Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on June 8, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(9):2304-2311; doi:10.1093/humrep/del162
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
21/9/2304    most recent
del162v2
del162v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Milsom, I.
Right arrow Articles by Bastianelli, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Milsom, I.
Right arrow Articles by Bastianelli, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Effects on cycle control and bodyweight of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, versus an oral contraceptive containing 30 µg ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg drospirenone

I. Milsom1,10, I. Lete2, A. Bjertnaes3, K. Rokstad4, I. Lindh1, C.J. Gruber5, M.H. Birkhäuser6, E. Aubeny7, T. Knudsen8 and C. Bastianelli9

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden 2 Gynaecology Department, Santiago Hospital, Vitoria, Alava, Spain 3 Risvollan Legesenter as, Trondheim 4 Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 5 Department of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Vienna Medical School, Vienna, Austria 6 Division of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland 7 French Association for Contraception, Paris, France 8 Søndergade, Haverslev, Nørager, Denmark and 9 Department of Gynaecolgy, Perinatology and Childcare, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy

10 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg, SE 416 85 Göteborg, Sweden. E-mail: ian.milsom{at}obgyn.gu.se

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare cycle control, cycle-related characteristics and bodyweight effects of NuvaRing with those of a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. METHODS: A randomized, multicentre, open-label trial in which 983 women were treated (intent-to-treat population) with NuvaRing or the COC for 13 cycles. RESULTS: Breakthrough bleeding or spotting during cycles 2–13 was in general less frequent with NuvaRing than that with the COC (4.7–10.4%) and showed a statistically significant odds ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.46, 0.80) with longitudinal analysis. Intended bleeding was significantly better for all cycles with NuvaRing (55.2–68.5%) than that with the COC (35.6–56.6%) (P < 0.01). Changes from baseline in mean bodyweight and body composition parameters were relatively small for both groups with no notable between-group differences. CONCLUSION: NuvaRing was associated with better cycle control than the COC, and there was no clinically relevant difference between the two groups in bodyweight.

Key words: combined contraceptive vaginal ring/combined oral contraceptive/cycle control/irregular bleeding


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.