These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Contraceptive vaginal ring use for women has less adverse metabolic effects than an oral contraceptive.
    Author: Elkind-Hirsch KE, Darensbourg C, Ogden B, Ogden LF, Hindelang P.
    Journal: Contraception; 2007 Nov; 76(5):348-56. PubMed ID: 17963858.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: This study compared metabolic, hormonal and lipid profiles before and during use of a contraceptive vaginal ring (RING) releasing 15 mcg ethinyl estradiol (EE) and 120 mcg etonogestrel per day NuvaRing, Organon USA Inc., Roseland, NJ versus a low-dose oral contraceptive (PILL) containing 20 mcg EE and 100 mcg levonorgestrel daily (Aviane, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pomona, NY). STUDY DESIGN: Sixty-five women were randomized to either the RING or PILL treatment for five cycles. In the pretreatment cycle (Cycle Days 2-5) and during Weeks 2 and 3 of the fifth treatment cycle, a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed. Baseline samples were used to evaluate basal hormonal, metabolic and lipid levels. RESULTS: Forty-two women completed the study. Basal insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was slightly decreased, whereas a significant reduction in the insulin sensitivity index (IS(OGTT)) was found in women on PILL therapy compared to those in the RING group (p<.035). Pancreatic beta-cell function was not significantly altered with either treatment. CONCLUSION: The lower-dose, nonoral hormonal RING had a lesser impact on carbohydrate metabolism and greater reduction of free androgen and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels than PILL treatment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]