Hormone replacement, Women's Health | July 7, 2014 | Author: The Super Pharmacist
There are a number of hormonal contraception methods available. People may taut one method as the best choice, but the optimal contraceptive method depends on a woman’s biology, health, and personal preferences. Hormonal contraception has been available in many countries for over 50 years, however over time new types of hormonal contraception are introduced to meet the needs of women and couples and to reduce cost.
The number of years women are sexually active is increasing because sexual life is starting earlier and menopause is occurring later. It is therefore important to have the need for effective, safe, and affordable contraceptive methods. Below are some of the most popular hormonal contraception methods available.
Combined oral contraception (COC), most commonly referred to as the birth control pill, was first introduced in the United States and Germany in 1961. COC is a combination of progestogen (progestin), and oestrogen (oestradiol). Specific formulations of COC are tweaked to reduce unwanted side effects such as changes in mood, libido, and bleeding patterns.
Perhaps the most serious risk associated with COC is increased likelihood of venous thrombeoembolism, or blood clots, which can be fatal.
Many other confounding factors, such as obesity, smoking, and lack of exercise can cause blood clots, but the increased likelihood of blood clots while taking birth control pills is the primary reason women discontinue this method of birth control.
Pharmaceutical companies therefore modify their formulations to increase women’s tolerance and reduce such unwanted risks.
One method that has been used to alter COC formulations is the reduction of oestrogen doses and replacing manufactured oestrogen with more natural forms of oestrogen. New progestogens have also been introduced to COCs. Modern forms of COC are associated with a high satisfaction rate among women users, and though about 1 in 5 women report unwanted side effects, these effects are generally mild and include headache, acne, breast pain, and weight gain. Modern forms of COC are also associated with less bleeding and improved hemoglobin and iron levels and is therefore also approved as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.
90% of women who try the vaginal ring report being satisfied with it, and studies claim that women continue their use of this method up to 60% of the time. Its efficacy is comparable to other effective, highly used methods of contraception, and few adverse side effects have been observed.
Blood pressure, hemoglobin levels, weight, and fertility do not appear significantly affected by the vaginal ring. Another advantage of more recent versions of the vaginal ring is excellent control of bleeding. One downside to the vaginal ring is that women appear to demonstrate more non-compliance with the ring than with the traditional COC or birth control pill method.
Subdermal implants, or implants that are placed under the skin are highly effective in preventing pregnancy.
There are a number of subdermal implants, and newer versions include improvements to increase the likelihood of correct insertion and simple removal.
The transdermal patch method of contraception has the advantage of being simple to use. Unlike COCs, which require daily pill consumption, the path needs only to be changed once a week. The added compliance associated with the patch may make it more effective.
The patch has been shown to detach less than 5% of the time, even after exposure to high temperatures or when worn during vigorous exercise. But has a higher failure rate in obese women and is associated with a higher risk for blood clots.
Intrauterine contraceptives are used much more frequently since the introduction of a particularly effective intrauterine contraceptive known as the LNG-releasing intrauterine system, or LNG-IUS. The LNG-IUS has few unwanted side effects and offers some non-contraceptive benefits.
Emergency contraception is available all over the world. This form of birth control usually involves oral consumption of hormones, but a copper intrauterine device can also be used as emergency contraception. An advantage of the copper device is that it offers continual contraceptive protection for up to 10 years.
The variety of methods available helps women customize their contraceptive use based on their personal tolerance of certain medications and their own health factors and preferences. Hormonal contraceptive methods also often offer non-contraceptive benefits.
Chang MC. Development of the oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;132(2):217–219.
Darroch JE, Singh S. Trends in contraceptive need and use in developing countries in 2003, 2008, and 2012: an analysis of national surveys. Lancet. 2013;38(9879):1756–1762.
Hugon-Rodin J, Chabbert-Buffet N, Bouchard P. The future of women’s contraception: stakes and modalities. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1205:230–239.
Zeun S, Uddin A, Zeiler B, Morrison D, Blode H. Pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing oestradiol valerate and dienogest. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2009;14(3):221–232.
Astedt B, Jeppsson S, Liedholm P, et al. Clinical trial of a new oral contraceptive pill containing the natural oestrogen 17 beta-oestradiol. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979;86(9):732–736.
Hoffmann H, Moore C, Kovacs L, et al. Alternatives of the replacement of ethinylestradiol by natural 17beta-estradiol in dienogest-containing oral contraceptives. Drugs Today (Barc) 1999;35(Suppl C):105–113.
Kivinen S, Saure A. Efficacy and tolerability of a combined oral contraceptive containing 17 beta-estradiol and desogestrel. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1996;1:183.
Huber J, Foidart JM, Wuttke W, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a monophasic oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and drospirenone. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2000;5(1):25–34.
