Search

Background: Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives may be related to metabolic changes in obesity or to greater body mass or body fat. Hormonal contraceptives include oral contraceptives (OCs), injectables, implants, hormonal intrauterine contraception (IUC), the transdermal patch, and the vaginal ring. Given the prevalence of overweight and obesity, the public health impact of any effect on contraceptive efficacy could be substantial., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives in preventing pregnancy among women who are overweight or obese versus women with a lower body mass index (BMI) or weight., Search Methods: Until 4 August 2016, we searched for studies in PubMed (MEDLINE), CENTRAL, POPLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find additional published or unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: All study designs were eligible. The study could have examined any type of hormonal contraceptive. Reports had to contain information on the specific contraceptive methods used. The primary outcome was pregnancy. Overweight or obese women must have been identified by an analysis cutoff for weight or BMI (kg/m(2))., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted the data. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. The main comparisons were between overweight or obese women and women of lower weight or BMI. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Where available, we included life-table rates. We also used unadjusted pregnancy rates, relative risk (RR), or rate ratio when those were the only results provided. For dichotomous variables, we computed an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI)., Main Results: With 8 studies added in this update, 17 met our inclusion criteria and had a total of 63,813 women. We focus here on 12 studies that provided high, moderate, or low quality evidence. Most did not show a higher pregnancy risk among overweight or obese women. Of five COC studies, two found BMI to be associated with pregnancy but in different directions. With an OC containing norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol (EE), pregnancy risk was higher for overweight women, i.e. with BMI ≥ 25 versus those with BMI < 25 (reported relative risk 2.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.13). In contrast, a trial using an OC with levonorgestrel and EE reported a Pearl Index of 0 for obese women (BMI ≥ 30) versus 5.59 for nonobese women (BMI < 30). The same trial tested a transdermal patch containing levonorgestrel and EE. Within the patch group, obese women in the "treatment-compliant" subgroup had a higher reported Pearl Index than nonobese women (4.63 versus 2.15). Of five implant studies, two that examined the six-capsule levonorgestrel implant showed differences in pregnancy by weight. One study showed higher weight was associated with higher pregnancy rate in years 6 and 7 combined (reported P < 0.05). In the other, pregnancy rates differed in year 5 among the lower weight groups only (reported P < 0.01) and did not involve women weighing 70 kg or more.Analysis of data from other contraceptive methods indicated no association of pregnancy with overweight or obesity. These included depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (subcutaneous), levonorgestrel IUC, the two-rod levonorgestrel implant, and the etonogestrel implant., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence generally did not indicate an association between higher BMI or weight and effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. However, we found few studies for most contraceptive methods. Studies using BMI, rather than weight alone, can provide information about whether body composition is related to contraceptive effectiveness. The contraceptive methods examined here are among the most effective when used according to the recommended regimen.We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low for the objectives of this review. More recent reports provided evidence of varying quality, while the quality was generally low for older studies. For many trials the quality would be higher for their original purpose rather than the non-randomized comparisons here. Investigators should consider adjusting for potential confounding related to BMI or contraceptive effectiveness. Newer studies included a greater proportion of overweight or obese women, which helps in examining effectiveness and side effects of hormonal contraceptives within those groups.

Background: Contraception services can help meet the family planning goals of women living with HIV as well as prevent mother-to-child transmission. Due to antiretroviral therapy, survival has improved for people living with HIV, and more HIV-positive women may desire to have a child or another child. Behavioral interventions, involving counseling or education, can help women choose and use an appropriate contraceptive method., Objectives: We systematically reviewed studies of behavioral interventions for HIV-positive women intended to inform contraceptive choice, encourage contraceptive use, or promote adherence to a contraceptive regimen., Search Methods: Until 2 August 2016, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. For the initial review, we examined reference lists and unpublished project reports, and we contacted investigators in the field., Selection Criteria: Studies evaluated a behavioral intervention for improving contraceptive use for family planning (FP). The comparison could have been another behavioral intervention, usual care, or no intervention. We also considered studies that compared HIV-positive versus HIV-negative women. We included non-randomized studies as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Primary outcomes were pregnancy and contraception use, e.g. uptake of a new method or improved use or continuation of current method. Secondary outcomes were knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness and attitude about contraception or a specific contraceptive method., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted the data. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. We evaluated RCTs according to recommended principles. For non-randomized studies, we examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Given the need to control for confounding factors in non-randomized studies, we used adjusted estimates from the models when available. Where we did not have adjusted analyses, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to varied study designs and interventions, we did not conduct meta-analysis., Main Results: With three new reports, 10 studies from seven African countries met our eligibility criteria. Eight non-randomized studies included 8980 participants. Two cluster RCTs had 7136 participants across 36 sites. Three studies compared a special FP intervention versus usual care, three examined FP services integrated with HIV services, and four compared outcomes for HIV-positive and HIV-negative women.In four studies with high or moderate quality evidence, the special intervention was associated with contraceptive use or pregnancy. A study from Nigeria compared enhanced versus basic FP services. All sites had integrated FP and HIV services. Women with enhanced services were more likely to use a modern contraceptive method versus women with basic services (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.72). A cluster RCT conducted in Kenya compared integrated FP and HIV services versus standard referral to a separate FP clinic. Women with integrated services were more likely to use more effective contraception (adjusted OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.63). Another cluster RCT compared an HIV prevention and FP intervention versus usual care in Kenya, Namibia, and Tanzania. Women at the special intervention sites in Tanzania were more likely to use highly effective contraception (adjusted OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.10). They were less likely to report unprotected sex (no condom use) at last intercourse (adjusted OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40). Across the three countries, women at the special intervention sites were less likely to report any unprotected sex in the past two weeks (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99). A study in Côte d'Ivoire integrated HIV and FP services. HIV-positive women had a lower incidence of undesired pregnancy, but not overall pregnancy, compared with HIV-negative women (1.07 versus 2.38; reported P = 0.023)., Authors' Conclusions: The studies since 2009 focused on using modern or more effective methods of contraception. In those later reports, training on FP methods and counseling was more common, which may strengthen the intervention and improve the ability to meet clients' needs. The quality of evidence was moderate from the more recent studies and low for those from the 1990s.Comparative research involving contraceptive counseling for HIV-positive women is limited. The FP field needs better ways to help women choose an appropriate contraceptive and continue using that method. Improved counseling methods are especially needed for limited resource settings, such as clinics focusing on people living with HIV.

Background: Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established., Objectives: The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight., Search Methods: In November 2013, we searched the computerized databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). For the initial review, we also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search., Selection Criteria: All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length., Data Collection and Analysis: All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan. A second author verified the data entered. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements using a fixed-effect model. For categorical data, such as the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated., Main Results: We found 49 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The trials included 85 weight change comparisons for 52 distinct contraceptive pairs (or placebos). The four trials with a placebo or no intervention group did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight change. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight change did not differ between groups where this was studied., Authors' Conclusions: Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

Background: Worldwide, hormonal contraceptives are among the most popular reversible contraceptives. Despite their high theoretical effectiveness, typical use results in much lower effectiveness. In large part, this disparity reflects difficulties in adherence to the contraceptive regimen and low rates for long-term continuation., Objectives: The intent was to determine the effectiveness of ancillary counseling techniques to improve adherence to, and continuation of, hormonal methods of contraception., Search Methods: Through August 2013, we searched computerized databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing client-provider interventions with standard family planning counseling. Sources included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Earlier searches also included LILACS, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts, African Index Medicus, and IMEMR., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs of an intensive counseling technique or other client-provider intervention compared to routine family planning counseling. Interventions included group motivation; structured, peer, or multi-component counseling; and intensive reminders of appointments or next dosing. Outcome measures were discontinuation, reasons for discontinuation, number of missed pills or on-time injections, and pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: One author evaluated the titles and abstracts from the searches to determine eligibility. Two authors extracted data from the included studies. We calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) was computed; RevMan uses the inverse variance approach. For all analyses, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also computed. Since the studies identified differed in both interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct a meta-analysis., Main Results: Nine RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Five involved direct counseling; of those, two also provided multiple contacts by telephone. Four other trials provided intensive reminders, two of which also provided health education information. Three trials showed some benefit of the experimental intervention. In a counseling intervention, women who received repeated structured information about the injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) were less likely to discontinue the method by 12 months (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.44) than women who had routine counseling. The intervention group was also less likely to discontinue due to menstrual disturbances (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.37). Another trial showed a group with special counseling plus phone calls was more likely than the special-counseling group to report consistent use of oral contraceptives (OC) at 3 months (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.87), though not at 12 months. The group with only special counseling did not differ significantly from those with standard care for any outcome. The third trial compared daily text-message reminders about OCs plus health information versus standard care. Women in the text-message group were more likely than the standard-care group to continue OC use by six months (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.10). The text-message group was also more likely to avoid an interruption in OC use longer than seven days (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.07)., Authors' Conclusions: Only three trials showed some benefit of strategies to improve adherence and continuation. However, several had small sample sizes and six had high losses to follow up. The overall quality of evidence was considered moderate. The intervention type and intensity varied greatly across the studies. A combination of intensive counseling and multiple contacts and reminders may be needed to improve adherence and acceptability of contraceptive use. High-quality RCTs with adequate power and well-designed interventions could help identify ways to improve adherence to, and continuation of, hormonal contraceptive methods.

Background: The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a transdermal contraceptive patch or a contraceptive vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The transdermal patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance., Objectives: To compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, compliance (adherence), and safety of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs)., Search Methods: Through February 2013, we searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP for trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring. Earlier searches also included EMBASE. For the initial review, we contacted known researchers and manufacturers to identify other trials., Selection Criteria: We considered randomized controlled trials comparing a transdermal contraceptive patch or a contraceptive vaginal ring with a COC., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference was computed. We also assessed the quality of evidence for this review., Main Results: We found 18 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Of six patch studies, five examined the marketed patch containing norelgestromin plus ethinyl estradiol (EE); one studied a patch in development that contains levonorgestrel (LNG) plus EE. Of 12 vaginal ring trials, 11 examined the same marketing ring containing etonogestrel plus EE; one studied a ring being developed that contains nesterone plus EE.Contraceptive effectiveness was not significantly different for the patch or ring versus the comparison COC. Compliance data were limited. Patch users showed better compliance than COC users in three trials. For the norelgestromin plus EE patch, ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24). In the levonorgestrel plus EE patch report, patch users were less likely to have missed days of therapy (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.51). Of four vaginal ring trials, one found ring users had more noncompliance (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.87 to 8.52), while another showed more compliance with the regimen (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.68).More patch users discontinued early than COC users. ORs from two meta-analyses were 1.59 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.00) and 1.56 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.06) and another trial showed OR 2.57 (95% CI 0.99 to 6.64). Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events than COC users. Users of the norelgestromin-containing patch reported more breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. In the levonorgestrel-containing patch trial, patch users reported less vomiting, headaches, and fatigue.Of 11 ring trials with discontinuation data, two showed the ring group discontinued less than the COC group: OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.66) and OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88). Ring users were less likely to discontinue due to adverse events in one study (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70). Compared to the COC users, ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea but less vaginal dryness. Ring users also reported less nausea, acne, irritability, depression, and emotional lability than COC users.For cycle control, only one trial study showed a significant difference. Women in the patch group were less likely to have breakthrough bleeding and spotting. Seven ring studies had bleeding data; four trials showed the ring group generally had better cycle control than the COC group., Authors' Conclusions: Effectiveness was not significantly different for the methods compared. Pregnancy data were available from half of the patch trials but two-thirds of ring trials. The patch could lead to more discontinuation than the COC. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group. Compliance data came from half of the patch studies and one-third of the ring trials. Patch users had more side effects than the COC group. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge.The quality of the evidence for this review was considered low for the patch and moderate for the ring. The main reasons for downgrading were lack of information on the randomization sequence generation or allocation concealment, the outcome assessment methods, high losses to follow up, and exclusions after randomization.

Background: Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives may be related to metabolic changes in obesity or greater body mass or body fat. Hormonal contraceptives mainly include oral contraceptives, injectables and implants, the transdermal patch, and the vaginal ring. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives among overweight and obese women., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives in preventing unplanned pregnancies among women who are overweight or obese versus women of lower weight or body mass index (BMI)., Search Methods: Through January 2013, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The previous search also included EMBASE. We contacted investigators to identify other trials., Selection Criteria: All study designs were eligible. Any type of hormonal contraceptive could have been examined. Reports had to contain information on the specific contraceptive method(s). The primary outcome was pregnancy. Overweight or obese women must have been identified by an analysis cutoff for weight or BMI (kg/m(2))., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted by two authors. Life-table rates were included where available. For dichotomous variables, we computed an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). We used reported pregnancy rates or relative risk (RR) when those were the only results provided. The main comparisons were between overweight or obese women and women of lower weight or BMI. We assessed the quality of evidence for this review., Main Results: We found nine reports with data from 13 trials that included a total of 49,712 women. Five reports from 2002 to 2012 compared BMI groups; of those, one reported a higher pregnancy risk for overweight or obese women. In that trial, women assigned to an oral contraceptive containing norethindrone acetate 1.0 mg plus EE 20 µg and having a BMI at least 25 had greater pregnancy risk compared to those with BMI less than 25 (reported RR 2.49; 95% CI 1.01 to 6.13). The comparisons reported in the other four studies were not significantly different for pregnancy. These included studies of a combined oral contraceptive (COC), a transdermal patch, an implant, and an injectable. The COC study showed no trend by BMI or weight. With the transdermal patch, body weight was associated with pregnancy (reported P < 0.001) but BMI was not. The implant study had one pregnancy and the injectable study reported no pregnancies.Four studies from the 1990s used weight alone rather than BMI. Results were mixed. Studies of a vaginal ring (never marketed) and a six-rod implant showed higher pregnancy rates for women weighing at least 70 kg versus those weighing less than 70 kg (reported P values: 0.0013 and < 0.05, respectively). However, two implant studies showed no trend by body weight., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence did not generally show an association of BMI with effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. However, the evidence was limited for any individual contraceptive method. Studies using BMI (rather than weight alone) can provide more information about whether body composition is related to contraceptive effectiveness. The efficacy of subdermal implants and injectable contraceptives may be unaffected by body mass. The contraceptive methods examined here are among the most effective when the recommended regimen is followed.The overall quality of evidence was low for this review. More recent reports provided moderate quality evidence, while the older studies provided evidence of low or very low quality for our purposes. Investigators should consider adjusting for potential confounding related to BMI. Trials should be designed to include sufficient numbers of overweight or obese women to adequately examine effectiveness and side effects of hormonal contraceptives within those groups.

Background: Contraception services can help meet the family planning goals of women living with HIV as well as prevent mother-to-child transmission. Due to the increased availability of antiretroviral therapy, survival has improved for people living with HIV, and more HIV-positive women may desire to have a child or another child. This review examines behavioral interventions to improve contraceptive use, for family planning, among women who are HIV-positive., Objectives: We systematically reviewed studies that examined behavioral interventions for HIV-positive women that were intended to inform contraceptive choice, encourage contraceptive use, or promote adherence to a contraceptive regimen., Search Methods: Through October 2012, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. For other relevant papers, we examined reference lists and unpublished project reports, and contacted investigators in the field., Selection Criteria: Studies evaluated a behavioral intervention for improving contraceptive use for contraception. The comparison could be another behavioral intervention, usual care, or no intervention. We also considered studies that compared HIV-positive women versus HIV-negative women. We included nonrandomized (observational) studies as well as randomized trials.Primary outcomes were pregnancy and contraception use, e.g., uptake of a new method, improved use or continuation of current method. Secondary outcomes were knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness and attitude about contraception in general or about a specific contraceptive method., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted the data. One author entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.Given the need to control for confounding factors in observational studies, we used adjusted estimates from the models when available. Where we did not have adjusted analyses, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to varied study designs, we did not conduct meta-analysis., Main Results: The seven studies meeting our inclusion criteria had a total of 8882 women. All were conducted in Africa. Three studies compared a special intervention versus standard services. In one, the special intervention site showed greater use of non-condom contraceptives per visit (OR 6.40; 95% CI 5.37 to 7.62) and reported a lower pregnancy incidence. In another study, use of modern contraceptives was more likely for women at sites with enhanced versus basic integrated services (OR 2.48; 95% CI 1.31 to 4.72), but the groups did not differ significantly in change from baseline. In the third study, new use of modern contraceptives, excluding condoms, was less likely for women with integrated services versus those with routine care (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75), but new use of condoms was more likely (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.52 to 1.98).Four older studies compared HIV-positive women versus HIV-negative women. None showed any significant difference between the HIV-status groups in use of modern contraceptives. Two did not provide an intervention for the HIV-negative women. In the larger of the two studies, HIV-positive women were less likely to become pregnant (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69). HIV-positive women were more likely to discontinue their hormonal contraceptive (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.53 to 4.14) but more likely to use condoms (OR 2.82; 95% CI 2.18 to 3.65) and spermicide (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.69 to 3.30). Two studies provided the intervention to both HIV-status groups. One included many of the women from the study just mentioned, and also showed fewer pregnancies for HIV-positive women (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68). In the other study, the HIV-status groups were not significantly different for pregnancy or consistent condom use., Authors' Conclusions: Comparative research on contraceptive counseling for HIV-positive women has been limited. We found little innovation in the behavioral interventions. Our ability to make statements about overall results is hampered by varied study designs, interventions, and outcome assessments. The quality of evidence was moderate. Since some of these studies were conducted, improvements in HIV treatment have influenced the fertility intentions of HIV-positive people.The family planning field needs better ways to help women choose an appropriate contraceptive and continue using that chosen method. Women with HIV may have special concerns regarding family planning. Research could focus on assessing the woman's needs and training providers to address those issues rather than delivering standardized information.

Background: Combination injectable contraceptives (CICs) provide a highly effective, reversible method of preventing pregnancy, and they do not require daily administration or use at the time of coitus. Although they are used in many countries, their acceptability could be limited by method characteristics, such as the need to obtain a monthly injection or bleeding pattern changes., Objectives: To assess the contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, discontinuation, user preferences, and side effects of CICs., Search Methods: In January and February 2013, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of combination injectable contraceptives.Databases include MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS.We searched for current trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP.Earlier searches also included AIM and IMEMR. For the initial review, we also assessed the references listed in review articles and in the eligible trial reports., Selection Criteria: RCTs were eligible if they compared a combination injectable contraceptive with any other contraceptive method (e.g., a second CIC,a progestin-only injectable contraceptive, another hormonal contraceptive or a barrier method) or a placebo. We limited the review to marketed CICs., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data on contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, continuation, and side effects. We calculated the Peto odds ratio or mean difference with 95% confidence interval for dichotomous or continuous outcome, respectively. Survival analysis estimates for method discontinuation were presented where available., Main Results: Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria. Combination injectable contraceptives include depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA)25 mg plus estradiol cypionate (E(2)C) 5 mg, as well as norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN) 50 mg plus estradiol valerate (E(2)V) 5mg. These contraceptives resulted in lower rates of early study discontinuation due to amenorrhea or other bleeding problems than progestin-only contraceptives. However, rates were higher for overall discontinuation and discontinuation due to other medical reasons.Acceptability results favored the CIC in one study and the progestin-only in another.Studies comparing two CICs found that NET-EN 50 mg plus E(2)V (5)mg resulted in less overall discontinuation and less discontinuation due to amenorrhea or prolonged bleeding than DMPA 25 mg plus E(2)C 5 mg. However, these differences were not detected in all trials.The NET-EN plus E (2) V group also had more regular bleeding and fewer prolonged bleeding reference periods than the DMPA plus E(2)C group. The groups did not differ in their amenorrhea rates., Authors' Conclusions: While discontinuation rates can be viewed as a measure of method acceptability, the findings should be interpreted with caution since discontinuation depends on many factors. Future research should be directed toward improving the acceptability of combination injectable contraceptives, such as providing injections in settings more convenient than clinics, methods for women to administer their own injections, and counseling about possible bleeding pattern changes.

Background: Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established., Objectives: The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight., Search Strategy: We searched the computerized databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Searches were conducted from January to May 2011. We also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search., Selection Criteria: All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length., Data Collection and Analysis: All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan. A second author verified the data entered. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements using a fixed-effect model. For categorical data, such as the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated., Main Results: We found 49 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The trials included 85 weight change comparisons for 52 distinct contraceptive pairs (or placebos). The four trials with a placebo or no intervention group did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight change. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight change did not differ between groups where this was studied., Authors' Conclusions: Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

Background: Worldwide, hormonal contraceptives are among the most popular reversible contraceptives in current use. Despite their high theoretical effectiveness, typical use results in much lower effectiveness. In large part, this disparity reflects difficulties in adherence to the contraceptive regimen and low rates for long-term continuation., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of ancillary techniques to improve adherence to, and continuation rates of, hormonal methods of contraception., Search Strategy: We searched computerized databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing client-provider interventions with standard family planning counseling. Sources included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of an intensive counseling technique or client-provider intervention versus routine family planning counseling. Interventions included group motivation; structured, peer, or multi-component counseling; and intensive reminders of appointments or next dosing. Outcome measures were discontinuation, reasons for discontinuation, number of missed pills and on-time injections, and pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: The primary author evaluated all titles and abstracts from the searches to determine eligibility. Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. With RevMan, we calculated the odds ratio for all dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference for continuous data. The studies were so different that we did not conduct a meta-analysis., Main Results: We found eight RCTs; only one showed a statistically significant benefit of the experimental intervention. In that trial, women who received repeated, structured information about the injectable contraceptive depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) were less likely to have discontinued the method by 12 months (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.44) than were women who had routine counseling. The intervention group was also less likely to discontinue due to menstrual disturbances (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.37). In another study, the intervention group was less likely to discontinue due to dissatisfaction with the contraceptive method (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98), but overall continuation was not affected., Authors' Conclusions: Most studies to date have shown no benefit of strategies to improve adherence and continuation. These trials have important limitations, however. Three had small sample sizes, four had high losses to follow up, and the intervention and its intensity varied across the studies. High-quality research is a priority, since adherence and continuation are fundamentally important to the successful use of hormonal contraceptives.

Background: Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Metabolic changes in obesity and greater body mass may lead to reduced effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives, such as the skin patch, vaginal ring, implants, and injectables. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives among overweight and obese women., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives in preventing unplanned pregnancies among women who are overweight or obese versus women of lower weight or body mass index (BMI)., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We also contacted investigators to identify other trials., Selection Criteria: All study designs were eligible. Any type of hormonal contraceptive could have been examined. The primary outcome was pregnancy. Overweight or obese women must have been identified by an analysis cutoff for weight or BMI (kg/m(2))., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted by two authors; life-table rates were included where available. For dichotomous variables, we computed an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. The main comparisons were between overweight or obese women and women of lower weight or BMI., Main Results: We found 7 reports with data from 11 trials that included 39,531 women. One of three studies using BMI found a higher pregnancy risk for overweight or obese women. In the trial of two combination oral contraceptives, women with BMI >= 25 had greater pregnancy risk compared to those with BMI < 25 (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.61). Among skin patch users, body weight was associated with pregnancy (reported P < 0.001) but BMI was not. Studies of a vaginal ring (never marketed) and a six-rod implant showed higher pregnancy rates for women weighing >= 70 kg versus those weighing < 70 kg (reported P values: 0.0013 and < 0.05, respectively). However, two implant studies showed no trend by body weight, and trials of an injectable had no pregnancies., Authors' Conclusions: Body weight addresses overall body size, while BMI generally reflects the amount of fat. Only one of three studies using BMI found a higher pregnancy risk for overweight women. The efficacy of implants and injectable contraceptives may be unaffected by body mass. The field could use trials of contraceptive methods with groups stratified by BMI. The current evidence on effectiveness by BMI is limited. However, the contraceptive methods examined here are still among the most effective when the recommended regimen is followed.

Background: The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a skin patch or vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The skin patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance., Objectives: To compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, adherence (compliance), and safety of the skin patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs)., Search Strategy: For trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring, we searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We contacted manufacturers and researchers to identify other trials., Selection Criteria: All randomized controlled trials comparing the skin patch or vaginal ring with a COC., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference was computed., Main Results: We found 5 trials of the skin patch and 10 of the vaginal ring. Contraceptive effectiveness was similar for the patch or ring versus the comparison COC. More patch users discontinued early than COC users: ORs were 1.59 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.00), 1.56 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.06), and 2.57 (95% CI 0.99 to 6.64). Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events. Compared to COC users, patch users reported more breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Patch users reported more compliant cycles than the COC users in two trials: ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24). The ring trials generally showed similar discontinuation for ring and COC users. Ring users reported less nausea, acne, irritability, and depression than COC users. Ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea but less vaginal dryness. Ring users had similar adherence to COC users in two trials but less adherence in one. Cycle control was generally similar for the patch and COC, and was similar or better for the ring versus COC., Authors' Conclusions: Effectiveness was similar for the methods compared. The patch could lead to more discontinuation while the vaginal ring showed little difference. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group but more side effects. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge. High losses to follow up can affect the validity of the results.

Background: Sino-implant (II) is a subdermal contraceptive implant manufactured in China. This two-rod levonorgestrel-releasing implant has the same amount of active ingredient (150 mg levonorgestrel) and mechanism of action as the widely available contraceptive implant Jadelle. We examined randomized controlled trials of Sino-implant (II) for effectiveness and side effects., Study Design: We searched electronic databases for studies of Sino-implant (II) and then restricted our review to randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome of this review was pregnancy., Results: Four randomized trials with a total of 15,943 women assigned to Sino-implant (II) had first-year probabilities of pregnancy ranging from 0.0% to 0.1%. Cumulative probabilities of pregnancy during the 4 years of the product's approved duration of use were 0.9% and 1.06% in the two trials that presented date for 4-year use. Five-year cumulative probabilities of pregnancy ranged from 0.7% to 2.1%. In one trial, the cumulative probability of pregnancy more than doubled during the fifth year (from 0.9% to 2.1%), which may be why the implant is approved for 4 years of use in China. Five-year cumulative probabilities of discontinuation due to menstrual problems ranged from 12.5% to 15.5% for Sino-implant (II)., Conclusions: Sino-implant (II) is one of the most effective contraceptives available today. These available clinical data, combined with independent laboratory testing, and the knowledge that 7 million women have used this method since 1994, support the safety and effectiveness of Sino-implant (II). The lower cost of Sino-implant (II) compared with other subdermal implants could improve access to implants in resource-constrained settings., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established., Objectives: The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight., Search Strategy: We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as clinical trials databases. We also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search., Selection Criteria: All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length., Data Collection and Analysis: All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan, and a second author verified the data entered. Depending on the data available, the mean difference using a fixed effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements or the Peto odds ratio with 95% confidence interval was calculated using the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight., Main Results: The three placebo-controlled, randomized trials did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight gain. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight gain did not differ between groups where this was studied., Authors' Conclusions: Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident.

Background: Combination injectable contraceptives provide a highly effective, reversible method of preventing pregnancy, and they do not require daily administration or use at the time of coitus. Although they are used in many countries, their acceptability could be limited by method characteristics, such as the need to obtain a monthly injection or bleeding pattern changes., Objectives: To assess the contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, discontinuation, user preferences, and side effects of combination injectable contraceptives., Search Strategy: We searched computerized databases for randomized controlled trials of combination injectable contraceptives., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials were eligible if they compared a combination injectable with any other contraceptive method (e.g., a second combination injectable contraceptive, progestin-only injectable contraceptive, other hormonal contraceptive or barrier method) or placebo. We limited the review to currently marketed combination injectable contraceptives., Data Collection and Analysis: One author evaluated all titles and abstracts from the literature searches to determine their eligibility. Two authors independently extracted data from the eligible trials. Data on contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, continuation, and side effects were entered and analyzed with RevMan., Main Results: Combination injectable contraceptives include depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) 25 mg plus estradiol cypionate (E(2)C) 5 mg, as well as norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN) 50 mg plus estradiol valerate (E(2)V) 5 mg. These contraceptives resulted in lower rates of early study discontinuation due to amenorrhea or other bleeding problems than progestin-only contraceptives. However, rates were higher for overall discontinuation and discontinuation due to other medical reasons. Acceptability results favored the combination injectable in one study and the progestin-only in another.Studies comparing two combination injectable contraceptives found that NET-EN 50 mg plus E(2)V 5 mg resulted in less overall discontinuation and less discontinuation due to amenorrhea or prolonged bleeding than DMPA 25 mg plus E(2)C 5 mg. However, these differences were not detected in all trials. The NET-EN plus E(2)V group also had more regular bleeding and fewer prolonged bleeding reference periods than the DMPA plus E(2)C group. The groups did not differ in their amenorrhea rates., Authors' Conclusions: While discontinuation rates can be viewed as a measure of method acceptability, the findings should be interpreted with caution since discontinuation depends on many factors. Future research should be directed toward interventions to improve the acceptability of combination injectable contraceptives, such as providing injections in settings more convenient than clinics, methods for women to administer their own injections, and counseling about possible bleeding pattern changes.

Background: The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a skin patch or vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The skin patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance., Objectives: To compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, compliance, and safety of the skin patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs)., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS for trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring. We contacted manufacturers and researchers to identify other trials., Selection Criteria: All randomized controlled trials comparing the skin patch or vaginal ring with a COC., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the weighted mean difference was computed., Main Results: We found three trials of the skin patch and eight of the vaginal ring. Contraceptive effectiveness was similar for the patch or ring and the comparison COC. Patch users reported more compliant cycles than COC users; ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24) in two trials. One crossover ring trial had more noncompliance for the ring users. Satisfaction with method was higher for ring users than COC users in two studies. More patch users discontinued early than COC users: OR 1.58 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.99) and 1.45 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.90) in two trials. Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The ring trials generally showed similar discontinuation for ring and COC users. Compared to COC users, patch users were more likely to report breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Ring users reported less nausea, irritability, and depression than COC users in single trials. However, ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea. Bleeding problems were generally similar or less common for the ring versus COC., Authors' Conclusions: Effectiveness rates were similar for the methods compared. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group. Compared to COC users, patch users had more side effects. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge. The patch could lead to more discontinuation while the vaginal ring showed little difference. High losses to follow up can affect the validity of the results.

Background: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the most widely used reversible contraceptives in the world today, and decisions about their use should reflect the best available evidence., Study Design: We performed a computer search of the Cochrane Library for all IUD-related reviews., Results: Eleven reviews related to IUDs have been registered in The Cochrane Library; 10 have been completed, and one is in progress. Topics include type of IUD, timing of insertion, clinical management, emergency contraception and use as gynecological treatment. The copper T380A is the most effective copper IUD; the levonorgestrel intrauterine system has efficacy comparable to that of IUDs with >250 mm(2) of copper. The frameless device may be comparable in efficacy to the copper T380A, although whether problems with the initial inserter are resolved is unclear. Immediate postpartum and postabortal insertion appears safe and effective, although trials comparing immediate to delayed insertions are scarce. Prophylactic antibiotics at the time of insertion appear unwarranted except in populations with a high prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. Many nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce pain and bleeding associated with IUDs, although prophylactic use of ibuprofen does not improve continuation rates. The levonorgestrel system is superior to oral progestins in treating heavy uterine bleeding. This IUD compares favorably with endometrial ablation techniques and presents an alternative to hysterectomy for many women., Discussion: Trials are needed to evaluate immediate vs. delayed insertion after delivery or abortion and to explore emerging therapeutic uses of the levonorgestrel system, such as treatment of endometrial hyperplasia.

Background: Many hormonal contraceptives have been associated with changes in carbohydrate metabolism. Alterations may include decreased glucose tolerance and increased insulin resistance, which are risk factors for Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. These issues have been raised with progestin-only contraceptives as well as contraceptives containing estrogen. Such potential effects could influence recommendations for, and use of, these widely used and effective contraceptives., Objectives: To evaluate the effect of hormonal contraceptives on carbohydrate metabolism in healthy women and those at risk for diabetes due to overweight., Search Strategy: We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of hormonal contraceptives and carbohydrate metabolism. The latest search was conducted in March 2006. We wrote to investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials., Selection Criteria: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered if they examined carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes who used hormonal contraceptives for contraception. Interventions included comparisons of a hormonal contraceptive with a placebo, a non-hormonal contraceptive, or another hormonal contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, or regimen. Interventions included at least three cycles. Outcomes included glucose and insulin levels, which were generally reported as fasting value or response to an oral glucose tolerance test., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed for inclusion all titles and abstracts identified during the literature searches with no language limitations. The data were abstracted and the information was entered into RevMan. Studies were examined for methodological quality. For continuous variables, the weighted mean difference was computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was calculated., Main Results: A total of 39 trials met the inclusion criteria. No study stratified by body weight (normal-weight versus overweight women). Results for desogestrel were often favorable regarding carbohydrate metabolism but inconsistent overall. Glucose and insulin means were more favorable for norethisterone in studies of progestin-only contraceptives. For other progestins, little or no difference was noted across trials., Authors' Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that hormonal contraceptives have limited effect on carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes. Strong statements cannot be made, though, due to having few studies that compared any particular types of contraceptives. Many trials had small numbers of participants and some had large losses to follow up. Most studies had poor reporting of methods. No information was available regarding the effects among women who were overweight.

Background: Whether steroid contraceptives are appropriate for women with homozygous sickle cell (SS) disease remains unresolved. Historically, women with SS disease have experienced difficult pregnancies, characterized by high rates of maternal mortality and morbidity and poor infant outcomes. Unresolved questions about steroidal contraceptives in women with SS disease include whether using them may promote blood clots., Objectives: To assess the safety of steroid hormones in this setting, we retrieved and analyzed all randomized controlled trials that examined steroid hormones for contraception in women with SS disease., Search Strategy: We searched the computerized databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, POPLINE and EMBASE (each from its inception to November, 2005) for randomized controlled trials of steroid hormone use for contraception in women with SS disease. We examined the reference list of each trial as well as that of review articles., Selection Criteria: We included any randomized controlled trial in any language that compared steroid hormones for contraception with another contraceptive or placebo. Frequency or intensity of sickle pain crises must have been reported as an outcome., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed for inclusion all titles and abstracts found. We evaluated the methodological quality of the trial found for potential biases by qualitatively assessing the study design, randomization method, allocation concealment, blinding, premature discontinuation rates, and loss to follow-up rates. We entered trial results in RevMan and reported Peto odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes, such as occurrence of sickle pain crises., Main Results: Only one trial met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five patients were randomized to three monthly depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or intramuscular saline placebo injections in a crossover design. A six-month washout period was implemented before the crossover; however, pharmacological evidence indicates that levels of DMPA may be detected for more than 200 days after the injection. During DMPA use, women were less likely to experience painful sickle episodes (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.02). No trial involved estrogen products., Authors' Conclusions: The limited available data suggest that DMPA is a safe contraceptive option for women in SS disease. In addition to providing effective contraception, DMPA may reduce sickle pain crises.

Background: Steroidal contraceptive use has been associated with changes in bone mineral density in women. Whether such changes increase the risk of fractures later in life is not clear. However, osteoporosis is a major public health concern. Age-related decline in bone mass increases the risk of fracture, especially of the spine, hip, and wrist. Concern about bone health influences the recommendation and use of these effective contraceptives globally., Objectives: To evaluate the effect of using hormonal contraceptives before menopause on the risk of fracture in women, Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of fracture or bone health and hormonal contraceptives. We wrote to investigators to find additional trials., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials were considered if they examined fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), or bone turnover in women with hormonal contraceptive use prior to menopause. Studies were excluded if hormones were provided for treatment of a specific condition rather than for contraception. Interventions could include comparisons of a hormonal contraceptive with a placebo or with another hormonal contraceptive. Interventions could also include the provision of a supplement versus a placebo., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed for inclusion all titles and abstracts identified through the literature searches with no language limitation. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model., Main Results: No trial had fracture as an outcome. Combination contraceptives did not appear to affect bone health. Of progestin-only methods, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) was associated with decreased bone mineral density, while results were inconsistent for implants. The two placebo-controlled trials showed BMD increases for DMPA plus estrogen supplement and decreases for DMPA plus placebo., Authors' Conclusions: Whether steroidal contraceptives influence fracture risk cannot be determined from existing information. Due to different interventions, no trials could be combined for meta-analysis. Many trials had small numbers of participants and some had large losses to follow up. Health care providers and women should consider the costs and benefits of these effective contraceptives. For example, injectable contraceptives and implants provide effective, long-term birth control yet do not involve a daily regimen. Progestin-only contraceptives are considered appropriate for women who should avoid estrogen due to medical conditions.

Background: Combination injectable contraceptives provide a highly effective, reversible method of preventing pregnancy, and they do not require daily administration or use at the time of coitus. Although they are used in many countries, their acceptability could be limited by method characteristics, such as the need to obtain a monthly injection or bleeding pattern changes., Objectives: To assess the contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, discontinuation, user preferences, and side effects of combination injectable contraceptives., Search Strategy: We searched computerized databases for randomized controlled trials of combination injectable contraceptives., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials reported in any language were eligible if they compared a combination injectable with any other contraceptive method (e.g., a second combination injectable contraceptive, progestin-only injectable contraceptive, other hormonal contraceptive or barrier method) or placebo. We limited the review to currently marketed combination injectable contraceptives., Data Collection and Analysis: The primary reviewer evaluated all titles and abstracts from the literature searches to determine their eligibility. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the eligible trials. Data on contraceptive efficacy, bleeding patterns, continuation, and side effects were entered and analyzed with RevMan 4.2., Main Results: Combination injectable contraceptives include depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) 25 mg plus estradiol cypionate (E(2)C) 5 mg, as well as norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN) 50 mg plus estradiol valerate (E(2)V) 5 mg. These combination injectable contraceptives resulted in lower rates of early study discontinuation due to amenorrhea or other bleeding problems, but had higher rates of discontinuation due to other reasons than the progestin-only comparison contraceptives. Studies comparing two combination injectable contraceptives found that NET-EN 50 mg plus E(2)V 5 mg resulted in less overall early discontinuation and less discontinuation due to amenorrhea or prolonged bleeding than DMPA 25 mg plus E(2)C 5 mg. However, these differences were not detected in all trials making this comparison. The NET-EN plus E(2)V group also had more cyclical (regular) bleeding and fewer prolonged bleeding reference periods than the DMPA plus E(2)C group. The groups did not differ in their amenorrhea rates., Authors' Conclusions: While discontinuation rates can be viewed as a measure of method acceptability, the findings should be interpreted with caution since discontinuation rates are dependent on many other factors. Future research should be directed toward interventions to improve the acceptability of combination injectable contraceptives, such as providing injections in settings more convenient than clinical sites, methods for women to administer their own injections, and counseling about possible bleeding pattern changes.