Literature DB >> 10717778

Comparison of efficacy, cycle control, and tolerability of two low-dose oral contraceptives in a multicenter clinical study.

J Endrikat1, B Düsterberg, A Ruebig, C Gerlinger, T Strowitzki.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Austria; Comparative Studies; Contraception; Contraceptive Agents; Contraceptive Agents, Estrogen; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Contraceptive Agents, Progestin; Contraceptive Effectiveness; Contraceptive Methods; Contraceptive Usage; Desogestrel; Developed Countries; Ethinyl Estradiol; Europe; Family Planning; France; Gestodene; Italy; Mediterranean Countries; Method Acceptability; Netherlands; Northern Europe; Oral Contraceptives; Research Methodology; Research Report; Southern Europe; Studies; Switzerland; United Kingdom; Western Europe

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10717778     DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(99)00097-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contraception        ISSN: 0010-7824            Impact factor:   3.375


  9 in total

1.  Effects of oral contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol with either drospirenone or levonorgestrel on various parameters associated with well-being in healthy women: a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study.

Authors:  Sue Kelly; Emyr Davies; Simon Fearns; Carol McKinnon; Rick Carter; Christoph Gerlinger; Andrew Smithers
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.859

2.  Efficacy and safety of a low-dose 21-day combined oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol 20microg and drospirenone 3mg.

Authors:  D Cibula; U Karck; H G Weidenhammer; J Kunz; S Alincic; J Marr
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 3.  Oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea.

Authors:  Chooi L Wong; Cindy Farquhar; Helen Roberts; Michelle Proctor
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-10-07

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

Authors:  Carolina Sales Vieira; Ian S Fraser; Marlena G Plagianos; Anne E Burke; Carolyn L Westhoff; Jeffrey Jensen; Vivian Brache; Luis Bahamondes; Ruth Merkatz; Regine Sitruk-Ware; Diana L Blithe
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States.

Authors:  James Trussell; Anjana M Lalla; Quan V Doan; Eileen Reyes; Lionel Pinto; Joseph Gricar
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 3.375

6.  Physiologic and psychologic symptoms associated with use of injectable contraception and 20 microg oral contraceptive pills.

Authors:  Abbey B Berenson; Susan D Odom; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mahbubur Rahman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-07-03       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Added benefits and user satisfaction with a low-dose oral contraceptive containing drospirenone: results of three multicentre trials.

Authors:  Johannes Bitzer; Anna M Paoletti
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.580

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

Authors:  Regina Kulier; Frans M Helmerhorst; Nandita Maitra; A Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2004-06-03       Impact factor: 3.223

9.  Efficacy of combined contraceptive vaginal ring versus oral contraceptive pills in achieving hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis suppression in egg donor in vitro fertilization cycles.

Authors:  Robin Lynn Thomas; Lisa Marie Halvorson; Bruce Richard Carr; Kathleen Marie Doody; Kevin John Doody
Journal:  J Reprod Infertil       Date:  2013-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.