Multicenter comparison of the contraceptive ring and patch: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed (original) (raw)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter comparison of the contraceptive ring and patch: a randomized controlled trial
Mitchell D Creinin et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb.
Abstract
Objective: To understand if the contraceptive ring or patch was more acceptable, as measured primarily by continuation, to women using an oral contraceptive and interested in a nondaily, combined hormonal contraceptive.
Methods: Five hundred women were randomly assigned to use the contraceptive ring (n=249) or contraceptive patch (n=251) for four consecutive menstrual cycles, starting with their next menses. Participants returned for a single follow-up visit during the fourth cycle for an evaluation, which included a questionnaire to assess acceptability and adverse effects.
Results: Rates of completion of three cycles were 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.0-97.1%) and 88.2% (95% CI 83.4-92.0%) for ring and patch users, respectively (P=.03). Of these women, 71.0% (95% CI 64.8-76.6%) and 26.5% (95% CI 21.0-32.6%), respectively, planned to continue their method after the study (P<.001). Women switching to the patch were significantly more likely than women switching to the ring to experience longer periods (38% compared with 9%), increased dysmenorrhea (29% compared with 16%), frequent nausea (8% compared with 1%), frequent mood swings (14% compared with 8%), and frequent skin rash (12% compared with 2%) and were less likely to experience frequent vaginal discharge (8% compared with 17%). Ring users preferred the ring to the oral contraceptive (P<.001), and patch users preferred the oral contraceptive to the patch (P<.001). Nugent scores increased only in patch users (P=.01), although most of these women were asymptomatic.
Conclusion: Women satisfied with combined oral contraceptives and interested in a nondaily method are more likely to continue using the contraceptive ring than the contraceptive patch.
Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00269620.
Level of evidence: I.
Similar articles
- Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Stockton LL, Schulz KF. Lopez LM, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;2013(4):CD003552. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003552.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23633314 Free PMC article. Review. - Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Schulz KF. Lopez LM, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD003552. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003552.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. PMID: 18254023 Updated. Review. - Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Gallo MF, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD003552. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003552. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003. PMID: 12535478 Updated. Review. - Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Schulz KF. Lopez LM, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17;(3):CD003552. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003552.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010. PMID: 20238323 Updated. Review. - Long-acting reversible contraceptive acceptability and unintended pregnancy among women presenting for short-acting methods: a randomized patient preference trial.
Hubacher D, Spector H, Monteith C, Chen PL, Hart C. Hubacher D, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;216(2):101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.033. Epub 2016 Sep 20. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 27662799 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Cited by
- Comparison of Combined Parenteral and Oral Hormonal Contraceptives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Vleskó G, Meznerics FA, Hegyi P, Teutsch B, Unicsovics M, Sipos Z, Fehérvári P, Ács N, Várbíró S, Keszthelyi M. Vleskó G, et al. J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 19;13(2):575. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020575. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38276081 Free PMC article. Review. - Contraceptive effects on the cervicovaginal microbiome: Recent evidence including randomized trials.
Balle C, Happel AU, Heffron R, Jaspan HB. Balle C, et al. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2023 Nov;90(5):e13785. doi: 10.1111/aji.13785. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2023. PMID: 37881121 Free PMC article. Review. - Participant experiences with a multipurpose vaginal ring for HIV and pregnancy prevention during a phase 1 clinical trial: learning from users to improve acceptability.
Shapley-Quinn MK, Song M, Chen BA, Devlin B, Luecke E, Brown J, Blithe DL, Achilles SL, van der Straten A. Shapley-Quinn MK, et al. Front Reprod Health. 2023 Jul 6;5:1147628. doi: 10.3389/frph.2023.1147628. eCollection 2023. Front Reprod Health. 2023. PMID: 37484873 Free PMC article. - Exosomal microRNAs and long noncoding RNAs: as novel biomarkers for endometriosis.
Soltani-Fard E, Asadi M, Taghvimi S, Vafadar A, Vosough P, Tajbakhsh A, Savardashtaki A. Soltani-Fard E, et al. Cell Tissue Res. 2023 Oct;394(1):55-74. doi: 10.1007/s00441-023-03802-5. Epub 2023 Jul 22. Cell Tissue Res. 2023. PMID: 37480408 Review. - Acceptability and Satisfaction of Contraceptive Vaginal Rings in Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.
Delvaux T, Jespers V, Benova L, van de Wijgert J. Delvaux T, et al. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021 Dec 14;2:799963. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2021.799963. eCollection 2021. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021. PMID: 34970653 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials