Combined contraceptive ring versus combined oral contraceptive (30-μg ethinylestradiol and 3-mg drospirenone). A twelve-month comparative clinical investigation of two low-dose oral contraceptives containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol/75 micrograms gestodene and 30 micrograms ethinylestradiol/75 micrograms gestodene, with respect to efficacy, cycle control, and tolerance. Randomized controlled study of the influence of two low estrogen dose oral contraceptives containing gestodene or desogestrel on carbohydrate metabolism. Comparison of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs. oral contraceptives on hemostasis variables. Metabolic profile of a continuous versus a cyclic low-dose combined oral contraceptive after one year of use. Comparison of efficacy, cycle control, and tolerability of two low-dose oral contraceptives in a multicenter clinical study. Clinical comparison of two low-dose oral contraceptives, Minulet and Mercilon, in women over 30 years of age. Contraception in perimenopausal women with diabetes mellitus. A multicenter comparative trial of triphasic and monophasic, low-dose combined oral contraceptives. Comparative study on the acceptability of two modern monophasic oral contraceptive preparations: 30 microgram ethinyl estradiol combined with 150 microgram desogestrel or 75 microgram gestodene. Route of administration of contraceptives containing desogestrel/etonorgestrel and insulin sensitivity: a prospective randomized study. Effects of a monophasic combined oral contraceptive containing nomegestrol acetate and 17β-oestradiol compared with one containing levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol on haemostasis, lipids and carbohydrate metabolism. Effects on cycle control and bodyweight of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, versus an oral contraceptive containing 30 microg ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg drospirenone. Comparison of two triphasic contraceptives with different progestogens: effects on metabolism and coagulation proteins. Effective bleeding control and symptom relief by lower dose regimens of continuous combined hormone replacement therapy: a randomized comparative dose-ranging study. Efficacy and safety of a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with a combined oral contraceptive: a 1-year randomized trial. A comparison of cycle control with monophasic levonorgestrel/ethinylestradiol 100 micrograms/20 micrograms versus triphasic norethindrone/ethinylestradiol 500-750-1000 micrograms/35 micrograms: a multicenter, randomized, open-label study. A prospective study on the effects on hemostasis of two oral contraceptives containing drospirenone in combination with either 30 or 20 microg ethinyl estradiol and a reference containing desogestrel and 30 microg ethinyl estradiol. Multicenter, comparative study of cycle control, efficacy and tolerability of two low-dose oral contraceptives containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol/100 microg levonorgestrel and 20 microg ethinylestradiol/500 microg norethisterone. Cycle control, quality of life and acne with two low-dose oral contraceptives containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol. Bleeding pattern and cycle control with an estradiol-based oral contraceptive: a seven-cycle, randomized comparative trial of estradiol valerate/dienogest and ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel.
To compare the adverse effects, cycle control, and metabolic effects of NuvaRing and a combined oral contraceptive (COC).
                Women seeking contraception received NuvaRing (n = 300) or a COC (n = 300) for 12 cycles in a randomized, open-label trial.
                The total number of women with adverse effects did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Leucorrhea, vaginitis, decreased libido, and ring-related problems were more common with NuvaRing, whereas weight increase, acne, and emotional lability were more common with the COC. Breakthrough bleeding occurred in 11.3% of women receiving NuvaRing and in 14.7% of women receiving the COC; 2.1% and 2.9% of women, respectively, had no withdrawal bleeding. Differences in blood pressure, blood sugar levels, lipid profile, liver enzyme activity, and anticoagulant activity were not statistically significant, with the exception of low-density lipoprotein levels measured at 6 and 12 months, which were significantly lower in the NuvaRing group than in the COC group.
                NuvaRing is a good alternative to a COC. It is associated with a slightly reduced incidence of breakthrough bleeding and there were no clinically relevant adverse effects or changes in blood pressure, blood sugar levels, lipid profile, or anticoagulant activity when compared with the COC.
                Copyright © 2011 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. The aim of this study was to compare contraceptive reliability, cycle control, and tolerance of an oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol (EE2) and 75 micrograms gestodene (GSD), with a reference preparation containing a similar dose of gestodene but in combination with 30 micrograms ethinylestradiol. A higher incidence of intermenstrual bleeding was apparent under the 20 micrograms EE2 oral contraceptive. For the 20 micrograms EE2 preparation, 47.4% of all women reported spotting at least once over a period of 12 treatment cycles, whereas this figure was 35.5% for the 30 micrograms EE2 pill (p < 0.05). However, the incidence was within a range that corresponds to that of other OCs. The cumulative breakthrough bleeding rates (at least once during the one year of treatment) of 14.5% (20 micrograms EE2) and 11.8% (30 micrograms EE2) of women were not significantly different. In relation to all cycles, the intermenstrual bleeding rates were remarkably lower, indicating that the majority of the volunteers experienced such events only in few cycles under treatment: the spotting rate was 11.5% (20 micrograms EE2) and 7.2% (30 micrograms EE2) of all cycles, and the breakthrough bleeding rate was 2.6% and 1.6% of all cycles, respectively. Three pregnancies were recorded during the study (one in the 20 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD group, two in the 30 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD group). All three could be explained either by intake irregularities or by circumstances impairing the contraceptive effect. The influence of both treatments on the blood pressure and body weight proved to be extremely slight. Adverse events in both groups were rare and differences in the frequency of adverse events were not apparent. The discontinuation rate due to adverse events, including intermenstrual bleeding, was low (9.8% for 20 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD, and 7.2% for 30 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD) and was in the lower range known for other oral contraceptives. Both preparations were well accepted by the volunteers. The data obtained demonstrate clinically acceptable cycle control, good tolerance, and a high standard of contraceptive reliability for both drugs. Prescription of the 20 micrograms EE2 preparation could be the first-line therapy in order to provide the lowest amount of EE2 possible. In case of persistent cycle control problems, a switch to the 30 micrograms EE2 drug should be considered. This study compared the impact on carbohydrate metabolism of two combinedoral contraceptives (COCs). This open-label, single-center trial enrolled participants for a total of 15 cycles. Thirty-six women were randomized to receive either 20 microg ethinyl estradiol (EE) and 75 microg gestodene (GSD) or 20 microg ethinyl estradiol and 150 microg desogestrel (DSG) daily for 21 days out of 28. A glucose tolerance test was performed at baseline and cycles 6 and 13. The area under the curve (AUC) for glucose increased in both study groups. The change was statistically significant (p = 0.036) for the 20 EE/75 GSD group at cycle 6 versus baseline. Fasting blood glucose at cycle 13 was significantly (p < 0.01) higher for both treatment groups compared to baseline. No changes were found for fasting insulin and fasting C-peptide levels or for the AUCs of insulin or C-peptide. Both regimens were well tolerated. Gestodene and desogestrel in combination with 20-microg ethinyl estradiol induce similar changes in carbohydrate metabolism which are smaller than those described earlier for COCs containing higher estrogen doses or more androgenic progestins such as levonorgestrel.
                Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. The aim of this study was to compare effects of the transdermal contraceptive patch, a desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol (EE)-containing, monophasic combination oral contraceptive (COC) and a levonorgestrel/EE-containing, triphasic COC on hemostasis variables.
                This was a randomized, open-label study of 104 young women who received six cycles of treatment. Blood was collected at baseline and on treatment; changes by Day 20/Cycle 6 in baseline hemostasis markers [prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F 1+2), plasmin-plasmin inhibitor complex (PAP) and fibrin degradation products (D-dimer)] were assessed.
                All contraceptives induced similar increases in F 1+2 and D-dimer. Patch-induced PAP increases were less than with the monophasic and similar to the triphasic COC. Decreases in protein S and increases in sex hormone-binding globulin were greater with the patch than with either COC. Patch-induced increases in activated protein C resistance were greater than with the triphasic and similar to the monophasic COC.
                These contraceptives appeared to accelerate baseline procoagulation processes to a similar extent and to change coagulation potency variables differently. To compare the effects of a combined oral contraceptive (COC) taken continuously with those of one of similar composition taken cyclically on 30 variables related to haemostasis, lipids, carbohydrates, bone metabolism, and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG).
                Randomised, open-label, multicentre, comparative substudy of a larger phase 3 trial involving 147 healthy women (age 18-49 years). Participants received the COC either continuously (levonorgestrel [LNG] 90 μg/ethinylestradiol [EE] 20 μg) or cyclically (21/7 days pattern; LNG 100 μg/EE 20 μg).
                After 13 pill packs, changes in total cholesterol (+0.23 vs. -0.06 mmol/l), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (+0.25 vs. -0.12 mmol/l), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol(3) (-0.06 vs. -0.15 mmol/l) differed significantly (p<0.05) between the continuous and cyclic regimens, respectively. Increases were significantly greater (p <0.05) for protein C antigen (+11.8% vs. +6.1%) and SHBG (+791 vs. +565 nmol/l), and significantly smaller (p <0.05, ranks) for D-dimer (+19 vs. +37 μg FE/l).
                Overall, the continuous and cyclic regimens affected metabolic variables similarly. The larger increase in SHBG with the continuous COC is consistent with a higher net oestrogenic effect due to a lower daily dose of LNG. Prospective studies are required to determine the long-term effects of this continuous COC regimen. This study compares the contraceptive reliability, cycle control, and tolerability of two oral contraceptive preparations containing 20 micrograms of ethinyl estradiol combined with either 75 micrograms of gestodene (EE/GSD) or 150 micrograms of desogestrel (EE/DSG). Women received the trial preparations daily for 21 days, followed by a 7-day pill-free interval. Contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, and tolerability were evaluated over a period of 12 cycles. Efficacy data of 14,700 treatment cycles (EE/GSD: 7299; EE/DSG: 7401) were obtained from 1476 women (EE/GSD, n = 740; EE/DSG, n = 736). Both preparations provided effective contraception and good cycle control with a similarly low incidence of both spotting and breakthrough bleeding. The spotting rates in both treatment groups decreased from 35.1% (EE/GSD) and 37.5% (EE/DSG) in the first treatment cycle to approximately 10% in the fourth treatment cycle. The spotting incidence as percent of the total number of cycles was 12.7% for EE/GSD and 14.3% for EE/DSG. The breakthrough bleeding incidence was 5.2% of all cycles for EE/GSD and 6.0% of all cycles for EE/DSG. For 84.7% of the cycles in the gestodene group and for 82.5% of the cycles in the desogestrel group, neither spotting nor breakthrough bleeding were recorded. Overall, the spotting and breakthrough bleeding incidence tended to be lower with EE/GSD than with EE/DSG. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Amenorrhea was recorded in 2.7% of the cycles with EE/GSD and in 2.9% with EE/DSG. Both preparations were well tolerated and showed a similar pattern of adverse events. More than 83% of the women in both groups either did not gain weight or lost more than 2 kg. Both preparations had a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhea. Both regimens provided reliable contraception and good cycle control. The incidence of adverse events was relatively low and both preparations were well tolerated. A comparative study of two low-dose oral contraceptives, gestodene (GES) 75 mcg/ethinyl oestradiol (EE) 30 mcg and desogestrel (DES) 150 mcg/EE 20 mcg, was conducted in women over 30 years of age. This randomised, open-label study was organised in Denmark, Italy, New Zealand and United Kingdom. A total of 505 women received GES/EE and 501 received DES/EE for 6 consecutive menstrual cycles. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographic and gynaecologic characteristics at baseline. However, the menstrual flow length was slightly longer in the GES/EE group before the start of the treatment. The mean age (+/- SD) was 35 +/- 4 years in the GES/EE group and 35 +/- 5 years in the DES/EE group. The subjects in the GES/EE group contributed data for a total of 2800 cycles and those in the DES/EE group, data for 2796 cycles. There were no pregnancies on medication with either preparation. The results showed that there were significantly more normal cycles in the GES/EE group for cycles 1 to 6. Irregular bleeding between withdrawal bleeds occurred in 10% of GES/EE and 18.5% of DES/EE cycles. Absence of all bleeding was reported in 29 (1%) and 63 (2%) cycles, respectively. The incidence of missed pills was low in both groups (11% of cycles). No significant differences were observed in cycle length or withdrawal bleeding episode length. Withdrawal bleeding mean intensity was statistically significantly greater with GES/EE. However, for both preparations, the mean intensity was close to light bleeding. No clinically significant differences were noted in weight, blood pressure, Papanicolaou smears or laboratory data. Sixty-eight (13.5%) subjects in the GES/EE group and 64 (12.8%) in the DES/EE group discontinued before the end of the study. Among them, 37 (7%) and 40 (8%) in the respective groups withdrew because of adverse reactions. There was no difference between groups in terms of primary reasons for withdrawal. The most frequently reported complaints that led to discontinuation in both groups were headache, nausea and metrorrhagia. Breast tenderness led to the discontinuation of 1 subject in the GES/EE group and 3 in the DES/EE group. These results show excellent cycle control, efficacy and very low rate of side effects with both GES/EE and DES/EE. These low-dose oral contraceptives could be well suited to healthy nonsmoking women requiring contraception up to the age of menopause. To assess the effect of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and intrauterine devices (IUDs) on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and hemostasis in perimenopausal diabetic women.
                The open randomized study included a total of 113 diabetic women using COCs with different estrogen/progestogen profiles - ethinylestradiol (EE) 20 microg/desogestrel 150 microg, EE 30 microg/desogestrel 150 microg and EE 30 microg/gestodene 75 microg - and levonorgestrel-releasing or copper IUDs. Average daily insulin requirements, levels of glycosylated hemoglobin, total cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, the state of coagulation hemostatis and fibrinolytic activity were determined at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of contraception. The control group was composed of 40 age-matched diabetic women who did not use any methods of contraception.
                Neither COCs nor IUDs influenced glycosylated hemoglobin and had little or no influence on the elevation in the requirements for insulin preparations. The majority of the preparations did not exert any unfavorable effect on the blood lipid profile. Taking COCs was accompanied by increased intravascular activation of blood platelets and to a lesser degree by alterations in parameters of hemostatic homeostasis. The use of IUDs had a neutral effect on blood coagulation and fibrinolysis systems.
                Comparing lipid levels and hemostatic variables as a function of glycosylated hemoglobin level, we conclude that diabetes control has greater influence on these parameters than the type and dose of steroids involved in the contraceptive devices. A comparative multicenter clinical trial of two combined oral contraceptives (OCs) was conducted at clinics located in the Sudan, Sri Lanka, Chile, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. The trial was designed to determine if there were differences in efficacy, safety and acceptability between a triphasic and a low-dose monophasic OC. This report includes analysis of 1088 women. At each center, subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two OCs. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 4, 8 and 12 months after admission. There were two accidental pregnancies attributed to user failure reported during the study period; one in the triphasic group and one in the monophasic group. Adverse experiences were mainly minor with headaches and dizziness being the most common complaints; frequency of reports was similar in both groups. Cycle control was good in both groups with women in the triphasic group reporting fewer complaints of intermenstrual bleeding. Both OCs were safe and effective. Cycle control and tolerability of two monophasic oral contraceptive pills containing 30 microg ethinyl estradiol (EE) with either 150 microg desogestrel (DSG) or 75 microg gestodene (GSD) were compared in women starting oral contraception. A minimum of 200 healthy women at risk for pregnancy were to be treated for a total of 6 cycles per patient in a prospective, randomized open parallel-group multicenter trial. Two hundred and forty-one subjects were randomized, 115 to DSG/EE and 126 to GSD/EE. Compliance to the study preparation was high (around 95%) in both groups and no pregnancies occurred during the study. Cycle control was excellent; there were no differences between the two groups with regard to incidence of spotting and breakthrough bleeding or duration and intensity of withdrawal bleeding. Side-effects were mild and in general comparable in the two groups. Both at baseline and during treatment, a higher proportion of women taking GSD/EE complained about breast tenderness. This resulted in more early withdrawals because of breast tenderness in the GSD/EE group. It was concluded that monophasic DSG/EE and GSD/EE are equally effective, have similar cycle control and both are generally well tolerated. The study was conducted to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives administered via the oral and vaginal route exert a similar effect on insulin sensitivity (SI).
                This is a prospective, randomized study performed in the University Hospital. Subjects were healthy lean young women, needing a hormonal contraceptive, randomly allocated to receive for 6 months (a) an oral contraceptive (OC) containing 30 mcg ethinylestradiol (EE)/150 mcg desogestrel (DSG) (high-estrogen group; n=12), (b) an OC containing 20 mcg EE/150 mcg DSG (low-estrogen group; n=12) and (c) a vaginal ring contraceptive releasing, per day, 15 mcg EE/120 mcg etonorgestrel, the active DSG metabolite (n=12). SI and glucose utilization independent of insulin (Sg) were evaluated by the minimal model method. Modifications of total, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides were also evaluated.
                Sg did not vary with any treatment. SI decreased during OCs (5.74+/-0.49 vs. 3.86+/-0.44; p=.0005), independently of the high/low-estrogen dose. SI did not decrease during vaginal ring use (4.64+/-1.03 vs. 5.25+/-1.36; p=.57; p=.019 vs. oral). Total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol increased (p=.02) during OCs, independently of the dose. Triglycerides increased during both oral (p=.01) and vaginal (p=.032) contraceptive use.
                The present data indicate that in contrast to OC use, vaginal contraception with the ring does not deteriorate SI. The vaginal ring may represent an appropriate choice for long-term contraception in women at risk for developing diabetes mellitus or metabolic syndrome. To compare the effects of a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing nomegestrol acetate and 17β-oestradiol (NOMAC/E2) on haemostasis, lipids, carbohydrate metabolism, C-reactive protein (CRP) and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) with those of a COC containing levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol (LNG/EE).
                In a randomised, open-label study, 121 healthy women, 18-50 years of age, were randomly assigned to receive NOMAC/E2 (2.5 mg/1.5 mg) in a 24/4-day regimen (n=60) or LNG/EE (150 μg/30 μg) in a 21/7-day regimen (n=61) for six cycles. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to cycle 6 for all indices.
                All parameters were similar at baseline between the two groups. Over six cycles, NOMAC/E2 had less effect on most haemostatic indices than LNG/EE. Lipids were essentially unchanged with NOMAC/E2, whereas with LNG/EE high-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides slightly increased. NOMAC/E2 induced negligible changes in glucose and insulin parameters, in contrast to LNG/EE. A much smaller increase in CRP was observed with NOMAC/E2 than with LNG/EE. NOMAC/E2 was associated with a greater increase in SHBG.
                The monophasic COC NOMAC/E2 had less influence on haemostasis, lipids and carbohydrate metabolism than the COC LNG/EE. The objective of this study was to compare cycle control, cycle-related characteristics and bodyweight effects of NuvaRing with those of a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 microg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone.
                A randomized, multicentre, open-label trial in which 983 women were treated (intent-to-treat population) with NuvaRing or the COC for 13 cycles.
                Breakthrough bleeding or spotting during cycles 2-13 was in general less frequent with NuvaRing than that with the COC (4.7-10.4%) and showed a statistically significant odds ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.46, 0.80) with longitudinal analysis. Intended bleeding was significantly better for all cycles with NuvaRing (55.2-68.5%) than that with the COC (35.6-56.6%) (P < 0.01). Changes from baseline in mean bodyweight and body composition parameters were relatively small for both groups with no notable between-group differences.
                NuvaRing was associated with better cycle control than the COC, and there was no clinically relevant difference between the two groups in bodyweight. This study compared the effects of two triphasic oral contraceptives (OCs) taken for 6 pill cycles. One preparation contained levonorgestrel (EE/LN), the other a new progestagen, gestodene (SHG 415G). There were no effects on body weight, dietary habits, blood pressure, HDL-cholesterol or carbohydrate metabolism. Both OCs caused a small but statistically significant increase in plasma total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, LDL/HDL-cholesterol ratio and triglyceride concentration. Sex hormone binding globulin was increased by both preparations. Coagulation factor VII and fibrinogen were increased and antithrombin III levels reduced, indicating that both preparations had pro-coagulant activity. The gestodene triphasic preparation was associated with minor side effects similar to those experienced on EE/LN. The metabolic effects were similar despite the lower total steroid dose of the gestodene preparation. We compared two different continuous combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) regimens of estradiol valerate (E(2)V) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) with a combination of micronized estradiol (E(2)) and norethisterone acetate (NETA) to determine bleeding pattern, control of climacteric symptoms, lipid profile, endometrial and general safety in a 1-year multicenter study.
                440 postmenopausal women were randomized to three treatment groups to receive: 1 mg E(2)V+2.5 mg MPA; 1 mg E(2)V+5 mg MPA; or 2 mg of E(2)+1 mg NETA. After the first 6 months, the E(2)V dose was increased to 2 mg in both E(2)V/MPA groups. Information on bleeding was recorded on diaries by the women and intensity of climacteric symptoms was assessed using VAS scales. Physical and laboratory examinations, endometrial biopsy and vaginal ultrasonography were performed at baseline and follow-up visits.
                Significantly fewer bleeding days were experienced in the first 3 months by women taking E(2)V/MPA compared with women taking E(2)/NETA. When the dose of E(2)V was increased in the E(2)V/MPA groups, an increase in maximum bleeding intensity was observed in the group receiving 2.5 mg of MPA, but not in the group taking 5 mg of MPA. All dose combinations effectively relieved climacteric symptoms and beneficial effects on the lipid profile were seen after 6 months in all groups. Tolerability and endometrial safety were good and no cases of hyperplasia were observed. More women discontinued treatment prematurely in the E(2)/NETA group compared with either of the E(2)V/MPA groups. The overall continuation rates ranged from 70 to 86%.
                These results confirm that lower dose combinations of continuous combined HRT are usually sufficient to control symptoms or avoid breakthrough bleeding. However, if higher E(2)V dose is needed for symptom control, it should be combined with the higher dose of progestin (5 mg) to avoid bleeding disturbances. Flexible treatment regimens should be available for individualized HRT. This open-label, randomized, Phase III study compared the efficacy and tolerability of and compliance with NuvaRing, a combined contraceptive vaginal ring releasing 15 microg of ethinylestradiol (EE) and 120 microg of etonogestrel daily, with those of and with a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 150 microg of levonorgestrel (LNG) and 30 microg of EE. Subjects received NuvaRing or a COC for 13 cycles (3 weeks of ring/pill treatment followed by a 1-week ring-/pill-free period). A total of 1030 subjects (NuvaRing, n=512; COC, n=518) was randomized and started treatment (intent-to-treat [ITT] population). The percentage of women in the ITT population who completed the trial was 70.9% for the NuvaRing group and 71.2% for the COC group. Five in-treatment pregnancies occurred in each group, giving Pearl indices of 1.23 for NuvaRing and 1.19 for the COC. Compliance with both treatments was excellent and both were well tolerated. In conclusion, NuvaRing has comparable efficacy and tolerability with a COC containing 150 microg of LNG and 30 microg of EE and does not require daily dosing. This multicenter, randomized, open-label study was undertaken to compare the effects on menstrual cycle control of two oral contraceptive regimens: monophasic levonorgestrel (LNG) 100 micrograms/ethinylestradiol (EE) 20 micrograms (Alesse or Loette) and triphasic norethindrone (NET) 500-750-1000 micrograms/EE 35 micrograms (OrthoNovum 7/7/7).
                Healthy women with normal menstrual cycles were enrolled and completed up to four cycles of study medication. A total of 384 cycles in the LNG/EE group and 400 cycles in the NET/EE group were evaluable for analysis of cycle control.
                For all treatment cycles, the percentage of cycles classified as normal was consistently higher in the LNG/EE group than in the NET/EE group. By cycle 4, 69.9% of cycles with LNG/EE and 54.4% with NET/EE (p < 0.05) were normal. In individual cycles, consistently lower occurrences of intermenstrual bleeding (total bleeding and/or spotting) were seen for the LNG/EE group, although these differences were not statistically significant. Withdrawal bleeding characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the length of the latent period, which was significantly longer in the LNG/EE group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in the two groups.
                This study indicates that the monophasic LNG/EE 100 micrograms/20 micrograms provides better cycle control than the multiphasic NET/EE product, despite its lower EE dose. In this open-label, randomized study, we assessed the effects on hemostasis of two combined oral contraceptives containing drospirenone (DRSP) as progestogen component.
                Three milligrams of DRSP, a progestogen with antimineralocorticoid activity, was combined with either 30 or 20 microg ethinyl estradiol (EE) (DRSP/30EE; DRSP/20EE) and compared with a preparation containing 150 microg desogestrel (DSG) and 30 microg ethinyl estradiol (DSG/30EE). A total of 75 healthy female volunteers aged 18-35 years were enrolled. The hemostasis variables were measured in the medication-free precycle (baseline); in the first, third and sixth treatment cycle; and in the follow-up phase. The target variables for comparison were the relative changes from baseline to Cycle 6.
                Data of 25 volunteers in each group were valid for the per-protocol evaluation. Most changes in hemostasis variables were similar in the three treatment groups. All procoagulatory variables and the anticoagulatory variable protein C antigen increased slightly, while protein S antigen and activity decreased. For fibrinogen and protein S activity, the changes were statistically significant: less pronounced with DRSP/20EE compared to DSG/30EE at Cycle 6. There were no statistically significant differences in the changes of antifibrinolytic variables, the global clotting tests and D-dimer. All pairwise comparisons of DRSP/30EE vs. DSG/30EE yielded nonsignificant results; however, there was a trend of a lower impact of DRSP/20EE on nearly all hemostatic parameters compared to the 30EE products. All three study treatments were safe and well tolerated by the volunteers and provided adequate contraceptive reliability.
                The changes in the hemostatic variables for DRSP/20EE were less pronounced compared to DSG/30EE and DRSP/30EE. The results were in accordance with previous reports on effects of similar OCs. A comparison of cycle control, efficacy and tolerability of two oral contraceptive preparations containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol combined with either 100 microg levonorgestrel (EE/LNG 20/100) or 500 microg norethisterone (EE/NET 20/500) was conducted. These results were compared to a standard reference preparation, containing 30 microg ethinylestradiol combined with 150 microg levonorgestrel (EE/LNG 30/150). Efficacy data from 8,544 treatment cycles were obtained from 767 women. Good cycle control and effective contraception was achieved with the two LNG preparations, however, the cycle control results were less favorable with EE/NET 20/500. The cumulative incidence of women with at least one episode of intermenstrual bleeding from cycles 2 to 7 (primary target variable) was 43.9% for EE/LNG 20/100, 72.7% for EE/NET 20/500, and 15.7% for the standard EE/LNG 30/150. The difference between the 2 20 microg of EE preparations, which favored EE/LNG 20/100, was statistically significant (p = 0.001). The overall spotting rates (cycles 1-13) were 9.3% for EE/LNG 20/100, 21.7% for EE/NET 20/500, and 3.3% for the standard EE/LNG 30/150. Amenorrhea was reported in 7.1% (EE/LNG 20/100), 20.6% (EE/NET 20/500), and 0.9% (standard EE/LNG 30/150), respectively. Intermenstrual bleeding episodes were shorter with EE/LNG 20/100 and EE/LNG 30/150 of the 13 treatment cycles. The study Pearl indices were 0.9 for EE/LNG 20/100, 1.9 for EE/NET 20/500, and 0.0 for EE/LNG 30/150. All three treatments were well tolerated. However, tolerability was somewhat less favorable with EE/NET 20/500. A total of 160 women prematurely discontinued the study for various reasons (EE/LNG 20/100: 7%; EE/NET 20/500: 18%; EE/LNG 30/150: 4%). The overall adverse event incidence rate during the trial was low in all groups. Blood pressure remained largely unaffected. Thirteen serious adverse events were recorded for all treatment groups, all but one were assessed as not related to the treatments. There were no remarkable treatment related differences in mean body weight throughout the study and the laboratory values were largely unaffected in all three treatments groups. Poor cycle control and tolerability can be reasons for irregular pill intake. This study compared the tolerability of two low-dose oral contraceptives and their effect on cycle control.
                In this open, group-comparative, randomized multicenter trial in Germany and the Netherlands, women received either 20 microg ethinylestradiol plus 150 microg desogestrel (20EE/DSG; n = 500) or 20 microg ethinylestradiol plus 100 microg levonorgestrel (20EE/LNG; n = 498) for six treatment cycles. Cycle control, dysmenorrhea and premenstrual syndrome (PMS) were assessed using diary cards. Tolerability was assessed using the self-administered questionnaires Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) and the Profile of Mood States (POMS). Acne was assessed by objective (acne counts) and subjective (no, moderate, mild, severe) acne scoring of the facial area at baseline and treatment cycles 1, 3 and 6.
                A total of 404 (78.1%) and 384 (75.3%) women in the 20EE/DSG and 20EE/LNG groups, respectively, completed the trial. The occurrence rate of irregular bleeding and spotting was statistically significantly higher with 20EE/LNG than with 20EE/DSG (0.18 vs. 0.13; p < 0.05). The mean number of bleeding-spotting days per cycle was statistically significantly higher with 20EE/LNG than with 20EE/DSG (0.63 vs. 0.48; p < 0.05). Early withdrawal bleeding was more frequent with 20EE/LNG (0.15 vs. 0.08; p < 0.005), whereas continued withdrawal bleeding was more frequent with 20EE/DSG (0.32 vs. 0.45; p < 0.001); absence of withdrawal bleeding was comparable (0.06 vs. 0.04, respectively). Thirteen subjects in the 20EE/LNG group and three in the 20EE/DSG group discontinued due to unacceptable bleeding (p < 0.05). Dysmenorrhea and PMS decreased comparably in both groups. There were no differences between groups for the mean total scores of PGWBI or POMS at all time-points. Fewer acne lesions were counted with 20EE/DSG vs. 20EE/LNG after six cycles (p < 0.05). The subjective acne scores supported this finding.
                20EE/DSG provided better cycle control than 20EE/LNG with less treatment discontinuation due to unacceptable bleeding. There were no apparent differences between the two groups regarding tolerability and quality of life. There was less acne with 20EE/DSG.
                Copyright 2004 Elsevier Inc. This study compared the bleeding pattern, cycle control and safety of an oral contraceptive (OC) comprising estradiol valerate/dienogest (E2V/DNG; administered using a dynamic dosing regimen) with a monophasic OC containing ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg/levonorgestrel 100 mcg (EE/LNG). E2V releases estradiol (E2), which is identical to endogenously produced 17beta-estradiol.
                This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy trial lasting seven cycles in healthy women aged 18-50 years.
                Overall, 798 women were randomized and received allocated treatment (399 per group). There were significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days reported by women who received E2V/DNG than those who received EE/LNG [17.3+/-10.4 vs. 21.5+/-8.6, respectively, p<.0001, Reference Period 1 (Days 1-90); and 13.4+/-9.vs. 15.9+/-7.1, respectively, p<.0001, Reference Period 2 (Days 91-180)]. Through Cycles 1-7, the occurrence of scheduled withdrawal bleeding per cycle was 77.7-83.2% with E2V/DNG and 89.5-93.8% with EE/LNG (p<.0001 per cycle). The duration and intensity of scheduled withdrawal bleeding were reduced with E2V/DNG vs. EE/LNG. The incidence of intracyclic bleeding was similar with E2V/DNG (10.5%-18.6%) and EE/LNG (9.9%-17.1%) (p>.05 per cycle). No unintended pregnancies occurred with E2V/DNG, but there was one unintended pregnancy with EE/LNG. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 10.0% and 8.5% of women taking E2V/DNG and EE/LNG, respectively. Overall, 79.4% of women were satisfied with E2V/DNG and 79.9% with EE/LNG.
                A novel OC composed of E2V/DNG is associated with an acceptable bleeding profile that is comparable to that of an EE-containing OC.
While COCs containing 20 μg EE may be theoretically safer, this review did not focus on the rare events required to assess this hypothesis. Data from existing randomized controlled trials are inadequate to detect possible differences in contraceptive effectiveness. Low-dose estrogen COCs resulted in higher rates of bleeding pattern disruptions. However, most trials compared COCs containing different progestin types, and changes in bleeding patterns could be related to progestin type as well as estrogen dose. Higher follow-up rates are essential for meaningful interpretation of results.