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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |