PubMed · 14267482
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J W GOLDZIEHER. 1965. FUTURE APPROACHES TO CONCEPTION CONTROL.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14267482/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.
BACKGROUND: Side effects of oral contraceptive pills (OCs) 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 STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted researchers and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the U.S. 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 and outcomes studied. We entered the data into RevMan 4.2 and calculated odds ratios for the outcome measures of efficacy, breakthrough bleeding, spotting, withdrawal bleeding and discontinuation. MAIN RESULTS: Of 21 trials included, 18 examined contraceptive effectiveness: the triphasic and monophasic preparations did not differ significantly. Several trials reported favorable bleeding patterns, i.e. 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 WHO recommendations on recording menstrual bleeding patterns and the CONSORT reporting guidelines.
BACKGROUND: There are two injectable progestogen-only contraceptives (IPCs) that have been available in many countries in the world since 1983. They are both still extensively used in many developing countries, forming a large proportion of the health system's expenditure on contraception. These are depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and norethisterone oenanthate (NET-EN). These are both highly effective contraceptives that receive wide acceptance amongst women in their fertile years. They differ in frequency of administration that has implications on patient uptake. They also differ in cost that may significantly affect budgeting in the health system. A systematic comparison will aid to ensure their rational use. OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are differences between depot medroxyprogesterone acetate given at a dose of 150 mg IM every 3 months and norethisterone oenanthate given at a dose of 200mg IM every 2 months, in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, reversibility and discontinuation patterns, minor effects and major effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE using PubMed, Popline, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Biblioline, LILACS, EMBASE and PASCAL for randomised controlled trials of DMPA versus NET-EN for long-acting progestogenic contraception. Studies were included regardless of language, and all databases were reviewed from the time that injectable progestogens have been in use. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled comparisons of DMPA acetate given at a dose of 150 mg IM every 3 months versus NET-EN given at a dose of 200mg IM every 2 months, used for contraception, were included. Trials had to report on contraceptive efficiency and return to fertility, discontinuation risks and reasons for discontinuation, and clinical effects, both menstrual and non-menstrual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: BD and CM evaluated the titles and abstracts obtained through applying the search strategy and applied the eligibility criteria. BD attempted to contact authors where clarification of the data was required, and contacted all main manufacturers of the contraceptives. After inclusion of the two studies, the data was abstracted and analysed with RevMan 4.2. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were included in this review. There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups for the frequency of discontinuation for either contraceptive, although the women on NET-EN were 4% more likely to discontinue for personal reasons than those on DPMA. Discontinuation because of accidental pregnancy did not differ between the groups. Although the duration of bleeding and spotting events was the same in each group, women on DPMA were 21% more likely to develop amenorrhoea. Mean changes in body weight at 12 and 24 months, and in systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 12 months did not differ significantly between the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the choice between DPMA and NET-EN as injectable progestogen contraceptives may vary between both health providers and patients, data from randomized controlled trials indicate little difference between the effects of these methods, except that women on DMPA are more likely to develop amenorrhoea. There is inadequate data to detect differences in some non-menstrual major and minor clinical effects.