Cargando…

Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®)

The purpose of this review was to test contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, tolerability, and acceptability as found in the non-comparative studies with NuvaRing(®) by those found in the randomized trials comparing NuvaRing and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). All large non-comparative studies...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Roumen, Frans JME
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2504064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18728840
_version_ 1782158355170590720
author Roumen, Frans JME
author_facet Roumen, Frans JME
author_sort Roumen, Frans JME
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this review was to test contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, tolerability, and acceptability as found in the non-comparative studies with NuvaRing(®) by those found in the randomized trials comparing NuvaRing and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). All large non-comparative studies and all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between NuvaRing and a COC up to and including December 2006 were analyzed. Two large multi-center registration studies, 1 large daily clinical practice study, and 6 RCTs comparing NuvaRing and a COC were identified. The findings in the non-comparative studies were confirmed in the RCTs. Contraceptive efficacy was high showing no significant differences in comparison with the COC; cycle control was good and consistently better than that of the COC; compliance was high and comparable with that of the pill; the incidence of adverse events such as breast tenderness, headache, and nausea was low, but not lower than with the COC despite a halving of the systemic exposure to ethinyl estradiol (EE) with NuvaRing compared with a 30-μg EE-containing COC; the incidence of local and ring-related events was low but higher than with the COC, leading to higher discontinuation rates among NuvaRing users; acceptability was high and comparable between both contraceptives, resulting in a global improvement of sexual function with both methods. After study completion, women using NuvaRing were more likely to continue with their method than women using a COC. The good results with respect to contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, tolerability, and acceptability as achieved with NuvaRing in the large non-comparative registration studies were confirmed in the RCTs comparing NuvaRing with different COCs.
format Text
id pubmed-2504064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-25040642008-08-26 Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®) Roumen, Frans JME Ther Clin Risk Manag Review The purpose of this review was to test contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, tolerability, and acceptability as found in the non-comparative studies with NuvaRing(®) by those found in the randomized trials comparing NuvaRing and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). All large non-comparative studies and all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between NuvaRing and a COC up to and including December 2006 were analyzed. Two large multi-center registration studies, 1 large daily clinical practice study, and 6 RCTs comparing NuvaRing and a COC were identified. The findings in the non-comparative studies were confirmed in the RCTs. Contraceptive efficacy was high showing no significant differences in comparison with the COC; cycle control was good and consistently better than that of the COC; compliance was high and comparable with that of the pill; the incidence of adverse events such as breast tenderness, headache, and nausea was low, but not lower than with the COC despite a halving of the systemic exposure to ethinyl estradiol (EE) with NuvaRing compared with a 30-μg EE-containing COC; the incidence of local and ring-related events was low but higher than with the COC, leading to higher discontinuation rates among NuvaRing users; acceptability was high and comparable between both contraceptives, resulting in a global improvement of sexual function with both methods. After study completion, women using NuvaRing were more likely to continue with their method than women using a COC. The good results with respect to contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, tolerability, and acceptability as achieved with NuvaRing in the large non-comparative registration studies were confirmed in the RCTs comparing NuvaRing with different COCs. Dove Medical Press 2008-04 2008-04 /pmc/articles/PMC2504064/ /pubmed/18728840 Text en © 2008 Dove Medical Press Limited. All rights reserved
spellingShingle Review
Roumen, Frans JME
Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®)
title Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®)
title_full Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®)
title_fullStr Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®)
title_full_unstemmed Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®)
title_short Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®)
title_sort review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, nuvaring(®)
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2504064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18728840
work_keys_str_mv AT roumenfransjme reviewofthecombinedcontraceptivevaginalringnuvaring