Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Combined Contraceptive Vaginal Ring: an Update

  • Family Planning (A. Burke, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The combined contraceptive vaginal ring releases 120 μg of etonogestrel and 15 μg of ethinylestradiol per day for at least a 3-week period. It is as effective as combined oral contraceptive pills with similar side effects but better cycle control. The ring is not associated with weight gain and may have many non-contraceptive benefits including a positive effect on sexual function, dysmenorrhea, premenstrual syndrome, and heavy menstrual bleeding. Contraindications are the same as for combined oral contraceptives, and serious complications are rare. The risk of venous thromboembolism with the ring is comparable with that of combined oral contraceptives. The rate of acceptability of the ring is high, and most women, including adolescents, can use the ring.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Alexander NJ, Baker E, Kaptein M, Karck U, Miller L, Zampaglione E. Why consider vaginal drug administration? Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. RamaRao S, Clark H, Merkatz R, Sussman H, Sitruk-Ware R. Progesterone vaginal ring: introducing a contraceptive to meet the needs of breastfeeding women. Contraception. 2013;88(5):591–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Merck. NuvaRing® Prescribing Information. November 2014. Available at: http://www.nuvaring.com/consumer/prescribing_information/. Accessed 16 September 2015

  4. Mulders TM, Dieben TO. Use of the novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing for ovulation inhibition. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(5):865–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Timmer CJ, Mulders TM. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol released from a combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;39(3):233–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJ, Alnabawy AK, Kaptein MC. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72(3):168–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Petrie KA, Torgal AH, Westhoff CL. Matched-pairs analysis of ovarian suppression during oral vs. vaginal hormonal contraceptive use. Contraception. 2011;84(5):e1–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duijkers I, Klipping C, Verhoeven CH, Dieben TO. Ovarian function with the contraceptive vaginal ring or an oral contraceptive: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2668–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Killick S. Complete and robust ovulation inhibition with NuvaRing. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002;7 Suppl 2:13–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulders TM, Dieben TO, Bennink HJ. Ovarian function with a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(10):2594–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83(5):397.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dieben TO, Roumen FJ, Apter D. Efficacy, cycle control, and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(3):585–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mansour D, Inki P, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Efficacy of contraceptive methods: a review of the literature. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010;15:4–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahrendt HJ, Nisand I, Bastianelli C, Gómez MA, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Urdl W, et al. Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. Contraception. 2006;74(6):451–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Odsson K, Leifels-Fischer B, de Melo NR, Wiel-Masson D, Benedetto C, Verhoeven CHJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with a combined oral contraceptive: a 1-year randomized trial. Contraception. 2005;71(3):176–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Stockton LL, Schulz JKF. Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4, CD003552.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dragoman M, Petrie K, Torgal A, Thomas T, Cremers S, Westhoff CL. Contraceptive vaginal ring effectiveness is maintained during 6 weeks of use: a prospective study of normal BMI and obese women. Contraception. 2013;87(4):432–6. This study demonstrated that the ring had similar ovarian suppression in normal weight and obese women using an extended 6-week regimen.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Westhoff CL, Torgal AH, Mayeda ER, Petrie K, Thomas T, Dragoman M, et al. Pharmacokinetics and ovarian suppression during use of a contraceptive vaginal ring in normal-weight and obese women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(1):39.1–6. This study demonstrated that the ring had similar ovarian suppression in normal weight and obese women.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update to CDC’s U.S. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010: revised recommendations for the use of contraceptive methods during the postpartum period. MMWR. 2011;60(26):878–83.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. Adapted from the World Health Organization medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 4th edition. MMWR. 2010;59(RR04):1–85.

    Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Fifthth ed. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brucker C, Karck U, Merkle E. Cycle control, tolerability, efficacy and acceptability of the vaginal contraceptive ring, NuvaRing: results of clinical experience in Germany. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13(1):31–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Merki-Feld GS, Hund M. Clinical experience with NuvaRing in daily practice in Switzerland: cycle control and acceptability among women of all reproductive ages. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2007;12(3):40–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Roumen FJ, op ten Berg MM, Hoomans EH. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing): first experience in daily clinical practice in The Netherlands. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2006;11(1):14–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Novák A, de la Loge C, Abetz L, van der Meulen EA. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing: an international study of user acceptability. Contraception. 2003;67(3):187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roumen FJ, Apter D, Mulders TM, Dieben TO. Efficacity, tolerability and acceptability of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing etonogestrel and ethinyl oestradiol. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(3):469–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barnhart KT, Timbers K, Pretorius ES, Lin K, Shaunik A. In vivo assessment of NuvaRing® placement. Contraception. 2005;72(3):196–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013 adapted from the world health organization selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2nd edition. MMWR. 2013;62(5):1–60. This document contains all the recommendations for use of contraceptive methods including information on timing of initiation, examinations needed before initiation of the method, and follow-up.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Westhoff C, Osborne LM, Schafer JE, Morroni C. Bleeding patterns after immediate initiation of an oral compared with a vaginal hormonal contraceptive. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(1):89–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schafer JE, Osborne LM, Davis AR, Westhoff C. Acceptability and satisfaction using Quick Start with the contraceptive vaginal ring versus an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2006;73(5):488–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dogterom P, van den Heuvel MW, Thomsen T. Absence of pharmacokinetic interactions of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing® with oral amoxicillin or doxycycline in two randomised trials. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44(4):429–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Verhoeven CH, Dieben TO. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing®, and tampon co-usage. Contraception. 2004;69(3):197–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Verhoeven CH, van den Heuvel MW, Mulders TM, Dieben TO. The contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing®, and antimycotic co-medication. Contraception. 2004;69(2):129–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Haring T, Mulders TM. The combined contraceptive ring NuvaRing® and spermicide co-medication. Contraception. 2003;67(4):271–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Geurts MG, de Boer W, de Graaf JS, van Ginkel CG. Environmental exposure assessment of ethinyl estradiol (EE) from a combined hormonal vaginal contraceptive ring after disposal; leaching from landfills. Sci Total Environ. 2007;377(2–3):366–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Miller L, Verhoeven CH, Hout J. Extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(3):473–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barreiros FA, Guazelli CA, de Araújo FF, Barbosa R. Bleeding patterns of women using extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring. Contraception. 2007;75(3):204–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guazelli CA, Barreiros FA, Barbosa R, de Araújo FF, Moron AF. Extended regimens of the vaginal contraceptive ring: cycle control. Contraception. 2009;80(5):430–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Weisberg E, Merki-Feld GS, McGeechan K, Fraser IS. Randomized comparison of bleeding patterns in women using a combined contraceptive vaginal ring or a low-dose combined oral contraceptive on a menstrually signaled regimen. Contraception. 2015;91(2):121–6. This study demonstrated that when using a continuous ring regimen, temporarily removing the ring is associated with less breakthrough bleeding/spotting.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sulak P, Smith V, Coffee A, Witt I, Kuehl AL, Kuehl TJ. Frequency and management of breakthrough bleeding with continuous use of the transvaginal contraceptive ring: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):563–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Guilbert E, Boroditsky R, Black A, Leboeuf M, Mirosh M, Senikas V, et al. Canadian consensus guideline on continuous and extended hormonal contraception, 2007. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(7 Suppl 2):S1–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bruni V, Pontello V, Luisi S, Petraglia F. An open-label, multicentre trial to evaluate the vaginal bleeding pattern of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;139(1):65–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Odsson K, Leifels-Fischer B, Wiel-Masson D, de Melo NR, Benedetto C, Verhoeven CH, et al. Superior cycle control with a contraceptive vaginal ring compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg ethinylestradiol and 150 μg levonorgestrel: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(2):557–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bjarnadottir RI, Tuppurainen M, Killick SR. Comparison of cycle control with a combined contraceptive vaginal ring and oral levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(3):389–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sabatini R, Cagiano R. Comparison profiles of cycle control, side effects and sexual satisfaction of three hormonal contraceptives. Contraception. 2006;74(3):220–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gilliam ML, Neustadt A, Kozloski M, Mistretta S, Tilmon S, Godfrey E. Adherence and acceptability of the contraceptive ring compared with the pill among students: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(3):503–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. de Zarate Martínez-Astorquiza-Ortiz T, Díaz-Martín T, Martínez-Astorquiza-Corral T, MIA Study Investigators. Evaluation of factors associated with noncompliance in users of combined hormonal contraceptive methods: a cross-sectional study: results from the MIA study. BMC Womens Health. 2013;13:38. This study showed that less women were noncompliant with the ring as compared to the patch or COC.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mohamed AM, El-Sherbiny WS, Mostafa WA. Combined contraceptive ring versus combined oral contraceptive (30-μg ethinylestradiol and 3-mg drospirenone). Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;114(2):145–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Creinin MD, Meyn LA, Borgatta L, Barnhart K, Jensen J, Burke AE, et al. Multicenter comparison of the contraceptive ring and patch: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(2 Pt1):267–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Milsom I, Lete I, Bjertnaes A, Rokstad K, Lindh I, Gruber CJ, et al. Effects on cycle control and bodyweight of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, versus an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg ethinylestradiol and 3 mg drospirerone. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2304–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Veres S, Miller L, Burington B. A comparison between the vaginal ring and oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):555–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. De Seta F, Restaino S, De Santo D, Stabile G, Banco R, Busetti M, et al. Effects of hormonal contraception on vaginal flora. Contraception. 2012;86(5):526–9. This study demonstrated that the ring was associated with an increase in Lactobacilli compared to COC.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Nappi RE, Group INS. Counseling on vaginal delivery of contraceptive hormones: implications for women’s body knowledge and sexual health. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(12):1015–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Camacho DP, Consolaro ME, Patussi EV, Donatti L, Gasparetto A, Svidzinski TI. Vaginal yeast adherence to the combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR). Contraception. 2007;76(6):439–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Guida M, Di Spiezio SA, Bramante S, Sparice S, Acunzo G, Tommaselli GA, 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(4):1100–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Caruso S, Cianci S, Malandrino C, Cicero C, Presti LL, Cianci A. Quality of sexual life of women using the contraceptive vaginal ring in extended cycles: preliminary report. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19:307–14. This study demonstrated that an extended regimen of the ring was associated with improvement in sexual function and quality of life.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Guida M, Cibarelli F, Troisi J, Gallo A, Palumbo AR, Di Spiezio Sardo S. Sexual life impact evaluation of different hormonal contraceptives on the basis of their methods of administration. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(6):1239–47. This study demonstrated that three types of hormonal contraceptives, including the ring, were associated with an improvement in sexual function.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gracia CR, Sammel MD, Charlesworth S, Lin H, Barnhart KT, Creinin MD. Sexual function in first-time contraceptive ring and contraceptive patch users. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(1):21–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Battaglia C, Morotti E, Persico N, Battaglia B, Busacchi P, Casadio P, et al. Clitoral vascularization and sexual behavior in young patients treated with drospirenone-ethinyl estradiol or contraceptive vaginal ring: a prospective, randomized, pilot study. J Sex Med. 2014;11(2):471–80. Study demonstrated that the ring was associated with vaginal wetness.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. O’Connell KJ, Osborne LM, Westhoff C. Measured and reported weight change for women using a vaginal contraceptive ring vs. a low-dose oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72(5):323–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Lidegaard Ø, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, Løkkegaard E. Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001–10. BMJ. 2012;344, e2990. This study showed that the ring was associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis compared to COC containing LNG.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Jensen A, Skovlund CW, Keiding N. Thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction with hormonal contraception. N Eng J Med. 2012;366(24):2257–66. This study showed that current use of the ring was associated with an increased risk of thrombotic stroke.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Dinger J, Möhner S, Heinemann K. Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of an etonogestrel-containing vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(4):800–8. This study showed that the ring was associated with the same risk of venous and arterial thromboembolic events compared to COC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sidney S, Cheetham TC, Connell FA, Ouellet-Hellstrom R, Graham DJ, Davis D, et al. Recent combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) and the risk of thromboembolism and other cardiovascular events in new users. Contraception. 2013;87(1):93–100. This study showed that the ring was not associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic or thrombotic events compared to low-dose COC in new users.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Cagnacci A, Zanin R, Napolitano A, Arangino S, Volpe A. Modification of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate during contraception with the vaginal ring: a prospective study. Contraception. 2013;88(4):539–43. This study demonstrated that the ring was associated with a small increase in 24-h blood pressure.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Duijkers I, Killick S, Bigrigg A, Dieben TO. A comparative study on the effects of a contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing® and an oral contraceptive on carbohydrate metabolism and adrenal and thyroid function. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2004;9(3):131–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Barreiros FA, Guazelli CA, Barbosa R, de Assis F, de Araújo FF. Extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring: evaluation of clinical aspects. Contraception. 2010;81(3):223–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Guazelli CA, Barreiros FA, Torloni MR, Barbieri M. Effects of extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring on carbohydrate metabolism. Contraception. 2012;85(3):253–6. This study showed that an extended regimen of the ring was not associated with significant changes in carbohydrate metabolism as measured over 1 year.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Grodnitskaya EE, Grigoryan OR, Klinyshkova EV, Andreeva EN, Melnichenki GA, Dedov II. Effect on carbohydrate metabolism and analysis of acceptability (menstrual cycle control) of extended regimens of the vaginally inserted hormone-releasing system ‘NuvaRing’ as compared with the standard 21/7 regimen in reproductive-age women with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2010;26(9):663–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cagnacci A, Ferrari S, Tirelli A, Zanin R, Volpe A. Route of administration of contraceptives containing desogestrel/etonorgestrel and insulin sensitivity: a prospective randomized study. Contraception. 2009;80(1):34–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Elkind-Hirsch KE, Darensbourg C, Ogden B, Ogden LF, Hindelang P. Contraceptive vaginal ring use for women has less adverse metabolic effects than an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2007;76(5):348–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tuppurainen M, Klimscheffskij R, Venhola M, Dieben TO. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing®) and lipid metabolism: a comparative study. Contraception. 2004;69(5):389–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Barreiros FA, Guazelli CA, Barbosa R, Torloni MR, Barbieri M, Araujo FF. Extended regimens of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring containing etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol: effects on lipid metabolism. Contraception. 2011;84(2):155–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Guazelli CA, Barreiros FA, Barbosa R, Torloni MR, Barbieri M. Extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring versus hormonal oral contraceptives: effects on lipid metabolism. Contraception. 2012;85(4):389–93. This study showed that an extended regimen of the ring was associated with similar changes in lipid metabolism compared to COC.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Magnusdóttir EM, Bjarnadóttir RI, Önundarson PT, Gudmundsdóttir BR, Geirsson RT, Magnusdóttir SD, et al. The contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing®) and hemostasis: a comparative study. Contraception. 2004;69(6):461–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Fleischer K, van Vliet HA, Rosendaal FR, Rosing J, Tchaikovski S, Helmerhorst FM. Effects of the contraceptive patch, the vaginal ring and an oral contraceptive on APC resistance and SHBG: a cross-over study. Thromb Res. 2009;123(3):429–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Piltonen T, Puurunen J, Hedberg P, Ruokonen A, Mutt SJ, Herzig KH, et al. Oral, transdermal and vaginal combined contraceptives induce an increase in markers of chronic inflammation and impair insulin sensitivity in young healthy normal-weigh women: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):3046–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Jensen JT, Burke AE, Barnhart KT, Tillotson C, Messerle-Forbes M, Peters D. Effect of switching from oral to transdermal or transvaginal contraception on markers of thrombosis. Contraception. 2008;78(6):451–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Archer D, Raine T, Darney P, Alexander NJ. An open-label noncomparative study to evaluate the vagina and cervix of NuvaRing users. Fertil Steril. 2002;78 Suppl 1:S25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Massai R, Mäkäräinen L, Kuukankorpi A, Klipping C, Duijkers I, Dieben T. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring and bone mineral density in healthy pre-menopausal women. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(10):2764–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Massaro M, Di Carlo C, Gargano V, Formisano C, Bifulco G, Nappi C. Effect of the contraceptive patch and the vaginal ring on bone metabolism and bone mineral density: a prospective, controlled, randomized study. Contraception. 2010;81(3):209–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Bahamondes L, Bahamondes MV, Schulman LP. Non-contraceptive benefits of hormonal and intrauterine reversible contraceptive methods. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(5):640–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Dragoman MV. The combined oral contraceptive pill—recent developments, risks and benefits. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(6):825–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Merki-Feld GS, Hund M. Clinical experience with the combined contraceptive vaginal ring in Switzerland, including a subgroup analysis of previous hormonal contraceptive use. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010;15(6):413–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Abu Hashim H, Alsherbini W, Bazeed M. Contraceptive vaginal ring treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomized controlled trial with norethisterone. Contraception. 2012;85(3):246–52. This study demonstrated that the ring was as effective as noresthisterone to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Calhoun A, Ford S, Pruitt A. The impact of extended-cycle vaginal ring contraception on migraine aura: a retrospective case series. Headache. 2012;52(8):1246–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Liu KE, Alhajri M, Greenblatt E. A randomized controlled trial of NuvaRing versus combined oral contraceptives pills for pretreatment in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):605–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Remorgida V, Scala C, Tafi E, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. Desogestrel-only contraceptive pill versus sequential contraceptive vaginal ring in the treatment of rectovaginal endometriosis infiltrating the rectum: a prospective open-label comparative study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(3):239–47. This study demonstrated that the ring was effective to reduce symptoms of rectovaginal endometriosis. However, satisfaction was lower than with COC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Battaglia C, Mancini F, Fabbri R, Persico N, Busacchi P, Facchinetti F, et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome and cardiovascular risk in young patients treated with drospirenone-ethinylestradiol or contraceptive vaginal ring. A prospective, randomized, pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1417–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Diedrich JT, Zhao Q, Madden T, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Three-year continuation of reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:662.e1–8. This study compared the three-year continuation rates of the LARC methods to those for the non-LARCS methods.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Madden T, Secura G, Nease RF, Politi MC, Peipert JF. The role of contraceptive attributes in women’s contraceptive decision making. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:46.1–6. This study showed that the three most important method attributes when choosing a contraceptive method were effectiveness, safety and affordability.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Egarter C, Tirri BF, Bitzer J, Kaminskyy V, Oddens BJ, Prilepskaya V, et al. Women’s perceptions and reasons for choosing the pill, patch, or ring in the CHOICE study: a cross-sectional survey of contraceptive method selection after counseling. BMC Womens Health. 2013;13:9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Tepe M, Mestad R, Secura G, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Peipert JF. Association between tampon use and choosing the contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(4):735–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Gilliam M, Holmquist S, Berlin A. Factors associated with willingness to use the contraceptive vaginal ring. Contraception. 2007;76(1):30–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Lete I, Doval JL, Pérez-Campos E, Sànchez-Borrego R, Correa M, de la Viuda E, et al. Factors affecting women’s selection of a combined hormonal contraceptive method: the TEAM-06 Spanish cross-sectional study. Contraception. 2007;76(2):77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Falah-Hassani K, Kosunen E, Shiri R, Rimpela A. The use of the vaginal ring and transdermal patch among adolescent girls in Finland. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010;15(1):31–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Terrell LR, Tanner AE, Hensel DJ, Blythe MJ, Fortenberry JD. Acceptability of the vaginal contraceptive ring among adolescent women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2011;24(4):204–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Secura GM, Madden T, McNicholas C, Mullersman J, Buckel CM, Zhao Q, et al. Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Eng J Med. 2014;371:1316–23. This study compared the rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion in adolescents enrolled in the CHOICE study in the United States to the national rates.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Wilson EK, Fowler CI, Koo HP. Postpartum contraceptive use among adolescent mothers in seven states. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Stewart FH, Brown BA, Raine TR, Weitz TA, Harper CC. Adolescent and young women’s experience with the vaginal ring and oral contraceptive pills. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2007;20(6):345–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Carey AS, Chiappetta L, Tremont K, Murray PJ, Gold MA. The contraceptive vaginal ring: female adolescents’ knowledge, attitudes and plans for use. Contraception. 2007;76(6):444–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Raine TR, Foster-Rosales A, Upadhyay UD, Boyer CB, Brown BA, Sokoloff A, et al. One-year contraceptive continuation and pregnancy in adolescent girls and women initiating hormonal contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:363–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Rosenstock JR, Peipert JF, Madden T, Zhao Q, Secura GM. Continuation of reversible contraception in teenagers and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1298–305.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Maslyanskaya S, Coupey SM, Chhabra R, Khan UI. Predictors of early discontinuation of effective contraception by teens at high risk of pregnancy. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2015.10.014.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Epstein LB, Sokal-Gutierrez K, Ivey SL, Raine T, Auerswald C. Adolescent experiences with the vaginal ring. J Adolesc Health. 2008;43(1):64–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Raine TR, Epstein LB, Harper CC, Brown BA, Boyer CB. Attitudes toward the vaginal ring and transdermal patch among adolescents and young women. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(3):262–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Bahamondes L, Bahamondes MV. New and emerging contraceptives: a state-of-the-art review. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6:221–34.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Brache V, Payán LJ, Faundes A. Current status of contraceptive vaginal rings. Contraception. 2013;87(3):264–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Sivin I, Mishell Jr DR, Alvarez F, Brache V, Elomaa K, Lähteenmäki P, et al. Contraceptive vaginal rings releasing Nestorone and ethinylestradiol: a 1-year dose-finding trial. Contraception. 2005;71(2):122–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Archer DF, Thomas MA, Conard J, Merkatz RB, Creasy GW, Roberts K, et al. Impact on hepatic estrogen-sentitive proteins by a 1-year contraceptive vaginal ring delivering Nestorone® and ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2015.09.008.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Huang Y, Merkatz RB, Hillier SL, Roberts K, Blithe DL, Sitruk-Ware R, et al. Effects of a one year reusable contraceptive vaginal ring on vaginal microflora and the risk of vaginal infection: an open-label prospective evaluation. PLoS One. 2015;10(8), e0134460.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. A dose-finding study to evaluate the effect of a contraceptive vaginal ring, releasing nestorone and estradiol, on cycle control, ovulation inhibition, and pharmacokinetics in normal cycling women. NCT01586000. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01586000. Accessed 28 November 2015.

  113. A study to evaluate the effect of contraceptive vaginal ring delivering ulipristal acetate combined with a single or repeated levonorgestrel on inhibition of ovulation, endometrial changes and bleeding patterns in normal cycling women. NCT02451826. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451826. Accessed 28 November 2015.

  114. Nelson AL. Investigational hormone receptor agonists as ongoing female contraception: a focus on selective progesterone receptor modulators in early clinical development. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2015;24(10):1321–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Katz DF, Yuan A, Gao Y. Vaginal drug distribution modeling. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2015;92:2–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Schurmans C, De Baetselier I, Kestelyn E, Jespers V, Delvaux T, Agaba SK, et al. RING PLUS study group. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:348.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Montréal, CHU Ste-Justine, 3175 Chemin Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montréal, QC, H3T 1C5, Canada

    Marie-Soleil Wagner

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, Shirley E. Greenberg Women’s Health Centre, 1967 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Amanda Black

Authors
  1. Marie-Soleil Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Soleil Wagner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Marie-Soleil Wagner declares personal fees from Bayer for serving on the Advisory Board, as a Speaker, for Participation in the INTRAduction Workshop supported by Bayer, and for being a Member of the Canadian Network for Intrauterine Contraception supported by Bayer. She also declares personal fees from Actavis for Advisory board work; personal fees from Pfizer for Participation in a Continuing Medical Education program. Amanda Black declares personal fees from Bayer for serving as a Speaker and on the Advisory Board in the last 2 years, personal fees from Merck for serving on the advisory board, and personal fees from Pfizer and Actavis for serving as a speaker and on the advisory boards.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Family Planning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagner, MS., Black, A. The Combined Contraceptive Vaginal Ring: an Update. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 5, 1–12 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0141-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0141-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation