Hormonal and natural contraceptives: a review on efficacy and risks of different methods for an informed choice.

The debate about contraception has become increasingly important as more and more people seek safe and effective contraception. More than 1 billion women of reproductive age worldwide need a method of family planning, and wellbeing, socio-economic status, culture, religion and more influence the reasons why a woman may ask for contraception. Different contraceptive methods exist, ranging from 'natural methods' (fertility awareness-based methods - FABMs) to barrier methods and hormonal contraceptives (HCs). Each method works on a different principle, with different effectiveness.FABMs and HCs are usually pitted against each other, although it's difficult to really compare them. FABMs are a valid alternative for women who cannot or do not want to use hormone therapy, although they may have a high failure rate if not used appropriately and require specific training. HCs are commonly used to address various clinical situations, although concerns about their possible side effects are still widespread. However, many data show that the appropriate use of HC has a low rate of adverse events, mainly related to personal predisposition.The aim of this review is to summarize the information on the efficacy and safety of FABMs and HCs to help clinicians and women choose the best contraceptive method for their needs.

[Natural Family Planning methods and Barrier: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]. / Méthodes de contraception naturelle et méthodes barrières. RPC contraception CNGOF.

OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice recommendations for the use of natural contraception and female and male barrier methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of English and French literatures related to the safety and effectiveness of natural contraceptive methods based on PubMed, Cochrane Library, practice recommendations issued by international scientific societies and guidelines provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as updates from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). RESULTS: Natural contraceptives methods include fertility awareness-based methods, lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) and withdrawal method. The prevalence is low (4.6% of users) and remains stable over the years. Identification of the fertile period can be symptom-based cervical mucus (Billings), two-day method, basal body temperature, symptom-thermal method or based on calendar calculation (Ogino-Knauss, standard day method). Pregnancy rate after one-year utilization varies from 0.4% to 5% in perfect use but 8% in common practice. Effectiveness increases with absence of vaginal sex and decreases when combined to barriers method inadequately implemented. Data is scarce on reliability and effectiveness of ovulation predictor kits readily available on internet. Lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) can be very effective (98%) provided three conditions are fulfilled: within 6 months after birth, amenorrhea is effective, and breastfeeding is exclusive or quasi exclusive (day/night). Withdrawal method is constraining and of limited effectiveness. Male and female condom, diaphragm, cervical cap and spermicides are mechanical and chemical barrier methods, preventing spermatozoids from passing through the cervix into the uterus and therefore preventing fecundation. Female and male condoms offer a double protection to avoid pregnancy and prevent STD's. They are effective provided strict conditions of use are fulfilled. Male condom is favored by teenagers (45.6% among 15 to 19 years old), sometimes in combination with contraceptive pill (16% of cases). Women on the pill decreases according to their age. Pregnancy rates within the first year of consistent and correct use of these methods vary between 5 to 26% and reach 20 to 32% in practical use. Diaphragm and cervical cap need to be used in combination with spermicides. Spermicides have limited effectiveness when used alone. CONCLUSION: In common practice, natural and barrier contraceptive methods are more constraining and less effective than modern contraceptive method. They can be an alternative at given time and/or in situations where the women or the couple accept the possibility of an unexpected pregnancy which might be terminated or not. Women/couples need to be properly informed on how to use such methods, on their disadvantages and possible failures in common practice. Reminders are to be given on emergency contraceptive methods (IUD, hormonal) after unprotected sex.

Contraceptive Use and the Risk of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Multi-Center Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the risk of ectopic pregnancy (EP) and the use of common contraceptives during the previous and current conception/menstrual cycle. METHODS: A multi-center case-control study was conducted in Shanghai. Women diagnosed with EP were recruited as the case group (n = 2,411). Women with intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) (n = 2,416) and non-pregnant women (n = 2,419) were matched as controls at a ratio of 1∶1. Information regarding the previous and current use of contraceptives was collected. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidential intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Previous use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) was associated with a slight risk of ectopic pregnancy (AOR1 = 1.87 [95% CI: 1.48-2.37]; AOR2 = 1.84 [1.49-2.27]), and the risk increased with the duration of previous use (P1 for trend <10-4, P2 for trend <10-4). The current use of most contraceptives reduced the risk of both unwanted IUP (condom: AOR = 0.04 [0.03-0.05]; withdrawal method: AOR = 0.10 [0.07-0.13]; calendar rhythm method: AOR = 0.54 [0.40-0.73]; oral contraceptive pills [OCPs]: AOR = 0.03 [0.02-0.08]; levonorgestrel emergency contraception [LNG-EC]: AOR = 0.22 [0.16-0.30]; IUDs: AOR = 0.01 [0.005-0.012]; tubal sterilization: AOR = 0.01 [0.001-0.022]) and unwanted EP (condom: AOR1 = 0.05 [0.04-0.06]; withdrawal method: AOR1 = 0.13 [0.09-0.19]; calendar rhythm method: AOR1 = 0.66 [0.48-0.91]; OCPs: AOR1 = 0.14 [0.07-0.26]; IUDs: AOR1 = 0.17 [0.13-0.22]; tubal sterilization: AOR1 = 0.04 [0.02-0.08]). However, when contraception failed and pregnancy occurred, current use of OCPs (AOR2 = 4.06 [1.64-10.07]), LNG-EC (AOR2 = 4.87 [3.88-6.10]), IUDs (AOR2 = 21.08 [13.44-33.07]), and tubal sterilization (AOR2 = 7.68 [1.69-34.80]) increased the risk of EP compared with the non-use of contraceptives. CONCLUSION: Current use of most contraceptives reduce the risk of both IUP and EP. However, if the contraceptive method fails, the proportions of EP may be higher than those of non-users. In the case of contraceptive failure in the current cycle, EP cases should be differentiated according to current use of OCPs, LNG-EC, IUDs, and tubal sterilization. In addition, attention should be paid to women with previous long-term use of IUDs.

Ageing gametes and embryonic death: a response to Bovens.

Luc Bovens, in his 2006 article, argues that it can be shown that the 'rhythm' method of birth control results in a larger number of embryonic deaths than the IUD, the morning after pill or the combination oral contraceptive pill, just so long as one accepts his three 'plausible' assumptions. In this brief response I will argue that Boven's third assumption is not plausible when one takes into account a basic knowledge of human reproductive biology. Thus, his argument, in both of its possible reconstructions, fails.

The rhythm method and embryonic death.

Some proponents of the pro-life movement argue against morning after pills, IUDs, and contraceptive pills on grounds of a concern for causing embryonic death. What has gone unnoticed, however, is that the pro-life line of argumentation can be extended to the rhythm method of contraception as well. Given certain plausible empirical assumptions, the rhythm method may well be responsible for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than some other contraceptive techniques.

Transvaginal contraception--avoid the bladder.

We report two cases of female contraceptive methods, resulting in urological presentation, with bladder foreign bodies. History, mode of diagnosis and surgical extraction technique differed in both patients. The first, where a thermometer was lost intravesically whilst measuring an internal temperature, presented immediately. A plain abdominal X-ray confirmed the position of the foreign body. Extraction was performed cystoscopically with the thermometer intact. A second patient, with recurrent urinary tract infections, was found to have an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) in her bladder on ultrasound. Attempts to remove it endoscopically failed, and an, open procedure was required to free the IUCD from the bladder sidewall.