Oral contraceptives and cycle control: A critical review of the literature
- 102 Downloads
Control of spotting and breakthrough bleeding and absence of withdrawal bleeding, collectively termed cycle control, is the single most important determinant of whether a new user of oral contraceptives (OCs) will continue this method. However, information about different OC preparations and how they affect such problems, including the effects of progestogen and estrogen phasing and the components of these hormones, is scant and confusing. Studies cited in this report reveal highly variable rates of bleeding problems in women taking OCs: after 6 months of OC use, the prevalence of spotting varied between 0% and 8.5%; of breakthrough bleeding, 0% and 12.2%; and of amenorrhea, 0% and 5.8%. At least some of this variation is attributable to differing study populations and cultures, study designs, and the manner in which data were collected and reported. However, methodologic weaknesses were common, often involving lack of randomization and blinding, and attrition rates were high.
Despite these limitations, it is clear that the frequency of bleeding problems decreases with continuing use of OCs, emphasizing the need for patient reassurance about the transient nature of these problems. In addition, gestodene-containing preparations appear to offer better cycle control than do desogestrel-containing preparations and levonorgestrel-containing preparations better control than norethindrone-containing preparations. However, the strongest lesson to emerge is the need for more rigorous studies to adequately address questions of comparative bleeding problems, particularly with newer triphasic formulations. These conclusions underscore the importance of counseling new OC users about the possibility of bleeding problems, reassuring them that most such problems are temporary, and, that if compliance is maintained, these will not impair contraceptive efficacy.
KeywordsEstrogen Oral Contraceptive Attrition Rate Amenorrhea Rigorous Study
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.HatcherRA, StewartF, TrussellJ, et al., editors. Contraceptive Technology, 1990–1992. 15th ed. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
- 4.ZadorG. Fertility regulation using “triphasic” administration of ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel in comparison with the 30 plus 150 μg fixed dose regime. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1979;88(suppl):43–8.Google Scholar
- 6.WisemanA, BowieJ, CogswellD, et al. Marvelon: clinical experience in the UK. Br J Fam Plann. 1984;10:38–42.Google Scholar
- 9.Nevinny-StickelJ. German trial of an oral contraceptive containing 0.150 mg desogestrel plus 0.020 mg ethinylestradiol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;144(suppl):19–21.Google Scholar
- 11.vanKetsHE. Belgian trial of an oral contraceptive containing 0.150 mg desogestrel and 0.020 mg ethinylestradiol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;144(suppl):13–7.Google Scholar
- 13.BilottaP, FavilliS. Clinical evaluation of a monophasic ethinylestradiol/desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive. Drug Res. 1988;38:932–4.Google Scholar
- 18.ChristieT. A clinical overview of a new triphasic contraceptive containing gestodene. Int J Fertil. 1989;34(suppl):40–9.Google Scholar
- 26.CorsonSL. Efficacy and clinical profile of a new oral contraceptive containing norgestimate: U.S. clinical trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1990;152(suppl):25–31.Google Scholar
- 29.Lachnit-FixonU, AydinlikS, LehnertJ. Clinical comparison between a monophasic preparation and a triphasic preparation. Advances in Fertility Control and Treatment of Sterility. Lancaster, UK: MTP Press, 1984:71–79.Google Scholar
- 31.RothmanKJ. Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1986:81.Google Scholar