Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 Jul 19;2006(3):CD002032.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002032.pub2.

Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception

Comparative Study

Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception

H A A M Van Vliet et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. Three approaches have been used to decrease these adverse effects: reduction of steroid dose, development of new steroids, and new formulas and schedules of administration. The third strategy led to the biphasic oral contraceptive pill.

Objectives: To compare biphasic with monophasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. Our a priori hypotheses were: (a) biphasic oral contraceptives are less effective than monophasic oral contraceptives in preventing pregnancy; (b) biphasic oral contraceptives cause more side effects, give poorer cycle control, and have lower continuation rates.

Search strategy: We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. In addition, we searched the reference lists of all potentially relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any monophasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy.

Data collection and analysis: We examined the studies found during the various literature searches for possible inclusion and assessed their methodology using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of all included studies and possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about methodology and outcome. We entered the data into RevMan, and calculated Peto odds ratios for the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding, absence of withdrawal bleeding, and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding.

Main results: Only one trial of limited quality compared a biphasic and monophasic preparation. Percival-Smith 1990 examined 533 user cycles of a biphasic pill (500 microg norethindrone/35 microg ethinyl estradiol for 10 days, followed by 1000 microg norethindrone/35 microg ethinyl estradiol for 11 days; Ortho 10/11) and 481 user cycles of a monophasic contraceptive pill (1500 microg norethindrone acetate/30 microg ethinyl estradiol daily; Loestrin). The study found no significant differences in intermenstrual bleeding, amenorrhea and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding between the biphasic and monophasic oral contraceptive pills.

Authors' conclusions: Conclusions are limited by the identification of only one trial, the methodological shortcomings of that trial, and the absence of data on accidental pregnancies. However, the trial found no important differences in bleeding patterns between the biphasic and monophasic preparations studied. Since no clear rationale exists for biphasic pills and since extensive evidence is available for monophasic pills, the latter are preferred.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DA Grimes has consulted with the pharmaceutical companies Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals and Merck & Co, Inc.

Update of

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Percival‐Smith 1990 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Percival‐Smith RK, Yuzpe AA, Desrosiers JA, Rioux JE, Guilbert E. Cycle control on low‐dose oral contraceptives: a comparative trial. Contraception 1990;42:253‐62. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Balogh 1988 {published data only}
    1. Balogh A. Clinical and endocrine effects of long‐term hormonal contraception. Acta Medica Hungarica 1986;43:97‐102. - PubMed
Briggs 1980 {published data only}
    1. Briggs M, Briggs M. A randomized study of metabolic effects of four oral contraceptive preparations containing levonorgestrel plus ethinylestradiol in different regimens. The development of a new triphasic oral contraceptive. Proceedings of a Special Symposium held at the 10th World Congress on Fertility and Sterility; 1980 July; Madrid. Lancaster (England): MTP Press, 1980:79‐88.
Briggs 1982 {published data only}
    1. Briggs MH, Briggs M. Randomized prospective studies on metabolic effects of oral contraceptives. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica Supplement 1982;105:25‐32. - PubMed
Dik 1984 {published data only}
    1. Dik M, Eckert H, Hones S, Schindler AE. Comparison of a 2‐phase preparation (Oviol 22) with a low‐dose 1‐phase preparation (Ovoresta M) [Vergleich eines Zweiphasenpraparates (Oviol 22) mit einem niedrig dosierten Einphasenpraparat (Ovoresta M)]. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkunde 1984;44:808‐12. - PubMed
Gaspard 1983 {published data only}
    1. Gaspard UJ, Romus MA, Gillain D, Duvivier J, Demey‐Ponsart E, Franchimont P. Plasma hormone levels in women receiving new oral contraceptives containing ethinyl estradiol plus levonorgestrel or desogestrel. Contraception 1983;27:577‐90. - PubMed

Additional references

Hillard 1992
    1. Hillard PJA. Oral contraception noncompliance: the extent of the problem. Advances in Contraception 1992;8 Suppl 1:13‐20. - PubMed
Ketting 1988
    1. Ketting E. The relative reliability of oral contraceptives: findings of an epidemiological study. Contraception 1988;37:343‐8. - PubMed
Kovacs 1989
    1. Kovacs GT, Riddoch G, Duncombe P, Welberry L, Chick P, Weisberg E, et al. Inadvertent pregnancies in oral contraceptive users. Medical Journal of Australia 1989;150:549‐51. - PubMed
Rossiter 1992
    1. Rossiter EJR. Reflections of a whistle‐blower. Nature 1992;357:434‐6. - PubMed
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995;273:408‐12. - PubMed
Schulz 1996
    1. Schulz KF. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet 1996;348:596‐8. - PubMed
Upton 1983
    1. Upton GV. The phasic approach to oral contraception: the triphasic concept and its clinical application. International Journal of Fertility 1983;28:121‐40. - PubMed
Wallach 2000
    1. Wallach M, Grimes DA, Chaney EJ, Connell EB, Creinin MD, Emans SJ, et al. Modern Oral Contraception. Totowa (NJ): Emron, Inc., 2000.

References to other published versions of this review

Van Vliet 2002
    1. Vliet H, Grimes D, Helmerhorst F, Schulz K. Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception. Human Reproduction 2002;17:870‐3. - PubMed

MeSH terms