Combined injectable contraceptive

Combined Injectable Contraceptive
Background
Birth control type	Hormonal
First use	about 1980
Failure rates (first year)
Perfect use	0-0.2%[1]
Typical use	?
Usage
Duration effect	1 month
User reminders	?
Advantages and disadvantages
STD protection	No
Benefits	Especially good if poor pill compliance.

Combined injectable contraceptive (CIC) monthly injection of a progestin and a synthetic estrogen taken to suppress fertility. Brand names include Cyclofem, Novafem, Mesigyna, Lunelle and Cyclo-Provera.

DMPA is a different injectable contraceptive, containing just a progestin, given every three months.

Hormonal contraception works primarily by preventing ovulation, but it may also thicken the cervical mucus inhibiting sperm penetration.^[2][3][4] Hormonal contraceptives also have effects on the endometrium,^[5][6] that theoretically could affect implantation,^{[7][8][9][10]}

Medical uses

Administered by intramuscular injection into the deltoid, gluteus maximus, or anterior thigh.^[1] Ideally administered every 28 to 30 days, though demonstrated to be effective up to 33 days.^[1]

Side-effects

The most prominent side effects are menstrual irregularities during the first 3 to 6 months of use.^[1]

History

• October 5, 2000, Pharmacia received FDA approval for Lunelle Monthly Contraceptive Injection.^[1]
• April 2003, Pharmacia acquired by Pfizer (makers of Depo-Provera (DMPA)).
• October 2003, Lunelle was discontinued in the U.S.

See also

• Concept Foundation
• Extended cycle combined hormonal contraceptive
• Depo-Provera, a Long-acting reversible contraceptive that is injected every 3 months.
• Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition

Footnotes

1. "FDA Approves Combined Monthly Injectable Contraceptive". Contraception Report 12 (3). 2001. Archived from the original on September 26, 2006.
2. Tamara Callahan MD , Aaron Caughey MD , Blueprints Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2013
3. KD Tripathi , Essentials of Medical Pharmacology, 2013
4. Dc Dutta's Textbook of Obstetrics, 2014
5. K. A. Petrie, A. H. Torgal, C. L. Westhoff, Matched-pairs analysis of ovarian suppressionduring oral vs. vaginal hormonal contraceptive use, „Contraception” 2011, t. 84, p. e2-3
6. R. L. Birtch, O. A. Olatunbosum, R. A. Pierson, Ovarian follicular dynamics during conventional vs continuous oral contraceptive use, „Contraception” 2006, t. 73, p. 235. p. 239.
7. K. Bugge, K. S. Richter, J. Bromer, et. al., Pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization are reduced with a thin endometrium, but are unrelated to endometrial thickness above 10 millimeters,„Fertility and Sterility” 2004, t. 82, p. S199.
8. T. Fiumino, A. Kuwata, A. Teranischi et al., Significance of endometrium thickness to evaluate endometrial receptivity for embryos in natural cycle, „Fertility and Sterility” 2008, t. 90,p. S159.
9. K. S. Richter, K. R. Bugge, J. G. Bromer, Relationship between endometrial thickness and embryo implantation, based on 1. 294 cycles of in vitro fertilization with transfer of two blastocyst-stage embryos, „Fertility and Sterility” 2007, t. 87, p. 53.
10. Rivera R, Yacobson I, Grimes D (1999). "The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices". Am J Obstet Gynecol 181 (5 Pt 1): 1263–9. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70120-1. PMID 10561657.