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
. 2008 Apr;4(2):441-51.
doi: 10.2147/tcrm.s1964.

Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing

Frans Jme Roumen  1
Affiliations

Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing

Frans Jme Roumen. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2008 Apr.

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to test contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, tolerability, and acceptability as found in the non-comparative studies with NuvaRing((R)) by those found in the randomized trials comparing NuvaRing and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). All large non-comparative studies and all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between NuvaRing and a COC up to and including December 2006 were analyzed. Two large multi-center registration studies, 1 large daily clinical practice study, and 6 RCTs comparing NuvaRing and a COC were identified. The findings in the non-comparative studies were confirmed in the RCTs. Contraceptive efficacy was high showing no significant differences in comparison with the COC; cycle control was good and consistently better than that of the COC; compliance was high and comparable with that of the pill; the incidence of adverse events such as breast tenderness, headache, and nausea was low, but not lower than with the COC despite a halving of the systemic exposure to ethinyl estradiol (EE) with NuvaRing compared with a 30-mug EE-containing COC; the incidence of local and ring-related events was low but higher than with the COC, leading to higher discontinuation rates among NuvaRing users; acceptability was high and comparable between both contraceptives, resulting in a global improvement of sexual function with both methods. After study completion, women using NuvaRing were more likely to continue with their method than women using a COC. The good results with respect to contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, tolerability, and acceptability as achieved with NuvaRing in the large non-comparative registration studies were confirmed in the RCTs comparing NuvaRing with different COCs.

Keywords: NuvaRing; acceptability; contraceptive efficacy; cycle control; tolerability; vaginal ring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing®).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ahrendt HJ, Nisand I, Bastianelli C, et al. Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. Contraception. 2006;74:451–7. - PubMed
    1. Dieben TOM, Roumen FJME, Apter D. Efficacy, cycle control, and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:585–93. - PubMed
    1. Duijkers IJM, Klipping C, Verhoeven CHJ, Dieben TOM. Ovarian function with the contraceptive vaginal ring or an oral contraceptive: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2668–73. - PubMed
    1. Guida M, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Bramante S, et al. Effects of two types of hormonal contraception – oral versus intravaginal – on the sexual life of women and their partners. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1100–6. - PubMed
    1. Magnusdóttir EM, Bjarnadóttir RI, Önundarson PT, et al. The contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing®) and hemostasis: a comparative study. Contraception. 2004;69:461–7. - PubMed