Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1950712

New developments in contraceptive technology.

K Singh·S S Ratnam
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The demand for fertility control is expected to increase in the next two to three decades as the number of couples in the reproductive age groups in developing countries alone is expected to grow to nearly 1 billion. The crucial issues in the future will therefore be aimed at optimizing the use of currently available methods and making them safe, effective and acceptable, with minor alterations in composition or delivery system. In addition, there should be new developments in contraceptive technology. In this paper, an update will be given of the work presently underway on improving existing methods of fertility control and also on the research being undertaken on possible new contraceptive methods. It is extremely difficult to predict with certainty the future direction of contraceptive technology. Workers and 'seers' in the field of contraceptive research predict no completely novel breakthrough in this century at least. Yet there is hope for some novel breakthrough in contraceptive technology from the work which is being done at present by independent researchers. Perhaps, these may bear fruit in the twenty-first century.

Explore related subjects

ContraceptionFamily Planning PolicyFemaleHumansMaleJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Singh, S S Ratnam. New developments in contraceptive technology.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01849404

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↗