title: Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a transdermal contraceptive patch or a contraceptive vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The transdermal patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, compliance (adherence), and safety of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs).
  
  
  METHODS
  Through February 2013, we searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP for trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring. Earlier searches also included EMBASE. For the initial review, we contacted known researchers and manufacturers to identify other trials.
  
  
  METHODS
  We considered randomized controlled trials comparing a transdermal contraceptive patch or a contraceptive vaginal ring with a COC.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference was computed. We also assessed the quality of evidence for this review.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We found 18 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Of six patch studies, five examined the marketed patch containing norelgestromin plus ethinyl estradiol (EE); one studied a patch in development that contains levonorgestrel (LNG) plus EE. Of 12 vaginal ring trials, 11 examined the same marketing ring containing etonogestrel plus EE; one studied a ring being developed that contains nesterone plus EE.Contraceptive effectiveness was not significantly different for the patch or ring versus the comparison COC. Compliance data were limited. Patch users showed better compliance than COC users in three trials. For the norelgestromin plus EE patch, ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24). In the levonorgestrel plus EE patch report, patch users were less likely to have missed days of therapy (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.51). Of four vaginal ring trials, one found ring users had more noncompliance (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.87 to 8.52), while another showed more compliance with the regimen (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.68).More patch users discontinued early than COC users. ORs from two meta-analyses were 1.59 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.00) and 1.56 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.06) and another trial showed OR 2.57 (95% CI 0.99 to 6.64). Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events than COC users. Users of the norelgestromin-containing patch reported more breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. In the levonorgestrel-containing patch trial, patch users reported less vomiting, headaches, and fatigue.Of 11 ring trials with discontinuation data, two showed the ring group discontinued less than the COC group: OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.66) and OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88). Ring users were less likely to discontinue due to adverse events in one study (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70). Compared to the COC users, ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea but less vaginal dryness. Ring users also reported less nausea, acne, irritability, depression, and emotional lability than COC users.For cycle control, only one trial study showed a significant difference. Women in the patch group were less likely to have breakthrough bleeding and spotting. Seven ring studies had bleeding data; four trials showed the ring group generally had better cycle control than the COC group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Effectiveness was not significantly different for the methods compared. Pregnancy data were available from half of the patch trials but two-thirds of ring trials. The patch could lead to more discontinuation than the COC. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group. Compliance data came from half of the patch studies and one-third of the ring trials. Patch users had more side effects than the COC group. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge.The quality of the evidence for this review was considered low for the patch and moderate for the ring. The main reasons for downgrading were lack of information on the randomization sequence generation or allocation concealment, the outcome assessment methods, high losses to follow up, and exclusions after randomization.
authors: Clinical Sciences, FHI 360, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA, 27709.
authors: Laureen M
authors: LM
authors: Lopez
authors: David A
authors: DA
authors: Grimes
authors: Maria F
authors: MF
authors: Gallo
authors: Laurie L
authors: LL
authors: Stockton
authors: Kenneth F
authors: KF
authors: Schulz
mesh_terms: D003258:Consumer Behavior; D003271:Contraceptive Agents, Female / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D003274:Contraceptive Devices, Female / Q000009:adverse effects*; D003277:Contraceptives, Oral, Combined / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D004343:Drug Implants / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D055118:Medication Adherence; D008597:Menstrual Cycle / Q000187:drug effects; D011247:Pregnancy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
chemical_list: D003271:Contraceptive Agents, Female; D003277:Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; D004343:Drug Implants
references: Fertil Steril. 2002 Feb;77(2 Suppl 2):S27-31
references: 11849633
references: Contraception. 2013 Mar;87(3):314-8
references: 23040126
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;106(1):89-96
references: 15994622
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jan;186(1):15-20
references: 11810078
references: Contraception. 2007 Nov;76(5):348-56
references: 17963858
references: Fertil Steril. 2002 Feb;77(2 Suppl 2):S32-5
references: 11849634
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;192(6):2055-9
references: 15970897
references: JAMA. 2003 Aug 20;290(7):921-8
references: 12928469
references: Contraception. 2008 Apr;77(4):276-82
references: 18342651
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;186(3):389-95
references: 11904596
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;104(3):555-63
references: 15339769
references: Fertil Steril. 2002 Feb;77(2 Suppl 2):S19-26
references: 11849632
references: BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167-70
references: 12775614
references: Contraception. 2009 Dec;80(6):497-9
references: 19913141
references: Fertil Steril. 2001 May;75(5):865-70
references: 11334895
references: Contraception. 2008 Feb;77(2):77-83
references: 18226669
references: Hum Reprod. 2004 Nov;19(11):2674-9
references: 15319379
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2012 May;119(5):1039-44
references: 22525916
references: Contraception. 2006 May;73(5):488-92
references: 16627032
references: Hum Reprod. 2004 Nov;19(11):2668-73
references: 15333593
references: Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000 Sep;39(3):233-42
references: 11020137
references: Hum Reprod. 2005 Feb;20(2):557-62
references: 15539438
references: Contraception. 2012 Apr;85(4):389-93
references: 22067754
references: Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Mar-Apr;30(2):89-92, 104
references: 9561874
references: Contraception. 2007 Jun;75(6):430-7
references: 17519148
references: Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1191-4
references: 11323066
references: Contraception. 2011 May;83(5):397-404
references: 21477680
references: Contraception. 2004 Mar;69(3):189-95
references: 14969665
references: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Dec;81(3):362-7
references: 20869187
references: Fertil Steril. 2006 Jan;85(1):57-62
references: 16412731
references: JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12
references: 7823387
references: Contraception. 2006 Dec;74(6):451-7
references: 17157101
references: Lancet. 2002 Feb 16;359(9306):614-8
references: 11867132
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jul;195(1):72-7
references: 16545330
references: JAMA. 2001 May 9;285(18):2347-54
references: 11343482
references: J Med Assoc Thai. 2007 Sep;90(9):1715-9
references: 17957909
references: Contraception. 2005 Sep;72(3):168-74
references: 16102549
references: Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2004 Sep;9(3):131-40
references: 15697102
references: Fertil Steril. 2003 Jul;80(1):34-42
references: 12849799
references: J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2007 Dec;20(6):345-51
references: 18082856
references: Fertil Steril. 2002 Feb;77(2 Suppl 2):S13-8
references: 11849631
references: Hum Reprod. 2006 Sep;21(9):2304-11
references: 16763008
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Aug;114(2):145-8
references: 21669426
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;116(3):633-640
references: 20733446
references: Contraception. 2006 Oct;74(4):293-6
references: 16982228
references: Contraception. 2013 Mar;87(3):319-30
references: 22995540
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;203(4):323.e1-7
references: 20643390
references: Contraception. 2006 Sep;74(3):220-3
references: 16904415
references: Hum Reprod. 2005 Apr;20(4):1100-6
references: 15608030
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;115(3):503-510
references: 20177280
references: Contraception. 2013 Mar;87(3):264-72
references: 23040125
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Aug 1;121(2):202-10
references: 16054963
references: Ann Intern Med. 2005 Nov 15;143(10):697-706
references: 16287790
references: Contraception. 2008 Jul;78(1):26-30
references: 18555814
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Nov;98(5 Pt 1):799-805
references: 11704172
references: Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2010 Jan;78(1):37-45
references: 20931801
references: Contraception. 2005 Mar;71(3):176-82
references: 15722066
references: Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig. 2011 May 1;6(2):231-40
references: 25961260
references: Fam Plann Perspect. 1996 Jul-Aug;28(4):154-8
references: 8853280
references: Contraception. 2005 Nov;72(5):323-7
references: 16246655