Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T06:40:17.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postcoital contraception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2009

Anna Glasier
Anna Glasier*
Affiliation:
Lothian Health Board Family Planning and Well Woman Service and University of Edinburgh, UK
*
Anna Glasier, Consultant Gynaecologist, The Dean Terrace Centre, 18 Dean Terrace, Edinburgh EH4 1NL, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As early as 1500 BC, history records women using a variety of drugs, devices and manoeuvres in an attempt to prevent pregnancy after intercourse has taken place. It was not until the 1960s however that scientific efforts were made to develop effective postcoital contraception (PCC). Whilst it had been known for over thirty years that a variety of compounds would inhibit implantation and embryonic development and interrupt pregnancy in the rabbit and the rat, experiments with primates had been less successful. In 1966 however, Morris and Van Wagenen reported the prevention of pregnancy in 28 macaque monkeys treated with oestradiol, diethylstilboestrol or a synthetic compound (ORF 3858), administered after mating. In the same paper – and confessing that they embarked upon human experimentation ‘with some trepidation’ – the authors reported that 50 mg diethylstilboestrol (DES) given for four to six days appeared to be effective in preventing pregnancy after intercourse had taken place in an undisclosed number of women who were the victims of rape.

Type
Articles
Information
Reproductive Medicine Review , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 1993 , pp. 75 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Morris, JM, Van Wagenen, G. Compounds interfering with ovum implantation and development. III: the role of estrogens. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 96: 804–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Dixon, GW, Schlesselmann, JJ, Ory, HW, Blye, RP. Ethinyl/estradiol and conjugated estrogens as postcoital contraceptives. JAMA 1980; 244: 1336–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Glasier, A, Thong, KJ, Dewar, M, Mackie, M, Baird, DT. Randomised trial of mifepristone (RU486) and high dose estrogen-progestogen as an emergency contraceptive. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1041–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Silvestre, L, Bouali, Y, Ulmann, A. Postcoital contraception: myth or reality? Lancet 1991; 338: 39–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Tietze, C. Probability of pregnancy, resulting from a single unprotected coitus. Fertil Steril 1960; 11: 485–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Morris, JM, Van Wagenen, G. Postcoital oral contraception. In: Hankinson, RKB, Kleinman, RL, Eckstein, P, Romerott, eds. Proceedings of VIIIth International Conference of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. London: IPPF, 1967: 256–59.Google Scholar
7Morris, JM, Van Wagenen, G. Interception: the use of postovulatory estrogens to prevent implantation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 115: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Haspels, AAInterception: post-coital estrogens in 3016 women. Contraception 1976; 14: 375–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Chang, MC, Harper, MJK. Effects of ethinyl estradiol on egg transport and development in the rabbit. Endocrinology 1966; 78; 860–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Forsberg, JG, Estrogens, vaginal cancer and vaginal development. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972; 113: 83–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Herbst, AL, Robboy, SJ, Scully, RE, Poskanzer, DC. Clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix in girls; analysis of 170 registry cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974; 119: 713–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Yuzpe, AA, Thurlow, HJ, Ramzy, I, Leyshon, JI. Postcoital contraception – a pilot study. J Reprod Med 1974; 1: 53–58.Google Scholar
13Yuzpe, AA, Lancee, WJ. Ethinylestradiol and dl-norgestrel as a postcoital contraceptive. Fertil Steril 1977; 28: 932–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Fasoli, M, Parazzini, F, Cecchetti, G, Lavecchia, C. Postcoital contraception: an overview of published studies. Contraception 1989; 39: 459–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Ling, WY, Robichard, A, Zayid, I, Wrixon, W, MacLeod, SC. Mode of action of dl-norgestrel and ethinylestradiol combination in postcoital contraception. Fertil Steril 1970; 32: 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Kubba, AA, White, JO, Guillebaud, J, Elder, MG. The biochemistry of human endometrium after two regimens of postcoital contraception: a dl-norgestrel/ethinyl estradiol combination or danazol. Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 512–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Ling, WY, Wrixon, W, Zayid, I, Acorn, T, Popat, R, Wilson, E. Mode of action of dl-norgestrel and ethinylestradiol combination in postcoital contraception. II: effect of postovulatory administration on ovarian function and endometrium. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 292–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Yuzpe, AA, Percival Smith, R, Rademaker, AW. A multicentre clinical investigation employing ethinylestradiol combined with dl-norgestrel as a postcoital contraceptive agent. Fertil Steril 1982; 37: 508–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Kesseru, E, Larranaga, A, Parada, J. Postcoital contraception with dl-norgestrel. Contraception 1973; 7: 367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Anon. Postcoital contraception – an appraisal. Popul Rep [J] 1976; 9: J147–48.Google Scholar
21World Health Organization. Postcoital contraception with levonorgestrel during the periovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. Contraception 1987; 36: 275–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Seregely, G. Results of a multicentre trial of Postinor. Ther Hung 1982; 30: 72–78.Google ScholarPubMed
23Van Look, PFA, von Hertzen, H. Post-ovulatory methods for fertility regulation. Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. Annual Technical Report, 1991. Geneva: World Health Organization 1992.Google Scholar
24Hoffman, KO. Postcoital contraception: experiences with ethinyl oestradiol/norgestrel and levonorgestrel only. In: Harrison, RF, Bonnar, J, Thompson, W eds. IFFS fertility & sterility, Dublin, June 1983. Lancaster: MTP Press, 1983: 311–16.Google Scholar
25Ho, PC. Asian experience with postcoital contraception. Adv Contracep 1972; 8: 216 (abstract no. 67).Google Scholar
26Kesseru, E, Garmendia, F, Westphal, N, Parada, J. The hormonal and peripheral effects of dl-norgestrel in postcoital contraception. Contraception 1974; 10: 411–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Lippes, J, Malik, T, Tatum, HJ. The postcoital Copper T. Adv Planned Parenthood 1976; II: 24–29.Google Scholar
28Sivin, I. IUDs are contraceptives, not abortifacients: a comment on research and belief. Stud Fam Plann 1989; 20: 335–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29WHO. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Technical Report Series no. 753. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1987: 12–16.Google Scholar
30Henderson, KM, Tsang, BK. Danazol suppresses luteal function in vitro and in vivo. Fertil Steril 1980; 33: 550–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Rowlands, S, Guillebaud, J, Bounds, N, Booth, M. Side effects of danazol compared with an ethinylestradiol/norgestrel combination when used for postcoital contraception. Contraception 1982; 27: 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Zuliani, G, Colombo, UF, Molla, R. Hormonal postcoital contraception with an ethinylestradiol-norgestrel combination and two danazol regimens. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Biol 1990; 37: 253–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Webb, AMC, Russel, J, Elstein, M. Comparison of the Yuzpe regime, danazol and mifepristone in oral post-coital contraception. Br Med J 1992; 305: 927–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Rowlands, S, Kubba, AA, Guillebaud, J, Bounds, N. A possible mechanism of action of danazol and an ethinyloestradiol/norgestrel combination used as postcoital contraceptive agents. Contraception 1986; 33: 539–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Ledger, WL, Sweeting, VM, Hillier, H, Baird, DT. Inhibition of ovulation by low dose mifepristone (RU486). Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 945–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Couzinet, B, Le Strat, N, Silvestre, L, Schaison, G. Late luteal administration of the antiprogesterone RU486 in normal women: effects on the menstrual cycle events and fertility control in a long term study. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 1039–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Swahn, ML, Bygdeman, M, Cekan, S, Xing, S, Masironi, B, Johannison, E. The effect of RU486 administered during the early luteal phase on bleeding pattern, hormone parameters and endometrium. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 402–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Ravindranath, N, Mougdal, NR. Use of tamoxifen, an antioestrogen, in establishing a need for oestrogen in early pregnancy in the bonnet monkey (Macaca radiata). J Reprod Fertil 1987; 81: 327–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Spinks, NR, O'Neill, C. Embryo-derived platelet activating factor is essential for establishment of pregnancy in the mouse. Lancet 1987; i: 106–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Bouchard, P. Potential clinical applications of antagonists. In: Howles, CM ed. Gonadotrophins, gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues and growth factors in infertility: future perspectives. Harrogate Proceedings, UK, April 1991. Alden Press, Oxford: Serono Seminars, 113–24.Google Scholar
41Liyanage, GK, Ratnasooriya, WD, Tillekeratne, LMV. Postcoital contraceptive agents from extracts of Sri Lankan alcyonacean soft corals- 1. Contraception 1992; 46: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Yuzpe, A, Kubba, A. Postcoital contraception. In: Filshie, M, Guillebaud, J eds. Contraception: science and practice. London: Butterworths, 1989: 126–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Muggins, GR, Cullins, VE. Fertility after contraception or abortion. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 559–73.Google Scholar
44Fleissig, A. Unintended pregnancies and the use of contraception: changes from 1984–1989. Br Med J 1991; 302: 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Johnston, TA, Howie, PW. Potential use of postcoital contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Br Med J 1985; 290: 1040–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Schering Health Care. Sex and contraception survey, 1990. Schering Health Care, The Brow, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, UK.Google Scholar
47Burton, R, Savage, W, Reader, F. The ‘morning after pill’ is the wrong name for it. Women's knowledge of postcoital contraception in Tower Hamlets. Br J Fam Plan 1990; 15: 119–21.Google Scholar
48Duncan, G, Harper, C, Ashwell, E, Mant, D, Buchan, H, Jones, L. Termination of pregnancy: lessons for prevention. Br J Family Planning 1990; 15: 112–17.Google Scholar
49 Anon. Vital statistics. Abortion Review 1992; no. 45 (The Birth Control Trust, 27–35 Mortimer Street, London, UK).Google Scholar
50 Anon. Should the morning after pill be OTC? The Pharmaceutical Journal 1992; 249: 530.Google Scholar