Advertisement

Advances in Contraception

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 175–186 | Cite as

Multicenter study in Hungary with a 30μg ethinylestradiol- and 150μg desogestrel-containing monophasic oral contraceptive

  • N. Bruyniks
  • L. Kovacs
  • I. Rákóczi
Article

Abstract

Among the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Hungary has a high oral contraceptive prevalence rate. Until recently, however, Hungarian women have not had access to combined oral contraceptives with new, third-generation progestogens. Marvelon (30 μg ethinylestradiol and 150 μg desogestrel) was first introduced in 1981 in Western Europe and has, in a number of different studies, proven an effective and well-tolerated oral contraceptive with no effect on blood pressure and a favorable lipid profile. Marvelon was introduced in Hungary in October 1991. Prior to its introduction, a multicenter study was undertaken in Hungary with Marvelon to confirm the clinical results of studies from other countries. The present study confirmed Marvelon to be an effective, welltolerated combined oral contraceptive with no relevant effect on blood pressure. Remarkable improvements were noted, especially with regard to side-effects, in switchers from other oral contraceptives. It is concluded that Marvelon is a valuable extension of the range of contraceptive methods available in Hungary.

Keywords

Oral Contraceptive Contraceptive Method Ethinylestradiol Parmi Combine Oral Contraceptive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Resumé

Parmi les pays d'Europe centrale et orientale, la Hongrie occupe une place sans égal du fait du pourcentage élevé de l'utilisation des contraceptifs oraux. Mais jusqu'à récemment, les Hongroises n'ont pas eu accès aux contraceptifs oraux combinés contenant les nouveaux progestatifs de troisième génération. Le Marvelon (30 μg d'éthinyloestradiol et 150 μg de désogestrel), introduit en Europe occidentale en 1981, s'est avéré, à la suite de différentes études, un contraceptif oral efficace, bien toléré, n'ayant pas d'incidences sur la tension artérielle, et présentant un profil favorable à l'égard des lipides. Le Marvelon a été introduit en Hongrie en octobre 1991. Avant cette date, it a fait l'objet d'une étude effectuée dans plusiers centres de Hongrie en vue de confirmer les résultats cliniques d'études menées dans d'autres pays. Cette étude a confirmé que ce contraceptif oral combiné est efficace, bien toléré, et qu'il n'a pas d'effet sensible sur la tension artérielle. Des améliorations remarquables ont été constatées, notamment concernant les effets secondaires, chez les femmes qui ont remplacé d'autres contraceptifs oraux par le Marvelon. Cela permet de conclure que le Marvelon est une précieuse addition à l'éventail des méthodes contraceptives disponibles en Hongrie.

Resumen

Entre los países de Europa Central y Oriental, Hungría ocupa una posición singular con una alta tasa de preponderancia de anticonceptivos orales. Sin embargo, hasta hace poco tiempo, las mujeres húngaras no habían tenido acceso a anticonceptivos orales combinados con nuevos progestágenos de la tercera generación. Marvelon (30 μg de etinilestradiol y 150 μg de desogestrel) fue presentado por primera vez en 1981 en Europa Occidental, y en diversos estudios se demostró que es un anticonceptivo oral eficaz y bien tolerado, sin efectos sobre la presión sanguínea y con un perfil de lípidos favorable. Marvelon fue presentado en Hungría en octubre de 1991. Antes de su presentación, se realizó en Hungría un estudio multicentro con Marvelon a fin de confirmar los resultados clínicos de estudios efectuados en otros países. El actual estudio confirmó que Marvelon es un anticonceptivo oral combinado eficaz y bien tolerado, sin efectos pertinentes sobre la presión sanguínea. Se observaron mejoras notables, especialmente en cuanto a efectos secundarios, entre mujeres que habían dejado de utilizar otros anticonceptivos orales a fin de utilizar Marvelon. Se llega a la conclusión de que Marvelon representa una ampliación valiosa de la gama de métodos anticonceptivos disponibles en Hungría.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The Szeged Declaration. Workshop on the Assessment of Research and Service Needs in Reproductive Health in Central and Eastern Europe. Szeged, Hungary, 25–27 October 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mészáros A. Birth control in Hungary: Changing legal conditions. Plan Parent Europe. 1990;19(2):14–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riphagen FE, Ketting E. Comparative overview of results from eight surveys on contraceptive behavior. In: Ketting E, ed. Contraception in Western Europe. Casterton: Parthenon Press. 1990:77–109.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vessey MP, Doll R. Investigation of the relation between use of oral contraceptives and thromboembolic disease. Br Med J. 1968;2:199–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Böttiger LE, Boman G, Eklund G, Westerholm B. Oral contraceptives and thromboembolic disease: Effects of lowering estrogen content. Lancet. 1980;1:1097–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stadel BV. Oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:672–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vessey MP et al. Mortality among oral contraceptive users: 20-year follow-up in a cohort study. Br Med J. 1989;299:1487–91.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Croft P, Hannaford PC. Risk factors for acute myocardial infarction in women: evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners' study. Br Med J 1989;298:165–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon T, Castelli WP, Hjortland MC, Kannel WB, Dawber TR. High density lipoprotein as a protective factor against coronary heart disease. Am Med J. 1977;62:707–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fotherby K. Oral contraceptives, lipids and cardiovascular disease. Contraception. 1985;31:367–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woutersz TB, Butler AJ, Cohen M, Korba VD, Canavan RC. A low-dose triphasic oral contraceptive. Fertil Steril. 1987;47:425–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cullberg G, Samsioe G, Anderson RF et al. Two oral contraceptives, efficacy, serum proteins, and lipid metabolism. Contraception. 1982;26:229–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bergink EW, Kloosterboer HJ, Lund L, Nummi S. Effects of levonorgestrel and desogestrel in low-dose oral contraceptive combinations on serum lipids, apolipoproteins A−I and B and glycosylated proteins. Contraception. 1984;30:61–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Godsland IF, Crook D, Simpson R et al. Effects of different formulations of oral contraceptive agents on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. N Eng J Med. 1990;323:1375–81.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fotherby K. Twelve years of clinical experience with an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg ethinylestradiol and 150 μg desogestrel. Contraception (accepted).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kleinman RL. Directory of hormonal contraceptives. London IPPF, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    John AH, Jones AJ. Gastro-enteritis causing failure of oral contraceptives. Br Med J 1975;3:207.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Lia JE, Emery MG. Clinical pharmacology and common minor side-effects of OC's. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1981;24:879–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carlborg L. Comparison of contraceptive acceptability of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol administered in one three-phasic and one monophasic version. Contraception. 1983;27:439–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brill K, Schnitker J, Albring M. Long-term experience with a low-dose oral contraceptive. Gynecol Endocrinol. 1990;4:277–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Butler AJ, Green A, Cohen M. Multi-centre open study of a triphasic levonorgestrelethinyloestradiol combined oral contraceptive. Curr Med Res Opin. 1987;10:503–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allen H. Multicenter clinical evaluation of Triphasil in Canada. In: Brosens I, ed. New considerations in oral contraception. Selected proceedings of an International Symposium, Leuven, Belgium. 1981:87–99.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rakoczi I, Geroe G, Demeter J, Gat I. Comparative metabolic effects of oral contraceptive preparations containing different progestagens. Arzneim-Forsch/Drug Res. 1983;35:630–3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vekemans M, Grippa J, Capel P, Fondu P. The effect of two low-dose contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol and desogestrel or D-norgestrel on blood clotting factors. Curr Ther Res. 1987;42:1109–18.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peterson KR, Sidelmann J, Skouby SO, Jespersen J. Effects of monophasic low-dose oral contraceptives on fibrin formation and resolution in young women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:32–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weijers MJ. Desogestrel, a new progestational compound and the liver. Arzneim-Forsch/Drug Res. 1983;33:774–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Vange N, Kloosterboer HJ, Haspels AA. Effect of seven low-dose combined oral contraceptive preparations on carbohydrate metabolism. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:918–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bruyniks
    • 1
  • L. Kovacs
    • 2
  • I. Rákóczi
    • 3
  1. 1.NV OrganonOssThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical UniversitySzegedHungary
  3. 3.Postgraduate Medical UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations