Advertisement

Advances in Contraception

, Volume 8, Supplement 1, pp 35–45 | Cite as

Oral contraceptives and cycle control: A critical review of the literature

  • M. J. Rosenberg
  • S. C. Long
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Estrogen Oral Contraceptive Attrition Rate Amenorrhea Rigorous Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    HatcherRA, StewartF, TrussellJ, et al., editors. Contraceptive Technology, 1990–1992. 15th ed. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeLiaJE, EmeryMG. Clinical pharmacology and common minor side effects of oral contraceptives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1981;24:879–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    UptonGV. The phasic approach to oral contraception: the triphasic concept and its clinical application. Int J Fertil. 1983;28:121–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    CullbergG, SamsioeG, AndersenRF, et al. Two oral contraceptives, efficacy, serum proteins, and lipid metabolism. Contraception. 1982;26:229–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    WisemanA, BowieJ, CogswellD, et al. Marvelon: clinical experience in the UK. Br J Fam Plann. 1984;10:38–42.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    FiorettiP, FruzzettiF, NavalesiR, et al Clinical and metabolic study of a new pill containing 20 mcg ethinylestradiol plus 0.150 mg desogestrel. Contraception. 1987;35:229–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    HansonMS, StewartGK, BechtelRC, TuranES. Planned Parenthood experience with Triphasil. J Reprod Med. 1987;32:592–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    RabeT, RunnebaumB, KohlmeierM, HarenbergJ, WeickerH, UngerR. Clinical and metabolic effects of gestodene on levonorgestrel. Int J Fertil. 1987;32(suppl):29–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    WouterszTB, ButlerAJ, CohenM, KorbaVD, CanavanRC. A low-dose triphasic oral contraceptive. Fertil Steril. 1987;47:425–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    BilottaP, FavilliS. Clinical evaluation of a monophasic ethinylestradiol/desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive. Drug Res. 1988;38:932–4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    HoppeG. Gestoden, an innovative progestogen. Contraception. 1988;37:493–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    PrivrelT, DaubenfeldO. Clinical experience in Switzerland with the new monophasic oral contraceptive Minulet (75 mcg gestodene, 30 mcg ethinyl oestradiol). Br J Clin Pract. 1988;42:292–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    RekersH. Multicenter trial of a monophasic oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and desogestrel. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988;67:171–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    BenagianoG. Comparison of two monophasic oral contraceptives: gestodene/ethinyl estradiol versus desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol. Int J Fertil. 1989;34(suppl)31–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ChristieT. A clinical overview of a new triphasic contraceptive containing gestodene. Int J Fertil. 1989;34(suppl):40–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    deAndradeRP. A multicenter clinical evaluation of a new monophasic combination: Minulet (gestodene and ethinyl estradiol). Int J Fertil. 1989;34(suppl):22–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DroegemuellerW, KattaLR, BrightTG, BowesWAJr. Triphasic randomized clinical trial: comparative frequency of intermenstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161:1407–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    EdgrenRA, NelsonJH, GordonRT, KieferWSJr. Bleeding patterns with low-dose, monophasic oral contraceptives. Contraception. 1989;40:285–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    RamosR, ApeloR, OsteriaT, VilarE. A comparative analysis of three different dose combinations of oral contraceptives. Contraception. 1989;39:165–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    SchillingLH, BoldingOT, ChenaultCB, et al Evaluation of the clinical performance of three triphasic oral contraceptives: a multicenter, randomized comparative trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:1264–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    BrillK, NorpothT, SchnitkerJ, AlbringM. Clinical experience with a modern low-dose oral contraceptive in almost 100,000 users. Contraception. 1991;43:101–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    BrillK, SchnitkerJ, AlbringM. Long-term experience with a low-dose oral contraceptive. Gynecol Endocrinol. 1990;4:277–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    LoudonNB, KirkmanRJE, DewsburyJA. A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and acceptability of Femodene and Microgynon-30. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1990;34:257–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    SkoubySo. Oral contraception with a triphasic combination of gestodene and ethinyl estradiol: results of a multicenter clinical study. Int J Fertil. 1987;32(suppl):45–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    ChezRA. Clinical aspects of three new progestogens: desogestrel, gestodene, and norgestimate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:1296–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    RothmanKJ. Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1986:81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Rosenberg
    • 1
  • S. C. Long
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Decisions, Inc.Chapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations