Literature DB >> 22071807

Triphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

Huib A A M Van Vliet1, David A Grimes, Laureen M Lopez, Kenneth F Schulz, Frans M Helmerhorst.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Side effects of oral contraceptive (OC) pills discourage adherence to and continuation of OC regimens. Strategies to decrease adverse effects led to the introduction of the triphasic OC in the 1980s. Whether triphasic OCs have higher accidental pregnancy rates than monophasic pills is unknown. Nor is it known if triphasic pills give better cycle control and fewer side effects than the monophasic pills.
OBJECTIVES: To compare triphasic OCs with monophasic OCs in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) in May 2011. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers and pharmaceutical companies to identify other trials not found in our search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any triphasic OC with any monophasic pill used to prevent pregnancy. Interventions had to include at least three treatment cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the studies found in the literature searches for possible inclusion and for their methodological quality. We contacted the authors of all included studies and of possibly randomized trials for supplemental information about the methods used and outcomes studied. We entered the data into RevMan and calculated odds ratios for the outcome measures of efficacy, breakthrough bleeding, spotting, withdrawal bleeding and discontinuation. MAIN
RESULTS: Of 23 trials included, 19 examined contraceptive effectiveness. The triphasic and monophasic preparations did not differ significantly. Several trials reported favorable bleeding patterns, that is less spotting, breakthrough bleeding or amenorrhea, in triphasic versus monophasic OC users. However, meta-analysis was generally not possible due to differences in measuring and reporting the cycle disturbance data as well as differences in progestogen type and hormone dosages. No significant differences were found in the numbers of women who discontinued due to medical reasons, cycle disturbances, intermenstrual bleeding or adverse events. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether triphasic OCs differ from monophasic OCs in effectiveness, bleeding patterns or discontinuation rates. Therefore, we recommend monophasic pills as a first choice for women starting OC use. Large, high-quality RCTs that compare triphasic and monophasic OCs with identical progestogens are needed to determine whether triphasic pills differ from monophasic OCs. Future studies should follow the recommendations of Belsey or Mishell on recording menstrual bleeding patterns and the CONSORT reporting guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22071807      PMCID: PMC7154342          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003553.pub3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  57 in total

Review 1.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin; Lisa A Bero; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Otavio Clark
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-31

2.  Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?

Authors:  Bodil Als-Nielsen; Wendong Chen; Christian Gluud; Lise L Kjaergard
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-20       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  [Oral contraceptives and their minor side effects: comparison of three low-dose estroprogestinic combinations].

Authors:  G Perrone; E Calzolari; M Mancone; A Masci; M Steffe; E Tesseri
Journal:  Patol Clin Ostet Ginecol       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb

4.  Oral contraceptive tolerance: does the type of pill matter?

Authors:  Caroline Moreau; James Trussell; Fabien Gilbert; Nathalie Bajos; Jean Bouyer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Cycle control on low-dose oral contraceptives: a comparative trial.

Authors:  R K Percival-Smith; A A Yuzpe; J A Desrosiers; J E Rioux; E Guilbert
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 3.375

6.  Phasic approach to oral contraceptives.

Authors:  R W Hale
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  A randomized cross-over comparison of two low-dose oral contraceptives upon hormonal and metabolic parameters: I. Effects upon sexual hormone levels.

Authors:  H Kuhl; G Gahn; G Romberg; W März; H D Taubert
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  Comparison of a novel norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol oral contraceptive (Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo) with the oral contraceptive Loestrin Fe 1/20.

Authors:  R M Hampton; M Short; E Bieber; C Bouchard; N Ayotte; G Shangold; A C Fisher; G W Creasy
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.375

9.  Desogestrel-ethinylestradiol, an oral monophasic contraceptive. Clinical and lipid metabolic effects: a 5-year experience.

Authors:  B Rubio-lotvin; J A Ruiz-moreno; R Gonzalez-ansorena
Journal:  Adv Contracept Deliv Syst       Date:  1992

10.  The venous thrombotic risk of oral contraceptives, effects of oestrogen dose and progestogen type: results of the MEGA case-control study.

Authors:  A van Hylckama Vlieg; F M Helmerhorst; J P Vandenbroucke; C J M Doggen; F R Rosendaal
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-08-13
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation and management of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents: the role of the hematologist.

Authors:  Sarah H O'Brien
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2018-11-30

Review 2.  Contraception and mental health: a commentary on the evidence and principles for practice.

Authors:  Kelli Stidham Hall; Julia R Steinberg; Carrie A Cwiak; Rebecca H Allen; Sheila M Marcus
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Reducing the Risk of Gynecologic Cancer in Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer Syndrome Mutation Carriers: Moral Dilemmas and the Principle of Double Effect.

Authors:  Murray Joseph Casey; Todd A Salzman
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2018-07-20

Review 4.  There might be blood: a scoping review on women's responses to contraceptive-induced menstrual bleeding changes.

Authors:  Chelsea B Polis; Rubina Hussain; Amanda Berry
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.223

Review 5.  Efficacy of Treatments for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Management in Adolescents.

Authors:  Reem A Al Khalifah; Ivan D Florez; Michael J Zoratti; Brittany Dennis; Lehana Thabane; Ereny Bassilious
Journal:  J Endocr Soc       Date:  2020-10-17

6.  Continuation rates of oral hormonal contraceptives in a cohort of first-time users: a population-based registry study, Sweden 2005-2010.

Authors:  Ann Josefsson; Ann-Britt Wiréhn; Malou Lindberg; Anniqa Foldemo; Jan Brynhildsen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Use of hormonal contraceptives among immigrant and native women in Norway: data from the Norwegian Prescription Database.

Authors:  G Omland; S Ruths; E Diaz
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 6.531

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.