The effects of monophasic and triphasic oral contraceptives on ovarian function and endometrial thickness

Rabe, T.; Nitsche, D.; Runnebaum, B.

doi:10.1080/13625189709049933

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The different OCs used is the main cause of day 2 data difference. Rabe et al reported the same finding and attributed this to a relatively low progestogenic activity in the triphastic OCs than that in the monophastic OCs [9]. As elevated LH level in the stage of follicle recruitment is supposed to have negative influence on the quality of oocyte [10].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Influence of pituitary suppression with triphasic or monophasic oral contraceptives on the outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer

Chung

Tsai

Chen

et al. 2006

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Influence of pituitary suppression with triphasic or monophasic oral contraceptives on the outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer

Chung

Tsai

Chen

et al. 2006

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of studies either did not assess progesterone levels, 26 had no predefined definition of ovulation, 19,22,25,29,31 or did not perform measurements during the most critical days for escape ovulation. 17,25,27,28,35 COCs containing 15-20 µ µg EE Table 2 shows the studies that have been conducted with COCs containing 15-20 µg EE. 17,23,24,26,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] Overall, 12 out of 1030 (1.1%) subjects were found to have ovulated.…”

Section: Cocs Containing 30-35 µ µG Eementioning

confidence: 99%

“…52 Finally, several studies did not measure progesterone at all and relied solely on ultrasound 24,26 whilst others did not predefine the progesterone level indicative of ovulation 46,48,49,52 or did not perform measurements during the critical days for escape ovulation. 17,[40][41][42]51,54 Phasic COCs Table 3 shows the studies performed with triphasic (Tri) or biphasic (Bi) COCs. 8,17,18,23,28,32,33,42,43,49,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] Overall, 21 out of 460 (4.6%) subjects were found to have ovulated.…”

Section: 0mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ovulation incidence with oral contraceptives: a literature review

Milsom¹,

Korver²

2008

j fam plann reprod health care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and methodology Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) provide reliable and convenient contraception, although contraindications and tolerability issues may limit their use in some women. Progestogenonly pills (POPs) may be more suitable for some women, however, traditional POPs do not have the same contraceptive efficacy as COCs. A literature search was performed in order to assess the incidence of ovulation with IntroductionOral contraceptives are the most common means of contraception in many countries and it is estimated that as many as 100 million women worldwide currently rely on this method. Approximately half of all married women in Western Europe use the oral contraceptive pill (i.e. three in every five contraceptive users) and, in the USA, they have been used by 80% of all women born since 1945. [1][2][3][4] Their widespread use warrants continuing efforts to improve and refine oral contraceptive methods.The first oral contraceptive pill became available in 1960 and consisted of 150 µg mestranol plus 9.85 mg norethynodrel. These doses were much higher for both the estrogenic component and the progestogenic component compared to modern low-dose combined oral contraceptives (COCs). COCs provide highly reliable and convenient contraception, which is safe and well tolerated by many women. A number of side effects predominantly attributed to estrogen, such as nausea, headache, breasttenderness and bloating, can, however, make them unacceptable to some women. These problems have been addressed to some extent by lowering the doses of both estrogen and progestogen.Estrogen-free contraception appeared in the early 1970s when the traditional progestogen-only pills (POPs) were developed in response to reports of the effects of estrogen on thromboembolic disease. As well as lacking the estrogen Results Many of the studies were hampered by inadequate ovulation criteria; however, the overall incidence of ovulation determined by the reports uncovered in the literature search was 2.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-3.3] with COCs containing 30-35 µg ethinylestradiol (EE), 1.1% (95% CI 0.60-2.0) with 15-20 µg EE COCs, 4.6% (95% CI 2.8-6.9) with phasic COCs, 1.25% (95% CI 0.03-6.8) with Cerazette and 42.6% (95% CI 33.4-52.2) with traditional POPs. ConclusionsThe findings indicate that COCs and the desogestrel POP are equally effective in suppressing ovulation, whilst the traditional POP formulations are less effective.

show abstract

“…Au cours de l'intervalle libre, les taux de FSH et d'oestradiol remontent fortement et le blocage ovarien n'est optimal qu'au bout de sept jours de prise du contraceptif [27,28]. Les follicules qui se développent au cours de l'intervalle libre commencent à régresser après une semaine de prise régulière en raison de la suppression de la sécrétion de FSH [29]. Néanmoins, ils peuvent occasionnellement persister malgré la prise régulière de sept comprimés ou plus [26].…”

Section: éChecs De La Contraception Oraleunclassified