Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 3674178

Contraception: an overview.

Abstract

In this century, paramount progress has been made in many areas of medicine, not least in the field of contraception, with landmarks such as the introduction of intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs), hormonal contraceptives (OCs), and laparoscopic sterilization. The general optimism of the 1960s about overcoming the problems of global overpopulation with these new tools has subsequently been replaced by growing concern about the risks of contraception in general and of OCs especially. It was not before the 1980s that the benefit-risk balance of hormonal contraception turned out to be much more favorable than was formerly suspected. The wide variation from country to country in the prevalence of contraceptive methods has economic, political, religious, sociological, educational, and legal rather than medical reasons. Former misjudgments have led to a ban on valuable tools such as the sequential regimen or the use of 17-acetoxyprogestogen analogues as components in OCs, or to a ban on the licensing of depot progestogens in some countries but not in others. The recent decision of U.S. firms to cease production and sale of IUDs for legal reasons is unique and hopefully will not be imitated elsewhere. Just after the introduction of oral contraception, tremendous inventive dynamics led to the discovery of several new contraceptive principles. Most of these have reached the stage of clinical application and are being used satisfactorily, at least in some parts of the world. Later contraceptive concepts are still in the stage of experimentation and no breakthrough appears to be directly ahead. If contraception means more than just meeting individual wants--if it is also to be an instrument for handling the increasing problems of overpopulation--then much more must be done to deepen our knowledge of reproductive physiology, to popularize efficient means of contraception, and to make them available to everyone. Otherwise, all efforts to improve health standards throughout the world according to the "WHO Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000" will be in vain.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Hammerstein. 1987. Contraception: an overview.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(87)80126-6

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