Literature DB >> 19442776

Association between efficacy and body weight or body mass index for two low-dose oral contraceptives.

Ronald T Burkman1, Alan C Fisher, George J Wan, Christopher E Barnowski, Katherine D LaGuardia.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This analysis investigated the association of oral contraceptive efficacy with body weight and body mass index (BMI) for hypothesis-generating purposes. STUDY
DESIGN: Data were from a randomized, parallel-group trial of 180/215/250 mcg of norgestimate (NGM)/25 mcg of ethinyl estradiol (EE) (given to 1671 women) and 1 mg of norethindrone acetate (NETA)/20 mcg of EE (given to 1139 women). Pregnancies were evaluated across BMI deciles and by BMI and body weight dichotomies. A Pearl index was calculated for each treatment group. The relative risk (RR) of pregnancy was calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS: The Pearl index for women who received NGM/EE was 2.36 [95% confidence interval (CI)=1.33-3.40]; for those who received NETA/EE, the Pearl index was 3.29 (95% CI=1.81-4.77). Consistent, weak positive associations between weight and pregnancy risk were found. Overall, for women with a BMI >or=25 kg/m(2) (compared with women with a BMI <25 kg/m(2)), the RR of pregnancy was 1.84 (95% CI=0.98-3.45); that for women who received NGM/EE was 1.39 (95% CI=0.57-3.40), whereas that for women who received NETA/EE was 2.49 (95% CI=1.01-6.13). For women with a body weight >or=70 kg (compared with women with a body weight <70 kg), the RR was 1.25 (95% CI=0.63-2.46); that for women who received NGM/EE was 1.41 (95% CI=0.56-3.54), whereas that for women who received NETA/EE was 1.12 (95% CI=0.40-3.12).
CONCLUSION: Women in the higher body weight or BMI category showed a small increase in the risk of pregnancy with these oral contraceptives, but this increase was not statistically significant overall or for either formulation studied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19442776     DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.12.013

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Medical Eligibility for Contraception in Women at Increased Risk.

Authors:  Thomas Römer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  The influence of partnership on contraceptive use among HIV-infected women accessing antiretroviral therapy in rural Uganda.

Authors:  Christina I Nieves; Angela Kaida; George R Seage; Jerome Kabakyenga; Winnie Muyindike; Yap Boum; A Rain Mocello; Jeffrey N Martin; Peter W Hunt; Jessica E Haberer; David R Bangsberg; Lynn T Matthews
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 3.  Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women.

Authors:  Laureen M Lopez; Alissa Bernholc; Mario Chen; Thomas W Grey; Conrad Otterness; Carolyn Westhoff; Alison Edelman; Frans M Helmerhorst
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-08-18

4.  A chewable low-dose oral contraceptive: a new birth control option?

Authors:  Edith Weisberg
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 2.711

5.  Maternal obesity and pre-pregnancy folic acid supplementation.

Authors:  Nadine Farah; Cormac Kennedy; Ciara Turner; Vicky O'Dwyer; Mairead M Kennelly; Michael J Turner
Journal:  Obes Facts       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.942

6.  Contraceptive Options Following Gestational Diabetes: Current Perspectives.

Authors:  Ashley M Turner; Emily A Donelan; Jessica W Kiley
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2019-10-22
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.