Cycle control with a 21-day compared with a 24-day oral contraceptive pill: a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of contraceptive acceptability of levonorgestrel and ethinyl oestradiol administered in one three-phasic (Trionetta) and one monophasic (Neovletta) version. A comparison of cycle control and effect on well-being of monophasic gestodene-, triphasic gestodene- and monophasic desogestrel-containing oral contraceptives. Gestodene Study Group. A comparison between monophasic levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol 150/30 and triphasic levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol 50-75-125/30-40-30 contraceptive pills for side effects and patient satisfaction: a study in Iran. Fertility regulation using "triphasic" administration of ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel in comparison with the 30 plus 150 micrograms fixed dose regime. [Triphasic versus monophasic p-pill. A comparative multicenter study]. Cycle control on low-dose oral contraceptives: a comparative trial. "Estrophasic" dosing: A new concept in oral contraceptive therapy. [A comparative clinical study of the effects of three types of low-dose estrogen/progestogen oral contraceptives]. Efficacy, cycle control, and side effects of low- and lower-dose oral contraceptives: a randomized trial of 20 micrograms and 35 micrograms estrogen preparations. A randomised comparative study of Triquilar versus Marvelon: the Malaysian experience. Comparison of a novel norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol oral contraceptive (Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo) with the oral contraceptive Loestrin Fe 1/20. A multicenter comparative trial of triphasic and monophasic, low-dose combined oral contraceptives. A comparative analysis of three different dose combinations of oral contraceptives. Clinical comparison of triphasic norgestimate/35 micrograms ethinyl estradiol and monophasic norethindrone acetate/20 micrograms ethinyl estradiol. Cycle control, lipid effects, and user satisfaction. A multicenter randomized comparison of cycle control and laboratory findings with oral contraceptive agents containing 100 microg levonorgestrel with 20 microg ethinyl estradiol or triphasic norethindrone with ethinyl estradiol. Initial selection of oral contraceptives. A comparison of cycle control with monophasic levonorgestrel/ethinylestradiol 100 micrograms/20 micrograms versus triphasic norethindrone/ethinylestradiol 500-750-1000 micrograms/35 micrograms: a multicenter, randomized, open-label study.
To compare bleeding patterns between a 21/7-day triphasic norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol (E2) 25-microgram oral contraceptive pill (OCP) and a 24/4-day drospirenone/ethinyl E2 20-microgram OCP.
                In a three-cycle, open-label, multicenter study, healthy, sexually active women were assigned randomly to a 21/7-day (norgestimate/ethinyl E2) or 24/4-day (drospirenone/ethinyl E2) OCP regimen. Randomization was stratified to assure a balanced distribution between regimens for "fresh starts" and "switchers." Bleeding data were collected daily using an interactive voice-response system. Bleeding was defined according to the 2007 U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee-endorsed criteria.
                Across the three cycles, the 21/7-day OCP group (n=165) reported fewer unscheduled bleeding days than did the 24/4-day OCP group (n=167) (mean 4.6 compared with 6.1 days, P=.003). Women using the 21/7-day OCP had significantly fewer episodes of unscheduled bleeding than did those using the 24/4-day OCP (mean 1.47 compared with 2.01, P=.001). Moreover, women using the 21/7-day OCP had a significantly lower absence of scheduled bleeding at each cycle (P<.001). Both regimens were well-tolerated.
                A 21-day norgestimate/ethinyl E2 25-microgram regimen results in less unscheduled bleeding and more scheduled bleeding than does a 24-day drospirenone/ethinyl E2 20-microgram regimen.
                ClinicalTrials.gov, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00745901.
                I. In a Swedish multicenter study, a total number of 835 women completed a total of 6472 treatment cycles. Half of them were allotted at random to use the monophasic oral contraceptive Neovletta, also known as Microgynon 30 (30 micrograms ethinyl oestradiol + 150 micrograms levonorgestrel in each tablet). The second half was allotted to Trionetta, also known as Triquilar, Trigynon and Logynon (6 tablets with 30 micrograms ethinyl oestradiol + 50 micrograms levonorgestrel, 5 tablets with 40 micrograms ethinyl oestradiol + 75 micrograms levonorgestrel and 10 tablets with 30 micrograms ethinyl oestradiol + 125 micrograms levonorgestrel). The latter version was also present in a 28-day version containing in addition 7 "placebo" tablets to be used in the otherwise tablet-free interval. The contraceptive reliability was excellent although one pregnancy occurred in the three-phase version. It could be attributed to patient failure. In all aspects of bleeding control, the three-phasic pill proved to be superior to the reference monophasic preparation. The extreme low incidence of missed withdrawal bleeding and stability already during the first months of use are noteworthy features. For both preparations, continuation rate was at six months of use about 85% and at 12 months it was a similar figure. The most common reason for withdrawal was bleeding, about 5% each for both preparation. No serious side-effects were reported. The study clearly indicates that the three-phasic version is a major improvement in spite of a considerably decreased total dose of the gestagen. This was an open-label multicenter study to compare the cycle control and effect on well-being of two oral contraceptives containing gestodene and one containing desogestrel. A total of 2419 healthy women < or = 41 years of age were randomized to receive oral contraceptives containing monophasic gestodene (Minulet; n = 806, mean age 24.5 years), triphasic gestodene (Tri-Minulet; n = 808, mean age 24.6 years) or monophasic desogestrel (Mercilon; n = 805, mean age 24.6 years). Subjects were to participate in the study for up to 13 treatment cycles. A modified Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire was used to evaluate menstrual symptoms and to assess overall well-being. A total of 698 women were withdrawn from the study, 154 due to adverse events. Cycle control with gestodene was superior to that with desogestrel at almost all time points, particularly for breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting, which occurred significantly less frequently with gestodene than with desogestrel at cycles 1-7 and 9-11 (p < 0.05). Generally, the proportion of subjects with breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting was almost twice as great with desogestrel as with gestodene. The duration of bleeding was not consistently different between the gestodene and desogestrel groups; however, the intensity of bleeding was greater with gestodene at all time points (p < 0.05). The latent period before withdrawal bleeding was significantly longer for monophasic gestodene at cycles 1-5 and 8-10 (p < 0.05). Treatment significantly improved overall well-being at cycles 6 and 9 with triphasic gestodene and at cycle 13 with desogestrel; however, no statistically significant differences among treatment groups in overall well-being scores or individual factors of well-being could be identified. All three treatments were well tolerated. The most common drug-related adverse events were headache (14.2%), breast pain (6.2%), nausea (4.1%), metrorrhagia (3.9%) and abdominal pain (3.5%). The incidence of adverse events in all treatment groups was similar, with the exception of metrorrhagia, which occurred in more patients in the desogestrel group than in the gestodene treatment groups (p < 0.05). Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are one of the most effective reversible and accessible contraceptives, and patient acceptance for their use depends partly on the unfavorable adverse effects. The present study compared the two kinds of OCPs (monophasic; levonorgestrel (LNG)-ethinyl estradiol (EE) 150/30 versus triphasic; LNG-EE 50-75-125/30-40-30) for adverse effects and patient satisfaction.
                A randomized clinical trial was performed on 314 women who used OCPs for the first time, as their contraception, for 6 months. Overall, 1884 cycles were studied. In the monophasic group (n=159 who finally finished the study), monophasic pills LNG-EE 150/30mcg, and in the triphasic group (n=155 who finally finished the study), triphasic pills LNG-EE 50-75-125/30-40-30 mcg were used. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 10: Chi square test, Fisher exact test and Student's t-test were used.
                There were no significant differences between the two groups for common side effects, including nausea, headache, nervousness, facial hyperpigmentation (chloasma), and body weight (increase or decrease) but breakthrough bleeding and spotting (BTB/S) were less in the triphasic group, occurring in 30 cycles (18.86%) versus 10 cycles (6.45%), P=0.009*. Patient satisfaction for the two OCPs was similar and high. The rates of side effects were low.
                It seems that the monophasic and triphasic pills are similar according to patient satisfaction and side effects; therefore there is no benefit of one over the other except for BTB/S, for which triphasic is superior.
                Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. nan nan Cycle control was studied comparing the monophasic oral contraceptive Loestrin with three low-dose phasic preparations (Triphasil, Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7) in 391 women of whom 300 completed 6 cycles. Loestrin subjects had a rate of occurrence (31% of cycles) for intermenstrual bleeding (IMB) comparable to the rates for subjects on the phasic preparations (36%, 37% and 37%, respectively). Triphasil subjects had lower rates than the Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7 subjects (p less than 0.01) in cycle one when all subjects were analyzed and in pre-study users when continuing menstrual flow (CMF) episodes were not included as IMB. IMB was a cause for dropping out of the study in 7% of subjects who were evenly distributed between groups. There were no differences between groups for BTB when perceived by subjects as a side effect. Spotting was perceived as a side effect more often with Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7 use than with Triphasil (p less than 0.01). Loestrin, Ortho 10/11 and Ortho 7/7/7 subjects were more likely to report amenorrhea (p less than 0.001) and less likely to report leg cramps (p less than 0.01) compared to those on Triphasil. Triphasil subjects were less likely to report acne than subjects on Ortho 7/7/7 (p less than 0.01). The first of a new "estrophasic" type of oral contraceptive with 20 microg ethinyl estradiol on cycle days 1 through 5, 30 microg ethinyl estradiol on days 6 through 12, and 35 microg ethinyl estradiol on days 13 through 21 and 1 mg norethindrone acetate throughout the cycle (Estrostep; Parke-Davis, Morris Plains, NJ) combines a continuous low progestin dose with a low, gradually increasing estrogen dose. It was developed to ensure good cycle control while conferring the benefits of low hormone content, such as minimizing estrogen-related side effects. In a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial, Estrostep provided acceptable cycle control and excellent tolerableness, comparable to that of the 30-microg ethinyl estradiol monophasic control drug. In a second study Estrostep demonstrated a neutral impact on serum lipids, like the triphasic control drug. This new oral contraceptive design offers a useful low-dose alternative to existing combination preparations. nan Estrogen content represents a tradeoff between cycle control and side effects, but few direct comparisons of 20 and 30/35 micrograms preparations are available. To address this issue, we conducted a randomized, open-label multicenter clinical trial comparing Alesse (20 micrograms ethinyl estradiol [EE]), Mircette (20 micrograms EE), and Ortho Tri-Cyclen (35 micrograms EE) among 463 OC starters or switchers. Bloating, breast tenderness, and nausea were approximately 50% more common in women using 35 micrograms EE as compared to 20 micrograms EE preparations. Cycle control was similar in all products, although during the first two cycles among starters; users of Mircette and Ortho Tri-Cyclen (Tri-Cyclen) exhibited better cycle control than Alesse users. Discontinuation and pregnancy rates were not significantly higher in 35 micrograms EE users. nan This multicenter study compared the contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, and safety of a new triphasic norgestimate (180/215/250 microg)/ethinyl estradiol 25 microg regimen (Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo) (n = 1,723) with that of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 microg (Loestrin Fe 1/20) (n = 1,171). Healthy women were treated for up to 13 cycles. Demographics were similar between regimens. Contraceptive efficacy was comparable for Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo and Loestrin Fe 1/20. The overall and method failure probabilities of pregnancy through 13 cycles were 1.9% and 1.5%, respectively, with Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo and 2.6% and 2.4%, respectively, with Loestrin Fe 1/20. Breakthrough bleeding and spotting was reported by a significantly lower percentage of participants in the Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo group compared with the Loestrin Fe 1/20 group. At representative Cycles 1, 3, 6, 9, and 13, breakthrough bleeding and spotting rates were 16.3, 11.5, 10.3, 7.9, and 7.7%, respectively, in the Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo group and 34.9, 22.9, 22.2, 15.9, and 13.1%, respectively, in the Loestrin Fe 1/20 group. Compliance and safety data were similar for the two regimens. A comparative multicenter clinical trial of two combined oral contraceptives (OCs) was conducted at clinics located in the Sudan, Sri Lanka, Chile, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. The trial was designed to determine if there were differences in efficacy, safety and acceptability between a triphasic and a low-dose monophasic OC. This report includes analysis of 1088 women. At each center, subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two OCs. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 4, 8 and 12 months after admission. There were two accidental pregnancies attributed to user failure reported during the study period; one in the triphasic group and one in the monophasic group. Adverse experiences were mainly minor with headaches and dizziness being the most common complaints; frequency of reports was similar in both groups. Cycle control was good in both groups with women in the triphasic group reporting fewer complaints of intermenstrual bleeding. Both OCs were safe and effective. Three different low-dose formulations of oral contraceptives were compared to determine the most suitable preparation for Filipino women as reflected in the first year continuation rates, incidence of side effects and failure rates. A total of 1,800 subjects were enrolled in the study from 18 health centers in six provinces in two regions of the Philippines, covering a total of 18,282 women-months of use. Sociodemographic characteristics were comparable. The monophasic levonorgestrel group showed the best performance followed by the triphasic preparation. The norethindrone group consistently showed higher drop-out rates, which may be due to the relatively higher incidence of side effects. For all three preparations, bleeding irregularities were low. There were no major side effects and no pregnancy was reported in one year of use. Noted was a distinct regional and provincial difference in recruitment and follow-up performance, possibly due to clinic, client or program factors. This six-cycle, multicenter, open-label, randomized study compared the clinical experience of two low-dose oral contraceptives (OC): a triphasic OC containing norgestimate (NGM) and 35 micrograms ethinyl estradiol (EE) (Ortho Tri-Cyclen) and a monophasic OC containing norethindrone acetate (NETA) and 20 micrograms EE (Loestrin Fe 1/20). Cycle control, lipid and androgen profiles, and user satisfaction were studied in new-start OC users (i.e., no prior use within 60 days). Breakthrough bleeding or breakthrough spotting (BTB/BTS) occurred in a significantly smaller percentage of NGM/EE users than NETA/EE users during each of six cycles (p < or = 0.002). The incidence of BTB/BTS ranged from 3.7% to 13.5% for NGM/EE users and from 23.5% to 49.7% for NETA/EE users. Significantly fewer NGM/EE users than NETA/EE users experienced absence of menses at cycles 2 through 6 (p < or = 0.003). The percentages of women having no menses at each cycle ranged from 0.9% to 4.7% for NGM/EE users and from 10.3% to 21.3% for NETA/EE users. NGM/EE users reported a significantly (p < 0.001) higher level of satisfaction with their OC at the end of six cycles than did NETA/EE users, but there was no significant difference in compliance, discontinuation rates, or adverse events between the two groups. NGM/EE produced a significantly (p < or = 0.001) greater beneficial effect on HDL-C, HDL2, and apo A-I than did NETA/EE. No statistically significant treatment differences were found for total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, or apo-B. Both OC increased sex hormone binding globulin and decreased free testosterone, but NGM/EE had a significantly greater effect (p < 0.009). This study was undertaken to compare the effects of 2 oral contraceptive regimens on menstrual cycle control and laboratory findings.
                In a multicenter randomized study 100 microg levonorgestrel with 20 microg ethinyl estradiol (Alesse or Loette) was given to 155 healthy women. A triphasic preparation of 500, 750, and 1000 microg norethindrone with 35 microg ethinyl estradiol (Ortho-Novum 7/7/7 or TriNovum) was given to 167 women for 1 to 4 cycles of treatment.
                Overall, the percentages of normal menstrual cycles and the percentages of cycles with intermenstrual and withdrawal bleeding were similar between the 2 treatment groups. In the levonorgestrel with ethinyl estradiol group, there was a statistically significantly longer latent period and a statistically significantly shorter withdrawal bleeding episode. Adverse events were similar between treatment groups, and none were serious. Most mean changes from baseline laboratory values were comparable between groups, although the mean increase in cholesterol concentration was statistically significantly lower in the levonorgestrel with ethinyl estradiol group. Changes in triglyceride and glucose concentrations were not statistically significantly different between groups.
                Levonorgestrel (100 microg) with ethinyl estradiol (20 microg) provides menstrual cycle control equivalent to that obtained with triphasic norethindrone with ethinyl estradiol (75% higher estrogen dose) with similar safety and tolerability. A prospective, randomized trial compared client experiences with three popular oral contraceptives--Triphasil, Ortho-Novum 7/7/7 and Ortho-Novum 1/35. After one year, no significant relationship was found between the contraceptive prescribed and either breakthrough bleeding or satisfaction with the medication. The monophasic formulation, Ortho-Novum 1/35, was associated with amenorrhea more often. This multicenter, randomized, open-label study was undertaken to compare the effects on menstrual cycle control of two oral contraceptive regimens: monophasic levonorgestrel (LNG) 100 micrograms/ethinylestradiol (EE) 20 micrograms (Alesse or Loette) and triphasic norethindrone (NET) 500-750-1000 micrograms/EE 35 micrograms (OrthoNovum 7/7/7).
                Healthy women with normal menstrual cycles were enrolled and completed up to four cycles of study medication. A total of 384 cycles in the LNG/EE group and 400 cycles in the NET/EE group were evaluable for analysis of cycle control.
                For all treatment cycles, the percentage of cycles classified as normal was consistently higher in the LNG/EE group than in the NET/EE group. By cycle 4, 69.9% of cycles with LNG/EE and 54.4% with NET/EE (p < 0.05) were normal. In individual cycles, consistently lower occurrences of intermenstrual bleeding (total bleeding and/or spotting) were seen for the LNG/EE group, although these differences were not statistically significant. Withdrawal bleeding characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the length of the latent period, which was significantly longer in the LNG/EE group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in the two groups.
                This study indicates that the monophasic LNG/EE 100 micrograms/20 micrograms provides better cycle control than the multiphasic NET/EE product, despite its lower EE dose.
The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether triphasic OCs differ from monophasic OCs in effectiveness, bleeding patterns or discontinuation rates. Therefore, we recommend monophasic pills as a first choice for women starting OC use. Large, high-quality RCTs that compare triphasic and monophasic OCs with identical progestogens are needed to determine whether triphasic pills differ from monophasic OCs. Future studies should follow the recommendations of Belsey or Mishell on recording menstrual bleeding patterns and the CONSORT reporting guidelines.