No-daily hormonal contraception today: general overview and application in specific clinical settings

References

• United Nations. World family planning 2020. United Nations, 2020. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/news/world-family-planning-2020-highlights.
   Google Scholar
• Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF, et al. Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(4): 1. PMID: 23633314; PMCID: PMC7154336.
   Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Fernandes A, Monteiro I, et al. Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARCs) methods. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;66:28–8. Epub 2019 Dec 20. PMID: 32014434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoro N, Teal S, Gavito C, et al. Use of a levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine system with supplemental estrogen improves symptoms in perimenopausal women: a pilot study. Menopause. 2015;22(12):1301–1307. PMID: 26575111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain J, Jakimiuk AJ, Bode FR, et al. Contraceptive efficacy and safety of DMPA-SC. Contraception. 2004;70(4):269–275. PMID: 15451329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83(5):397–404. Epub 2011 Mar 12. PMID: 21477680; PMCID: PMC3638209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iacovides S, Avidon I, Baker FC. What we know about primary dysmenorrhea today: a critical review. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(6):762–778. Epub 2015 Sep 7. PMID: 26346058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nappi RE, Sances G, Allais G, et al. Effects of an estrogen-free, desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive in women with migraine with aura: a prospective diary-based pilot study. Contraception. 2011;83(3):223–228. Epub 2010 Sep 20. PMID: 21310283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darney P. Safety and efficacy of a triphasic oral contraceptive containing desogestrel: results of three multicenter trials. Contraception. 1993;48(4):323–337. PMID: 8222660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice C, Killick S, Hickling D, et al. Ovarian activity and vaginal bleeding patterns with a desogestrel-only preparation at three different doses. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(4):737–740. PMID: 8671319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJ, Alnabawy AK, et al. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72(3):168–174. PMID: 16102549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumen FJ, Mishell DR.Jr. The contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®), a decade after its introduction. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2012;17(6):415–427. Epub 2012 Oct 31. PMID: 23113828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishell DR, Jr, Lumkin ME. Contraceptive effect of varying dosages of progestogen in silastic vaginal rings. Fertil Steril. 1970;21(2):99–103. PMID: 5414562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander NJ, Baker E, Kaptein M, et al. Why consider vaginal drug administration? Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):1–12. PMID: 15236978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieder DR, Pattimakiel L. Examining the efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing). Int J Womens Health. 2010;2:401–409. PMID: 21151688; PMCID: PMC2990910.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sabatini R, Cagiano R. Comparison profiles of cycle control, side effects and sexual satisfaction of three hormonal contraceptives. Contraception. 2006;74(3):220–223. Epub 2006 Jun 21. PMID: 16904415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilliam ML, Neustadt A, Kozloski M, et al. Adherence and acceptability of the contraceptive ring compared with the pill among students: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(3):503–510. PMID: 20177280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart FH, Brown BA, Raine TR, et al. Adolescent and young women’s experience with the vaginal ring and oral contraceptive pills. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2007;20(6):345–351. PMID: 18082856; PMCID: PMC3163239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson L, Merkatz R, Martinelli E, et al. The vaginal microbiota, bacterial biofilms and polymeric drug-releasing vaginal rings. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(5):751. PMID: 34069590; PMCID: PMC8161251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Seta F, Restaino S, De Santo D, et al. Effects of hormonal contraception on vaginal flora. Contraception. 2012;86(5):526–529. Epub 2012 Apr 20. PMID: 22520642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Seta F, Restaino S, Banco R, et al. Effects of estroprogestins containing natural estrogen on vaginal flora. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30(11):830–835. Epub 2014 Jul 4. PMID: 24993504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veres S, Miller L, Burington B. A comparison between the vaginal ring and oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):555–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cagnacci A. Hormonal contraception: venous and arterial disease. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22(3):191–199. Epub 2017 Mar 29. PMID: 28351175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duijkers I, Killick S, Bigrigg A, et al. A comparative study on the effects of a contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing and an oral contraceptive on carbohydrate metabolism and adrenal and thyroid function. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2004;9(3):131–140. PMID: 15697102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cagnacci A, Ferrari S, Tirelli A, et al. Route of administration of contraceptives containing desogestrel/etonorgestrel and insulin sensitivity: a prospective randomized study. Contraception. 2009;80(1):34–39. Epub 2009 Mar 17. PMID: 19501213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cagnacci A, Ferrari S, Tirelli A, et al. Insulin sensitivity and lipid metabolism with oral contraceptives containing chlormadinone acetate or desogestrel: a randomized trial. Contraception. 2009;79(2):111–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkind-Hirsch KE, Darensbourg C, Ogden B, et al. Contraceptive vaginal ring use for women has less adverse metabolic effects than an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2007;76(5):348–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Ortho Evra (norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol) Information. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/ortho-evra-norelgestrominethinyl-estradiol-information (accessed 05 Feb 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Abrams LS, Skee DM, Natarajan J, et al. 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. PMID: 11851637; PMCID: PMC1874289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urdl W, Apter D, Alperstein A, et al. Contraceptive efficacy, compliance and beyond: factors related to satisfaction with once-weekly transdermal compared with oral contraception. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121(2):202–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepper NK, Dragoman MV, Gaffield ME, et al. Nonoral combined hormonal contraceptives and thromboembolism: a systematic review. Contraception. 2017;95(2):130–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidegaard O, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, et al. Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10. BMJ. 2012;344:e2990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dore DD, Norman H, Loughlin J, et al. Extended case-control study results on thromboembolic outcomes among transdermal contraceptive users. Contraception. 2010;81(5):408–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FSRH Guideline Combined Hormonal Contraception, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Grimes DA. Forgettable contraception. Contraception. 2009;80(6):497–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillard PJ. Menstrual suppression with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in girls with developmental delay. J PediatrAdolesc Gynecol. 2012;25:308–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkham YA, Allen L, Kives S, et al. Trends in menstrual concerns and suppression in adolescents with developmental disabilities. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(3):407–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, et al. The contraceptive CHOICE project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):115.e1–115.e7. Auge1-7. Epub 2010 Jun 11. PMID: 20541171; PMCID: PMC2910826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The United States Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. (US MEC); Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/mmwr/mec/appendixk.html#personal.
   Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Hassan F, Lowin J, et al. Achieving cost-neutrality with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Contraception. 2015;91(1):49–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, et al. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):274–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology, Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Work Group. Practice bulletin no. 186: long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):e251–e269. PMID: 29064972.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. PMID: 26447268.
   Google Scholar
• Ortiz ME, Croxatto HB. Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: biological bases of their mechanism of action. Contraception. 2007;75(6 Suppl):S16–S30. Epub 2007 Mar 29. PMID: 17531610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Schellschmidt I, Apter D. A randomized, phase II study describing the efficacy, bleeding profile, and safety of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive systems and mirena. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(3):616–622. e1-3. Epub 2012 Jan 4. PMID: 22222193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lethaby A, Hussain M, Rishworth JR, et al. Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;6(6):CD002126. Update in: cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 12;6:CD002126. PMID: 25924648.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Magalhaes J, Ferreira-Filho ES, Soares-Junior JM, et al. Uterine volume, menstrual patterns, and contraceptive outcomes in users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: a cohort study with a five-year follow-up. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;276:56–62. Epub 2022 Jul 2. PMID: 35809459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chelmow D. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or medroxyprogesterone for heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1455–1456. PMID: 21099621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. The effect of age, parity and body mass index on the efficacy, safety, placement and user satisfaction associated with two Low-Dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: subgroup analyses of data from a phase III trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0135309. PMID: 26378938; PMCID: PMC4574776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anjos FCQS, Marcelino AC, Espejo-Arce X, et al. Pain and ease of insertion of three different intrauterine devices in Brazilian adolescents: a participant-blinded randomized trial. Contraception. 2023;122:109997. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36841463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merki-Feld GS, Skouby S, Serfaty D, et al. European society of contraception statement on contraception in obese women. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20(1):19–28. Epub 2014 Nov 7. PMID: 25380138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke AE. The state of hormonal contraception today: benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptives: progestin-only contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(4 Suppl):S14–S7. Epub 2011 Apr 29. PMID: 21961819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le J, Tsourounis C. Implanon: a critical review. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35(3):329–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, et al. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1646–1653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansour D, Korver T, Marintcheva-Petrova M, et al. The effects of implanon on menstrual bleeding patterns. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13(Suppl 1):13–28. Jun PMID: 18330814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez F, Brache V, Faundes A, et al. Ultrasonographic and endocrine evaluation of ovarian function among norplant implants users with regular menses. Contraception. 1996;54(5):275–279. PMID: 8934060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modesto W, Dal Ava N, Monteiro I, et al. Body composition and bone mineral density in users of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(6):1387–1391. Dec Epub 2015 Jun 19. PMID: 26088190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Jensen A, et al. Thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction with hormonal contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2257–2266. PMID: 22693997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medical Eligibility Criteria for Implants|Family Planning. Available from: https://www.fphandbook.org/medical-eligibilitycriteria-implants. (accessed on 8 November 2020)
   Google Scholar
• Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(3):1–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Valeria Bahamondes M, Shulman LP. Non-contraceptive benefits of hormonal and intrauterine reversible contraceptive methods. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(5):640–651. Epub 2015 Jun 1. PMID: 26037216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logsdon S, Richards J, Omar HA. Long-term evaluation of the use of the transdermal contraceptive patch in adolescents. ScientificWorldJournal. 2004;4:512–516.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carey AS, Chiappetta L, Tremont K, et al. The contraceptive vaginal ring: female adolescents’ knowledge, attitudes and plans for use. Contraception. 2007;76(6):444–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Adolescent Health Care Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. ObstetGynecol. 2012;120(04):983–988.
   Google Scholar
• Raidoo S, Pearlman Shapiro M, Kaneshiro B. Contraception in adolescents. Semin Reprod Med. 2022;40(01/02):089–097. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34500476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez LM, Bernholc A, Zeng Y, et al. Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(7):CD007373. PMID: 26222246; PMCID: PMC9580985
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guerin J, Engelmann A, Mattamana M, et al. Use of hormonal contraceptives in perimenopause: a systematic review. Pharmacotherapy. 2022;42(2):154–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballagh SA. Vaginal rings for menopausal symptom relief. Drugs Aging. 2004;21(12):757–766. PMID: 15382956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Chen M, et al. Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD008452.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zieman M, Guillebaud J, Weisberg E, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westhoff CL, Torgal AH, Mayeda ER, et al. Pharmacokinetics and ovarian suppression during use of a contraceptive vaginal ring in normal-weight and obese women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(1):39.e1–39.e6. Epub 2012 Apr 28. Erratum in: am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;208(4):326. PMID: 22727346; PMCID: PMC3403702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu H, Wade JA, Peipert JF, et al. Contraceptive failure rates of etonogestrel subdermal implants in overweight and obese women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(1):21–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente L, Mendonca D, Dingle M, et al. Etonogestrel implant in women with diabetes mellitus. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13(4):387–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanker JP. Gastrointestinal disease and oral contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;163(6 Pt 2):2204–2207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FSRH CEU Statement: Contraception for women with eating disorders. 15th June 2018 (updated 10th May 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Paulen ME, Zapata LB, Cansino C, et al. Contraceptive use among women with a history of bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Contraception. 2010;82(1):86–94. Epub 2010 Mar 29. PMID: 20682146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry-Bibee EN, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. The safety of intrauterine devices in breastfeeding women: a systematic review. Contraception. 2016;94(6):725–738. Epub 2016 Jul 13. PMID: 27421765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahteenmaki P, Luukkainen T. Return of ovarian function after abortion. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1978;8(2):123–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Long acting reversible contraception (update) (NICE Clinical Guideline 30), 2014. Available from: www.rcog.org.uk.
   Google Scholar
• Medical management of abortion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. PMID: 30702834.
   Google Scholar
• Fox MC, Oat-Judge J, Severson K, et al. Immediate placement of intrauterine devices after first and second trimester pregnancy termination. Contraception. 2011;83(1):34–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman S, Hendlish SK, Reeves MF, et al. Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008;78(2):143–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roe AH, Bartz D. Contraception after surgical and medical abortion: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2017;72(8):487–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sothornwit J, Eamudomkarn N, Lumbiganon P, et al. Immediate versus delayed postabortal insertion of contraceptive implant. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5(5):CD013565. PMID: 35583092; PMCID: PMC9115762.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar