12.07.2015 Views

Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

RU <strong>486</strong>Some recent evidence suggests that RU <strong>486</strong> acts directly onthe ovary at the receptor level (Schreiber et al., 1983; DiMattina et al., 1987), <strong>and</strong> impairs folliculogenesis. In someclinical trials, this manifests as a marked decline in E2(estradiol) levels (Shoupe et al., 1987; Stuenkel et al., 1990).In turn this delays—or inhibits—ovulation. A group of Finnishresearchers posit that this characteristic of RU <strong>486</strong> is reversible.They also state that a subsequently administered syntheticprogestin (e.g. NET, Primolut N) may lead to an estrogenfreeoral contraceptive (Luukkainen et al., 1988; Kekkonenet al., 1990). Despite the fact that one of these studies—theLuukkainen et al. experiment—was restricted to eight women,<strong>and</strong> only two women had cycles without ovulation, thesefindings were picked up by the US Ob. Gyn. News under theheadline ‘RU <strong>486</strong> <strong>and</strong> Progestin Combination Could YieldEstrogen Free-OC [oral contraceptive]’ (1989:38).In a later 1990 experiment with seven women, the sameresearchers noted, with surprise, some follicular growthduring RU <strong>486</strong> administration (Kekkonen et al., 1990). 17Earlier trial findings by van Santen <strong>and</strong> Haspels in Holl<strong>and</strong>(1987) showed that disturbances in a woman’s cycle resultedfrom an egg of a delayed ovulation which later matured <strong>and</strong>infact was fertilized ‘inadvertently’. These two experimentsmake clear that the hailing of RU <strong>486</strong> as a new ‘breakthroughin contraception’ is thus far without foundation.There is no evidence in the Luukkainen et al. study thatthey followed up on women’s subsequent menstrual cycles.They state that, ‘After termination of the RU <strong>486</strong> treatment,follicular development <strong>and</strong> luteinization occurred similarlyas during the control cycle in the majority of women’ (1988:963).With eight women in their study, what was the majority ofwomen <strong>and</strong> what happened to the others? If additionallyRU <strong>486</strong> exerts a direct inhibitory intraovarian action bysuppressing ovarian steroidogenesis [the production ofestrogen (estradiol) <strong>and</strong> progesterone], the question must be74

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!