Contraception
Volume 71, Issue 3 , Pages 162-169, March 2005

Twenty micrograms vs. >20 μg estrogen oral contraceptives for contraception: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

Received 28 August 2004; accepted 13 September 2004.

Abstract 

Concern about estrogen-related adverse effects has led to progressive reductions in the estrogen dose in combination oral contraceptives (COCs). This review of randomized controlled trials tested the hypothesis that COCs containing ≤20 μg ethinyl estradiol (EE) perform similarly to those containing >20 μg in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, bleeding patterns, discontinuation and side effects. Data from the 18 eligible trials conducted to date are inadequate for detecting possible differences in contraceptive effectiveness. Several COCs containing 20 μg EE resulted in higher rates of early trial discontinuation (overall and due to adverse events such as irregular bleeding) as well as increased risk of bleeding disturbances (both amenorrhea/infrequent bleeding and irregular, prolonged, frequent bleeding or breakthrough bleeding or spotting) than their higher-estrogen comparison pills. However, most trials compared COCs containing different progestin types, and changes in bleeding patterns could be related to progestin type as well as estrogen dose. While health care providers and women might select COCs containing 20 μg EE based on theoretical improvements in safety profile from the reduced dose of estrogen, no evidence is available to support this choice.

Keywords: Oral contraceptives, Low-dose, Estrogen, Systematic review, Meta-analysis

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 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.
 

PII: S0010-7824(04)00272-0

doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2004.09.005

Contraception
Volume 71, Issue 3 , Pages 162-169, March 2005