Skip to main content

Clinical comparison between a monophasic preparation and a triphasic preparation

  • Chapter
Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

The triphasic preparation containing 6 coated tablets of 0.05 mg levonorgestrel (LN) + 0.03 mg ethinyloestradiol (EE), 5 coated tablets of 0.075 mg LN + 0.04 mg EE and 10 coated tablets of 0.125 mg LN + 0.03 mg EE (Triquilar®/Logynon®) was compared in a randomized multicentre trial with a monophasic combined pill composed of 0.15 mg desogestrel + 0.03 mg ethinyloestradiol (Marvelon®).

The main purpose of this study — planned for 6 treatment cycles — was to elucidate possible differences in cycle stability, i.e. the incidence of spotting and breakthrough bleeding episodes and failure of withdrawal bleeding to occur. A total of 555 women were enrolled and completed 3060 cycles. In a randomized fashion 278 of the volunteers were assigned to the triphasic preparation (preparation 1), and 277 to the monophasic combination (preparation 2). 84.5% of the women completed the six months treatment period on both preparations. However, whereas only 6.1% of triphasic takers discontinued medication prematurely because of medical reasons (side-effects), 11.9% of the women on the monophasic preparations did so, mainly because of bleeding irregularities. Calculated in terms of the total number of triphasic cycles the spotting rate was 6.4%, the BTB rate 1.2%. In 0.4% of all cycles spotting + BTB were recorded in the same cycle. The corresponding figures for the monophasic preparation are as follows: spotting 16.5%, BTB 2.8% and spotting + BTB for the same cycles 1.1%. The amenorrhoea rate was 0.2% for the triphasic and 0.9% for the monophasic preparation.

All differences were statistically highly significant (Chi-square test) and not only confined to the beginning of medication, but also present in the 6th treatment cycle. Spotting rates in cycles 1 + 2 for preparation 1 = 10.9%, for preparation 2 = 28.5%; in cycle 6 for preparation 1 = 2.6%, for preparation 2 = 10.3%. BTB rates in cycles 1 + 2 for 1 = 2.0%, for 2 = 6.7%; in cycle 6 for 1 = 0.4%, for 2 = 2.2%.

Another interesting difference between the two preparations concerned body-weight, which remained constant in 75.2% of the triphasic users, but in only 61.1% of the monophasic users. Minor weight gains (+<2kg) occurred in 11.3% of women taking preparation 1 and in 15.4% of women on preparation 2. Only 5.2% of the triphasic users versus 16.7% of the women on the monophasic combination had gained more than 2 kg after 6 months. These differences were also statistically highly significant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Larsson-Cohn, U. (1982). Lipoproteins and the estrogenicity of oral contraceptives. In Haspels, A. A. and Rolland, R. (eds.). Benefits and Risks of Hormonal Contraception, p. 95. ( Lancaster: MTP Press )

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Briggs, M. H. (1982). Comparative investigation of oral contraceptives using randomized, prospective protocols. In Haspels, A. A. and Rolland, R. (eds.). Benefits and Risks of Hormonal Contraception, p. 115. ( Lancaster: MTP Press )

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Winckelmann, G., Kaiser, E. and Christi, H. L. (1982). Effects of a triphasic and a biphasic oral contraceptive on various hemostatic parameters. In Haspels, A. A. and Rolland, R. (eds.) Benefits and Risks of Hormonal Contraception, p. 104. ( Lancaster: MTP Press )

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. World Heath Organization (1978). Steroid contraception and the risk of neoplasia. WHO Tech. Rep. Ser., 619

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zador, G. (1982). Clinical performance of a triphasic administration of ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel in comparison with the 30 + 150µg fixed-dose regime. In Haspels, A. A. and Rolland, R. (eds.). Benefits and Risks of Hormonal Contraception, p. 43. ( Lancaster: MTP Press )

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlborg, L. (1982). Acceptability of low-dose oral contraceptives: results of a randomized Swedish multicenter study comparing a triphasic (Trionetta®) and a fixed-dose combination (Neovletta®). In Haspels, A. A. and Rolland, R. (eds.). Benefits and Risks of Hormonal Contraception, p. 78. ( Lancaster: MTP Press )

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bergink, E. W., et al. (1981). Binding of a contraceptive progestogen Org 2969 and its metabolites to receptor proteins and human sex hormone binding globulin. J. Ster. Biochem., 14, 175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 MTP Press Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lachnit-Fixson, U., Aydinlik, S., Lehnert, J. (1984). Clinical comparison between a monophasic preparation and a triphasic preparation. In: Harrison, R.F., Bonnar, J., Thompson, W. (eds) Fertility and Sterility. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1308-1_65

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1308-1_65

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-015-1310-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-1308-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics