Cargando…

Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review

BACKGROUND: The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OCs) has undergone changes since it was recognized that their chemical structure can influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. METHODS: The objective of this review was to evaluate currently available low-dose OCs co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kulier, Regina, Helmerhorst, Frans M, Maitra, Nandita, Gülmezoglu, A Metin
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC483073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15357865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-1-1
_version_ 1782121661185654784
author Kulier, Regina
Helmerhorst, Frans M
Maitra, Nandita
Gülmezoglu, A Metin
author_facet Kulier, Regina
Helmerhorst, Frans M
Maitra, Nandita
Gülmezoglu, A Metin
author_sort Kulier, Regina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OCs) has undergone changes since it was recognized that their chemical structure can influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. METHODS: The objective of this review was to evaluate currently available low-dose OCs containing ethinylestradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion and were assessed for methodological quality and validity. RESULTS: Twenty–two trials were included in the review. Eighteen were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and in only 5 there was an attempt for blinding. Most comparisons between different interventions included one to three trials, involving usually less than 500 women. Discontinuation was less with second-generation progestogens compared to first–generation (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69–0.91). Cycle control appeared to be better with second-compared to first-generation progestogens for both, mono-and triphasic preparations (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52–0.91) and (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.85), respectively. Intermenstrual bleeding was less with third- compared to second-generation pills (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55–0.91). Contraceptive effectiveness of gestodene (GSD) was comparable to that of levonorgestrel (LNG), and had similar pattern of spotting, breakthrough bleeding and absence of withdrawal bleeding). Drospirenone (DRSP) was similar compared to desogestrel (DSG) regarding contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control and side effects. CONCLUSION: The third- and second-generation progestogens are preferred over first generation in all indices of acceptability. Current evidence suggests that GSD is comparable to LNG in terms of contraceptive effectiveness and for most cycle control indices. GSD is also comparable to DSG. DRSP is comparable to DSG. Future research should focus on independently conducted well designed randomized trials comparing particularly the third- with second-generation progestogens.
format Text
id pubmed-483073
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-4830732004-07-26 Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review Kulier, Regina Helmerhorst, Frans M Maitra, Nandita Gülmezoglu, A Metin Reprod Health Research BACKGROUND: The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OCs) has undergone changes since it was recognized that their chemical structure can influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. METHODS: The objective of this review was to evaluate currently available low-dose OCs containing ethinylestradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion and were assessed for methodological quality and validity. RESULTS: Twenty–two trials were included in the review. Eighteen were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and in only 5 there was an attempt for blinding. Most comparisons between different interventions included one to three trials, involving usually less than 500 women. Discontinuation was less with second-generation progestogens compared to first–generation (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69–0.91). Cycle control appeared to be better with second-compared to first-generation progestogens for both, mono-and triphasic preparations (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52–0.91) and (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.85), respectively. Intermenstrual bleeding was less with third- compared to second-generation pills (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55–0.91). Contraceptive effectiveness of gestodene (GSD) was comparable to that of levonorgestrel (LNG), and had similar pattern of spotting, breakthrough bleeding and absence of withdrawal bleeding). Drospirenone (DRSP) was similar compared to desogestrel (DSG) regarding contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control and side effects. CONCLUSION: The third- and second-generation progestogens are preferred over first generation in all indices of acceptability. Current evidence suggests that GSD is comparable to LNG in terms of contraceptive effectiveness and for most cycle control indices. GSD is also comparable to DSG. DRSP is comparable to DSG. Future research should focus on independently conducted well designed randomized trials comparing particularly the third- with second-generation progestogens. BioMed Central 2004-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC483073/ /pubmed/15357865 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-1-1 Text en Copyright © 2004 Kulier et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Research
Kulier, Regina
Helmerhorst, Frans M
Maitra, Nandita
Gülmezoglu, A Metin
Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review
title Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review
title_full Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review
title_fullStr Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review
title_short Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review
title_sort effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC483073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15357865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-1-1
work_keys_str_mv AT kulierregina effectivenessandacceptabilityofprogestogensincombinedoralcontraceptivesasystematicreview
AT helmerhorstfransm effectivenessandacceptabilityofprogestogensincombinedoralcontraceptivesasystematicreview
AT maitranandita effectivenessandacceptabilityofprogestogensincombinedoralcontraceptivesasystematicreview
AT gulmezogluametin effectivenessandacceptabilityofprogestogensincombinedoralcontraceptivesasystematicreview