Nondaily, nonoral and noncoital reversible contraception: increasing options for women

References

• Facts in Brief: Contraceptive Use. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, National Center for Health Statistics and Contraceptive Technology (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am. J. Public Health 85(4), 494–503 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Speroff L, Westhoff C, Hagerty CG. Cost-effectiveness and contraceptive effectiveness of the transdermal contraceptive patch. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192(1), 1–9 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiou CF, Trussell J, Reyes E et al. Economic analysis of contraceptives for women. Contraception 68(1), 3–10 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman L. Compliance and contraception: sharing responsibility for improving outcomes. Female Patient Suppl., 16–20 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Grimes D. Transdermal contraceptive patch awaiting US approval. Contraception Rep. 12(4), 12–14 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD et al. Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 285(18), 2347–2354 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer DF, Cullins V, Creasy GW, Fisher AC. The impact of improved compliance with a weekly contraceptive transdermal system (Ortho Evra) on contraceptive efficacy. Contraception 69(3), 189–195 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 77(2 Suppl. 2), S13–S18 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smallwood GH, Meador ML, Lenihan JP, Shangold GA, Fisher AC, Creasy GW. Efficacy and safety of a transdermal contraceptive system. Obstet. Gynecol. 98(5 Pt 1), 799–805 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung A, Laguardia KD, Massarella J, Skee DM, Janssens L. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the contraceptive patch ORTHO EVRA and an OC (CILEST). Obstet. Gynecol. 107(4 Suppl.), S52 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJ, Alnabawy AK, Kaptein MC. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception 72(3), 168–174 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jick SS, Kaye JA, Russmann S, Jick H. Risk of nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using a contraceptive transdermal patch and oral contraceptives containing norgestimate and 35 microg of ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 73(3), 223–228 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart FH, Kaunitz AM, Laguardia KD, Karvois DL, Fisher AC, Friedman AJ. Extended use of transdermal norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol: a randomized trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 105(6), 1389–1396 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmer CJ, Mulders TM, Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol released from a combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 39(3), 233–242 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller L, Verhoeven CH, Hout J. Extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring: a randomized trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 106(3), 473–482 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulders TM, Dieben TO. Use of the novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing for ovulation inhibition. Fertil. Steril. 75(5), 865–870 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumen F. Contraceptive efficacy and tolerability with a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 7(Suppl. 2), 19–24; discussion 37–39 (2002).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddsson K, Leifels-Fischer B, Wiel-Masson D et al. Superior cycle control with a contraceptive vaginal ring compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 microg ethinylestradiol and 150 microg levonorgestrel: a randomized trial. Hum. Reprod. 20(2), 557–562 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieben TO, Roumen FJ, Apter D. Efficacy, cycle control, and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet. Gynecol. 100(3), 585–593 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjarnadottir RI, Tuppurainen M, Killick SR, Comparison of cycle control with a combined contraceptive vaginal ring and oral levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 186(3), 389–395 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haring T, Mulders TM, The combined contraceptive ring NuvaRing and spermicide co-medication. Contraception 67(4), 271–272 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven CH, van den Heuvel MW, Mulders TM, Dieben TO. The contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing, and antimycotic co-medication. Contraception 69(2), 129–132 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven CH and Dieben TO. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing, and tampon co-usage. Contraception 69(3), 197–199 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutinho EM, Carlos de Souza J. Conception control by monthly injections of medroxyprogesterone suspension and long-acting oestrogen. J. Reprod. Fertil. 15(2), 209–214 (1968).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aedo AR, Landgren BM, Johannisson E, Diczfalusy E. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic investigations with monthly injectable contraceptive preparations. Contraception 31(5), 453–469 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. Task force on long-acting systemic agents for fertility regulation. A multicentred Phase III comparative study of two hormonal contraceptive preparations given once-a-month by intramuscular injection: I. Contraceptive efficacy and side effects. Contraception 37(1), 1–20 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain J, Dutton C, Nicosia A, Wajszczuk C, Bode FR, Mishell DR. Pharmacokinetics, ovulation suppression and return to ovulation following a lower dose subcutaneous formulation of Depo-Provera. Contraception 70(1), 11–18 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain J, Jakimiuk AJ, Bode FR, Ross D, Kaunitz AM. Contraceptive efficacy and safety of DMPA-SC. Contraception 70(4), 269–275 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MK, Sowers M, Levy BT, Tenhundfeld P. Magnitude and variability of sequential estradiol and progesterone concentrations in women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Fertil. Steril. 75(5), 871–877 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaunitz, A.M. Long-acting injectable contraception with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 170(5 Pt 2), 1543–1549 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petta CA, Faundes A, Dunson TR et al. Timing of onset of contraceptive effectiveness in Depo-Provera users: Part I. Changes in cervical mucus. Fertil. Steril. 69(2), 252–257 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Abood M, de Castillo Z, Guerrero F, Espino M, Austin KL. Effect of Depo-Provera or Microgynon on the painful crises of sickle cell anemia patients. Contraception 56(5), 313–316 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelkman CL, Chow M, Heinbach RA, Rolls BJ. Short-term effects of a progestational contraceptive drug on food intake, resting energy expenditure, and body weight in young women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 73(1), 19–26 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MK, Dillon JS, Sowers M, Nichols S. Weight, fat mass, and central distribution of fat increase when women use depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Int. J. Obes. 29(10), 1252–1258 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cundy T, Evans M, Roberts H, Wattie D, Ames R, Reid IR. Bone density in women receiving depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Br. Med. J. 303(6793), 13–16 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Ichikawa LE, Barlow WE, Ott SM. Injectable hormone contraception and bone density: results from a prospective study. Epidemiology 13(5), 581–587 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orr-Walker BJ, Evans MC, Ames RW, Clearwater JM, Cundy T, Reid IR. The effect of past use of the injectable contraceptive depot medroxyprogesterone acetate on bone mineral density in normal post-menopausal women. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.) 49(5), 615–618 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakha F, Henderson C, Glasier A. The acceptability of self-administration of subcutaneous Depo-Provera. Contraception 72(1), 14–18 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain J. Evaluation of bone mineral density in women treated with DMPA-SC 104 or DMPA-IM 150. Presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 17 June 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Crosignani PG, Luciano A, Ray A, Bergqvist A. Subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate versus leuprolide acetate in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. Hum. Reprod. 21(1), 248–256 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenzl R, van Beek A, Schnabel P, Huber J. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon. Contraception 58(5), 283–288 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas L. Insertion and removal of Implanon. Contraception 58(6 Suppl.), S79–S83 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croxatto HB. Clinical profile of Implanon: a single-rod etonogestrel contraceptive implant. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 5(Suppl. 2), 21–28 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Croxatto HB, Makarainen L. The pharmacodynamics and efficacy of Implanon. An overview of the data. Contraception 58(6 Suppl.), S91–S97 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison-Woolrych M, Hill R. Unintended pregnancies with the etonogestrel implant (Implanon): a case series from postmarketing experience in Australia. Contraception 71(4), 306–308 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensouda-Grimaldi L, Jonville-Bera, AP, Beau-Salinas F, Llabres S, Autret-Leca E. Insertion problems, removal problems, and contraception failures with Implanon. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 33(12), 986–990 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zheng SR, Zheng HM, Qian SZ, Sang GW, Kaper RF. A randomized multicenter study comparing the efficacy and bleeding pattern of a single-rod (Implanon) and a six-capsule (Norplant) hormonal contraceptive implant. Contraception 60(1), 1–8 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Affandi B. An integrated analysis of vaginal bleeding patterns in clinical trials of Implanon. Contraception 58(6 Suppl.), S99–S107 (1998).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croxatto HB, Urbancsek J, Massai R, Coelingh Bennink H, van Beek A. A multicentre efficacy and safety study of the single contraceptive implant Implanon. Implanon Study Group. Hum. Reprod. 14(4), 976–981 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makarainen L, van Beek A, Tuomivaara L, Asplund B, Coelingh Bennink, H. Ovarian function during the use of a single contraceptive implant: Implanon compared with Norplant. Fertil. Steril. 69(4), 714–721 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funk S, Miller MM, Mishell DR Jr et al. Safety and efficacy of Implanon, a single-rod implantable contraceptive containing etonogestrel. Contraception 71(5), 319–326 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanwood NL, Garrett JM, Konrad TR. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet. Gynecol. 99(2), 275–280 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veldhuis HM, Vos AG, Lagro-Janssen AL, Complications of the intrauterine device in nulliparous and parous women. Eur. J. Gen. Pract. 10(3), 82–87 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2, CD001327 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez F, Brache V, Fernandez E et al. New insights on the mode of action of intrauterine contraceptive devices in women. Fertil. Steril. 49(5), 768–773 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, Reproductive Health and Research. Medical Eligibility Criteria For Contraceptive Use. Third Edition. World Health Organization (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Stern J, Coutinho E et al. Prolonged intrauterine contraception: a seven-year randomized study of the levonorgestrel 20 µg/day (LNg 20) and the Copper T380 Ag IUDS. Contraception 44(5), 473–480 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luukkainen T, Lahteenmaki P, Toivonen J. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Ann. Med. 22(2), 85–90 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Batar I, Rybo G. Return to fertility after removal of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and Nova-T. Contraception 46(6), 575–584 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagrani R, Bowen-Simpkins P, Barrington JW. Can the levonorgestrel intrauterine system replace surgical treatment for the management of menorrhagia? Brit. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 109(3), 345–347 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Petta CA, Ferriani RA, Abrao MS et al. Randomized clinical trial of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and a depot GnRH analogue for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain in women with endometriosis. Hum. Reprod. 20(7), 1993–1998 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubacher D, Grimes DA. Noncontraceptive health benefits of intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 57(2), 120–128 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Dhont M. Treatment of nonatypical and atypical endometrial hyperplasia with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 188(5), 1297–1298 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J. The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. US Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 336(11), 762–767 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar