure could influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. The major determinants of effectiveness are compliance and continuation which may be influenced by cycle control and common side effects. The rationale of this review is to provide a systematic comparison of COCs containing the progestogens currently in use worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To compare currently available low-dose COCs containing ethinyl estradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search of PubMed, LILACS, EMBASE, Popline, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was conducted in September 2010 to update the 2004 review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion. We excluded studies comparing monophasic with multiphasic pills, crossover trials, trials in which the difference in total content of ethinyl estradiol between preparations exceeded 105 µg per cycle and those comparing continuous dosing regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality, applied inclusion criteria and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty trials with a total of 13,923 participants were included, generating 16 comparisons. Overall the quality of trials was low. Only four trials were double-blind. At least twenty-three trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. There was less discontinuation with second-generation compared with first-generation monophasic progestogens (3 trials, 2,709 women, Relative Risk (RR) 0.76, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.67-0.86); this remained significant when only double-blind trials were considered (812 women, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94).Women using monophasic COC's containing third-generation progestogens were less likely to discontinue than the second-generation group (3 trials, 1,815 women, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.98) but this was not significant when only double-blind trials were considered (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50-1.26]. Women in the third-generation group experienced less intermenstrual bleeding than the second-generation group (one double-blind trial, 456 women, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.91).Compared to desogestrel (DSG), women in the drospirenone (DRSP) group were more likely to complain of breast tenderness (5 trials, 4,258 women, RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04-1.86) and nausea (6 trials, 4,701 women, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.96-2.21].Pregnancy rates overall were comparable but the trials had insufficient power to find potentially important differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Women using COCs containing second-generation progestogens may be less likely to discontinue than those using COCs containing first-generation progestogens. Based on one small double-blind trial, third-generation progestogens may be preferable to second-generation preparations with regard to bleeding patterns but further evidence is needed. Without blinding as to treatment group, comparisons between the various "generations" of progestogens used in COCs cannot be made. Until this widespread methodological flaw is overcome in better trials conducted according to CONSORT guidelines and internationally accepted definitions, no further conclusions can be drawn.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne in the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We wrote to authors of identified trials to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules) facial lesion counts; acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 25 trials: 7 placebo-controlled trials made 4 different comparisons, 17 trials made 13 comparisons between 2 different COC regimens, and 1 additional trial compared a COC to an antibiotic. COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages, though, were less clear. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel, although this apparent advantage was based on limited data. A COC with cyproterone acetate might result in better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel; however, the three studies comparing these COCs produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes in one trial, but a second trial found the COC groups were similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The four COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since limited data were available regarding this question.

The role of combined oral contraceptives in the management of acne and seborrhea

Acne and seborrhea (or facial oiliness) are related androgenic skin disorders which affect a high proportion of women after menarche. They can have a negative effect on psychological well-being and social life. Androgens play an important role in the pathogenesis of acne through the stimulation of sebum secretion, increasing sebaceous gland size and possibly through follicular hyperkeratinization. Conversely, estrogens decrease sebum production by suppressing gonadotropin release and androgen production and increasing sex hormone binding globulin production. One of the treatment options for these conditions is hormonal therapy, especially for women who require contraception. The effect of combined oral contraceptives in androgenic skin disorders depends on their estrogen:progestogen balance and on the antiestrogenic activity of the progestogen component. Improved understanding of what women value about oral contraceptives suggests that the choice of product should be tailored as much as possible to the individual. Several combined oral contraceptives containing new-generation progestogens (e.g. desogestrel, gestodene) or progestational antiandrogens (e.g. cyproterone acetate, chlormadinone acetate) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of women with acne, although comparisons between trials are difficult because of differing endpoints. Seborrhea has been less well studied, but the few studies that are available show an improvement in women with this condition using combined oral contraceptives.

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as clinical trials databases. We also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan, and a second author verified the data entered. Depending on the data available, the mean difference using a fixed effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements or the Peto odds ratio with 95% confidence interval was calculated using the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight.

MAIN RESULTS

The three placebo-controlled, randomized trials did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight gain. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight gain did not differ between groups where this was studied.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, Biological Abstracts and LILACS for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne. We wrote to authors of identified trials to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules) facial lesion counts; acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 23 trials: 5 placebo-controlled trials made 3 different comparisons, 17 trials made 13 comparisons between 2 different COC regimens, and 1 additional trial compared a COC to an antibiotic. COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages, though, were less clear. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel, although this apparent advantage was based on limited data. A COC with cyproterone acetate might result in better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel; however, the three studies comparing these COCs produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes in one trial, but a second trial found no difference between the COCs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The three COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since limited data were available regarding this question.

