Search

Objectives: To comparatively evaluate the impact of a balanced one-third dose-reduced oral contraceptive on hemostatic variables., Methods: In an open-label, randomized study, a dose-reduced oral contraceptive containing 20 microg of ethinylestradiol (EE) and 100 microg of levonorgestrel (LNG) was compared with a reference preparation containing 30 microg of EE and 150 microg of LNG. One-year data were obtained from 48 volunteers., Results: The direction and magnitude of the changes (increase or decrease) in most of the hemostatic variables were similar in both treatment groups. The majority of changes of all investigated variables remained within the reference ranges of variation. The procoagulatory variables increased to some extent from baseline to treatment cycle 13, while the anticoagulatory variables slightly decreased. In particular, thrombin turnover measured by prothrombin fragments 1+2 increased during treatment by 35% in the 20 microg of EE group and by 38% in the 30 microg of EE group. Statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups were found only for TAT. For the profibrinolytic variables, plasminogen was increased by 42% (20 microg of EE) and 49% (30 microg of EE). While the plasma levels of tPA antigen were reduced during treatment, the levels of its activity were increased by 54% (20 microg of EE) and 20% (30 microg of EE). For PAI, both antigen and activity were decreased, somewhat more pronounced with 20 microg of EE. D-Dimer remained virtually unchanged. Finally, the median FbDP levels were elevated by 30% (20 microg of EE) and 38% (30 microg of EE).

Objectives: To evaluate the impact on lipid and carbohydrate variables of a combined one-third ethinyl estradiol (EE)/levonorgestrel (LNG) dose reduction in oral contraceptives., Methods: In an open-label, randomized study, a dose-reduced oral contraceptive containing 20 microg EE and 100 microg LNG (20 EE/100 LNG) was compared with a reference preparation containing 30 microg EE and 150 microg LNG (30 EE/150 LNG). One-year data from 48 volunteers were obtained., Results: We found a decrease of HDL2 cholesterol and increases of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total triglycerides in both treatment groups from baseline to the 13th treatment cycle. Although for four of six variables, the changes in the 20 EE group were lower compared with the 30 EE group, none of the differences between the two treatments were statistically significant. The median values for the fasting levels of insulin, C-peptide and free fatty acids slightly increased or remained unchanged while the fasting glucose levels slightly decreased after 13 treatment cycles. While the glucose area under the curve (AUC) (0-3 h) was similar in both groups during the OGTT, the insulin AUC(0-3 h) was less increased in the 20 EE/100 LNG group compared with the 30 EE/150 LNG group. None of the differences between the treatment groups for any of the carbohydrate metabolism variables were statistically significant at any time point. Both study treatments were safe and well tolerated by the volunteers., Conclusion: Similar effects on the lipid and carbohydrate profiles were found for both preparations. The balanced one-third EE dose reduction in this new oral contraceptive caused slightly lower, but insignificant, changes in the lipid and carbohydrate variables compared with the reference treatment.

In this first prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study we evaluated the influence of two combined oral contraceptives on bone mineral density (BMD) and metabolic bone parameters. One dose-reduced preparation contained 20 microg ethinylestradiol (EE) in combination with 100 microg levonorgestrel (LNG) (20/100) was compared with the reference preparation which contained 30 microg EE in combination with 150 microg LNG (30/150). Data from 48 volunteers aged 20-35 years were obtained over an observation period of 36 treatment cycles. The direction of the change (increase or decrease) in all investigated bone-related variables was similar in both treatment groups. As compared to baseline, bone mineral density decreased by 0.4% in the 20/100 group and by 0.8% in the 30/150 group after 36 treatment cycles. These changes were not significantly different between the two treatment groups (p = 0.902). For bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, we measured a mean increase of 55.4% (20/100 group) and of 113.2% (30/150 group) after 36 treatment cycles. The two treatments did not differ statistically significantly (p = 0.522). With respect to cross-linked N-telopeptides (NTx), we detected a decrease of the mean NTx urine concentrations of 21.1% (20/100) and of 13.4% (30/150). These changes also did not significantly differ between the two treatments (p = 0.613). Both study treatments were safe and well-tolerated by all volunteers participating in the study. In conclusion, BMD did not change during the 3-year observation period. Thus, both trial preparations containing either 20 or 30 microg EE in combination with LNG were capable of maintaining BMD in young fertile women. There is no reason to assume that the EE dose reduction had any negative impact on BMD. Because there were no differences in BMD between the treatment groups, it can be assumed that even lower dosages than 20 microg EE might be sufficient for bone protection. Biochemical markers provided evidence for a reduced bone resorption.

Objectives: Evaluation of the impact of an oral contraceptive on body weight with a comparison ofwomen who completed versus women who prematurely discontinued intake., Methods: Data on body weight were retrospectively analyzed from four large prospective clinical trials with an oral contraceptive containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol and 75 microg gestodene (EE/GSD). A total of 1971 young fertile women were included in the evaluation, and 1467 completed 12 cycles., Results: We found no clinically relevant change of body weight during treatment with an oral contraceptive containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol and 75 microg gestodene in the vast majority of users after 12 treatment cycles. The mean change of body weight was less than 0.3 kg in this time period for all users. Nearly 70% of women experienced a minor change in their body weight of +/- 2 kg. An additional 13% lost more than 2 kg body weight in the course of 12 treatment cycles. A total of 11% increased their weight by 2-4 kg. A total of 1255 (85.5%) of women had a body mass index (BMI) of < or = 25 at baseline compared to 1253 (85.4%) after 12 cycles of treatment. There was no significant difference in the change ofbody weight between the women completing 12 cycles of treatment and those who prematurely discontinued EE/GSD., Conclusions: This retrospective analysis confirms that there was only a negligible change of body weight during intake of an oral contraceptive containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol and 75 microg gestodene. There was no difference in weight change between the women completing the study or discontinuing intake.

Objectives: Evaluation of the impact of a monophasic gestodene-based oral contraceptive on blood pressure in a population that was normotensive at baseline., Methods: Data on blood pressure were retrospectively analyzed from four large prospective clinical phase III trials with an oral contraceptive containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol and 75 microg gestodene. A total of 1342 young fertile women were evaluated after 12 treatment cycles., Results: The mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure did not change during treatment. Approximately 89% of women were normotensive at baseline and 93% at the end of the treatment period. Only a few women (< or = 1%) were hypertensive at baseline; an increase in this prevalence was not found after 12 cycles of oral contraceptive use. The number of women who experienced a blood pressure increase was almost identical to the number who experienced a decrease. Approximately 90% of women had either a negligible blood pressure change of maximal +/- 10 mmHg or a decrease., Conclusions: The findings of this retrospective analysis confirm that monophasic gestodene has a negligible effect on blood pressure in users who were normotensive before treatment began.

The aim of this study was to compare contraceptive reliability, cycle control, and tolerance of an oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol (EE2) and 75 micrograms gestodene (GSD), with a reference preparation containing a similar dose of gestodene but in combination with 30 micrograms ethinylestradiol. A higher incidence of intermenstrual bleeding was apparent under the 20 micrograms EE2 oral contraceptive. For the 20 micrograms EE2 preparation, 47.4% of all women reported spotting at least once over a period of 12 treatment cycles, whereas this figure was 35.5% for the 30 micrograms EE2 pill (p < 0.05). However, the incidence was within a range that corresponds to that of other OCs. The cumulative breakthrough bleeding rates (at least once during the one year of treatment) of 14.5% (20 micrograms EE2) and 11.8% (30 micrograms EE2) of women were not significantly different. In relation to all cycles, the intermenstrual bleeding rates were remarkably lower, indicating that the majority of the volunteers experienced such events only in few cycles under treatment: the spotting rate was 11.5% (20 micrograms EE2) and 7.2% (30 micrograms EE2) of all cycles, and the breakthrough bleeding rate was 2.6% and 1.6% of all cycles, respectively. Three pregnancies were recorded during the study (one in the 20 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD group, two in the 30 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD group). All three could be explained either by intake irregularities or by circumstances impairing the contraceptive effect. The influence of both treatments on the blood pressure and body weight proved to be extremely slight. Adverse events in both groups were rare and differences in the frequency of adverse events were not apparent. The discontinuation rate due to adverse events, including intermenstrual bleeding, was low (9.8% for 20 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD, and 7.2% for 30 micrograms EE2 + 75 micrograms GSD) and was in the lower range known for other oral contraceptives. Both preparations were well accepted by the volunteers. The data obtained demonstrate clinically acceptable cycle control, good tolerance, and a high standard of contraceptive reliability for both drugs. Prescription of the 20 micrograms EE2 preparation could be the first-line therapy in order to provide the lowest amount of EE2 possible. In case of persistent cycle control problems, a switch to the 30 micrograms EE2 drug should be considered.

The objective of the study was to determine the suppressive effect on ovarian activity of 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol plus 75 micrograms gestodene administered for 21 or 23 days. The study was designed as a double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial in 60 women. A pre-treatment cycle, three treatment cycles and a post-treatment period were monitored by ovarian ultrasound and by LH, FSH, 17 beta-estradiol and progesterone measurements every other day. No ovulation and no luteinized, unruptured follicle were observed. Suppression of ovarian activity was more pronounced by the 23-day regimen. 17 beta-Estradiol serum levels during the last six days of a cycle and during the first six days of the next cycle were significantly less (p < 0.05) in the 23-day regimen. The superiority of the 23-day regimen in comparison to the 21-day regimen with regard to the suppression of ovarian activity was shown in this study. The observed differences in the 17 beta-estradiol levels and follicular development between a 21-day and 23-day preparation combine to suggest that shortening the pill-free interval in combined oral contraceptives may increase the contraceptive safety margin in women on low-dose formulations.