Biphasic Pills Research Articles

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception

Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception

Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. Three approaches have been used to decrease these adverse effects: reduction of steroid dose, development of new steroids, and new formulas and schedules of administration. The third strategy led to the biphasic oral contraceptive pill. To compare biphasic with monophasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. Our a priori hypotheses were: (a) biphasic oral contraceptives are less effective than monophasic oral contraceptives in preventing pregnancy; (b) biphasic oral contraceptives cause more side effects, give poorer cycle control, and have lower continuation rates. We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. In addition, we searched the reference lists of all potentially relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any monophasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. We examined the studies found during the various literature searches for possible inclusion and assessed their methodology using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of all included studies and possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about methodology and outcome. We entered the data into RevMan, and calculated Peto odds ratios for the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding, absence of withdrawal bleeding, and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding. Only one trial of limited quality compared a biphasic and monophasic preparation. Percival-Smith 1990 examined 533 user cycles of a biphasic pill (500 microg norethindrone/35 microg ethinyl estradiol for 10 days, followed by 1000 microg norethindrone/35 microg ethinyl estradiol for 11 days; Ortho 10/11) and 481 user cycles of a monophasic contraceptive pill (1500 microg norethindrone acetate/30 microg ethinyl estradiol daily; Loestrin). The study found no significant differences in intermenstrual bleeding, amenorrhea and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding between the biphasic and monophasic oral contraceptive pills. Conclusions are limited by the identification of only one trial, the methodological shortcomings of that trial, and the absence of data on accidental pregnancies. However, the trial found no important differences in bleeding patterns between the biphasic and monophasic preparations studied. Since no clear rationale exists for biphasic pills and since extensive evidence is available for monophasic pills, the latter are preferred.

Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception: a Cochrane review.

Side-effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with and continuation of oral contraceptives. Three approaches have been used to decrease these adverse effects: reduction of steroid dose, development of new steroids, and new formulas and schedules of administration. The third strategy led to the biphasic oral contraceptive pill. We compared biphasic oral contraceptives with monophasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control and discontinuation due to side-effects. Our a priori hypotheses were: (i) biphasic oral contraceptives are less effective in preventing pregnancy than monophasic oral contraceptives, and (ii) biphasic oral contraceptives cause more side-effects, give poorer cycle control and have lower continuation rates. We searched computerized databases Medline, Embase, Popline and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of all potentially relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic oral contraceptive with any monophasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. We examined the studies found during the various literature searches for possible inclusion and assessed their methodological quality using the Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of all included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplementary information about the study methods and outcomes. We entered the data in RevMan 3.1, imported the data into RevMan 4.1, and calculated Peto odds ratios for the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding, absence of withdrawal bleeding and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding. Only one trial of limited quality compared a biphasic and monophasic preparation. This trial examined 533 user cycles of a biphasic pill (norethindrone 500 microg/ethinyl estradiol 35 microg for 10 days, followed by norethindrone 1000 microg/ethinyl estradiol 35 microg for 11 days) and 481 user cycles of a monophasic contraceptive pill (norethindrone acetate 1500 microg/ethinyl estradiol 30 microg daily). The study found no significant differences in intermenstrual bleeding, amenorrhoea and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding between the biphasic and monophasic oral contraceptive pills. Conclusions are limited by the identification of only one trial, the methodological shortcomings of that trial and the absence of data on accidental pregnancies. However, the trial found no important differences in bleeding patterns between the biphasic and monophasic preparations studied. Since no clear rationale exists for biphasic pills and since extensive evidence is available for monophasic pills, the latter are preferred.

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with and continuation of oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic oral contraceptive pills as compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. To compare biphasic oral contraceptives with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. We searched computerized databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Additionally we searched the reference lists of potentially relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the U.S. We included randomized controlled trial comparing any biphasic oral contraceptive with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. We examined the studies found during the various literature searches for possible inclusion and assessed their methodological quality using the Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of all included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the study methods and outcomes. We entered the data in RevMan 3.1 and later imported them into RevMan 4.1. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, absence of withdrawal bleeding, and discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding. Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga (1978) compared two biphasic and one triphasic pills, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival Smith (1990) compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and another triphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic pill. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95%CI 1.3-2.2) for the biphasic pill compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95%CI 3.1-13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that with the triphasic pill containing the same progestin (norethindrone). The available evidence is limited and of poor quality; the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow-up after randomization, these reports may be better considered observational in nature. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. This suggests that the choice of progestin may be more important that the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

A metabolic assessment of different oral contraceptives

SummaryThe demonstration in the late 1960s that the risk of developing thrombo-embolic disease was increased in women using oral contraceptives and that the magnitude of the risk was correlated with the oestrogen dose, led to the withdrawal of formulations of oral contraceptives containing more than 50 μg of ethinyloestradiol. At about the same time the demonstration that some progestagens caused the development of breast nodules in certain experimental animals led to these progestagens no longer being used in contraceptive formulations. Thus at the beginning of the 1970s the choice of an oral contraceptive was considerably narrowed. During the past decade the introduction of formulations containing less than 50 μg of oestrogen, which now account for more than 50 percent of oral contraceptives in use and in which the dose of progestagen is also reduced, the development of new formulations in which the daily dose of the oestrogen and progestagen components are varied, as in the triphasic and biphasic pills...

BINOVUM* —FIRST BIPHASIC PILL IN UK

International Journal of Clinical PracticeVolume 36, Issue 6 p. 247-247 Feature BINOVUM* —FIRST BIPHASIC PILL IN UK First published: 01 June 1982 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.1982.tb08405.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume36, Issue6June 1982Pages 247-247 RelatedInformation