Types of progestogens in combined oral contraception: effectiveness and side-effects
- 11 May 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- No. 5,p. CD004861
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004861.pub2
Abstract
The progestogen component of combined oral contraceptives (COC) has undergone changes since it was first recognised that it's chemical structure could influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. The major determinants of effectiveness are compliance and continuation which may be influenced by cycle control and common side effects. The rationale of this review is to provide a systematic comparison of COCs containing the progestogens currently in use worldwide. To compare currently available low-dose COCs containing ethinyl estradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates. A search of PubMed, LILACS, EMBASE, Popline, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was conducted in September 2010 to update the 2004 review. Randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion. We excluded studies comparing monophasic with multiphasic pills, crossover trials, trials in which the difference in total content of ethinyl estradiol between preparations exceeded 105 µg per cycle and those comparing continuous dosing regimens. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality, applied inclusion criteria and extracted data. Thirty trials with a total of 13,923 participants were included, generating 16 comparisons. Overall the quality of trials was low. Only four trials were double-blind. At least twenty-three trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. There was less discontinuation with second-generation compared with first-generation monophasic progestogens (3 trials, 2,709 women, Relative Risk (RR) 0.76, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.67-0.86); this remained significant when only double-blind trials were considered (812 women, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94).Women using monophasic COC's containing third-generation progestogens were less likely to discontinue than the second-generation group (3 trials, 1,815 women, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.98) but this was not significant when only double-blind trials were considered (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50-1.26]. Women in the third-generation group experienced less intermenstrual bleeding than the second-generation group (one double-blind trial, 456 women, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.91).Compared to desogestrel (DSG), women in the drospirenone (DRSP) group were more likely to complain of breast tenderness (5 trials, 4,258 women, RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04-1.86) and nausea (6 trials, 4,701 women, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.96-2.21].Pregnancy rates overall were comparable but the trials had insufficient power to find potentially important differences. Women using COCs containing second-generation progestogens may be less likely to discontinue than those using COCs containing first-generation progestogens. Based on one small double-blind trial, third-generation progestogens may be preferable to second-generation preparations with regard to bleeding patterns but further evidence is needed. Without blinding as to treatment group, comparisons between the various "generations" of progestogens used in COCs cannot be made. Until this widespread methodological flaw is overcome in better trials conducted according to CONSORT guidelines and internationally accepted definitions, no further conclusions can be drawn.Keywords
This publication has 82 references indexed in Scilit:
- Efficacy and Safety of the Combined Oral Contraceptive Ethinylestradiol/ Drospirenone (Yasmin®) in Healthy Chinese WomenClinical Drug Investigation, 2010
- Bleeding pattern with drospirenone 3 mg+ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg 24/4 combined oral contraceptive compared with desogestrel 150 mcg+ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg 21/7 combined oral contraceptiveContraception, 2009
- A Comparison of the Cycle Control, Safety, and Efficacy Profile of a 21-Day Regimen of Ethinylestradiol 20??g and Drospirenone 3mg with a 21-Day Regimen of Ethinylestradiol 20??g and Desogestrel??150??gTreatments in Endocrinology, 2006
- Multicenter, comparative study of cycle control, efficacy and tolerability of two low-dose oral contraceptives containing 20 μg ethinylestradiol/100 μg levonorgestrel and 20 μg ethinylestradiol/500 μg norethisteroneContraception, 2001
- A comparative investigation of contraceptive reliability, cycle control and tolerance of two monophasic oral contraceptives containing either drospirenone or desogestrelThe European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 2000
- Comparison of efficacy, cycle control, and tolerability of two low-dose oral contraceptives in a multicenter clinical studyContraception, 1999
- Cycle control, safety and efficacy of a 24-day regimen of gestodene 60 µg/ ethinylestradiol 15 µg and a 21-day regimen of desogestrel 150 µg/ethinylestradiol 20 µgThe European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 1999
- Efficacy and acceptability of two monophasic oral contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol and either desogestrel or gestodene.The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 1998
- A comparative study of two low-dose combined oral contraceptives: Results from a multicenter trialContraception, 1993
- Triphasic Randomized Clinical Trial: Comparative frequency of intermenstrual bleedingAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1989