PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2576267

Long-acting steroidal contraception: an update.

Abstract

Long-acting, injectable contraceptives first became available in the 1960s. It is currently estimated that almost 3.5 million women are now using depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA); 800,000 are using norethindrone enanthate (NET-EN), and another few hundred thousand are using a variety of once-a-month injectables comprised of progestin plus estrogen. The advantages of injectable contraceptives are that they are highly effective, independent of coitus, easily administered, and they ensure regular contact with health services personnel. The last factor may be considered a disadvantage by some, since contact is more frequent than would be required for routine health services. The major disadvantage of the progestin-only formulations is disruption of normal menses, giving rise to unpredicted episodes of bleeding and spotting. With the once-a-month formulation, on the other hand, there are few discontinuations due to disruption of menses. For a long-acting method to be used longer than 6 months, it is desirable to choose an implant, since the method can be discontinued at will. The first implant system to be developed was Norplant, a set of six rubber capsules filled with levonorgestrel and implanted under the skin. The implant releases sufficient levels of medication to protect against pregnancy. For the first 5 years, the average failure rate was four or five per thousand users per year. The failure rate for women using standard oral contraceptives is approximately 20 to 50 per thousand. The most common side effect of the implant method is the disruption of the menstrual cycle, an effect that is particularly marked in the first month of use.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C W Bardin. 1989. Long-acting steroidal contraception: an update.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2576267/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