Literature DB >> 23683581

The creeping Pearl: Why has the rate of contraceptive failure increased in clinical trials of combined hormonal contraceptive pills?

James Trussell1, David Portman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite several drawbacks, the Pearl Index continues to be the most widely used statistical measure of contraceptive failure. However, Pearl indices reported in studies of newer hormonal contraceptives appear to be increasing. STUDY
DESIGN: We searched PubMed and Medical Intelligence Solutions databases for prospective trials evaluating oral contraceptive (OC) efficacy to examine potential factors that could contribute to increasing Pearl indices.
RESULTS: Numerous potential factors were identified, including an increased rate of failures of newer OCs, deficiencies in methods of calculating contraceptive failure rates, differences in study design and changes in patient populations resulting in increased rates of contraceptive failures due to the inappropriate or inconsistent use of the method.
CONCLUSIONS: The two most likely important contributors to the increase in Pearl indices are more frequent pregnancy testing with more sensitive tests and less adherent study populations. Because study populations appear to be increasingly representative of the likely actual users once the product is marketed, we can expect to see even higher failure rates in ongoing and future studies. This result poses challenges for companies and regulatory agencies.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contraceptive efficacy; Contraceptive study design; Hormonal contraceptives

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23683581      PMCID: PMC3795840          DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.04.001

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


  35 in total

Review 1.  Clinical pearls: factors affecting reported contraceptive efficacy rates in clinical studies.

Authors:  Ronald T Burkman
Journal:  Int J Fertil Womens Med       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug

Review 2.  Contraceptive failure in the United States.

Authors:  James Trussell
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 3.  Methodological pitfalls in the analysis of contraceptive failure.

Authors:  J Trussell
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Measuring compliance among oral contraceptive users.

Authors:  L Potter; D Oakley; E de Leon-Wong; R Cañamar
Journal:  Fam Plann Perspect       Date:  1996 Jul-Aug

Review 5.  A guide to interpreting contraceptive efficacy studies.

Authors:  J Trussell; R A Hatcher; W Cates; F H Stewart; K Kost
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Contraceptive failure among married women in the United States, 1970-1973.

Authors:  B Vaughan; J Trussell; J Menken; E F Jones
Journal:  Fam Plann Perspect       Date:  1977 Nov-Dec

7.  Efficacy and safety of a low-dose 24-day combined oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol and 3 mg drospirenone.

Authors:  Gloria Bachmann; Patricia J Sulak; Carole Sampson-Landers; Norbert Benda; Joachim Marr
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  An open-label, multicenter, noncomparative safety and efficacy study of Mircette, a low-dose estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive. The Mircette Study Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Contraceptive failures in overweight and obese combined hormonal contraceptive users.

Authors:  Colleen McNicholas; Qiuhong Zhao; Gina Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Incidence of early loss of pregnancy.

Authors:  A J Wilcox; C R Weinberg; J F O'Connor; D D Baird; J P Schlatterer; R E Canfield; E G Armstrong; B C Nisula
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-07-28       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  14 in total

1.  Comparison of rates of and charges from pregnancy complications in users of extended and cyclic combined oral contraceptive (COC) regimens: a brief report.

Authors:  Brandon Howard; James Trussell; ElizaBeth Grubb; Maureen J Lage
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-12-26       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  Differences in reporting Pearl Indices in the United States and Europe: Focus on a 91-day extended-regimen combined oral contraceptive with low-dose ethinyl estradiol supplementation.

Authors:  Paloma Lobo Abascal; Vesna Luzar-Stiffler; Silvana Giljanovic; Brandon Howard; Herman Weiss; James Trussell
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 1.848

Review 3.  Extended-Cycle Levonorgestrel/Ethinylestradiol and Low-Dose Ethinylestradiol (Seasonique(®)): A Review of Its Use as an Oral Contraceptive.

Authors:  Celeste B Burness
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Natural Family Planning, An Option in Reproductive Healthcare: A Qualitative Study on Clinicians' Perceptions.

Authors:  Ozoemena Joan Ibeziako
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2022-03-27

5.  A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial.

Authors:  Michael A Thomas; B Todd Chappell; Bassem Maximos; Kelly R Culwell; Clint Dart; Brandon Howard
Journal:  Contracept X       Date:  2020-07-01

6.  Different Pearl Indices in studies of hormonal contraceptives in the United States: impact of study population.

Authors:  Christoph Gerlinger; James Trussell; Uwe Mellinger; Martin Merz; Joachim Marr; Ralf Bannemerschult; Ilka Schellschmidt; Jan Endrikat
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 3.375

7.  We should really keep in touch: predictors of the ability to maintain contact with contraception clinical trial participants over 12 months.

Authors:  Leah N Torres; David K Turok; Jessica N Sanders; Janet C Jacobson; Amna I Dermish; Katherine Ward
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  Improving usability and pregnancy rates of a fertility monitor by an additional mobile application: results of a retrospective efficacy study of Daysy and DaysyView app.

Authors:  Martin C Koch; Johannes Lermann; Niels van de Roemer; Simone K Renner; Stefanie Burghaus; Janina Hackl; Ralf Dittrich; Sven Kehl; Patricia G Oppelt; Thomas Hildebrandt; Caroline C Hack; Uwe G Pöhls; Stefan P Renner; Falk C Thiel
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.223

9.  A 1-year prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3 trial of the contraceptive efficacy and safety of the oral progestin-only pill drospirenone 4 mg using a 24/4-day regimen.

Authors:  Thomas Kimble; Anne E Burke; Kurt T Barnhart; David F Archer; Enrico Colli; Carolyn L Westhoff
Journal:  Contracept X       Date:  2020-01-30

10.  Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed.

Authors:  Chelsea B Polis
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.