Literature DB >> 2289388

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

R K Percival-Smith1, A A Yuzpe, J A Desrosiers, J E Rioux, E Guilbert.   

Abstract

Cycle control was studied comparing the monophasic oral contraceptive Loestrin with three low-dose phasic preparations (Triphasil, Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7) in 391 women of whom 300 completed 6 cycles. Loestrin subjects had a rate of occurrence (31% of cycles) for intermenstrual bleeding (IMB) comparable to the rates for subjects on the phasic preparations (36%, 37% and 37%, respectively). Triphasil subjects had lower rates than the Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7 subjects (p less than 0.01) in cycle one when all subjects were analyzed and in pre-study users when continuing menstrual flow (CMF) episodes were not included as IMB. IMB was a cause for dropping out of the study in 7% of subjects who were evenly distributed between groups. There were no differences between groups for BTB when perceived by subjects as a side effect. Spotting was perceived as a side effect more often with Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7 use than with Triphasil (p less than 0.01). Loestrin, Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7 subjects were more likely to report amenorrhea (p less than 0.001) and less likely to report leg cramps (p less than 0.01) compared to those on Triphasil. Triphasil subjects were less likely to report acne than subjects on Ortho 7/7/7 (p less than 0.01).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amenorrhea; Americas; Bleeding; Canada; Comparative Studies; Contraception; Contraceptive Methods; Contraceptive Methods--side effects; Data Analysis; Data Collection; Developed Countries; Diseases; Family Planning; Incidence; Measurement; Menstrual Cycle; Menstruation; Menstruation Disorders; Metrorrhagia; North America; Northern America; Oral Contraceptives; Oral Contraceptives, Low-dose; Oral Contraceptives, Low-dose--side effects; Oral Contraceptives--side effects; Reproduction; Research Methodology; Signs And Symptoms; Studies

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2289388     DOI: 10.1016/0010-7824(90)90013-l

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Triphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

Authors:  Huib A A M Van Vliet; David A Grimes; Laureen M Lopez; Kenneth F Schulz; Frans M Helmerhorst
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-11-09

Review 2.  Effect of the different phases of the menstrual cycle and oral contraceptives on athletic performance.

Authors:  C M Lebrun
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 3.  Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

Authors:  H A A M Van Vliet; D A Grimes; F M Helmerhorst; K F Schulz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-07-19

Review 4.  Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

Authors:  H A A M Van Vliet; D A Grimes; F M Helmerhorst; K F Schulz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-07-19

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.