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives. We also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, and/or study length.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan, and a second author verified the data entered. Depending on the data available, the weighted mean difference using a fixed effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements or the Peto odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals was calculated using the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight.

MAIN RESULTS

The three placebo-controlled, randomized trials did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight gain. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight gain did not differ between groups where this was studied.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident.

Hormonal Therapy for Acne Using Oral Contraceptive Pills

The etiology of acne vulgaris is multifactorial and complex. The four key factors involved in the development of acne include follicular plugging, inflammation, the presence and activity of Propionibacterium acnes, and sebum. Androgen hormones stimulate the sebaceous gland and promote sebum excretion. Therefore, therapies that have an overall antiandrogen effect, like combination oral contraceptive pills, may be useful in the management of acne vulgaris. Numerous combination oral contraceptive pills have been evaluated in the treatment of acne vulgaris and have been found to be effective. With a thorough understanding of their proper use and potential associated risks, these hormonal treatments may be prescribed safely and effectively to women with acne.

Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives - a systematic review

Background

The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OCs) has undergone changes since it was recognized that their chemical structure can influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects.

Methods

The objective of this review was to evaluate currently available low-dose OCs containing ethinylestradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion and were assessed for methodological quality and validity.

Results

Twenty–two trials were included in the review. Eighteen were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and in only 5 there was an attempt for blinding. Most comparisons between different interventions included one to three trials, involving usually less than 500 women. Discontinuation was less with second-generation progestogens compared to first–generation (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69–0.91). Cycle control appeared to be better with second-compared to first-generation progestogens for both, mono-and triphasic preparations (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52–0.91) and (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.85), respectively. Intermenstrual bleeding was less with third- compared to second-generation pills (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55–0.91).

Contraceptive effectiveness of gestodene (GSD) was comparable to that of levonorgestrel (LNG), and had similar pattern of spotting, breakthrough bleeding and absence of withdrawal bleeding). Drospirenone (DRSP) was similar compared to desogestrel (DSG) regarding contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control and side effects.

Conclusion

The third- and second-generation progestogens are preferred over first generation in all indices of acceptability. Current evidence suggests that GSD is comparable to LNG in terms of contraceptive effectiveness and for most cycle control indices. GSD is also comparable to DSG. DRSP is comparable to DSG. Future research should focus on independently conducted well designed randomized trials comparing particularly the third- with second-generation progestogens.

Combination Estrogen–Progestin Contraceptives and Body Weight: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Many women and clinicians believe that combination estrogen-progestin contraceptive use can lead to weight gain. This concern can deter women from starting hormonal contraception or lead to premature quitting. This review evaluated the association between combination contraceptive use and change in body weight.

DATA SOURCES

The computerized databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Popline, and LILACS (from their inception to 2002) were used to conduct this review. Known investigators and manufacturers were contacted for information about other trials not discovered in the database search.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

All English-language, randomized controlled trials measuring weight change that were at least 3 treatment cycles in duration and that compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length were eligible for inclusion. Of the 570 reports of randomized controlled trials of eligible interventions that were identified, 42 trials were included in the systematic review.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two reviewers independently abstracted data from the eligible trials using a standard form. Depending on the data available, the weighted mean difference using a fixed effect model with 95% confidence intervals was calculated for the mean change in weight between baseline and posttreatment measurements or the Peto odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals was calculated by using the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight. The 3 placebo-controlled, randomized trials did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight gain. Most comparisons from the 40 trials that compared 2 or more combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight gain did not differ between groups when this factor was studied.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence is insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect is evident.

Progestogens in combined oral contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OC) has undergone changes since it was first recognised that their chemical structures could influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. The major determinants of OCs are effectiveness, cycle control and common side effects. The rationale of this review is to provide a systematic comparison of OCs containing the progestogens currently in use worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare currently available low-dose OCs containing ethinyl estradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases have been searched systematically. Relevant pharmaceutical companies and the authors of articles included in this review have been contacted for clarification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion. We excluded studies comparing mono- with multiphasic pills, and crossover trials with trials in which the difference in total content of ethinyl estradiol between preparations exceeded 105 micro g.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The methodological quality and validity of studies were assessed based on the above-mentioned inclusion criteria. Both application of inclusion criteria and data extraction were performed independently by the reviewers. Results are expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials have been included in this review, thus generating 14 comparisons. Eighteen trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and in only 5 cases had a blind trial been attempted. Most comparisons between different interventions included 1-3 trials. There was less discontinuation with second- compared to first-generation progestogens (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69-0.91). Cycle control appears to be better when using second- compared to first-generation progestogens for both mono- (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.91) and triphasic (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43-0.85) preparations.Contraceptive effectiveness, spotting, breakthrough bleeding and the absence of withdrawal bleeding was similar when using GSD compared to LNG, although there was less intermenstrual bleeding in the GSD group (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.91). Drospirenone (DRSP) appeared to be similar to DSG.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on data from one trial, compared to pills containing LNG, those containing GSD may be associated with less intermenstrual bleeding although they show similar patterns of spotting, breakthrough bleeding and the absence of withdrawal bleeds. GSD is also comparable to DSG. Regarding acceptability, all the indices show that third- and second-generation progestogens are preferred over first-generation preparations. Future research should focus on independently conducted, well-designed randomised trials that compare third- and second-generation progestogens in particular.

Effects of a phasic oral contraceptive containing desogestrel on facial seborrhea and acne

BACKGROUND

The combined oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and the selective progestogen, desogestrel, in a phasic regimen (DSG-OC, Tri-merci) has been shown to reduce facial oiliness.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate further the effects of this OC on the skin of women with facial seborrhea and mild or moderate acne.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an open, noncomparative, bicenter study in 60 healthy Russian women, aged 18-30 years, with facial seborrhea and mild or moderate facial acne, who wished to use oral contraception. All women received the OC containing desogestrel (50/100/150 microg) and ethinylestradiol (35/30/30 microg) for three phases of 7 days followed by a 7-day pill-free interval, for six cycles. Seborrhea was assessed using the Sebutape technique, in which strips of adhesive microporous polymeric film pressed onto facial sites are used to assess sebaceous activity. Acne was assessed by counting facial lesions. Subjective evaluations of skin and hair condition, patients' feelings to them and satisfaction with the OC were made using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Assessments were made at baseline, and after one, three and six treatment cycles.

RESULTS

Sebutape assessments of seborrhea were significantly improved, on the right and left cheeks, after one treatment cycle, and on the forehead after three treatment cycles. These improvements increased steadily and were much larger at the end of Cycle 6. Acne grades were significantly improved after three and six treatment cycles. VAS scores in response to questions dealing with self-esteem and self-confidence were significantly improved after three cycles and in some cases after just one cycle. The women's views of their skin and hair (greasiness) were correspondingly significantly improved. Subjective assessments indicated that after one, three and six cycles, 69%, 93% and 98%, respectively, of women were satisfied or very satisfied with the DSG-OC.

CONCLUSION

In women with facial seborrhea and mild or moderate acne, the use of DSG-OC appears to improve seborrhea after just one cycle and acne grades after three cycles. These improvements are accompanied by increases in self-esteem and confidence.

Effect of a desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive on the skin

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study evaluated the effects of a desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive (DSG-OC) on facial seborrhea (oiliness), acne and related factors in otherwise healthy women with moderate facial acne vulgaris.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 41 women received DSG-OC (50/100/150 microg desogestrel plus 35/30/30 microg ethinylestradiol given in a 7/7/7 day regimen) and 41 received placebo for six cycles. Seborrhea and skin assessments, and hormone analyses were performed regularly.

RESULTS

Analyses of sebum output (measured using Sebutape) indicated that the effect of DSG-OC on the skin varied with facial area. Compared with placebo, DSG-OC had a statistically significant effect on the cheeks (60% relative reduction in sebum output; p = 0.02), and a non-significant effect on the forehead (30% relative reduction in sebum output). Acne lesion counts did not differ significantly between groups. Both patient and investigator assessments of skin condition (visual analog scale) indicated significant improvements with DSG-OC compared with placebo. The reduced sebum output with DSG-OC is associated with a three-fold increase in sex hormone binding globulin, as well as an expected decrease in free testosterone and other androgens that were found in this group.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that DSG-OC reduces facial oiliness and may be a useful contraceptive choice for women with this problem.