Maintenance of ovulation inhibition with the 75-microg desogestrel-only contraceptive pill (Cerazette) after scheduled 12-h delays in tablet intake

Oral hormonal contraceptives and cardiovascular risks in females

Oral hormonal contraception (OHC) is a widely employed method in females for the prevention of unintended pregnancies, as well as for the treatment of menstrual disorders, endometriosis, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. However, it is believed that with OHCs use, some females may have higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and heart failure. Although such risks are infrequently detected in healthy young females with the use of oral contraceptives, slightly elevated risks of cardiovascular diseases have been observed among reproductive-aged healthy females. However, prolonged use of OHC has also been claimed to have protective cardiac effects and may contribute to reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. In fact, the debate on whether OHC administration increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing with inconsistent and controversial viewpoints. Nevertheless, a great deal of work has been carried out to understand the relationship between OHC use and the occurrence of cardiovascular risk in females who use OHC for preventing the unwanted pregnancy or treatment of other disorders. Therefore, in this review we summarize the most recent available evidence regarding the association between the use of oral hormonal contraceptives and the risk for cardiovascular disease in females who are using OHC to prevent unintended pregnancy.

Pharmacologic contraception methods for people with cystic fibrosis: A practical review for clinicians

Over the last several decades, substantial treatment advances have improved the quality of life and median predicted survival in people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF). It is critical for CF clinicians to begin to discuss health considerations related to an aging and overall healthier CF population. Such considerations include family planning, reproductive health, and contraception. CF care teams are trusted sources of medical information and therefore often have initial discussions related to contraception for PwCF. The purpose of this article is to review the available pharmacologic contraceptive methods, with a specific focus on the benefits and risks that may be more relevant to PwCF.

A phase I/II study evaluating the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of drospirenone as an oral contraceptive in Japanese women

AIM

Drospirenone (DRSP) is a synthetic progestogen approved as a progestin-only pill for contraception in both the United States and Europe. Herein, we conducted a phase I/II study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of DRSP in Japanese women.

METHODS

Single and multiple doses of 4 mg of DRSP were orally administered to healthy premenopausal Japanese women. In the multiple-dose period, 4 mg of DRSP was administered once daily for 24 days. Pharmacokinetics, hormone levels, and adverse events (AEs) were investigated.

RESULTS

Twelve Japanese women participated in this study. The single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of DRSP was similar to that reported in previous studies in Caucasians. In the multiple-dose period, no subject displayed a progesterone level of more than 5.03 ng/mL. AEs were observed in 11 (91.7%) subjects. The most common AE was genital hemorrhage, which was observed in six (50.0%) subjects, followed by diarrhea and acne in four (33.3%) subjects each. All AEs resolved or improved at the end of the study, and complete recovery was confirmed in all subjects at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetics of DRSP in Japanese women was similar to that of previous studies performed in Caucasian women. Repeated administration of DRSP maintained low plasma progesterone levels indicating effective inhibition of ovulation. No notable safety concerns were observed. In this phase I/II study, DRSP had no obvious pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, or safety issues to consider in Japanese women.

Hormonal and natural contraceptives: a review on efficacy and risks of different methods for an informed choice

The debate about contraception has become increasingly important as more and more people seek safe and effective contraception. More than 1 billion women of reproductive age worldwide need a method of family planning, and wellbeing, socio-economic status, culture, religion and more influence the reasons why a woman may ask for contraception. Different contraceptive methods exist, ranging from 'natural methods' (fertility awareness-based methods - FABMs) to barrier methods and hormonal contraceptives (HCs). Each method works on a different principle, with different effectiveness.FABMs and HCs are usually pitted against each other, although it's difficult to really compare them. FABMs are a valid alternative for women who cannot or do not want to use hormone therapy, although they may have a high failure rate if not used appropriately and require specific training. HCs are commonly used to address various clinical situations, although concerns about their possible side effects are still widespread. However, many data show that the appropriate use of HC has a low rate of adverse events, mainly related to personal predisposition.The aim of this review is to summarize the information on the efficacy and safety of FABMs and HCs to help clinicians and women choose the best contraceptive method for their needs.

Experiences of progestin-only pill users in the United States and attitudes toward over-the-counter access

CONTEXT

Removing the prescription requirement and making oral contraceptive pills available over the counter (OTC) could increase contraceptive access in the United States. Despite current efforts to make a progestin-only pill (POP) available OTC, there are no qualitative data exploring the experiences of POP users and their perspectives on making POPs available OTC.

METHODS

We conducted six online, asynchronous focus group discussions with 36 POP users between July and November 2020. We stratified focus group discussion placement based on three reasons for POP use: breastfeeding, having a contraindication to estrogen (for a reason other than breastfeeding), and for any other reason. We thematically analyzed these data using inductive and deductive coding.

RESULTS

The majority of participants described their overall POP experience as positive, mostly because they experienced minor or no side effects and thought the pill was effective. Participants overwhelmingly supported OTC availability of POPs and expressed interest in purchasing an OTC POP. Over one-third of participants had very limited knowledge or held inaccurate assumptions about POPs before they started using this method and many stressed the need to disseminate accurate information and resources about POPs to the public.

CONCLUSIONS

Most focus group discussion participants were satisfied with POPs and supported OTC access. While misconceptions and concerns about POPs should be addressed, an OTC POP has the potential to be a safe, effective, and convenient contraceptive option in the United States.

Effectiveness and efficacy rates of progestin-only pills: A comprehensive literature review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize published literature on POP effectiveness and efficacy.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched PubMed Central, PubMed, and the Cochrane library through March 07, 2022. We included articles written in English reporting a Pearl Index or life table rate for pregnancy. We excluded articles only assessing formulations that: were never marketed globally, are only sold in combination with estrogen, are currently sold only for noncontraceptive purposes, or were not given to participants continuously. Four researchers independently extracted data and two analyzed data using Excel and R.

RESULTS

We included 54 studies. Among studies at low or moderate risk of bias, the median Pearl Index rate (the failure rate during typical use) was 1.63 (range 0.00-14.20, IQR 4.03) and the median method failure Pearl Index rate (the failure rate during perfect use) was 0.97 (range 0.40-6.50, IQR 0.68). Excluding the newer formulations, Desogestrel and Drospirenone, which are closer to combined oral contraceptives in that they prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, the median Pearl Index rate is 2.00 (range 0.00-14.12, IQR 2.5) and the median method failure Pearl Index rate is 1.05 (range 0.00-10.90, IQR 1.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Among studies at low or moderate risk of bias, the median Pearl Index rate during typical POP use was much lower than currently estimated (7.00), while the median perfect use rate was similar to current estimates.

IMPLICATIONS

Future research should investigate the possibility that POPs may be much more effective during typical use than currently believed.

A commentary on progestin-only pills and the "three-hour window" guidelines: Timing of ingestion and mechanisms of action

Clinical guidelines for progestin-only pills (POPs) state that each pill should be taken at the same time each day, with only a "three-hour window" of tolerance before back-up contraception should be used. In this commentary, we summarize studies examining the timing of ingestion and mechanisms of action for various POP formulations and dosages. We found that different progestins have different properties that determine the effect of delayed or missed pills on effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. Our findings highlight that there is more margin for error for some POPs than guidelines suggest. The three-hour window recommendation should be re-evaluated in light of these findings. Since clinicians, potential POP users, and regulatory bodies rely on current guidelines to make decisions about POP use, a critical evaluation and update of these guidelines are urgently needed.

The views of women and pharmacists on the desirability of a progestogen-only pill over the counter. Results of a survey in Germany, Italy and Spain

PURPOSE

To explore the perceived need and enthusiasm for over the counter (OTC) progestogen-only pills (POP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A web-based survey of 1000 sexually active women (16-45) and 100 pharmacists in Germany, Italy and Spain.

RESULTS

Despite not wanting to conceive, 5-6% of women in each country were not using contraception and 8-20% were using methods less effective than condoms. At least 74% of respondents felt knowledgeable about the different contraceptives available but at least 1/3 had experienced difficulty accessing oral contraceptive (OCs) in the past two years. The cost of contraceptives, the need to see a doctor and long waits for appointments were cited as barriers for not using OCs. The majority agreed they would discuss with their doctor the decision to buy the POP, consult about side effects and other reproductive health issues. Over 2/3 of pharmacists in each country would be very, or fairly, likely to recommend the POP, agreeing that the benefits included improved access for women, and offered them more independence.

CONCLUSIONS

Asked directly, women in Germany, Spain and Italy currently using contraception are positive about a POP OTC. Pharmacists are also positive, with the overwhelming majority in favour of providing POPs.

Perspective Chapter: Modern Birth Control Methods

This chapter focuses on various modern birth control methods, including combined oral contraceptives, progestogen-only pills, progestogen-only injectables, progestogen-only implants, intrauterine devices, barrier contraceptives, and emergency contraceptive pills. Each contraceptive method is covered in detail, including mechanism of action, effectiveness, health benefits, advantages, disadvantages, risks, and side-effects.

Effect of progestogen-only contraception on premenopausal fracture risk: a case-control study

Our study demonstrated that progestogen-only oral and intrauterine contraceptives are not associated with fracture risk independent from age.

PURPOSE

The use of progestogen-only contraception, resulting in a hypoestrogenic state, has been associated with impaired bone acquisition and increased fracture risk. The aim of this large population-based study was to assess the fracture risk in association with the use of progestogen-only contraceptives (progestogen-only pills (POPs) and progestogen-containing IUDs (LNG-IUD)).

METHODS

We identified 14,421 women between 16 and 55 years of age with a first-time diagnosis of fracture and matched them with 14,421 random controls using the Disease Analyzer Database.

RESULTS

The results of the first adjusted logistic regression model (ever use vs. never use of progestogen-only contraceptives) revealed that there was no significant association between the use of POPs (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.90-1.07, p = 0.657) or LNG-IUDs (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.81-1.21, p = 0.945) and fracture incidence. Also, in the second regression model, we observed no effect of duration of use of POPs (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.03, p = 0.672) or LNG-IUDs (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.02, p = 0.177) on fracture occurrence. We also observed no effect in different age groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study results indicate that progestogen-only contraception (either POPs or LNG-IUPs) is not associated with fracture risk and may be considered a bone-safe option for adults and adolescents.

Use of Short Acting Reversible Contraception in Adolescents: The Pill, Patch, Ring and Emergency Contraception

Long acting reversible contraception (LARC) is the recommend form of birth control for adolescents by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology, but the majority of adolescents continue to use short acting reversible contraception (SARC) such as the oral contraceptive pill, vaginal ring, and transdermal patch. For this reason, it is important for medical providers to be familiar with how to prescribe and manage SARC in adolescents, paying particular attention to which patients are eligible to use them, which benefits the methods have outside of contraception, what side effects to be aware of, and special considerations for adolescents. Many adolescents will choose not to use any form of hormonal contraception-thus having a knowledge about and comfort with use of emergency contraception is of equal importance.

Pharmacodynamics of combined estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives 3. Inhibition of ovulation

INTRODUCTION

Following a historical overview, the ovulation-inhibiting effect of various orally administered estrogen-progestin combinations (combined oral contraceptives [COCs]) are examined for their components alone or in the various combined formulations. Special emphasis is given to products containing natural estrogens. Areas covered: Inhibition of ovulation with progestins alone; estrogens alone; various progestins in combination with ethinyl estradiol; various progestins in combination with natural estrogens (estradiol, estradiol valerate, and estetrol). Expert commentary: The original idea to achieve ovulation blockage through the administration of steroid hormones involved the use a progestogen (both progesterone and its synthetic homologous). The ability of a progestin to inhibit ovulation depends on the type of compound and on its dosage and a difference of more than 20-fold in activity exists between compounds utilized today in COCs. Initially, the estrogenic component was present only because it contaminated the first progestin utilized. It was soon found that an estrogen is necessary for proper cycle control. It was also found that the estrogen acts synergistically in inhibiting ovulation. For almost half a century, most COCs contained ethinyl estradiol. Today, also natural estrogens are being employed. Inhibition of ovulation was complete with all early high dose preparations. Decreasing dosage allowed some ovarian activity to occur, occasionally leading to a mature follicle. Even in this situation, defective corpus luteum formation assured contraceptive protection.

Safety of hormonal contraception for obese women

INTRODUCTION

Obese women have special safety requirements for contraceptive choice, but the evidence supporting such decision is dispersed and sometimes conflicting. Despite being effective, well tolerated and safe for most women, hormonal contraceptives are underused by obese women due to fear of contraceptive failure, weight gain and venous thrombosis. Areas covered: We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify studies about hormonal contraception in overweight and obese women, including safety concerns. We considered the safety of hormonal contraceptives for otherwise healthy obese women and for those with comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, vascular disease, or a history of deep venous thrombosis. Expert opinion: Over time there is no convincing evidence that obesity increases the risk of contraceptive failure. Hormonal contraceptive users may have a modest weight gain that is comparable to that of non-users. Current evidence supports the safe use of combined hormonal contraceptives by obese women after detailed clinical screening to exclude comorbidities that may contraindicate the use of estrogens. Progestin-only methods are generally safe, and long-acting reversible contraceptives hold the best combination of efficacy, safety and convenience for this group, although individualization is advisable.

Effectiveness of the progestin-only pill for migraine treatment in women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Migraine is highly prevalent in women (18%). Peak morbidity affects their most productive years, coinciding with peak fertility. Hormonal contraception is often tailored for migraine prevention. Estrogen-containing contraceptives may be contraindicated in women experiencing migraine with aura due to the risk of vascular events. While improvements in migraine with a progestin-only pill (POP), which inhibits ovulation are documented, the strength and quality of evidence has not been formally evaluated. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of progestin-only contraceptives for migraine treatment by systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and selection MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Libraries were searched (1980 to September 2016) for studies on progestin-only treatments for migraine. Studies in English on >4 non-menopausal women aged 18-50 with migraine diagnosed by formal criteria were included. Data extraction and analysis Data were quality-assessed using the GRADE system. A random effects model was used for pooled analyses. Results Pooled analyses of four studies demonstrated that desogestrel 75 mcg/day, POP significantly but modestly reduced the number of migraine attacks and migraine days. Reduced intensity and duration, reduced analgesic and triptan use were observed, along with improved headache-related quality of life. GRADE analysis indicated evidence was low to very low for each outcome measure. Adverse effects resulted in treatment cessation for <10% of participants. Two studies compared desogestrel POP to a combined oral contraceptive, demonstrating similar migraine outcomes for both treatments. Conclusions The desogestrel POP shows promise in improving migraine in women. Current evidence is observational and based on small samples of women using only one oral progestin-only formulation. Further randomized trials on additional progestin-only contraceptives are required to confirm their role in migraine management.

Maintenance of ovulation inhibition with a new progestogen-only pill containing drospirenone after scheduled 24-h delays in pill intake

OBJECTIVES

Traditional progestogen-only pills (POPs) have stringent daily timing and missed pill rules that might affect contraceptive reliability. A new-generation oestrogen-free pill has been developed, containing 4-mg drospirenone with a unique regimen of 24 active treatment days followed by four placebo tablets. A previous study showed that this new drospirenone-only pill effectively inhibited ovulation. Clinical efficacy, however, can be affected by compliance, and delayed or forgotten pill intake often occurs in daily life. The aim of this study was to investigate if inhibition of ovulation was maintained after four scheduled 24-h delays in tablet intake.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred thirty healthy women with proven ovulatory cycles were randomized, and 127 were treated with the drospirenone-only pill during two cycles. In treatment Group A (n=62), 24-h delays in tablet intake were scheduled on days 3, 6, 11 and 22 during Cycle 2 and, in treatment Group B (n=65) during Cycle 1, respectively. Ovulation was defined as disappearance or persistence of a large follicle and progesterone levels higher than 5 ng/mL for at least 5 consecutive days.

RESULTS

The overall ovulation rate was 0.8%; only one subject in Group A fulfilled the ovulation criteria in Cycle 2. Follicular diameters in the regular-intake and the delayed-intake cycles were similar.

CONCLUSION

Despite the 4-day hormone-free period and multiple intentional 24-h delays in tablet intake, ovulation inhibition was maintained. This property distinguishes this new-generation oestrogen-free pill from traditional POPs by allowing the same "safety window" or flexibility in intake as combined oral contraceptives without compromising contraceptive reliability.

IMPLICATIONS

Delayed or forgotten pill intake is very common. Ovulation inhibition by the new-generation oestrogen-free pill, containing 4-mg drospirenone for 24 days followed by a 4-day treatment-free period, was maintained despite four 24-h delays in tablet intake, so the impact of delayed intake on contraceptive reliability will be low.

Contraception and endometriosis: challenges, efficacy, and therapeutic importance

Endometriosis is a benign gynecological condition that is estimated to affect 10% of women in the general population and appears to be increasing in incidence. It is an estrogen-dependent inflammatory disease, and is primarily characterized by dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and variable effects on fertility. The symptoms may greatly affect quality of life, and symptom control may be the primary aim of initial management, while contraceptive effect is often secondary. It is estimated that 30%–50% of women with endometriosis have an infertility problem, so a considerable number of endometriosis sufferers will require effective, planned contraception to maximize “protection of fertility” and prevent progression of the endometriotic condition. Ideally, this contraception should also provide symptom relief and improvement of physical, mental, and social well-being. At the present time, long-term progestogens appear to be the most effective choice for meeting all of these requirements, but other options need to be considered. It is becoming increasingly recognized that hormonal contraceptive systems are necessary for prevention of disease recurrence following surgical treatment of endometriosis. The personal preferences of the woman are an integral part of the final contraceptive choice. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the contraceptive options available to women with endometriosis.

Progestin-only pills for contraception

BACKGROUND

The introduction of a new progestin-only oral contraceptive in Europe has renewed interest in this class of oral contraceptives. Unlike the more widely used combined oral contraceptives containing an estrogen plus progestin, these pills contain only a progestin (progestogen) and are taken without interruption. How these pills compare to others in their class or to combined oral contraceptives is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

This review examined randomized controlled trials of progestin-only pills for differences in efficacy, acceptability, and continuation rates.

SEARCH METHODS

Through October 2013, we searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), POPLINE, and LILACS for studies of progestin-only pills. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Previous searches also included EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials in any language that included progestin-only pills for contraception.  We incorporated any comparison with a progestin-only pill; this could include different doses, other progestin-only pills, combined oral contraceptives, or other contraceptives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The first author abstracted the data and entered the information into RevMan 5. Another author performed a second, independent data abstraction to verify the initial data entry.We attempted to extract life-table rates (actuarial or continuous) and used the rate difference as the effect measure. Where life-table rates were not published, we used the incidence rate ratio (ratio of Pearl rates). Where only the crude number of events was published, we calculated the Peto odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) was computed with 95% CI. Because of disparate exposures, we were not able to combine studies in meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials met the inclusion criteria. We have not found any new studies since the initial review. In the trial comparing the desogestrel versus levonorgestrel progestin-only pill, desogestrel was not associated with a significantly lower risk of accidental pregnancy; the rate ratio was 0.27 (95% CI 0.06 to 1.19). However, the desogestrel progestin-only pill caused more bleeding problems, although this difference was not statistically significant. The trial comparing low-dose mifepristone versus a levonorgestrel progestin-only pill found similar pregnancy rates. In the trial comparing ethynodiol diacetate versus a combined oral contraceptive, irregular cycles occurred in all women assigned to the progestin-only pill (odds ratio 135.96; 95% CI 7.61 to 2421.02). In a trial comparing two progestin-only and two combined oral contraceptives, the progestin-only pill containing levonorgestrel 30 μg had higher efficacy than did the pill containing norethisterone 350 μg. An early trial found megestrol acetate inferior to other progestin-only pills in terms of efficacy. A study of the timing of pill initiation after birth found no important differences, but high losses to follow up undermined the trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to compare progestin-only pills to each other or to combined oral contraceptives.

Contraception in women with cardiac disease

Cardiac disease is the main cause of maternal mortality in the UK; therefore, accurate and appropriate contraceptive advice for women with cardiac disease is an essential part of any consultation. All females should be counseled regarding pregnancy and contraception before they become sexually active, with information tailored to their diagnosis and risks of a pregnancy. In this review, we discuss current clinical recommendations and practice in a number of different cardiac conditions, including congenital heart disease, as well as highlighting future developments and challenges with contraception in women with cardiac disease.

Pregnancy and contraception in young women with congenital heart disease: General considerations

Young women with heart disease are increasingly being seen in obstetrical referral centres owing, in large part, to the dramatic improvements in survival of young adults with congenital heart disease in recent years. Although pregnancies in most women with heart disease result in favourable outcomes, there are important exceptions that must be recognized. These exceptions pose significant mortality risk to the mother and/or the fetus. The present article outlines cardiovascular adaptations to pregnancy, general outcomes and management considerations for practitioners caring for pregnant young women with congenital heart disease. A lesion-specific review is published in a complementary article.

Contraindications to progestin-only oral contraceptive pills among reproductive-aged women

BACKGROUND

Progestin-only oral contraceptive pills (POPs) have fewer contraindications to use compared to combined pills. However, the overall prevalence of contraindications to POPs among reproductive-aged women has not been assessed.

STUDY DESIGN

We collected information on contraindications to POPs in two studies: (1) the Self-Screening Study, a sample of 1267 reproductive-aged women in the general population in El Paso, TX, and (2) the Prospective Study of OC Users, a sample of current oral contraceptive (OC) users who obtained their pills in El Paso clinics (n=532) or over the counter (OTC) in Mexican pharmacies (n=514). In the Self-Screening Study, we also compared women's self-assessment of contraindications using a checklist to a clinician's evaluation.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of women in the Self-Screening Study were identified as having at least one contraindication to POPs. The sensitivity of the checklist for identifying women with at least one contraindication was 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 50.6%-90.4%], and the specificity was 99.4% (95% CI: 98.8%-99.7%). In total, 0.6% of women in the Prospective Study of OC Users reported having any contraindication to POPs. There were no significant differences between clinic and OTC users.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of contraindications to POPs was very low in these samples. POPs may be the best choice for the first OTC oral contraceptive in the United States.

Severe hemorrhagic corpus luteum complicating anticoagulation in antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a disorder of coagulation that causes thrombosis as well as pregnancy-related complications, occurring due to the autoimmune production of antibodies against phospholipid. Full anticoagulation is the cornerstone therapy in patients with thrombosis history, and this can lead to major bleeding. During a 3-year period, 300 primary and secondary APS patients were followed up at the Rheumatology Division of the authors’ University Hospital. Of them, 255 (85%) were women and 180 (60%) were of reproductive age. Three of them (1%) had severe hemorrhagic corpus luteum while receiving long-term anticoagulation treatment and are described in this report. All of them were taking warfarin, had elevated international normalized ratio (>4.0) and required prompt blood transfusion and emergency surgery. Therefore, we strongly recommend that all women with APS under anticoagulation should have ovulation suppressed with either intramuscular depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate or oral desogestrel.

Estrogen-free oral hormonal contraception: benefits of the progestin-only pill

Although combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are commonly used and highly effective in preventing pregnancy, they may not be suitable for some women. COC use is associated with increased rates of cardiovascular events and is not recommended in nonbreastfeeding women in the immediate postpartum period or in breastfeeding women during the initial 6 months of breastfeeding. Moreover, estrogen-related adverse effects, such as headache, are common. Estrogen-free progestin-only pills (POPs) are a valuable option in women who prefer to take an oral hormonal contraceptive, but are ineligible for, or choose not to use, COCs. Although some POPs have been associated with lower contraceptive effectiveness than COCs, the POP containing desogestrel has shown similar contraceptive effectiveness to COCs. The most commonly reported complaints in women using all POPs are bleeding problems. Counseling women interested in using POPs about the variable bleeding patterns associated with this method may improve compliance and acceptance.

Advantages and challenges of oestrogen-free hormonal contraception

BACKGROUND

Not all women tolerate hormonal contraceptives containing oestrogens.

METHODS

The authors selected and evaluated relevant publications on the advantages and challenges of oestrogen-containing and oestrogen-free oral contraceptives obtained from the MEDLINE and Google databases from January 2000 to January 2010. In addition, the reference lists from the obtained publications as well as the authors' clinical experience served as additional sources of information. Emphasis was placed on the common adverse effects and risks associated with oestrogen replacement as well as on the noncontraceptive benefits of combined oral contraceptive pills and progestogen-only pills in the management of menstrual cycle-dependent problems.

FINDINGS

Progestogen-only pills have the potential to abolish many of the common adverse effects associated with oestrogen plus progestogen oral contraceptives and can be used to treat various menstrual cycle-dependent problems. However, only a limited number of clinical comparative studies are available. Progestogen-only pills are associated with a more irregular bleeding pattern than contraceptive pills containing oestrogens, especially during the first few months of therapy. As this is not permanent, adequate counselling is essential in order to prevent unnecessary discontinuation of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Progestogen-only pills offer an effective, convenient, and readily reversible method of contraception that is suitable for women with contraindications for oestrogens.

Progestin-only pills for contraception

BACKGROUND

The introduction of a new progestin-only oral contraceptive in Europe has renewed interest in this class of oral contraceptives. Unlike the more widely used combined oral contraceptives containing an estrogen plus progestin, these pills contain only a progestin (progestogen) and are taken without interruption. How these pills compare to others in their class or to combined oral contraceptives is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

This review examined randomized controlled trials of progestin-only pills for differences in efficacy, acceptability, and continuation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), POPLINE, LILACS, and EMBASE for studies of progestin-only pills. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials in any language that included progestin-only pills for contraception. We incorporated any comparison with a progestin-only pill; this could include different doses, other progestin-only pills, combined oral contraceptives, or other contraceptives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The first author abstracted the data and entered the information into RevMan 5. Another author performed a second, independent data abstraction to verify the initial data entry. Because of disparate exposures, we were not able to combine studies in meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials met the inclusion criteria. In the trial comparing the desogestrel versus levonorgestrel progestin-only pill, desogestrel was not associated with a significantly lower risk of accidental pregnancy; the rate ratio was 0.27 (95% CI 0.06 to 1.19). However, the desogestrel progestin-only pill caused more bleeding problems, although this difference was not statistically significant. The trial comparing low-dose mifepristone versus a levonorgestrel progestin-only pill found similar pregnancy rates. In the trial comparing ethynodiol diacetate versus a combined oral contraceptive, irregular cycles occurred in all women assigned to the progestin-only pill (odds ratio 135.96; 95% CI 7.61 to 2421.02). In a trial comparing two progestin-only and two combined oral contraceptives, the progestin-only pill containing levonorgestrel 30 mug had higher efficacy than did the pill containing norethisterone 350 mug. An early trial found megestrol acetate inferior to other progestin-only pills in terms of efficacy. A study of the timing of pill initiation after birth found no important differences, but high losses to follow up undermined the trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to compare progestin-only pills to each other or to combined oral contraceptives.

Evaluation of menstrual bleeding patterns: a new proposal for a universal guideline based on the analysis of more than 4500 bleeding diaries

OBJECTIVE

To develop a universal guideline allowing the comparison of interventions like oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy with an impact on menstrual bleeding pattern.

METHODS

Literature analysis and cluster analysis of 4612 bleeding diaries.

RESULTS

We summarized key definitions needed for the evaluation of menstrual bleeding patterns from the literature. We developed a methodology to systematically evaluate menstrual bleeding patterns that distinguishes between cyclical and continuous hormonal regimens.

CONCLUSION

This universal guideline can be applied to all prospective clinical studies that affect menstrual bleeding patterns. It allows regulatory agencies and prescribing physicians to make meaningful comparisons of different products.

The effects of an oestrogen-free, desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive in women with cyclical symptoms: results from two studies on oestrogen-related symptoms and dysmenorrhoea

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of an oestrogen-free oral contraceptive (Cerazette; 75 mcg/day desogestrel) in women with oestrogen-related symptoms during previous combined oral contraceptive (COC) use (ERS study) and in women with dysmenorrhoea (DYS study).

METHODS

Two similarly designed prospective, non-comparative multicentre observational studies were carried out in Germany. Altogether, 403 women with oestrogen-related symptoms during previous COC use and 406 women with dysmenorrhoea took Cerazette continuously. Symptom-related assessments were made at baseline and after 3-4 months, along with bleeding pattern and treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

In the ERS study, the four oestrogen-related symptoms studied resolved or improved in over 70% of women. Nausea improved/resolved most (92% of women), followed by breast tenderness (90%), oestrogen-related headache (84%) and oedema (74%). In the DYS study, dysmenorrhoea resolved or considerably improved in 93% of the study population. Correspondingly, use of analgesics dropped from 70% of women at baseline to 8% at study end. Adverse events were reported by 7-8% of both study populations and were mainly bleeding irregularities. Most women in both studies were satisfied with treatment (approximately 90%) and wished to continue treatment after study completion (approximately 85%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cerazette in this study set-up improved oestrogen-related symptoms and dysmenorrhoea in women affected and treatment was well accepted.

Recent advances in hormonal contraception

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The rapid increase in the world population makes it mandatory to develop new contraceptive methods. Disseminating reversible inexpensive and practical hormonal methods to developing countries is a target of many international agencies and funds.

RECENT FINDINGS

The safety of combined oral contraceptives is the main issue. The main guideline is to find women at risk before prescribing combined oral contraceptives. Lowering the estrogen dose should be attempted. New progestins are emerging, but their safety can be assessed only retrospectively. There is an increasing trend to extend the cycles in order to have fewer bleeding days. Progestin-only contraception seems safer than estrogen-progestin combinations in relation to thromboembolic events. A new progestin-only pill and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system have a good acceptability and high continuation rate. New administration methods are being developed and the possible role of mifepristone has been investigated.

SUMMARY

There are more contraceptive choices available than ever before. To educate healthcare providers as to the methods available and to inform and educate consumers are cornerstones for successful contraception.

The quest for better contraception: future methods

With the highest rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in the developed world, the United States has plenty of room for improving the distribution of existing contraceptive options and an imperative for developing new methods. This article surveys new and future contraceptive methods. It does not contain a comprehensive list but focuses on methods that are close to Food and Drug Administration approval or fulfill special needs across the globe.

Reversible female contraception: current options and new developments

Uncontrolled fertility results in significant infant and maternal mortality and morbidity. Contraception has the potential to reduce this disease burden. Although a rich array of reversible contraceptive methods exists, the need for more effective and user-friendly methods remains. Access to methods and affordability are major barriers in many parts of the world. However, in other areas, successful utilization is limited by convenience factors or a lack of appreciation of fertility risk. To address these issues, new products that require little user effort have been developed. To encourage correct and consistent use of other methods, noncontraceptive benefits are being popularized and new protocols to initiate contraceptive use immediately are being introduced. This review briefly discusses existing contraceptive methods and new developments that are under investigation.

Ethinyl Estradiol, Not Progestogens, Reduces Lamotrigine Serum Concentrations

PURPOSE

To study the interaction between lamotrigine (LTG) and hormonal contraception.

METHODS

LTG serum concentrations of female patients using either no hormonal contraception (n=18), an ethinyl estradiol (EE)-containing (n=11), or a progestogen (PG)-only-containing compound (n=16) were analyzed. Patients were recruited prospectively, and blood samples were drawn during drug fasting and at steady-state conditions. Comedication with enzyme inducers, valproate, topiramate, or sertraline was not allowed. Some patients changed groups and thus served as their own controls. Samples were analyzed by a gas chromatography/ mass spectroscopy method. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical comparison of the groups.

RESULTS

The LTG serum concentration-to-dose ratio (CDR), expressed as (mg/L)/(mg/d) was significantly lower in women using EE than in the control group (mean+/-SD, 0.010+/-0.004 vs. 0.017+/-0.006; p=0.003). The CDR in women using PG was 0.02+/-0.007, which was not statistically different from controls. No difference was found in CDR between women using either oral, topical, or parenteral PG. Five women switched from the control to the EE group and experienced a considerable reduction in CDR. An increase of the CDR toward control level was seen in the two women who changed from EE to PG.

CONCLUSIONS

It is the EE component of oral contraceptives that interacts with LTG. The PG-only compounds did not alter LTG serum concentrations in this study. These findings should be considered when counselling women with epilepsy in the childbearing ages.