PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11794429

Hormonal emergency contraception.

Melissa Sanders Wanner·Rachel L Couchenour
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the 1960s, high-dose estrogen was identified as a highly effective emergency contraceptive but was associated with a high frequency of nausea and vomiting. The combination of low-dose estrogen and a progestin (the Yuzpe regimen) is highly effective and much better tolerated. Recently, a progestin-only regimen containing levonorgestrel was found to be more effective than the Yuzpe regimen and caused significantly less nausea and vomiting. Danazol, an antigonadotropin, is well tolerated but has questionable efficacy Mifepristone has several pharmacologic actions that make it highly effective with an adverse-effect profile similar to that of the Yuzpe regimen. Progress has been made in the last 3 years toward increasing the number of emergency contraceptives that are accessible to women in the United States, and several highly effective options are available. The most effective and well-tolerated regimen available is levonorgestrel. However, the barriers to access and low patient and provider awareness limit the impact of emergency contraception on the rate of unintended pregnancies.

Explore related subjects

ContraceptionContraceptives, Oral, CombinedContraceptives, Oral, SyntheticContraceptives, Postcoital, HormonalDanazolDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHumansLevonorgestrelMifepristoneNauseaPregnancyVomitingJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Melissa Sanders Wanner, Rachel L Couchenour. 2002. Hormonal emergency contraception.. https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.22.1.43.33499

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Contraception↗