A study to compare the efficacy, acceptability and side effect of combined contraceptive vaginal ring with the combined oral contraceptive pills in a tertiary health centre located in central India

Manjari G. Jain, Mita Mazumdar, Neeraj K. Jain


Background: A study to compare the efficacy, acceptability and side effect of combined contraceptive vaginal ring with the combined oral contraceptive pills in a tertiary health centre (RKDF Medical College and Research Centre, Bhopal) located in central India.

Methods: This prospective randomized comparative trial enrolled hundred women aged between 20 to 40 years seeking for contraception with no contraindication to hormonal contraception. After proper counseling and informed consent, women divided into two groups, study group (50) includes women using contraceptive vaginal ring and control group (50) include women using combined oral contraceptives. The contraceptive efficacy, acceptability, tolerability and adverse events were recorded at each follow-up visit at RKDF Medical College and Research Centre, Bhopal.

Results: Vaginal ring and combined oral contraceptives were found to have comparable contraceptive efficacy. In study group no pregnancy reported during study period while one pregnancy reported in control group, which was statistically insignificant. Satisfaction, continuation and recommendation to others were more with vaginal ring which were not significant statistically. Cycle control is superior with vaginal ring. Incidence of adverse effects was same in both groups.

Conclusions: Combined contraceptive vaginal ring is an effective and reliable contraception with excellent cycle control, well-tolerated and highly acceptable to most women.


Combined oral contraceptive pills, Contraceptive vaginal ring, Efficacy

Full Text:



Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS. Oral contraceptive discontinuation: a prospective evaluation of frequency and reasons. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;179:577-82.

Rosenberg M, Waugh MS. Causes and consequences of oral contraceptive non-compliance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:S276-9.

Barnhart KT, Timbers K, Pretorius ES, Link Shainik. In vivo assessment of of nuva ring placement. Contracept. 2005;72:196-9.

Sarkar NN. Steroidal contraceptive vaginal ring. Int J Clin Pract. 2003;57:392-5.

Merki Feld GS, Hund M. Clinical experience with nuva ring in daily practice in Switzerland: cycle control and acceptability among women of all. Reproductive Repord Healthcare. 2007;12:240-7.

Bjarnadóttir 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.

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. Contracept. 2006;74(6):451-7.

Novak A, De la Loge C, Abetz L, Van der Meulen EA. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing®: an international study of user acceptability. Contracept. 2003;67(3):187-94.

Diebenn MD, Thom OM, Frans JME. Efficacy cycle control and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:585-93.

Oddsson 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. Human Reprod. 2005;20(2):557-62.

Soni A, Garg S, Bangar R. Efficacy, user acceptability, tolerability, and cycle control of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring: the Indian perspective. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2013;63(5):337-41.