ArticlePatient preference and adherence2009
Safety, efficacy and patient satisfaction with continuous daily administration of levonorgestrel/ethinylestradiol oral contraceptives.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01480778 (Pharmacodynamic Assessment to Drug Ciclo 21), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Pharmacodynamic Assessment to Drug Ciclo 21 (Levonorgestrel + Ethinyl Estradiol) Market by União Química Farmacêutica Nacional S/A Compared to Drug Nordette of Wieth Indústria Farmacêutica Ltda.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comment on: Toward an optimal contraception dosing strategy.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Evolution of Oral Contraceptive Pills.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2024Review
- Insights into the Behavior of Triple-Negative MDA-MB-231 Breast Carcinoma Cells Following the Treatment with 17β-Ethinylestradiol and Levonorgestrel.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Contraception for women with epilepsy: counseling, choices, and concerns.Open access journal of contraception · 2016Review
- Menstrual suppression: current perspectives.International journal of women's health · 2014Review
- A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Levonorgestrel Vs. The Yuzpe Regimen as Emergency Contraception Method among Iranian Women.Iranian journal of public health · 2013Article
- Role of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in effective contraception.Patient preference and adherence · 2013Article
- The new extended-cycle levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol oral contraceptives.Clinical medicine insights. Reproductive health · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The progestational steroid norgestrel was synthesized and tested between 1960 and 1965 through an international cooperation between Wyeth, USA and Schering, Berlin. It is a mixture of two "enantiomers," with only one form (designated as levonorgestrel) biologically active. When taken orally, it is rapidly absorbed, not subjected to a "first-pass" effect and is approximately 90% bioavailable, with a circulating half-life around 15 hours. Its contraceptive action is exerted at the central (hypothalamic) and peripheral (cervical mucus and endometrium) levels. Levonorgestrel (LNG), alone or in combination with ethinyl estradiol (EE), is the most widely employed contraceptive progestin: it is used in combined oral contraceptives, progestogen-only pills, long-acting contraceptive implants, intrauterine contraceptive systems and in emergency contraception. It is also the steroid of choice for new oral contraceptive regimens aimed at reducing the frequency of bleeding episodes. This novel approach, already tried more than 30 years ago, gained interest around the year 2000 when surveys of women's attitudes toward monthly menstrual bleeding started to show a major change: more and more women declared that they would welcome a hormonal contraceptive method that reduced bleeding episodes to 4, 2 or even 1 per year. At this point, while the debate on the significance and "usefulness" of menstruation went on, attention focused on new regimens. The first new modality consisted of changing the 7-day medication-free interval, either shortening it to fewer than 7 days, or by the administration of low-dose estrogens during the interval between packages. Then, continuous administration regimens started to be investigated. This, however, did not happen suddenly, since, in specific situations, doctors had for years empirically utilized various continuous administration regimens. The first extended-cycle oral contraceptive regimen introduced in clinical practice is an 84-day regimen that results in bleeding only 4 times a year. A commercial product specifically packed for continuous use is now available in Europe and contains 30 mug EE and 150 mug LNG. In a variation of this regimen, after administration of the same combination for 84 days, women are given 7 pills containing 10 mug EE. A 6-monthly regimen has also been tested in a small study using EE 20 mug plus LNG 100 mug taken with and without a hormone-free interval. Women in the continuous group reported significantly fewer bleeding days requiring protection and were more likely to have amenorrhea; in addition they also reported significantly fewer days of bloating and menstrual pain. A yearly regimen is now being developed. Each pill of this novel formulation contains EE 20 mug and LNG 90 mug to be taken continuously for 364 days (13 cycles) per year. A phase III trial has now evaluated safety, efficacy and menses inhibition. At the end of the 1-year trial amenorrhea was present in 58.7% of the women and a complete absence of bleeding in 79.0%. Overall, the number of bleeding and spotting days per pill pack declined with time and adverse events and discontinuations were comparable to those reported for cyclic oral contraceptive regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.