PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Acceptability and satisfaction using Quick Start with the contraceptive vaginal ring versus an oral contraceptive.

BACKGROUND: Many women discontinue their use of hormonal contraception, and even those who continue so may have difficulty using oral contraceptive pills consistently. New delivery systems, including the vaginal ring, may be easier to use, but user acceptability and satisfaction with these new methods may be affected by women's experience with their bodies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for this study were collected as part of a randomized clinical trial on 201 women comparing immediate start of vaginal ring use with immediate start of low-dose oral contraceptive use. We assessed user satisfaction and method continuation 3 months after ring or pill initiation. RESULTS: At 3 months, 174 of 201 subjects (87%) had follow-up interviews. Among the 174 study participants with follow-up data, 61% of ring subjects and 34% of pill subjects were very satisfied with their methods (p=.003). For posttrial contraception, 79% of ring subjects chose to continue with the ring whereas 59% of pill subjects chose to continue with the pill (p<.001). Women who reported greater comfort in touching their genitals, greater frequency of masturbation, more comfort with intercourse and past use of vaginal contraceptives and products were not more likely than others to be satisfied with the ring or to continue using it for birth control. CONCLUSION: Women who were allocated to vaginal ring use, regardless of their baseline characteristics or behavior, were likely to be highly satisfied with the method and to continue its use.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of uterine concentrations of ethinyl estradiol and etonogestrel after use of a contraceptive vaginal ring and an oral contraceptive.

OBJECTIVE: To compare uterine tissue concentrations of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and etonogestrel (ENG) after one cycle of use of a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing; NV Organon, Oss, The Netherlands) or a combined oral contraceptive (COC). DESIGN: Randomized, open-label, pharmacokinetic study. SETTING: Obstetrics and gynecology unit. PATIENT(S): Eight premenopausal women about to undergo hysterectomy but otherwise healthy. INTERVENTION(S): One cycle (17-21 days) of NuvaRing or COC treatment that ended with surgical hysterectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Tissue concentrations of EE and ENG in uterine tissue samples taken from the upper myometrium and mid-myometrium, the cervical region, and the endometrium. RESULT(S): In both groups, concentrations of EE and ENG were similar in uterine tissue taken from the upper myometrium and mid-myometrium and the cervical region. However, compared with the COC group, concentrations of both hormones were markedly lower in tissue samples from the endometrium of women who had been treated with NuvaRing. CONCLUSION(S): Vaginal administration of hormones with NuvaRing did not produce elevated uterine concentrations of EE and ENG, compared with an oral contraceptive.

Administration, Intravaginal↗
PubMed1991

Coronary heart disease risk markers in users of low-dose oral contraceptives.

Seven combination oral contraceptives (OCs) were studied for their effects on glucose, insulin, triglyceride and lipoprotein concentrations. Subjects included 925 women using fixed-dose (monophasic) or variable-dose (triphasic) formulations and 418 premenopausal women not using OCs. The monophasics contained 150 or 250 micrograms of levonorgestrel, 500 or 1,000 micrograms of norethindrone or 150 micrograms of desogestrel as the progestin. Triphasic progestin doses were 50-125 micrograms of levonorgestrel or 500-1,000 micrograms of norethindrone. All the formulations increased the fasting serum triglycerides. No changes were seen in serum total cholesterol. The effects on serum lipoproteins depended on the progestin type and dose. Monophasics containing 500 micrograms of norethindrone or 150 micrograms of desogestrel lowered low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and increased high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Monophasics containing levonorgestrel reduced HDL cholesterol. The triphasics did not affect LDL or HDL cholesterol but altered the balance of HDL subfractions. All the formulations caused a deterioration in glucose tolerance and insulin resistance and increased pancreatic insulin secretion. The greatest effects were seen with formulations containing levonorgestrel. The study showed that a reduction in the progestin dose and use of novel progestins can reduce the potentially adverse effects of OCs on metabolic risk markers for coronary heart disease.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

[The effect of oral contraception on society].

Oral contraception was introduced 40 years ago. In the Netherlands 'the pill' was more widely accepted than in most other countries. Oral contraception turned family planning into a medical responsibility, which made it respectable. It also separated sexuality from reproduction, which had rather far-reaching consequences for sexual behaviour and experience, as well as for sexual morality. The most important immediate impact of the pill was a sudden acceleration of the downward trend of the birth rate, and a substantial reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies and so-called forced marriages. Its impact on world population growth has been less marked, mainly because of its costs, as on a global level sterilization and intrauterine devices are more important methods of contraception. The number of abortions in the Netherlands (5-6.5/1000 fertile women/year) has not decreased, but the current possibilities for family planning have led to a change in motivation from 'utterly unwanted pregnancy' to 'unintended pregnancy'.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1987

Oral contraceptives. Who, which, when, and why?

The risks of oral contraceptives are very small, and they cluster in a subset of users, although warning signs of cardiovascular complications must be heeded. The best choice of an oral contraceptive is one with an estrogen content of 30 to 35 micrograms. A greater (50 micrograms) content may be necessary if breakthrough bleeding or amenorrhea persists beyond a few treatment cycles. The starting date for the pill can be up to the sixth day of the cycle. Noncontraceptive benefits of the pill may include a protective effect against endometrial and ovarian malignancy, benign breast disease, and infection of the upper genital tract. Both the contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits of low-dose combination oral contraceptives are desirable. They far outweigh the risks in women who require a high-efficacy, reversible contraceptive and who have no significant contraindication to use of the pill.

Contraceptives, Oral↗