Kulier Regina, Helmerhorst Frans M, Maitra Nandita, Gülmezoglu A Metin
Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Geneva, Switzerland.
Reprod Health. 2004 Jun 3;1(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-1-1.
The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OCs) has undergone changes since it was recognized that their chemical structure can influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. METHODS: The objective of this review was to evaluate currently available low-dose OCs containing ethinylestradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion and were assessed for methodological quality and validity. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials were included in the review. Eighteen were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and in only 5 there was an attempt for blinding. Most comparisons between different interventions included one to three trials, involving usually less than 500 women. Discontinuation was less with second-generation progestogens compared to first-generation (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91). Cycle control appeared to be better with second-compared to first-generation progestogens for both, mono-and triphasic preparations (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.91) and (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.85), respectively. Intermenstrual bleeding was less with third- compared to second-generation pills (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.91).Contraceptive effectiveness of gestodene (GSD) was comparable to that of levonorgestrel (LNG), and had similar pattern of spotting, breakthrough bleeding and absence of withdrawal bleeding). Drospirenone (DRSP) was similar compared to desogestrel (DSG) regarding contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control and side effects. CONCLUSION: The third- and second-generation progestogens are preferred over first generation in all indices of acceptability. Current evidence suggests that GSD is comparable to LNG in terms of contraceptive effectiveness and for most cycle control indices. GSD is also comparable to DSG. DRSP is comparable to DSG. Future research should focus on independently conducted well designed randomized trials comparing particularly the third- with second-generation progestogens.
自从人们认识到口服避孕药(OCs)的孕激素成分的化学结构会影响其轻微不良反应和有益作用的范围以来,该成分一直在发生变化。
本综述的目的是评估目前可用的含有炔雌醇和不同孕激素的低剂量口服避孕药在避孕效果、周期控制、副作用和持续使用率方面的情况。检索了Cochrane对照试验注册库、MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库。纳入报告临床结果的随机试验,并对其方法学质量和有效性进行评估。
本综述纳入了22项试验。其中18项由制药公司赞助,只有5项尝试进行了盲法。不同干预措施之间的大多数比较包括一到三项试验,通常涉及不到500名女性。与第一代孕激素相比,第二代孕激素的停药率更低(相对危险度0.79;95%置信区间0.69 - 0.91)。对于单相和三相制剂,与第一代孕激素相比,第二代孕激素的周期控制似乎更好,分别为(相对危险度0.69;95%置信区间0.52 - 0.91)和(相对危险度0.61;95%置信区间0.43 - 0.85)。与第二代药丸相比,第三代药丸的经间期出血更少(相对危险度0.71;95%置信区间0.55 - 0.91)。孕二烯酮(GSD)的避孕效果与左炔诺孕酮(LNG)相当,并且在点滴出血、突破性出血和无撤退性出血方面具有相似的模式。在避孕效果、周期控制和副作用方面,屈螺酮(DRSP)与去氧孕烯(DSG)相似。
在所有可接受性指标方面,第三代和第二代孕激素优于第一代。目前的证据表明,在避孕效果和大多数周期控制指标方面,GSD与LNG相当。GSD也与DSG相当。DRSP与DSG相当。未来的研究应侧重于独立开展设计良好的随机试验,特别是比较第三代和第二代孕激素。