Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12428938

Spermicides 2002: an overview.

M M Lech
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The first-ever written prescription for a contraceptive (barrier method) tampon can be found in the Ebers Papyrus, a compendium of medical practices written in 1550 BC. Modern spermicides are produced in a variety of formulations, including gels, foams, creams, suppositories, pessaries, capsules, foaming tablets and films. Spermicides are relatively inexpensive and widely available over the counter. Most of the currently used spermicides contain the chemical agent (non-ionic detergent) nonoxynol-9. The spermicide 'as a commonly used method' has a very high failure rate (one pregnancy in every four women using this method of contraception for 1 year). Implementation of other, much more effective methods of contraception has made spermicides less and less popular, but recently their potential properties against HIV and STI pathogens (a cause of sexually transmitted diseases) have led to new attention for these products. These properties have been widely evaluated in clinical trials, but the final conclusion does not favor spermicides as the tool for the global fight against HIV/AIDS. There is an urgent need for the invention of a chemical product that, for dual protection, would be administered vaginally before sexual intercourse to kill HIV and other STI pathogens, and at the same time disable or kill sperm. The new era for barrier methods should begin from the development of novel microbicides.

Explore related subjects

ContraceptionFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMalePolandPregnancyPregnancy RatePrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk-TakingSensitivity and SpecificitySexual BehaviorSexually Transmitted DiseasesSpermatocidal AgentsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M M Lech. 2002. Spermicides 2002: an overview.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12428938/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Contraception↗