Medical eligibility criteria for new contraceptive methods: combined hormonal patch, combined hormonal vaginal ring and the etonogestrel implant

References

1. • Wulf D.
   Sharing responsibility: women, society and abortion worldwide.
   The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York1999
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
2. • Zieman M.
   The introduction of a transdermal hormonal contraceptive (Ortho Evra/Evra).
   Fertil Steril. 2002; 77: S1-S2
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
3. • Trussell J.
   Contraceptive failure in the United States.
   Contraception. 2004; 70: 89-96
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
4. • Burkman R.T.
   The transdermal contraceptive patch: a new approach to hormonal contraception.
   Int J Fertil. 2002; 47: 69-76
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
5. • Anonymous
   First contraceptive patch offers once-a-week dosing. FDA approves Ortho Evra transdermal contraceptive.
   Contracept Technol Update. 2002; 23: 1-3
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
6. • Roumen F.J.M.E.
   • Boon M.E.
   • van Velzen D.
   • Dieben T.O.M.
   • Coelingh H.
   The cervico-vaginal epithelium during 20 cycles' use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring.
   Hum Reprod. 1996; 11: 2443-2448
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
7. • Croxatto H.B.
   Clinical profile of Implanon: a single-rod etonogestrel contraceptive implant.
   Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2000; 5: 21-28
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
8. • Coelingh Bennink H.
   Presentation of clinical data on Implanon��.
   Contraception. 1998; 58: 75S-77S
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
9. • Croxatto H.B.
   • Urbancsek J.
   • Massai R.
   • Coelingh Bennink H.
   • van Beek A.
   • and the Implanon�� Study Group
   A multicentre efficacy and safety study of the single contraceptive implant Implanon��.
   Hum Reprod. 1999; 14: 976-981
   View in Article

   • Google Scholar
10. • Huber J.
    Pharmacokinetics of Implanon��. An integrated analysis.
    Contraception. 1998; 58: 85S-90S
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
11. • Croxatto H.B.
    Mechanisms that explain the contraceptive action of progestin implants for women.
    Contraception. 2002; 65: 21-27
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
12. • Makarainen L.
    • van Beek A.
    • Tuomivaara L.
    • Asplund B.
    • Coelingh Bennink H.
    Ovarian function during the use of a single contraceptive implant: Implanon�� compared with Norplant��.
    Fertil Steril. 1998; 69: 714-721
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
13. • World Health Organization
    Improving access to quality care in family planning: medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use.
    3rd ed. WHO, Geneva2003
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
14. • Mohllajee A.P.
    • Curtis K.M.
    • Flannagan R.G.
    • Rinehart W.
    • Gaffield M.E.
    • Peterson H.B.
    Keeping up with the evidence: a new system for WHO's evidence-based family planning guidance.
    Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28: 483-490
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
15. • Oxman A.
    Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
    BMJ. 2004; 328: 1490-1494
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
16. • Rubinstein M.L.
    • Halpern-Felsher B.L.
    • Irwin C.E.
    An evaluation of the use of the transdermal contraceptive patch in adolescents.
    J Adolesc Health. 2004; 34: 395-401
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
17. • Logsdon S.
    • Richards J.
    • Omar H.A.
    Long-term evaluation of the use of the transdermal contraceptive patch in adolescents.
    Sci World J. 2004; 4: 512-516
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
18. • Audet M.-C.
    • Moreau M.
    • Koltun W.D.
    • et al.
    Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs. an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial.
    JAMA. 2001; 285: 2347-2354
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
19. • Smallwood G.H.
    • Meador M.L.
    • Lenihan J.P.
    • et al.
    Efficacy and safety of a transdermal contraceptive system.
    Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 799-805
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
20. • Helmerhorst F.M.
    • Cronje H.S.
    • Hedon B.
    • et al.
    Comparison of efficacy, cycle control, compliance and safety in users of a contraceptive patch vs. an oral contraceptive.
    in: XVI FIGO World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FC 2.30.06], Washington DC, USA, 3���8 September. 2000
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
21. • Dittrich R.
    • Paker L.
    • Rosen J.B.
    • et al.
    Transdermal contraception: evaluation of three transdermal norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol doses in a randomized, multicenter, dose���response study.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 15-20
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
22. • Pierson R.A.
    • Archer D.F.
    • Moreau M.
    • et al.
    Ortho Evra���/Evra��� versus oral contraceptives: follicular development and ovulation in normal cycles and after an intentional dosing error.
    Fertil Steril. 2003; 80: 34-42
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
23. • Abrams L.S.
    • Skee D.M.
    • Natarajan J.
    • Wong F.A.
    • Anderson G.D.
    Pharmacokinetics of a contraceptive patch (Evra���/Ortho Evra���) containing norelgestromin and ethinyl estradiol at four application sites.
    Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002; 53: 141-146
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
24. • Abrams L.S.
    • Skee D.M.
    • Natarajan J.
    • Wong F.A.
    • Lasseter K.C.
    Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of a contraceptive patch in healthy women participants.
    Contraception. 2001; 64: 287-294
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
25. • Abrams L.S.
    • Skee D.M.
    • Natarajan J.
    • et al.
    Pharmacokinetics of norelgestromin and ethinyl estradiol delivered by a contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra���/Evra���) under conditions of heat, humidity, and exercise.
    J Clin Pharmacol. 2001; 41: 1301-1309
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
26. • Dieben T.O.M.
    • Roumen R.J.M.E.
    • Apter D.
    Efficacy, cycle control, and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring.
    Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100: 585-593
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
27. • Oddsson K.
    • Leifels-Fischer B.
    • de Melo N.R.
    • et al.
    Efficacy and safety of a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with a combined oral contraceptive: a 1-year randomized trial.
    Contraception. 2005; 71: 176-182
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
28. • Bjarnadottir R.I.
    • Tuppurainen M.
    • Killick S.R.
    Comparison of cycle control with a combined contraceptive vaginal ring and oral levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 389-395
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
29. • Davies G.C.
    • Feng L.X.
    • Newton J.R.
    The effects of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring releasing ethinylestradiol and 3-ketodesogestrel on vaginal flora.
    Contraception. 1992; 45: 511-518
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
30. • Tuppurainen M.
    • Klimscheffskij R.
    • Venhola M.
    • Dieben T.O.M.
    The combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing��) and lipid metabolism: a comparative study.
    Contraception. 2004; 69: 389-394
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
31. • Magnusdottir E.M.
    • Bjarnadottir R.I.
    • Onundarson P.T.
    • et al.
    The combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing��) and hemostasis: a comparative study.
    Contraception. 2004; 69: 461-467
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
32. • Duijkers I.
    • Killick S.
    • Bigrigg A.
    • Dieben T.O.M.
    A comparative study on the effects of a contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing and an oral contraceptive on carbohydrate metabolism and adrenal and thyroid function.
    Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2004; 3: 131-140
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
33. • Timmer C.J.
    • Mulders T.M.T.
    Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol released from a combined contraceptive vaginal ring.
    Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000; 39: 233-242
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
34. • Beerthuizen R.
    • van Beek A.
    • Massai R.
    • in't Hout J.
    • Coelingh Bennink H.
    Bone mineral density during long term use of the progestogen contraceptive implant Implanon�� compared to a non-hormonal method of contraception.
    Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 118-122
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
35. • Reinprayoon D.
    • Taneepanichskul S.
    • Bunyavejchevin S.
    • et al.
    Effects of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant (Implanon��) on parameters of breastfeeding compared to those of an intrauterine device.
    Contraception. 2000; 62: 239-246
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
36. • Yisa S.B.
    • Okenwa A.A.
    • Husmeyer R.P.
    Treatment of pelvic endometriosis with etonogestrel subdermal implant (Implanon��).
    J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2005; 31: 67-70
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
37. • Biswas A.
    • Viegas O.A.C.
    • Coelingh Bennick H.J.T.
    • Korver T.
    • Ratman S.
    Effect of Implanon�� use on selected parameters of thyroid and adrenal function.
    Contraception. 2000; 62: 247-251
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
38. • Biswas A.
    • Viegas O.A.C.
    • Coelingh Bennick H.J.T.
    • Korver T.
    • Ratman S.
    Implanon�� contraceptive implants: effects on carbohydrate metabolism.
    Contraception. 2001; 63: 137-141
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
39. • Suherman S.
    • Affandi B.
    • Korver T.
    The effects of Implanon�� on lipid metabolism in comparison with Norplant��.
    Contraception. 1999; 60: 281-287
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
40. • Biswas A.
    • Biswas S.
    • Viegas O.A.C.
    Effect of etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implant (Implanon��) on liver function tests - a randomized comparative study with Norplant�� implants.
    Contraception. 2004; 70: 379-382
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
41. • Edwards J.E.
    • Moore A.
    Implanon. A review of clinical studies.
    Br J Fam Plann. 1999; 24: 3-16
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
42. • Smith A.
    • Reuter S.
    An assessment of the use of Implanon�� in three community services.
    J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2002; 28: 193-196
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
43. • Wenzl R.
    • van Beek A.
    • Schabel P.
    • Huber J.
    Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon��.
    Contraception. 1998; 58: 283-288
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar
44. • Zieman M.
    • Guillebaud J.
    • Weisberg E.
    • Shangold G.A.
    • Fisher A.C.
    • Creasy G.W.
    Contraceptive efficacy and cycle control with the Ortho Evra���/Evra��� transdermal system: the analysis of pooled data.
    Fertil Steril. 2002; 77: S13-S18
    View in Article

    • Google Scholar