OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects on hemostasis variables of a contraceptive vaginal ring with those of an oral contraceptive. STUDY DESIGN:Twenty-three and 22 healthy premenopausal women were randomized to the contraceptive vaginal ring (150 microg Nestorone and 15 microg ethinyl estradiol) or Stediril 30 during 3 cycles. Analysis of covariance was performed with baseline values as covariate. RESULTS: The contraceptive vaginal ring changed most hemostasis variables similarly but raised (95% confidence intervals of percent treatment differences) Factor VIIt (28% to 49%), extrinsic activated protein C resistance (14% to 65%), and sex hormone-binding globulin (117% to 210%) and lowered Protein S (-32% to -16%) and the global activated partial thromboplastin time-based activated protein C resistance (-12% to -2%) more than the oral contraceptive. CONCLUSION: The contraceptive vaginal ring affected some measured hemostasis variables and sex hormone-binding globulin differently from the oral contraceptive, most likely because of difference in androgenicity of the progestins. The results suggest that the contraindications for oral contraceptive use would also apply to the tested contraceptive vaginal ring.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects on hemostasis variables of a contraceptive vaginal ring with those of an oral contraceptive. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-three and 22 healthy premenopausal women were randomized to the contraceptive vaginal ring (150 microg Nestorone and 15 microg ethinyl estradiol) or Stediril 30 during 3 cycles. Analysis of covariance was performed with baseline values as covariate. RESULTS: The contraceptive vaginal ring changed most hemostasis variables similarly but raised (95% confidence intervals of percent treatment differences) Factor VIIt (28% to 49%), extrinsic activated protein C resistance (14% to 65%), and sex hormone-binding globulin (117% to 210%) and lowered Protein S (-32% to -16%) and the global activated partial thromboplastin time-based activated protein C resistance (-12% to -2%) more than the oral contraceptive. CONCLUSION: The contraceptive vaginal ring affected some measured hemostasis variables and sex hormone-binding globulin differently from the oral contraceptive, most likely because of difference in androgenicity of the progestins. The results suggest that the contraindications for oral contraceptive use would also apply to the tested contraceptive vaginal ring.
Authors: Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson; Regine Sitruk-Ware; Mitchell D Creinin; Michael Thomas; Kurt T Barnhart; George Creasy; Heather Sussman; Mohcine Alami; Anne E Burke; Edith Weisberg; Ian Fraser; Marie-José Miranda; Melissa Gilliam; James Liu; Bruce R Carr; Marlena Plagianos; Kevin Roberts; Diana Blithe Journal: Contraception Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.375