Contraceptive vaginal ring use for women has less adverse metabolic effects than an oral contraceptive.

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.

Conception rates in clomiphene citrate cycles with and without hormone supplementation: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: A trial was conducted to examine the effects of a timed sequence of hormone supplementation (HS) with oral estradiol (E(2)) and vaginal progesterone (P) following clomiphene citrate (CC) therapy to determine if this regimen can increase pregnancy rates in CC cycles. METHODS: This study was a randomized, open-label study. Seventy-one oligo-ovulatory women were randomized into one of two groups; those who received CC plus HS (n = 34) and those who received no HS (n = 37). All subjects received 100 mg CC orally from cycle days 3 to 7. Subjects randomized to HS started oral E(2) at a dose of 1.5 mg BID on cycle day 8. All subjects monitored urine luteinizing hormone (LH) levels starting on cycle day 10; additionally, intercourse was encouraged starting on cycle day 10. Subjects receiving HS discontinued E(2) with LH surge and started using vaginal progesterone gel (Prochieve 8%) daily for 2 weeks starting 3 days after LH surge. All subjects had a pregnancy test (Assure) 2 weeks after LH surge. If pregnancy occurred, the subject continued using vaginal progesterone gel daily for an additional 10 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-five (65) subjects (31 CC plus HS and 34 no HS) completed the study. Fifty of the 65 subjects (77%) (23 [74%] CC plus HS, 27 [79%] no HS) who completed the study ovulated. The mean (range) progesterone (P) concentration for these 50 subjects was 1662.6 (340 to 5690) ng/dL, and mean and median P levels were slightly higher, but not statistically significant, in the HS group compared with the no HS group. Pregnancy rates were clinically, but not statistically, different between the treatment groups. Of the 50 responders, 12% became pregnant (17% CC plus HS, 7% no HS). CONCLUSION: These findings show a potential supportive effect on pregnancy rates in the CC plus oral estradiol and vaginal progesterone gel group compared to CC alone that needs to be confirmed in a larger study.