MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362661308 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000005155

Combined Oral Contraceptive Adherence and Pregnancy Rates

2023· article· en· W4362661308 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mitchell D. Creinin, Jeffrey T. Jensen, Melissa J. Chen, Amanda Black, Dustin Costescu, Jean-Michel Foidart

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDrospirenonePillPregnancyObstetricsGynecologyPlaceboOral contraceptive pillFamily planningRegimenPopulationInternal medicineResearch methodologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of adherence and pregnancy in participants using an estetrol and drospirenone combined oral contraceptive. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis for which we pooled data from two parallel, multicenter, phase 3 trials (United States and Canada, Europe and Russia) that enrolled participants 16-50 years of age to receive estetrol 15 mg and drospirenone 3 mg in a 24 hormone and four placebo pills regimen for up to 13 cycles. Participants reported pill intake, sexual intercourse, and other contraceptive use on paper diaries. We limited this efficacy analysis to at-risk cycles (one or more reported acts of intercourse and no other contraceptive use) in participants 16-35 years of age at screening. We excluded cycles with other contraceptive use unless pregnancy occurred in that cycle. We assessed primarily the relationship between number of pills not taken per cycle and pregnancies and, secondarily, when pregnancies occurred during product use with a test for trend and χ 2 analyses as appropriate. RESULTS: Among 2,837 participants in this analysis, 31 on-treatment pregnancies occurred during 26,455 at-risk cycles. Pregnancies occurred in 0.09%, 0.25%, 0.83%, and 1.6% of cycles in which participants reported they took all hormone pills (n=25,613 cycles) or did not take one (n=405 cycles), two (n=121 cycles), and more than two (n=314 cycles) hormone-containing pills, respectively ( P <.001). No pregnancies occurred in 2,216 cycles when one or more pills were missed and missed-pill instructions were followed. All pregnancies related to not taking pills occurred in the first three cycles. Pregnancy rates ranged from 0% to 0.21% per cycle with no significant trend by cycle ( P =.45). CONCLUSION: Pregnancy occurs more frequently when combined oral contraceptive users report not taking all hormone-containing pills per 28-day cycle and exceeds 1% only when more than two pills are not taken. Pregnancies in participants who reported missed pills occurred only when missed-pill instructions were not followed. A 0.09% pregnancy risk per cycle among users of a 24 hormone and four placebo pills formulation who report taking all pills likely approximates a true method-failure rate. FUNDING SOURCE: Estetra SRL, an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02817828 and NCT02817841.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207