Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Transdermal Hormonal Contraception

Focus on the Ethinylestradiol/Norelgestromin Contraceptive Patch

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Treatments in Endocrinology

Abstract

Imperfect use of contraceptive methods notably increases the likelihood of pregnancy. One means of improving user adherence with hormonal contraception is to minimize the dosing schedule. Two forms of hormonal contraceptive have currently achieved this goal: the transdermal patch and the vaginal ring. The first and only transdermal contraceptive patch to receive worldwide regulatory approval (ethinylestradiol/norelgestromin) is a convenient approach to contraception that has a similar efficacy to oral contraceptives (OCs), but with the benefit of once-weekly administration. In addition, transdermal delivery of contraceptive hormones eliminates variability in gastrointestinal absorption, avoids hepatic first-pass metabolism, and prevents the peaks and troughs in serum concentrations that are seen with OCs. Norelgestromin, the progestin contained in the patch, is the active metabolite of norgestimate and is structurally related to 19-nortestosterone. Norgestimate and norelgestromin mimic the physiologic effects of progesterone at the progesterone receptor; however, norelgestromin has negligible direct or indirect androgenic activity, suggesting that it may be suitable for women with disorders related to androgen excess (such as hirsutism, acne, and lipid disorders).

Contraceptive effectiveness is usually a function of the efficacy of a contraceptive in combination with compliance with its dosing regimen. The efficacy of the contraceptive patch has been clearly demonstrated in three phase III trials, two of which were randomized comparisons with an OC. The likelihood of pregnancy was similar between these contraceptive methods; however, compliance with the patch was notably better, particularly in younger women. The safety and tolerability profile of the patch was similar to that of the OC. A cost-effectiveness analysis has suggested that the contraceptive patch is more cost effective than the OC, due to decreased costs related to unwanted pregnancy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Long S. Unintended pregnancies and use, misuse and discontinuation of oral contraceptives. J Reprod Med 1995; 40(5): 355–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Meehan TE. Use and misuse of oral contraceptives: risk indicators for poor pill taking and discontinuation. Contraception 1995; 51(5): 283–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kubba A, Guillebaud J, Anderson RA, et al. Contraception. Lancet 2000; 356(9245): 1913–9

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sitruk-Ware R. Vaginal delivery of contraceptives. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2005; 2(4): 729–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Johansson ED, Sitruk-Ware R. New delivery systems in contraception: vaginal rings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190(4 Suppl.): S54–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Smallwood GH, Meador ML, Lenihan JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of a transdermal contraceptive system. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (5 Pt 1): 799–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD, et al. Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285(18): 2347–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hedon B, Helmerhorst FM, Cronje HS. Comparison of efficacy, cycle control, compliance, and safety in users of a contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive [abstract]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000; 70 Suppl. 1: 78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sibai BM, Odlind V, Meador ML, et al. A comparative and pooled analysis of the safety and tolerability of the contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra/Evra). Fertil Steril 2002; 77(2 Suppl. 2): S19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Prausnitz MR, Mitragotri S, Langer R. Current status and future potential of transdermal drug delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004; 3(2): 115–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. International N.V. Evra transdermal patch: summary of product characteristics. Beerse: Janssen-Cilag International N.V., 2002

    Google Scholar 

  12. Burkman RT. Pharmacologic characteristics of progestins used for contraception and hormone replacement therapy, including new transdermal technologies. Am J Manag Care 2001; 7(18 Suppl.): S571–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Stanczyk FZ. All progestins are not created equal. Steroids 2003; 68(10–13): 879–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Henzl MR. Norgestimate: from the laboratory to three clinical indications. J Reprod Med 2001; 46(7): 647–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schindler AE, Campagnoli C, Druckmann R, et al. Classification and pharmacology of progestins. Maturitas 2003; 46 Suppl. 1: S7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abrams LS, Skee D, Natarajan J, et al. Pharmacokinetic overview of Ortho Evra/ Evra. Fertil Steril 2002; 77(2 Suppl. 2): S3–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Phillips A, Hahn DW, McGuire JL. Preclinical evaluation of norgestimate, a progestin with minimal androgenic activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167 (4Pt 2): 1191–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. White T, Jain JK, Stanczyk FZ. Effect of oral versus transdermal steroidal contraceptives on androgenic markers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192(6): 2055–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rabe T, Kowald A, Ortmann J, et al. Inhibition of skin 5 alpha-reductase by oral contraceptive progestins in vitro. Gynecol Endocrinol 2000; 14(4): 223–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sator PG, Schmidt JB, Honigsmann H. Clinical evidence of the endocrinological influence of a triphasic oral contraceptive containing norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol in treating women with acne vulgaris: a pilot study. Dermatology 2003; 206(3): 241–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pasqualini JR. Differential effects of progestins on breast tissue enzymes. Maturitas 2003; 46 Suppl. 1: S45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zieman M, Guillebaud J, Weisberg E, et al. Contraceptive efficacy and cycle control with the Ortho Evra/Evra transdermal system: the analysis of pooled data. Fertil Steril 2002; 77(2 Suppl. 2): S13–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Burkman RT. The transdermal contraceptive system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190(4 Suppl.): S49–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Trussell J, Vaughan B. Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect 1999; 31(2): 64–72, 93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, et al. Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect 1999; 31(2): 56–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Emans SJ, Grace E, Woods ER, et al. Adolescents’ compliance with the use of oral contraceptives. JAMA 1987; 257(24): 3377–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Archer DF, Cullins V, Creasy GW, et al. The impact of improved compliance with a weekly contraceptive transdermal system (Ortho Evra) on contraceptive efficacy. Contraception 2004; 69(3): 189–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Archer DF, Bigrigg A, Smallwood GH, et al. Assessment of compliance with a weekly contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra/Evra) among North American women. Fertil Steril 2002; 77(2 Suppl. 2): S27–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rubinstein ML, Halpern-Felsher BL, Irwin Jr CE. An evaluation of the use of the transdermal contraceptive patch in adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2004; 34(5): 395–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Logsdon S, Richards J, Omar HA. Long-term evaluation of the use of the transdermal contraceptive patch in adolescents. ScientificWorldJournal 2004; 4: 512–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weisberg F, Bouchard C, Moreau M, et al. Preference for and satisfaction of Canadian women with the transdermal contraceptive patch versus previous contraceptive method: an open-label, multicentre study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 27(4): 350–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lippi G, Manzato F, Brocco G, et al. Prothrombotic effects and clinical implications of third-generation oral contraceptives use. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2002; 13(1): 69–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lippman JS, Shangold GA. A review of post-marketing safety and surveillance data for oral contraceptives containing norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol. Int J Fertil Womens Med 1997; 42(4): 230–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jick SS, Kaye JA, Russman S, et al. Risk of nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using a contraceptive transdermal patch and oral contraceptives containing norgestimate and 35 microg of ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 2006; 73(3): 223–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Guidelines for preparing core clinical-safety information of drugs. 2nd ed. Geneva: CIOMS, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Speroff L, et al. Cost-effectiveness and contraceptive effectiveness of the transdermal contraceptive patch. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192(1): 1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Gynecology and Medical Sexology, H. San Raffaele Resnati, Via Enrico Panzacchi 6, Milan, 20123, Italy

    Alessandra Graziottin

  2. University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Alessandra Graziottin

Authors
  1. Alessandra Graziottin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandra Graziottin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graziottin, A. A Review of Transdermal Hormonal Contraception. Mol Diag Ther 5, 359–365 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00024677-200605060-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00024677-200605060-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation