PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12289827

POPs less widely used.

C L Blaney
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Progestin-only pills (POPs) are less widely used and available than combined pills. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) shipped only 3 million packets of POPs worldwide in 1994, compared with 62 million packets of combined pills, according to Mark Rilling, program analyst with USAID's Office of Population. While USAID considers POPs to be an acceptable contraceptive option for some women and intends to continue providing them, the worldwide market for them is small, Rilling says. The London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) reports a similar trend. IPPF shipped 16 times more combined pills than POPs during 1994, says Dr. Carlos Huezo, the organization's medical director. New efforts to clarify the role of progestin-only pills may make them more acceptable. For example, new studies have provided additional evidence that POPs do not harm breastfed infants whose mothers use them. A new label that reflects these findings, and clarifies other distinctions from combined pills, is being developed for POPs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, based on a draft developed by FHI. The pills also are being more actively promoted among some family planning organizations, and may prove useful for community-based distribution.

Explore related subjects

ContraceptionContraceptive AgentsContraceptive Agents, FemaleContraceptives, OralDelivery of Health CareFamily Planning ServicesHealth PlanningHealth Services AccessibilityOrganization and AdministrationProgesterone CongenersContraceptive Agents, ProgestinContraceptive AvailabilityContraceptive DistributionContraceptive MethodsDistributional ActivitiesFamily PlanningOral ContraceptivesOrganization And AdministrationProgestins, Low-doseProgram ActivitiesProgramsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C L Blaney. 1995. POPs less widely used.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12289827/

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↗