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

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Acceptability
• Combined hormonal contraception
• Contraception;
• Contraceptive efficacy
• Cycle control
• Etonogestrel
• Non-oral contraception
• NuvaRing^®
• Tolerability
• Vaginal ring

Declaration of interest: The authors (DM until 2011) serve ad hoc as investigators, medical advisers and lecturers of MSD, Bayer, and other pharmaceutical companies manufacturing contraceptives. The authors alone are responsible for the content and the writing of the paper.

Funding: No funding.