Spona J, Feichtinger W, Kindermann C, et al. Modulation of ovarian function by an oral contraceptive containing 30 micrograms ethinylestradiol in combination with 2.00 mg dienogest. Contraception. 1997;56(3):185–191.
Bannemerschult R, Hanker JP, Wünsch C, Fox P, Albring M, Brill K. A multicenter, uncontrolled clinical investigation of the contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, and safety of a new low dose oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinyl estradiol and 100 micrograms levonorgestrel over six treatment cycles. Contraception. 1997;56(5):285–290.
Endrikat J, Jaques MA, Mayerhofer M, Pelissier C, Müller U, Düsterberg B. A twelve-month comparative clinical investigation of two low-dose oral contraceptives containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol/75 micrograms gestodene and 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol/150 micrograms desogestrel, with respect to efficacy, cycle control and tolerance. Contraception. 1995;52(4):229–235.
Jensen J, Machlitt A, Mellinger U, Schaefers M, Fraser IS. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of oral estradiol valerate/dienogest for the treatment of heavy and/or prolonged menstrual bleeding. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3):S32.
Ahrendt HJ, Makalová D, Parke S, Mellinger U, Mansour D. Bleeding pattern and cycle control with an estradiol-based oral contraceptive: a seven-cycle, randomized comparative trial of estradiol valerate/dienogest and ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel. Contraception. 2009;80(5):436–444.
Fraser IS, Zeun S, Machlitt A, Mellinger U. A novel oral contraceptive comprising estradiol valerate/dienogest for the treatment of heavy and/or prolonged menstrual bleeding without organic cause: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;107(Suppl 2):S183–S184.
Luukkainen T. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Ann Med. 1990;22(2):85–90.
Luukkainen T. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system: therapeutic aspects. Steroids. 2000;65(10–11):699–702
Odlind V. Long-term experience of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1996;1(4):319–323.
Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007.
Barreiros FA, Guazzelli CA, Barbosa R, de Assis F, de Araújo FF. Extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring: evaluation of clinical aspects. Contraception. 2010;81(3):223–225.
Sitruk-Ware R, Merkatz R, Sussman H, Variano B. A one year contraceptive vaginal ring delivering Nestorone and ethinyl-estradiol; Program and abstracts of the 11th Congress of the European Society of Contraception and Reproductive Health; May 19–22, 2010; The Hague, The Netherlands. Abstract SS4–2.
Merkatz R, Sussman H, Sivin I, et al. Preliminary results from a phase III study of the Nestorone/ethinyl estradiol contraceptive vaginal ring: a new, long acting (one year) user controlled contraceptive method; Program and abstracts of the 11th Congress of the European Society of Contraception and Reproductive Health; May 19–22, 2010; The Hague, The Netherlands. Abstract FC–01.
Johansson ED, Sitruk-Ware R. New delivery systems in contraception: vaginal rings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(Suppl 4):S54–S59.
Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Stockton LL, Schulz KF. Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD003552.
Meirik O, Fraser IS, d’Arcangues C, WHO Consultation on Implantable Contraceptives for Women Implantable contraceptives for women. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(1):49–59.
Mansour D, Bahamondes L, Critchley H, Darney P, Fraser IS. The management of unacceptable bleeding patterns in etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant users. Contraception. 2011;83(3):202–210.
Trussell J, Rodríguez G, Ellertson C. New estimates of the effectiveness of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Contraception. 1998;57(6):363–369.
Wu S, Godfrey EM, Wojdyla D, et al. Copper T380A intrauterine device for emergency contraception: a prospective, multicentre, cohort clinical trial. BJOG. 2010;117(10):1205–1210.
Abrams LS, Skee DM, Natarajan J, Wong FA, Anderson GD. Pharmacokinetics of a contraceptive patch (Evra/Ortho Evra) containing norelgestromin and ethinyloestradiol at four application sites. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53(2):141–146.
Abrams LS, Skee DM, Natarajan J, Wong FA, Lasseter KC. Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of a contraceptive patch in healthy women participants. Contraception. 2001;64(5):287–294.
Abrams LS, Skee DM, Natarajan J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of norelgestromin and ethinyl estradiol delivered by a contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra/Evra) under conditions of heat, humidity, and exercise. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;41(12):1301–1309.
Sicat BL. Ortho Evra, a new contraceptive patch. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23(4):472–480.
Zieman M, Guillebaud J, Weisberg E, Shangold GA, Fisher AC, Creasy GW. Contraceptive efficacy and cycle control with the Ortho Evra/Evra transdermal system: the analysis of pooled data. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2 Suppl 2):S13–S18.
Jick SS, Hagberg KW, Kaye JA. ORTHO EVRA and venous thromboembolism: an update. Contraception. 2010;81(5):452–453.