A multicenter comparative trial of triphasic and monophasic, low-dose combined oral contraceptives. A comparison between monophasic levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol 150/30 and triphasic levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol 50-75-125/30-40-30 contraceptive pills for side effects and patient satisfaction: a study in Iran. A comparison of cycle control with monophasic levonorgestrel/ethinylestradiol 100 micrograms/20 micrograms versus triphasic norethindrone/ethinylestradiol 500-750-1000 micrograms/35 micrograms: a multicenter, randomized, open-label study. Endometrial safety and tolerability of triphasic sequential hormone replacement estradiol valerate/medroxyprogesterone acetate therapy regimen. Ovarian activity suppression by two different low-dose triphasic oral contraceptives. Multicenter randomized comparative trial of two low-dose triphasic combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or norethindrone. Triphasic Randomized Clinical Trial: comparative frequency of intermenstrual bleeding. A comparison of cycle control and effect on well-being of monophasic gestodene-, triphasic gestodene- and monophasic desogestrel-containing oral contraceptives. Gestodene Study Group. Comparison of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs. oral contraceptives on hemostasis variables.
A comparative multicenter clinical trial of two combined oral contraceptives (OCs) was conducted at clinics located in the Sudan, Sri Lanka, Chile, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. The trial was designed to determine if there were differences in efficacy, safety and acceptability between a triphasic and a low-dose monophasic OC. This report includes analysis of 1088 women. At each center, subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two OCs. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 4, 8 and 12 months after admission. There were two accidental pregnancies attributed to user failure reported during the study period; one in the triphasic group and one in the monophasic group. Adverse experiences were mainly minor with headaches and dizziness being the most common complaints; frequency of reports was similar in both groups. Cycle control was good in both groups with women in the triphasic group reporting fewer complaints of intermenstrual bleeding. Both OCs were safe and effective. Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are one of the most effective reversible and accessible contraceptives, and patient acceptance for their use depends partly on the unfavorable adverse effects. The present study compared the two kinds of OCPs (monophasic; levonorgestrel (LNG)-ethinyl estradiol (EE) 150/30 versus triphasic; LNG-EE 50-75-125/30-40-30) for adverse effects and patient satisfaction.
                A randomized clinical trial was performed on 314 women who used OCPs for the first time, as their contraception, for 6 months. Overall, 1884 cycles were studied. In the monophasic group (n=159 who finally finished the study), monophasic pills LNG-EE 150/30mcg, and in the triphasic group (n=155 who finally finished the study), triphasic pills LNG-EE 50-75-125/30-40-30 mcg were used. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 10: Chi square test, Fisher exact test and Student's t-test were used.
                There were no significant differences between the two groups for common side effects, including nausea, headache, nervousness, facial hyperpigmentation (chloasma), and body weight (increase or decrease) but breakthrough bleeding and spotting (BTB/S) were less in the triphasic group, occurring in 30 cycles (18.86%) versus 10 cycles (6.45%), P=0.009*. Patient satisfaction for the two OCPs was similar and high. The rates of side effects were low.
                It seems that the monophasic and triphasic pills are similar according to patient satisfaction and side effects; therefore there is no benefit of one over the other except for BTB/S, for which triphasic is superior.
                Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. This multicenter, randomized, open-label study was undertaken to compare the effects on menstrual cycle control of two oral contraceptive regimens: monophasic levonorgestrel (LNG) 100 micrograms/ethinylestradiol (EE) 20 micrograms (Alesse or Loette) and triphasic norethindrone (NET) 500-750-1000 micrograms/EE 35 micrograms (OrthoNovum 7/7/7).
                Healthy women with normal menstrual cycles were enrolled and completed up to four cycles of study medication. A total of 384 cycles in the LNG/EE group and 400 cycles in the NET/EE group were evaluable for analysis of cycle control.
                For all treatment cycles, the percentage of cycles classified as normal was consistently higher in the LNG/EE group than in the NET/EE group. By cycle 4, 69.9% of cycles with LNG/EE and 54.4% with NET/EE (p < 0.05) were normal. In individual cycles, consistently lower occurrences of intermenstrual bleeding (total bleeding and/or spotting) were seen for the LNG/EE group, although these differences were not statistically significant. Withdrawal bleeding characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the length of the latent period, which was significantly longer in the LNG/EE group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in the two groups.
                This study indicates that the monophasic LNG/EE 100 micrograms/20 micrograms provides better cycle control than the multiphasic NET/EE product, despite its lower EE dose. Two randomized comparative multicenter studies were conducted to establish the endometrial safety and tolerability of a triphasic sequential hormone replacement estradiol valerate/medroxyprogesterone acetate (E2V/MPA) therapy regimen.
                Study 1 was a randomized, double-blind, clinical phase III study in 399 postmenopausal women, following parallel-group design with two groups. The duration of study treatment was 12 or 13 cycles of 28 days. A double-dummy technique was used to ensure blinding in the study. The investigational drugs were E2V/MPA triphasic and E2V/MPA biphasic (Diviseq and Divina, respectively; Orion Pharma). In study 2, a total of 341 subjects were randomly allocated by computer into two parallel groups receiving either E2V/MPA or estradiol/norethisterone acetate triphasic (E2/NETA, Trisequens; Novo Nordisk A/S) for 12-13 cycles. The study was an open, clinical phase III trial with a randomized, parallel-group design. Endometrial biopsies combined with transvaginal ultrasound were undertaken before and at the end of treatment during the progestogen phase. Bleeding patterns and symptom control were assessed throughout both studies.
                E2V/MPA triphasic was found to have similar endometrial effects and bleeding patterns to those with E2V/MPA biphasic and E2/NETA triphasic. Climacteric symptoms were relieved as quickly and effectively as with the two comparator treatments. No adverse drug reactions specific to E2V/MPA triphasic were observed. At the end of the study, the proportions of secretory samples were 67.1% for the combined E2V/MPA triphasic groups, 65.6% for the E2V/MPA biphasic group and 71.6% for the E2/NETA triphasic group. One case of hyperplasia occurred in the E2V/MPA triphasic group. Thus the incidence of hyperplasia for the combined groups was 0.33%.
                The triphasic E2V/MPA regimen was well tolerated and produced endometrial effects similar to those of the two comparators. Extending estrogen during the so-called treatment-free week with a lower dose of estradiol was effective in controlling vasomotor symptoms. In an open, randomized study in an outpatient clinic of a large teaching hospital, thirty-one female volunteers with regular cycles and established ovulation by ultrasonography were given one of two triphasic oral contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol combined with levonorgestrel or desogestrel during six cycles of treatment. The main outcome measures were transvaginal ultrasonography and serum E2 and P measurements in pill cycles 1, 3 and 6. No ovarian activity was found in 10 subjects. Among the remaining 21 women who showed ovarian activity, most follicle-like structures developed in the pill-free week and decreased in size or disappeared in the first pill week. One women taking triphasic desogestrel had evidence of a luteinized unruptured follicle and one women taking triphasic levonorgestrel had a possible ovulation. The latter women also showed symptoms of lower abdominal pain. A statistically significant difference in ovarian activity between the two oral contraceptives could not be established. The two triphasic oral contraceptives suppressed ovarian activity to the same degree. A trend was seen towards increasing ovarian activity with duration of use in both treatment groups. To compare a new triphasic oral contraceptive (OC) containing desogestrel and ethinyl estradiol (DSG/EE) with triphasic norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol (NE/EE) regarding effects on clinical efficacy, cycle control, and safety indices.
                In an open-label, comparative multicenter study, 407 subjects were randomized to a triphasic preparation containing DSG/EE and 405 subjects to a triphasic preparation containing NE/EE. The women were observed during six cycles of OC use.
                The contraceptive efficacy of the triphasic DSG/EE OC was at least comparable to that of triphasic NE/EE. No pregnancies were reported with DSG/EE, whereas there were two pregnancies with NE/EE, both user failures. Cycle control with triphasic DSG/EE was statistically superior to that with triphasic NE/EE. Acceptability was excellent with both preparations as measured by the low discontinuation rates (particularly for adverse menstrual experiences). No thromboembolic or other serious drug-related adverse experiences were reported. The incidence of other drug-related adverse experiences was generally low and decreased with time in both groups. No adverse effects were seen in terms of blood pressure, body weight, laboratory indices, cervical cytology, and breast nodularity.
                Triphasic DSG/EE is an effective and safe OC with excellent acceptability and cycle control superior to that of triphasic NE/EE. Oral contraceptives have the highest theoretic efficacy of all reversible forms of contraception, yet in practice they have an actual failure rate equivalent to that of some barrier methods. The efficacy of oral contraceptives depends primarily on patient compliance. So-called "nuisance" side effects, such as intermenstrual bleeding (breakthrough bleeding or spotting), play a major role in their discontinuation. The Triphasic Randomized Clinical Trial compared the incidence of these side effects in three groups of subjects taking NET (A) (Ortho-Novum 7/7/7), LNG (Tri-Levlen), or NET (B) (Tri-Norinyl). Subjects taking NET (A) had the highest incidence of intermenstrual bleeding (63%) followed by NET (B) (44%) and LNG (33%). Only the difference between NET (A) and LNG attained statistical significance (p less than 0.030). Control subjects had no breakthrough bleeding and a 4% incidence of spotting. Further research is warranted to establish the cause of the disparity in the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding among patient groups assigned to the three oral triphasic contraceptives. This was an open-label multicenter study to compare the cycle control and effect on well-being of two oral contraceptives containing gestodene and one containing desogestrel. A total of 2419 healthy women < or = 41 years of age were randomized to receive oral contraceptives containing monophasic gestodene (Minulet; n = 806, mean age 24.5 years), triphasic gestodene (Tri-Minulet; n = 808, mean age 24.6 years) or monophasic desogestrel (Mercilon; n = 805, mean age 24.6 years). Subjects were to participate in the study for up to 13 treatment cycles. A modified Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire was used to evaluate menstrual symptoms and to assess overall well-being. A total of 698 women were withdrawn from the study, 154 due to adverse events. Cycle control with gestodene was superior to that with desogestrel at almost all time points, particularly for breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting, which occurred significantly less frequently with gestodene than with desogestrel at cycles 1-7 and 9-11 (p < 0.05). Generally, the proportion of subjects with breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting was almost twice as great with desogestrel as with gestodene. The duration of bleeding was not consistently different between the gestodene and desogestrel groups; however, the intensity of bleeding was greater with gestodene at all time points (p < 0.05). The latent period before withdrawal bleeding was significantly longer for monophasic gestodene at cycles 1-5 and 8-10 (p < 0.05). Treatment significantly improved overall well-being at cycles 6 and 9 with triphasic gestodene and at cycle 13 with desogestrel; however, no statistically significant differences among treatment groups in overall well-being scores or individual factors of well-being could be identified. All three treatments were well tolerated. The most common drug-related adverse events were headache (14.2%), breast pain (6.2%), nausea (4.1%), metrorrhagia (3.9%) and abdominal pain (3.5%). The incidence of adverse events in all treatment groups was similar, with the exception of metrorrhagia, which occurred in more patients in the desogestrel group than in the gestodene treatment groups (p < 0.05). The aim of this study was to compare effects of the transdermal contraceptive patch, a desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol (EE)-containing, monophasic combination oral contraceptive (COC) and a levonorgestrel/EE-containing, triphasic COC on hemostasis variables.
                This was a randomized, open-label study of 104 young women who received six cycles of treatment. Blood was collected at baseline and on treatment; changes by Day 20/Cycle 6 in baseline hemostasis markers [prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F 1+2), plasmin-plasmin inhibitor complex (PAP) and fibrin degradation products (D-dimer)] were assessed.
                All contraceptives induced similar increases in F 1+2 and D-dimer. Patch-induced PAP increases were less than with the monophasic and similar to the triphasic COC. Decreases in protein S and increases in sex hormone-binding globulin were greater with the patch than with either COC. Patch-induced increases in activated protein C resistance were greater than with the triphasic and similar to the monophasic COC.
                These contraceptives appeared to accelerate baseline procoagulation processes to a similar extent and to change coagulation potency variables differently.
The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether triphasic OCs differ from monophasic OCs in effectiveness, bleeding patterns or discontinuation rates. Therefore, we recommend monophasic pills as a first choice for women starting OC use. Large, high-quality RCTs that compare triphasic and monophasic OCs with identical progestogens are needed to determine whether triphasic pills differ from monophasic OCs. Future studies should follow the recommendations of Belsey or Mishell on recording menstrual bleeding patterns and the CONSORT reporting guidelines.