Pediatric Drugs

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 25–45 | Cite as

Hormonal Contraception in Adolescents

Special Considerations
Therapy In Practice

Abstract

With the rates of unintended pregnancies in teenagers remaining high, it is crucial to present adolescents with all of the contraceptive options available to them. While barrier methods, for example, male condoms, are easily accessible and do not have adverse effects, their use must be consistent and correct with each act of intercourse. Hormonal contraception affords much better efficacy in preventing pregnancy when used with full compliance.

Oral contraceptives are a popular method of contraception among adolescents and offer many non-contraceptive benefits along with the prevention of pregnancy. They have very few significant adverse effects, which are outweighed by the significant morbidity associated with teenage pregnancies, and can be used by most adolescent females. However, their minor bothersome effects do contribute to the high discontinuation rates seen. In addition, many girls find it difficult to remember to take a pill every day, leading to higher failure rates in teenagers than in adult women. The advent of long-acting, progestogen (progestin)-only methods, such as injectables and implantables, has been generally accepted by adolescents and these methods have proven to be more efficacious by avoiding the need for daily compliance. However, progestogen-only methods cause irregular bleeding and amenorrhea, which is not acceptable to many teenagers. In addition, the most widely used implant was taken off the market a few years ago and newer forms are not yet widely accessible.

Other novel methods are currently available, including the transdermal patch and the vaginal ring. Both are combinations of estrogen and progestogen and have similar efficacy and adverse effect profiles to oral contraceptives. Their use may be associated with greater compliance by adolescents because they also do not require adherence to a daily regimen. However, there may be some drawbacks with these newer methods, for example, visibility of the patch and difficulty with insertion of the vaginal ring.

When regular contraceptive modalities fail, emergency contraception is available. Choices include combination oral contraceptives, progestogen-only pills, mifepristone, or placement of a copper-releasing intrauterine device. These methods can be very useful for preventing pregnancy in adolescents as long as adolescents are aware of their existence and have easy access to them.

References

  1. 1.
    Darroch JE, Singh S. Why is teenage pregnancy declining? The roles of abstinence, sexual activity and contraceptive use: occasional report. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufmann RB, Spitz AM, Strauss LT, et al. The decline in US teen pregnancy rates, 1990–1995. Pediatrics 1998; 102(5): 1141–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD. Births: preliminary data for 2002. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh S, Darroch JE. Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: levels and trends in developed countries. Farn Plann Perspect 2000; 32(1): 14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Farn Plann Perspect 1998; 30(1): 24–9, 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emans SJ, Grace E, Woods ER, et al. Adolescents’ compliance with the use of oral contraceptives. JAMA 1987; 257(24): 3377–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al., editors. Contraceptive technology. 17th rev. ed. New York: Ardent Media Inc., 1998Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darroch JE, Singh S, Frost JJ, et al. Differences in teenage pregnancy rates among five developed countries: the roles of sexual activity and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 2001; 33(6): 244–50, 281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence. Contraception and adolescents. Pediatrics 1999; 104(5): 1161–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greydanus DE, Patel DR, Rimsza ME. Contraception in the adolescent: an update. Pediatrics 2001; 107(3): 562–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stewart FH, Harper CC, Ellertson CE, et al. Clinical breast and pelvic examination requirements for hormonal contraception: current practice vs evidence. JAMA 2001; 285(17): 2232–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Armstrong KA, Stover MA. SMART START: an option for adolescents to delay the pelvic examination and blood work in family planning clinics. J Adolesc Health 1994; 15(5): 389–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gold MA. Prescribing and managing oral contraceptive pills and emergency contraception for adolescents. Pediatr Clin North Am 1999; 46(4): 695–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanis BC, Rosendaal FR. Venous and arterial thrombosis during oral contraceptive use: risks and risk factors. Semin Vasc Med 2003; 3(1): 69–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Speroff L, DeCherney A. The advisory board for the new progestins: evaluation of a new generation of oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81(6): 1034–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alan Guttmacher Institute. Facts in brief: contraceptive use. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2000Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenberg MJ, Burnhill MS, Waugh MS, et al. Compliance and oral contraceptives: a review. Contraception 1995; 52(3): 137–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Meehan TE. Use and misuse of oral contraceptives: risk indicators for poor pill taking and discontinuation. Contraception 1995; 51: 283–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poindexter A. The emerging use of the 20µg oral contraceptive. Fertil Steril 2001; 75(3): 457–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenberg MJ, Meyers A, Roy V. Efficacy, cycle control, and side effects of low-and lower-dose oral contraceptives: a randomized trial of 20µg and 35µg estrogen preparations. Contraception 1999; 60(6): 321–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Mircette™ Study Group. An open-label, multicenter, noncomparative safety and efficacy study of Mircette™, a low-dose estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179(1S): 2S–8SGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Killick SR, Fitzgerald C, Davis A. Ovarian activity in women taking an oral contraceptive containing 20µg ethinyl estradiol and 150µg desogestrel: effects of low estrogen doses during the hormone-free interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179(1S): 18S–24SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaunitz AM. Efficacy, cycle control, and safety of two triphasic oral contraceptives: Cyclessa™ (desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol) and Ortho-Novum® 7/7/7 (norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol): a randomized clinical trial. Contraception 2000; 61: 295–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hampton RM, Short M, Bieber E, et al. Comparison of a novel norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol oral contraceptive (Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo) with the oral contraceptive Loestrin Fe 1/20. Contraception 2001; 63: 289–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fuhrmann U, Krattenmacher R, Slater E, et al. The novel progestin drospirenone and its natural counterpart progesterone: biochemical profile and antiandrogenic potential. Contraception 1996; 54(4): 243–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oelkers W, Foidart JM, Dombrovicz N, et al. Effects of a new oral contraceptive containing an antimineralocorticoid progestagen, drospirenone, on the renin-aldosterone system, body weight, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and lipid metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995; 80(6): 1816–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parsey KS, Pong A. An open-label, multicenter study to evaluate Yasmin, a low-dose combination oral contraceptive containing drospirenone, a new progestagen. Contraception 2000; 61: 105–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berlex Laboratories. Yasmin [package insert]. Germany: Berlex Laboratories, 2001Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grimes DA. Suppression of menstruation with extended OC regimens. Contracept Rep 2002; 13(3): 8–11, 18Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaunitz AM. Menstruation: choosing whether … and when. Contraception 2000; 62: 277–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaunitz AM, Westhoff C, Coddington CC, et al. Regulating menstruation: impact on lifestyle and medical conditions. Female Patient 2002 Apr; Suppl.: 8–11Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    FDA. FDA approves new oral contraceptive. Rockville (MD): FDA Updates, 2003 Nov–DecGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anderson FD, Hait H, Seasonale-301 Study Group. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception 2003; 68: 89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barr Pharmaceuticals. Seasonale [prescribers information]. Panama (NY): Barr Pharmaceuticals, 2003Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosenberg MJ, Long SC. Oral contraceptives and cycle control: a critical review of the literature. Adv Contracept 1992; 1: 35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Polaneczky M. Oral contraceptives: part 2. Adolescent health update; 15 (1). Elks Grove Village (IL): American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosenberg M. Weight change with oral contraceptive use and during the menstrual cycle: results of daily measurements. Contraception 1998; 58(6): 345–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reubinoff BE, Grubstein A, Meirow D, et al. Effects of low-dose estrogen oral contraceptives on weight, body composition, and fat distribution in young women. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 516–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moore LL, Valuck R, McDougall C, et al. A comparative study of one-year weight gain among users of medroxyprogesterone acetate, levonorgestrel implants, and oral contraceptives. Contraception 1995; 52: 215–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carolei A, Marini C, DeMatteis G, et al. History of migraine and risk of cerebral ischaemia in young adults. Lancet 1996; 347(9014): 1503–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chang CL, Donaghy M, Poulter N. Migraine and stroke in young women: a case-control study. BMJ 1999; 318(7175): 13–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: results of international multicentre case-control study. Lancet 1995; 346: 1575–82Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jick H, Jick S, Gurewich V, et al. Risk of idiopathic cardiovascular death and nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components. Lancet 1995 Dec 16; 346: 1589–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bloemenkamp KWM, Rosendaal FR, Heimerhorst FM, et al. Enhancement by factor V Leiden mutation of risk of deep-vein thrombosis associated with oral contraceptives containing a third-generation progestagen. Lancet 1995 Dec 16; 346: 1593–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spitzer WO, Lewis MA, Heinemann LAJ, et al. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolic disorders: an international case-control study. BMJ 1996; 312: 83–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lidegaard O, Milsom I. Oral contraceptives and thrombotic diseases: impact of new epidemiological studies. Contraception 1996; 53: 135–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lewis MA, Heinemann LAJ, MacRae KD, et al. The increased risk of venous thromboembolism and the use of third generation progestagens: role of bias in observational research. Contraception 1996; 54: 5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Suissa S, Biais L, Spitzer WO, et al. First-time use of newer oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism. Contraception 1997; 56: 141–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Poulter NR. Risk of fatal pulmonary embolism with oral contraceptives. Lancet 2000; 355: 2088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Parkin L, Skegg DCG, Wilson M, et al. Oral contraceptives and fatal pulmonary embolism. Lancet 2000; 355: 2133–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lewis MA, Spitzer WO, Heinemann LAJ, et al. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of myocardial infarction: an international case-control study. BMJ 1996; 312: 88–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lewis MA, Heinemann LAJ, Spitzer WO, et al. The use of oral contraceptives and the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction in young women: results from the Transnational Study on Oral Contraceptives and the Health of Young Women. Contraception 1997; 56: 129–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    The Centers for Disease Control Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study. Long-term oral contraceptive use and the risk of breast cancer. JAMA 1983; 249(12): 1591–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    The Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Oral-contraceptive use and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1986; 315(7): 405–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    UK National Case-Control Group. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in young women. Lancet 1989; 1: 973–82Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tryggvadottir L, Tulinius H, Gudmundsdottir GB. Oral contraceptive use at a young age and the risk of breast cancer: an Icelandic, population-based cohort study of the effect of birth year. Br J Cancer 1997; 75(1): 139–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 1996; 347: 1713–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Narod SA, Dube M-P, Klijn J, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94(23): 1773–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 346(26): 2025–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Grimes DA. Large US study finds no link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer. The Contraception Report 2002; 13(3): 4–6Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brinton LA, Huggins GR, Lehman HF, et al. Long-term use of oral contraceptives and risk of invasive cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 1986; 38: 339–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Brinton LA, Reeves WC, Brenes MM, et al. Oral contraceptive use and risk of invasive cervical cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1990; 19: 4–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ursin G, Peters RK, Henderson BE, et al. Oral contraceptive use and adenocarcinoma of cervix. Lancet 1994; 344: 1390–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zondervan KT, Carpenter LM, Painter R, et al. Oral contraceptives and cervical cancer-further findings from the Oxford Family Planning Association Contraceptive Study. Br J Cancer 1996; 73: 1291–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Thomas DB, Ray RM, World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives. Oral contraceptives and invasive adenocarcinomas and adenosquamous carcinomas of the uterine cervix. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 144(3): 281–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lacey Jr JV, Brinton LA, Abbas FM, et al. Oral contraceptives as risk factors for cervical adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999; 8: 1079–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Moreno V, Bosch FX, Munoz N, et al. Effect of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer in women with human papillomavirus infection: the IARC multicentric case-control study. Lancet 2002; 359: 1085–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brinton LA. Oral contraceptives and cervical neoplasia. Contraception 1991; 43(6): 581–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Smith JS, Green J, Berrington de Gonzalez A, et al. Cervical cancer and use of hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361: 1159–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    ACOG Technical Bulletin. Hormonal contraception. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995; 48: 115–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Robinson JC, Plichta S, Weisman CS, et al. Dysmenorrhea and use of oral contraceptives in adolescent women attending a family planning clinic. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166(2): 578–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    The Centers for Disease Control Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study. Oral contraceptive use and the risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA 1983; 249(12): 1596–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    The Centers for Disease Control Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study. Oral contraceptive use and the risk of endometrial cancer. JAMA 1983; 249(12): 1600–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Baumann EE, Rosenfield RL. Polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescence. Endocrinologist 2002; 12(4): 333–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Burkman RT. The role of oral contraceptives in the treatment of hyperandrogenic disorders. Am J Med 1995; 98Suppl. 1A: 130S–6SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Redmond GP, Olson WH, Lippman JS, et al. Norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89(4): 615–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Moore J, Kennedy S, Prentice A. Modern combined oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2000; (2): CD001019Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Quint EH. Gynecological health care for adolescents with developmental disabilities. In: Simmons PS, Laufer MR, editors. Adolescent medicine: state of the art reviews. Philadelphia (PA): Hanley & Belfus Inc., 1999Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Quint EH, Elkins TE, Sorg CA, et al. The treatment of cyclical behavioral changes in women with menstrual disabilities. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 1999; 12: 139–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Creatsas G. Sexually transmitted diseases and oral contraceptive use during adolescence. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1997; 816: 404–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Cromer BA, Blair JM, Mahan JD, et al. A prospective comparison of bone density in adolescent girls receiving depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera), levonorgestrel (Norplant), or oral contraceptives. J Pediatr 1996; 129(5): 671–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Scholes D, Lacroix AZ, Ott SM, et al. Bone mineral density in women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93(2): 233–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lloyd T, Taylor DS, Lin HM, et al. Oral contraceptive use by teenage women does not affect peak bone mass: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril 2000; 74(4): 734–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lara-Torre E, Edwards CP, Perlman S, et al. Bone mineral density in adolescent females using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2004; 17(1): 17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Berenson AB, Radecki CM, Grady JJ, et al. A prospective, controlled study of the effects of hormonal contraception on bone mineral density. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98(4): 576–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Cobb KL, Kelsey JL, Sidney S, et al. Oral contraceptives and bone mineral density in white and black women in CARDIA. Osteoporos Int 2002; 13: 893–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Polatti F, Perotti F, Filippa N, et al. Bone mass and long-term monophasic oral contraceptive treatment in young women. Contraception 1995; 51: 221–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kuohung W, Borgatta L, Stubblefield P. Low-dose oral contraceptives and bone mineral density: an evidence-based analysis. Contraception 2000; 61: 77–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Cromer BA, Stager M, Bonny A, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptives and bone mineral density in a cohort of adolescent girls. J Adolesc Health 2004; 35(6): 434–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Gold MA, Bachrach LK. Contraceptive use in teens: a threat to bone health? J Adolesc Health 2004; 35(6): 427–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    World Health Organization. Improving access to quality care in family planning: medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO, 2000Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Svensson PJ, Dahlback B. Resistance to activated protein C as a basis for venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1994; 330(8): 517–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Vandenbroucke JP, Koster T, Briet E, et al. Increased risk of venous thrombosis in oral-contraceptive users who are carriers of factor V Leiden mutation. Lancet 1994 Nov 26; 344: 1453–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Speroff L. Oral contraceptives and arterial and venous thrombosis: a clinician’s formulation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179(1S): 25S–36SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Petersen KR, Skouby SO, Vedel P, et al. Hormonal contraception in women with IDDM: influence on glycometabolic control and lipoprotein metabolism. Diabetes Care 1995; 18(6): 800–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Jones KP, Wild RA. Contraception for patients with psychiatric or medical disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170 (5 Pt 2): 1575–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Weaver K, Glasier A. Interaction between broad-spectrum antibiotics and the combined oral contraceptive pill: a literature review. Contraception 1999; 59: 71–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Glasier A. Drug interactions and combination oral contraceptives. Dialogues Contracept 2000; 6(5): 1–4Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Helms SE, Bredle DL, Zajic J, et al. Oral contraceptive failure rates and oral antibiotics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 36(5): 705–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Polaneczky M. Oral contraceptives: part 1. Adolescent health update; 14 (3). Elks Grove Village (IL): American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Fugh-Berman A. Herb-drug interactions. Lancet 2000 Jan 8; 355: 134–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Gold MA, Coupey SM. Young women’s attitudes toward injectable and implantable contraceptives. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 1998; 11: 17–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kaunitz A. The role of hormonal contraceptives: long-acting injectable contraception with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170(5S): 1543–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Khoiny FE. Use of Depo-Provera in teens. J Pediatr Health Care 1996; 10(5): 195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Schwallie PC, Assenzo JR. Contraceptive use-efficacy study utilizing medroxyprogesterone acetate administered as an intramuscular injection once every 90 days. Fertil Steril 1973; 24(5): 331–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Polaneczky M, Liblanc M. Long-term depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) use in inner-city adolescents. J Adolesc Health 1998; 23(2): 81–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    O’Dell CM, Korke CM, Polaneczky M, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or oral contraception in postpartum adolescents. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91(4): 609–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Lim SW, Rieder J, Coupey SM, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate use in inner-city, minority adolescents: continuation rates and characteristics of long-term users. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999; 153(10): 1068–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Harel Z, Biro FM, Kollar LM. Depo-Provera in adolescents: effects of early second injection or prior oral contraception. J Adolesc Health 1995; 16(5): 379–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Schwallie PC, Assenzo JR. The effect of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate on pituitary and ovarian function, and the return of fertility following its discontinuation: a review. Contraception 1974; 10(2): 181–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Miller NH, Miller DJ, McCahan J. Weight changes in adolescents using Depo-Provera [abstract]. J Adolesc Health 1996; 18: 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Siqueira L, Swedler J, Gertner M. Experience with Depo-Provera in adolescents [abstract]. J Adolesc Health 1996; 18: 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Matson SC, Henderson KA, McGrath GJ. Physical findings and symptoms of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate use in adolescent females. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 1997; 10: 18–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Risser WL, Gefter LR, Barratt MS, et al. Weight change in adolescents who used hormonal contraception. J Adolesc Health 1999; 24(6): 433–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Pelkman CL, Chow M, Heinbach RA, et al. Short-term effects of a progestational contraceptive drug on food intake, resting energy expenditure, and body weight in young women. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 73: 19–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Mangan SA, Larsen PG, Hudson S. Overweight teens at increased risk for weight gain while using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2002; 15: 79–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Westhoff C. Depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (Depo-Provera®): a highly effective contraceptive option with proven long-term safety. Contraception 2003; 68: 75–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Cromer BA, Smith RD, Blair JM, et al. A prospective study of adolescents who choose among levonorgestrel implant (Norplant), medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera), or the combined oral contraceptive pill as contraception. Pediatrics 1994; 94(5): 687–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Westhoff C, Wieland D, Tiezzi L. Depression in users of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate. Contraception 1995; 51: 351–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Westhoff C, Truman C, Kalmuss D, et al. Depressive symptoms and Depo-Provera®. Contraception 1998; 57: 237–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Gupta N, O’Brien R, Jacobsen LJ, et al. Mood changes in adolescents using depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception: a prospective study. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2001; 14: 71–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Cundy T, Evans M, Roberts H, et al. Bone density in women receiving depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. BMJ 1991 Jul 6; 303: 13–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Cundy T, Cornish J, Evans MC, et al. Recovery of bone density in women who stop using medroxyprogesterone acetate. BMJ 1994 Jan 22; 308: 247–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Cundy T, Cornish J, Roberts H, et al. Spinal bone density in women using depot medroxyprogesterone contraception. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (4 Pt 1): 569–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Ichikawa LE, et al. Injectable hormone contraception and bone density: results from a prospective study. Epidemiology 2002; 13(5): 581–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Tharnprisan W, Taneepanichskul S. Bone mineral density in adolescent and young Thai girls receiving oral contraceptives compared with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate: a cross-sectional study in young Thai women. Contraception 2002; 66: 101–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Busen NH, Britt RB, Rianon N. Bone mineral density in a cohort of adolescent women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for one to two years. J Adolesc Health 2003; 32(4): 257–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Ichikawa LE, et al. The association between depot medroxyprogesterone acetate contraception and bone mineral density in adolescent women. Contraception 2004; 69: 99–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Cromer BA. Bone mineral density in adolescent and young adult women on injectable or oral contraception. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2003; 15: 353–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    de Abood M, de Castillo Z, Guerrero F, et al. Effect of Depo-Provera® or Microgynon® on the painful crises of sickle cell anemia patients. Contraception 1997; 56: 313–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Berenson AB, Wiemann CM. Patient satisfaction and side effects with levonorgestrel implant (Norplant) use in adolescents 18 years of age or younger. Pediatrics 1993; 92(2): 257–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Dinerman LM, Wilson MD, Duggan AK, et al. Outcomes of adolescents using levonorgestrel implants vs oral contraceptives or other contraceptive methods. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995; 149(9): 967–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Berenson AB, Wiemann CM, Rickert VI, et al. Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed Norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176(3): 586–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Polaneczky M, Slap G, Forke C, et al. The use of levonorgestrel implants (Norplant) for contraception in adolescent mothers. N Engl J Med 1994; 331(18): 1201–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    FDA. Important Norplant® system (levonorgestrel implants) update [letter to health care providers]. Philadelphia (PA): Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, 2000 Aug 10Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Croxatto HB. Progestin implants for female contraception. Contraception 2002; 65: 15–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Makarainen L, van Beek A, Tuomivaara L, et al. Ovarian function during the use of a single contraceptive implant: Implanon compared with Norplant. Fertil Steril 1998; 69(4): 714–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Abrams L, Skee D, Taliuri K, et al. Bioavailability of 17-deacetylnorgestimate (17D-NGM) and ethinyl estradiol (EE) from a contraceptive patch [abstract no. 961]. FASEB J 2000; 14: A1479Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Audet M-C, 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 2001 May 9; 285(18): 2347–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    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): S13–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Smallwood GH, Meador ML, Lenihan JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of a transdermal contraceptive system. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (5 Pt 1): 799–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Sibai BM, Odlind V, Meador ML, et al. A comparative and pooled analysis of the safety and tolerability of the contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra™/Evra™). Fertil Steril 2002; 77 (2 Suppl. 2): S19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Grow DR, Ahmed S. Update in contraception: new contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2000; 27(4): 901–16, vii–viiiPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Archer DF, Bigrigg A, Smallwood GH, et al. Assessment of compliance with a weekly contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra™/Evra™) among North American women. Fertil Steril 2002; 77 (2 Suppl. 2): S27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Abrams LS, Skee DM, Natarajan J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of a contraceptive patch (Evra™/Ortho Evra™) containing norelgestromin and ethinyl estradiol at four application sites. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 53(2): 141–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Mulders TMT, Dieben TOM, Coelingh Bennink HJT. Ovarian function with a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(10): 2594–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    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 2002; 186(3): 389–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Roumen FJME, Apter D, Mulders TMT, et al. Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing etonogestrel and ethinyl oestradiol. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(3): 469–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Mulders TMT, Dieben TOM. Use of the novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing for ovulation inhibition. Fertil Steril 2001; 75(5): 865–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Dieben TOM, Roumen FJME, Apter D. Efficacy, cycle control, and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100(3): 585–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Darney PD, Speroff L. New methods. Dialogues Contracept 2001; 7(3): 1–4, 8Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Yuzpe AA, Lancée WJ. Ethinylestradiol and dl-norgestrel as a postcoital contraceptive. Fertil Steril 1977; 28(9): 932–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Yuzpe AA, Smith RP, Rademaker AW. A multicenter clinical investigation employing ethinyl estradiol combined with dl-norgestrel as a postcoital contraceptive agent. Fertil Steril 1982; 37: 508–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Creinin M. A reassessment of efficacy of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(3): 496–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Trussell J, Rodriguez G, Ellertson C. New estimates of the effectiveness of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Contraception 1998; 57: 363–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Trussell J, Rodriguez G, Ellertson C. Updated estimates of the effectiveness of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Contraception 1999; 59: 147–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Van Santen MR, Haspels AA. A comparison of high-dose estrogens versus low-dose ethinylestradiol and norgestrel combination in postcoital interception: a study in 493 women. Fertil Steril 1985; 43(2): 206–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Lancet 1998 Aug 8; 352: 428–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, et al. Mifepristone (RU 486) compared with high-dose estrogen and progestagen for emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1992 Oct 8; 327(15): 1041–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Comparison of three single doses of mifepristone as emergency contraception: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Ding J, et al. Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a WHO multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 1803–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Ellertson C, Evans M, Ferden S, et al. Extending the time limit for starting the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception to 120 hours. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101(6): 1168–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Delbanco SF, Parker ML, McIntosh M, et al. Missed opportunities: teenagers and emergency contraception. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998; 152: 727–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Graham A, Green L, Glasier A. Teenagers’ knowledge of emergency contraception: questionnaire survey in south east Scotland. BMJ 1996; 312: 1567–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Kosunen E, Vikat A, Rimpela A, et al. Questionnaire study of use of emergency contraception among teenagers. BMJ 1999; 319: 91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Golden NH, Seigel WM, Fisher M, et al. Emergency contraception: pediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes, and opinions. Pediatrics 2001; 107(2): 287–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Glasier A, Baird D. The effects of self-administering emergency contraception. N Engl J Med 1998 Jul 2; 339(1): 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Raine T, Harper C, Leon K, et al. Emergency contraception: advance provision in a young, high-risk clinic population. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96(1): 1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Ellertson C, Ambardekar S, Hedley A, et al. Emergency contraception: randomized comparison of advance provision and information only. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98(4): 570–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Raymond EG, Chen P-L, Dalebout SM. ‘Actual use’ study of emergency contraceptive pills provided in a simulated over-the-counter manner. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102(1): 17–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Camp SL, Wilkerson DS, Raine TR. The benefits and risks of over-the-counter availability of levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Contraception 2003; 68: 309–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Gold MA, Wolford JE, Smith KA, et al. The effects of advance provision of emergency contraception on adolescent women’s sexual and contraceptive behaviors. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2004; 17: 87–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    FDA. FDA issues not approvable letter to Barr labs; outlines pathway for future approval. Rockville (MD): FDA News, 2004 May 7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Adolescent MedicineSchneider Children’s Hospital, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health SystemNew Hyde ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations