American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 195, Issue 1 , Pages 72-77, July 2006

Comparative effects of a contraceptive vaginal ring delivering a nonandrogenic progestin and continuous ethinyl estradiol and a combined oral contraceptive containing levonorgestrel on hemostasis variables

  • Mandana Rad, MD

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Human Drug Research
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: M. Rad, Zernikedreef 10, 2333 CL Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • ,
  • Cornelis Kluft, PhD

      Affiliations

    • TNO Quality of Life, Gaubius Laboratory, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Joël Ménard, PhD

      Affiliations

    • INSERM Unit 367, Paris, France
  • ,
  • Jacobus Burggraaf, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Human Drug Research
  • ,
  • Marieke L. de Kam

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Human Drug Research
  • ,
  • Piet Meijer, PhD

      Affiliations

    • TNO Quality of Life, Gaubius Laboratory, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Irving Sivin

      Affiliations

    • Center for Biomedical Research, Population Council, New York, NY
  • ,
  • Regine L. Sitruk-Ware, MD

      Affiliations

    • Center for Biomedical Research, Population Council, New York, NY

Received 25 July 2005; received in revised form 4 November 2005; accepted 5 December 2005. published online 21 March 2006.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effects on hemostasis variables of a contraceptive vaginal ring with those of an oral contraceptive.

Study design

Twenty-three and 22 healthy premenopausal women were randomized to the contraceptive vaginal ring (150 μg Nestorone and 15 μg ethinyl estradiol) or Stediril 30 during 3 cycles. Analysis of covariance was performed with baseline values as covariate.

Results

The contraceptive vaginal ring changed most hemostasis variables similarly but raised (95% confidence intervals of percent treatment differences) Factor VIIt (28% to 49%), extrinsic activated protein C resistance (14% to 65%), and sex hormone–binding globulin (117% to 210%) and lowered Protein S (−32% to −16%) and the global activated partial thromboplastin time-based activated protein C resistance (−12% to −2%) more than the oral contraceptive.

Conclusion

The contraceptive vaginal ring affected some measured hemostasis variables and sex hormone–binding globulin differently from the oral contraceptive, most likely because of difference in androgenicity of the progestins. The results suggest that the contraindications for oral contraceptive use would also apply to the tested contraceptive vaginal ring.

Key words: Coagulation, Contraceptive vaginal ring, Nestorone, Oral contraceptives, Venous thromboembolism

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by U.S. Agency for International Development Cooperative Agreement HRN-A-00-99-00010.

PII: S0002-9378(05)02684-0

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.12.007

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 195, Issue 1 , Pages 72-77, July 2006