The contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing®, a decade after its introduction

• Published in: The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care 2012-12, Vol.17 (6), p.415-427
• Main Authors: Roumen, Frans J. M. E., Mishell, Daniel R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acceptability; Administration, Intravaginal; Birth control; Combined hormonal contraception; Comparative analysis; Compliance; Contraception; Contraception Behavior; Contraceptive Agents - adverse effects; Contraceptive Agents - pharmacokinetics; Contraceptive Agents - pharmacology; Contraceptive Devices, Female - trends; Contraceptive efficacy; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined - adverse effects; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined - pharmacokinetics; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined - pharmacology; Cycle control; Desogestrel - adverse effects; Desogestrel - analogs & derivatives; Desogestrel - pharmacokinetics; Desogestrel - therapeutic use; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Combinations; Estrogens; Estrogens - metabolism; Ethinyl Estradiol - adverse effects; Ethinyl Estradiol - pharmacokinetics; Ethinyl Estradiol - therapeutic use; Etonogestrel; Female; Humans; Menstrual Cycle - drug effects; Non-oral contraception; NuvaRing; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Thrombosis; Tolerability; Transdermal Patch; Treatment Outcome; Vaginal ring; Women
• ISSN: 1362-5187; 1473-0782
• DOI: 10.3109/13625187.2012.713535

ABSTRACT Objectives To review the clinical experience with the contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR, NuvaRing®) since its introduction over ten years ago. Methods The literature was searched on efficacy, cycle control, safety, user preference and satisfaction of the CVR in comparison with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and the patch, with special attention to recent developments. Results The ring has the same working mechanism and contraindications as COCs. Serum levels of steroids are steadier, whereas oestrogenic exposure is lower. Contraceptive efficacy is similar, as are metabolic changes. Cycle control is better, and compliance and continuation rates are equal or higher. Oestrogen-related adverse symptoms appear to be fewer, but reports on the incidence of venous thrombosis are conflicting. Expulsion of the ring is reported by 4% to 20% of women. Local adverse events are the main reason for discontinuation. Acceptability is as high as with COCs and, after structured counselling, the ring is preferred by many women to the pill or the patch. Conclusions Efficacy of the CVR, and the metabolic changes and adverse events it elicits, are generally comparable to those of COCs, yet oestrogenic exposure is lower and cycle control superior. After counselling, the ring is preferred to the pill by many women.