Contraception for the older woman: an update

References

• Johnson A, Wadsworth J. Heterosexual practices. Sexual behaviour in Britain. The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, K Wellings, J Field, A Johnson. Penguin Books, London 1995; 133–177
   Google Scholar
• Oddens B J, Visser A Ph, Vemer H M, Everaerd W ThAM, Lehert P h. Contraceptive use and attitudes in Great Britain. Contraception 1994; 49: 73–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunson D B, Colombo B, Baird D D. Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1399–1403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics. Conceptions: ages of women at conception, and Conceptions: percentage terminated by abortion. 2005, http://www.statistics.gov.uk
   Google Scholar
• Andersen A MN, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population-based register linkage study. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1708–1712
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jolly M, Sebire N, Harris J, Robinson S, Regan L. The risks associated with pregnancy in women aged 35 years or older. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2433–2437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics. Congenital anomalies. 2005, http://www.statistics.gov.uk
   Google Scholar
• Why Mothers Die 1997–1999: The Confidential Enquires into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom, G Lewis, J Drife. RCOG Press, London 2001
   Google Scholar
• Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit. FFPRHC Guidance. Contraception for women aged over 40 years. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2005; 31: 51–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillebaud J. Contraception Today. Martin Dunitz, London 2004; 7–45, 65–6, 72–9, 86, 95–8, 108–10, 133–5
   Google Scholar
• Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit. FFPRHC Guidance. First prescription of combined oral contraception. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2003; 29: 209–223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. WHO, Geneva 2004
   Google Scholar
• Tanis B C, Van den Bosch M, Kemmeren J M, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1787–1793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nightingale A L, Lawrenson R A, Simpson E L, Williams T J, MacRae K D, Farmer R D. The effects of age, body mass index, smoking and general health on the risk of venous thromboembolism in users of combined oral contraceptives. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000; 5: 265–274
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Effect of different progestogens in low oestrogen containing oral contraceptives on venous thromboembolism. Lancet 1995; 346: 1575–1582
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jick H, Kaye J A, Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, Jick S S. Risk of venous thromboembolism among users of third generation oral contraceptives compared with users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel before and after 1995: cohort and case–control analysis. Br Med J 2000; 321: 1190–1195
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidegaard O, Edstrom B, Kreiner S. Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism: a five-year national case–control study. Contraception 2002; 65: 187–196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Safety of Medicines. Combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene and the risk of venous thromboembolism. Current problems. Pharmacovigilance 1999; 25: 1–2
   Google Scholar
• Bhathena R K. The 1995 Pill scare and its aftermath: lessons learnt. J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 18: 215–217
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• PRODIGY Guidance: Contraception. Department of Health, London 2001, www.prodigy.nhs.uk
   Google Scholar
• Rohan T E, Miller A B. A cohort study of oral contraceptive use and the risk of benign breast disease. Int J Cancer 1999; 82: 191–196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkman R T, Collins J A, Shulman L P, Williams J K. Current perspectives on oral contraceptive use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 4–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 1996; 347: 1713–1727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckey J. Combined oral contraception and cancer. Br J Fam Plann 2000; 26: 237–240
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beral V, Hermon D, Kay C, Hannaford P, Darby S, Reeves G. Mortality associated with oral contraceptive use: 25 year follow up of 46,000 women from the Royal College of General Practitioners' oral contraception study. Br Med J 1999; 318: 96–100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchbanks P A, McDonald J A, Wilson H G, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 2025–2032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiderpass E, Adami H, Baron J A, Magnusson C, Lindgren A, Persson I. Use of oral contraceptives and endometrial cancer risk (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control 1999; 10: 277–284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ness R B, Grisso J A, Klapper J, et al. Risk of ovarian cancer in relation to estrogen and progestogen dose and use characteristics of oral contraceptives. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152: 233–241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez E, Vecchia C L, Balducci A, Chatenoud L, Franceschi S, Negri E. Oral contraceptives and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 722–727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith J S, Green J, Berrington de Gonzalez A, et al. Cervical cancer and use of hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361: 1159–1163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno V, Bosch F X, Munoz N, et al. Effects of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer in women with human papilloma virus infection: the IARC multicentric case–control study. Lancet 2002; 399: 1085–1092
   Google Scholar
• Vessey M, Painter R, Mant J. Oral contraception and other factors in relation to hospital referral for menstrual problems without known underlying cause: findings in a large cohort study. Br J Fam Plann 1996; 22: 166–169
   Google Scholar
• Hendrix S L, Alexander N J. Primary dysmenorrhoea treatment with a desogestrel-containing low-dose oral contraceptive. Contraception 2002; 66: 393–399
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyer V, Farquhar C, Jepson R. Oral contraceptive pills for heavy menstrual bleeding (Cochrane Review). John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterUK 2003, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1
   Google Scholar
• Blumel J E, Castelo-Branco C, Binfa L, Aparicio R, Mamani L. A scheme of combined oral contraceptives for women more than 40 years old. Menopause 2001; 81: 286–289
   Google Scholar
• Petitti D B, Piaggio G, Mehta S, Cravioto M C, Meirik O. The WHO study of hormonal contraception and bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study in an international population. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 97: 736–744
   Google Scholar
• Kunhong W, Borgatta L, Stubblefield P. Low dose oral contraceptives and bone mineral density: an evidence base analysis. Contraception 2000; 61: 77–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanichsetakul P, Kamudhamas A, Watanaruangkovit P, Siripakarn Y, Visutakul P. Bone mineral density at various anatomic bone sites in women receiving combined oral contraceptives and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Contraception 2002; 65: 407–410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawe F, Rainford L. Contraception and Sexual Health, 2003. Office for National Statistics, London 2003; 1–54, http://www.statistics.gov.uk
   Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D. Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations. 1998, Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence, 2001. http://www.cebm.net/levels of evidence.asp
   Google Scholar
• Brooker C, Guillebaud J. Unanswered questions in contraceptive management: what do the experts do?. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30: 229–235
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebbie A. Contraception in the perimenopause. Br Menopause J 2003; 9: 123–128
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Audet M C, Moreau M, Koltun W D, et al. Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285: 2347–2354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zieman M, Guillebaud J, Weisberg E, Shangold G A, Fisher A C, Creasy G W. Contraceptive efficacy and cycle control with the Ortho Evra/Evra transdermal system: the analysis of pooled data. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: S13–S18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumen F JME, Apter D A, Mulders T MT, Dieben T OM. Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing etonogestrel and ethinyl oestradiol. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 469–475
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddsson K, Leifels-Fischer B, Wiel-Masson D, et al. Superior cycle control with a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg ethinylestradiol and 150 μg levonorgestrel: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 557–562
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Cardiovascular disease and use of oral and injectable progestogen-only contraceptives and combined injectable contraceptives. Results of an international, multicentre, case–control study. Contraception 1998; 57: 315–324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice C F, Killick S R, Dieben T, Coelingh Bennink H. A comparison of the inhibition of ovulation achieved by desogestrel 75 mcg and levonorgestrel 30 mcg daily. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 982–985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vessey M P, Lawless M, Yeates D, McPherson K. Progestogen-only oral contraception. Findings in a large prospective study with special reference to effectiveness. Br J Fam Plann 1985; 10: 117–121
   Google Scholar
• Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectivenes Unit. FFPRHC Guidance. The use of contraception outside the terms of the product licence. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2005; 31: 225–242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collaborative Study Group on the Desogestrel-containing Progestogen-only Pill. A double-blind study comparing the contraceptive efficacy, acceptability and safety of two progestogen-only pills containing desogestrel 75 μg/day or levonorgestrel 30 μg/day. Eur J Contracept Reproduct Health Care 1998; 3: 169–178
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Porter C, Rees M CP. Bleeding problems and progestogen-only contraception. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2002; 28: 178–181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Injectable Contraceptives: What Health Workers Need To Know. WHO, Geneva 1997
   Google Scholar
• Bhathena R K. The long-acting progestogen-only contraceptive injections: an update. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 108: 3–8
   Google Scholar
• Kaunitz A M. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate contraception and the risk of breast and gynaecological cancer. J Reprod Med 1996; 41: 419–427
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks E, Berrington A, Casabonne D. Overview of the relationship between use of progestogen-only contraceptives and bone mineral density. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 108: 1214–1221
   Google Scholar
• Cundy T, Cornish J, Evans M C, Roberts H, Reid I R. Recovery of bone density in women who stop using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Br Med J 1994; 308: 247–248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merki-Field G S, Neff M, Keller P J. A prospective study on the effects of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate on trabecular and cortical bone after attainment of peak bone mass. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 107: 863–869
   Google Scholar
• Gbolade B, Ellis S, Murby B, Randall S, Kirman R. Bone density in long-term users of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 790–794
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Committee on Safety of Medicines 2004, http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/monitorsafequalmed/safetymessages/Depo-Provera_letterhealthprofs_181104.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Skegg D, Noonan E, Paul C, Spears G, Meirik O, Thomas D. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and breast cancer. A pooled analysis of the WHO and New Zealand Studies. JAMA 1995; 273: 799–804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers C E. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and breast cancer. A review of current knowledge. Drug Safety 1996; 15: 212–218
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Hormonal contraception without estrogens. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 373–386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upadhyay U D, Adhikary I, Richey C. New contraceptive choices. Population Reports August, 2005; 7–11; 14–15, Series M, No.19, Baltimore
   Google Scholar
• Oloto E, Mascarenhas L. Subdermal contraceptive implants. Br J Fam Plann 2000; 26: 171–174
   Google Scholar
• Beerthuizen R, van Beek A, Massai R, Makarainen L, In't Hout J, Coelingh Bennink H. Bone mineral density during long-term use of the progestogen contraceptive implant Implanon compared to a non-hormonal method of contraception. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 118–122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Stern J. Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 mcg/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 70–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit. FFPRHC Guidance. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in contraception and reproductive health. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30: 99–109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French R, Van Vliet H, Cowan F, et al. Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; 3, CD001776
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Clinical Guideline 30. Long-acting reversible contraception. 2005, www.nice.org.uk
   Google Scholar
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Management of Menorrhagia in Secondary Care. RCOG Press, London 1999, National Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines
   Google Scholar
• Stewart A, Cummins C, Gold L, Jordan R, Phillips W. The effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in menorrhagia: a systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 108: 74–86
   Google Scholar
• French R, Guillebaud J. Mirena® – the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (20 μg/day). J Drug Evaluation 2003; 1: 43–69
   Google Scholar
• Hubacher D, Grimes D A. Non-contraceptive health benefits of intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2002; 57: 120–128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudoskoski T, Tapanainen J, Tomas E, et al. Intrauterine 10 μg and 20 μg levonorgestrel systems in postmenopausal women receiving oral oestrogen replacement therapy: clinical, endometrial and metabolic response. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 109: 136–144
   Google Scholar
• Gardner F J, Konje J C, Abrams K R, et al. Endometrial protection from tamoxifen-stimulated changes by a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 1711–1717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubuisson J B, The Mirena Study Group, Mugnier E. Accetability of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system after discontinuation of previous contraception: results of a French Clinical Study in women aged 35 to 45 years. Contraception 2002; 66: 121–128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Schacht E, Wildemeersch P. Contraception and treatment in the perimenopause with a novel ‘frameless’ intrauterine levonorgestrel-releasing drug delivery system: an extended pilot study. Contraception 2002; 66: 93–99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Population Fund/World Health Organisation/World Bank/Special Programme of Research. Long–term reversible contraception. Twelve years of experience with the TCu380A and TCu220C. Contraception 1997; 56: 341–352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit. FFRPHC Guidance. The copper intrauterine device as long-term contraception. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30: 29–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis J, Hampton N. IUDs: which device?. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2002; 28: 61–68
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use. WHO, Geneva 2005
   Google Scholar
• Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. UK Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use. 2002, http://www.ffprhc.org.uk
   Google Scholar
• Chi I. What have we learnt from recent IUD studies: a researcher's perspective. Contraception 1993; 48: 81–108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimes D. Intrauterine device and upper genital tract infection. Lancet 2000; 356: 1013–1019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien P A, Marfleet C. Frameless versus classical intrauterine device for contraception (Cochrane Review). John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterUK 2003, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4
   Google Scholar
• Progress in Reproductive Health Research No.59. WHO, Geneva 2002; 4–8
   Google Scholar
• Bounds W. Contraceptive efficacy of the diaphragm and cervical caps use in conjunction with a spermicide. A fresh look at the evidence. Br J Fam Plann 1994; 20: 84–87
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO/CONRAD Technical Consultation on Nonoxynol-9. WHO, Geneva 2001
   Google Scholar
• Webb A M. Emergency contraception. Br Med J 2003; 326: 775–776
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit. FFRPHC Guidance. Emergency contraception. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006; 32: 121–128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Ding J, , for the World Health Organization Research Group on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation, et al. Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a WHO multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 1803–1810
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Progress in Reproductive Health Research No.68. WHO, Geneva 2004; 6–7
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization Task Force on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Comparison of three single doses of mifepristone as emergency contraception in a randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 697–702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filshie G M. Sterilisation. Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 1999; 1: 26–32
   Google Scholar
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Male and Female Sterilisation. RCOG Press, London 2004; 1–18, Guideline Summary
   Google Scholar
• Peterson H B, Zhisen X, Hughes J M, Wilcox L S, Tylor L R, Trussell J. The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilisation: findings from the US Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 1161–1170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacs G T, Krins A J. Female sterilisations with Filshie clips: what is the risk failure? A retrospective survey of 30,000 applications. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2002; 28: 34–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerin J F, Carignan C S, Cher D. The safety and effectiveness of a hysteroscopic method for permanent birth control: results of the first Essure pbc clinical study. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 41: 364–370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puri M, Jain S. Profile of Indian women requesting reversal of sterilisation. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2001; 27: 46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brechin S, Gebbie A. Perimenopausal contraception. A faculty aid to continued professional development topic. Br J Fam Plann 2000; 25, (insert)
   Google Scholar
• Dawe F, Meltzer H. Contraception and Sexual Health 2002. Office for National Statistics, London 2003; 1–49, http://www.statistics.gov.uk
   Google Scholar
• Bhathena R K. Emergency contraception for women aged over 40 years. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2005; 31: 254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar