Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception

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.

Strategies for communicating contraceptive effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness is crucial to making an informed choice. The consumer has to comprehend the pros and cons of the contraceptive methods being considered. Choice may be influenced by understanding the likelihood of pregnancy with each method and factors that influence effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials comparing strategies for communicating to consumers the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

Through February 2013, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. Previous searches also included EMBASE. We also examined references lists of relevant articles. For the initial review, we wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared methods for communicating contraceptive effectiveness to consumers. The comparison could be usual practice or an alternative to the experimental intervention.Outcome measures were knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness, attitude about contraception or toward any particular contraceptive, and choice or use of contraceptive method.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the initial review, two authors independently extracted the data. One author entered the data into RevMan, and a second author verified accuracy. For the update, an author and a research associate extracted, entered, and checked the data.For dichotomous variables, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials met the inclusion criteria and had a total of 4526 women. Five were multi-site studies. Four trials were conducted in the USA, while Nigeria and Zambia were represented by one study each, and one trial was done in both Jamaica and India.Two trials provided multiple sessions for participants. In one study that examined contraceptive choice, women in the expanded program were more likely to choose sterilization (OR 4.26; 95% CI 2.46 to 7.37) or use a modern contraceptive method (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.82 to 3.03), i.e., sterilization, pills, injectable, intrauterine device or barrier method. For the other study, the groups received educational interventions with differing format and intensity. Both groups reportedly had increases in contraceptive use, but they did not differ significantly by six months in consistent use of an effective contraceptive, i.e., sterilization, IUD, injectable, implant, and consistent use of oral contraceptives, diaphragm, or male condoms.Five trials provided one session and focused on testing educational material or media. In one study, knowledge gain favored a slide-and-sound presentation versus a physician's oral presentation (MD -19.00; 95% CI -27.52 to -10.48). In another trial, a table with contraceptive effectiveness categories led to more correct answers than a table based on pregnancy numbers [ORs were 2.42 (95% CI 1.43 to 4.12) and 2.19 (95% CI 1.21 to 3.97)] or a table with effectiveness categories and pregnancy numbers [ORs were 2.58 (95% CI 1.5 to 4.42) and 2.03 (95% CI 1.13 to 3.64)]. Still another trial provided structured counseling with a flipchart on contraceptive methods. The intervention and usual-care groups did not differ significantly in choice of contraceptive method (by effectiveness category) or in continuation of the chosen method at three months. Lastly, a study with couples used videos to communicate contraceptive information (control, motivational, contraceptive methods, and both motivational and methods videos). The analyses showed no significant difference between the groups in the types of contraceptives chosen.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These trials varied greatly in the types of participants and interventions to communicate contraceptive effectiveness. Therefore, we cannot say overall what would help consumers choose an appropriate contraceptive method. For presenting pregnancy risk data, one trial showed that effectiveness categories were better than pregnancy numbers. In another trial, audiovisual aids worked better than the usual oral presentation. Strategies should be tested in clinical settings and measured for their effect on contraceptive choice. More detailed reporting of intervention content would help in interpreting results. Reports could also include whether the instruments used to assess knowledge or attitudes were tested for validity or reliability. Follow-up should be incorporated to assess retention of knowledge over time. The overall quality of evidence was considered to be low for this review, given that five of the seven studies provided low or very low quality evidence.

Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women

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.

Combination injectable contraceptives for contraception

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.

Immediate start of hormonal contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

Health care providers often tell women to wait until the next menses to begin hormonal contraception. The intent is to avoid contraceptive use during an undetected pregnancy. An alternative is to start hormonal contraception immediately with back-up birth control for the first seven days. Immediate initiation was introduced with combined oral contraceptives (COCs), and has expanded to other hormonal contraceptives. At the time of the initial review, how immediate start compared to conventional menses-dependent start was unclear regarding effectiveness, continuation, and acceptability. The immediate-start approach may improve women's access to, and continuation of, hormonal contraception.

OBJECTIVES

This review examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immediate-start hormonal contraception for differences in effectiveness, continuation, and acceptability.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2012, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP for trials of immediate-start hormonal contraceptives. We contacted researchers to find other studies. Earlier searches also included EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared immediate start to conventional start of hormonal contraception. Also included were trials that compared immediate start of different hormonal contraceptive methods with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. The Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included. No new eligible studies have been found since the review was initially conducted. Method discontinuation was similar between groups in all trials. Bleeding patterns and side effects were similar in trials that compared immediate with conventional start. In a study of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), immediate start of DMPA showed fewer pregnancies than a 'bridge' method before DMPA (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.84). Further, more women in the immediate-DMPA group were very satisfied versus those with a 'bridge' method (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.77). A trial of two immediate-start methods showed the vaginal ring group had less prolonged bleeding (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89) and less frequent bleeding (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.03) than COC users. The ring group also reported fewer side effects. Also, more immediate ring users were very satisfied than immediate COC users (OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.59 to 5.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence that immediate start of hormonal contraception reduces unintended pregnancies or increases method continuation. However, the pregnancy rate was lower with immediate start of DMPA versus another method. Some differences were associated with contraceptive type rather than initiation method, i.e., immediate ring versus immediate COC. More studies are needed of immediate versus conventional start of the same hormonal contraceptive.

Hormonal and intrauterine methods for contraception for women aged 25 years and younger

BACKGROUND

Women between the ages of 15 and 24 years have high rates of unintended pregnancy; over half of women in this age group want to avoid pregnancy. However, women under age 25 years have been found to have higher typical contraceptive failure rates within the first 12 months of use than older women. High discontinuation rates may also be a problem in this population. Concern that adolescents and young women will not find hormonal or intrauterine contraceptives acceptable or effective might deter healthcare providers from recommending these contraceptive methods. 

OBJECTIVES

This review examined randomized controlled trials of hormonal or intrauterine methods used for contraception in women aged 25 years and younger.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2012, we searched the computerized databases Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS for randomized controlled trials that compared hormonal or intrauterine methods used for contraception in women aged 25 years and younger. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomized controlled trials in any language that reported the contraceptive failure rates for hormonal or intrauterine contraceptive methods, when compared to another contraceptive method, for women aged 25 years and younger. The other contraceptive method could be another intrauterine method, another hormonal method, or a non-hormonal method. Treatment duration must have been at least three months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The first author extracted the data and entered the information into RevMan. Another author performed an independent data extraction and verified the initial entry. Because of disparate contraceptive exposures, we were not able to combine the studies in meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials met the inclusion criteria. The trials compared the combined oral contraceptive versus the transdermal contraceptive patch, the combined oral contraceptive versus the vaginal contraceptive ring, the combined oral contraceptive versus the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus the copper T380A intrauterine device. Because of small numbers of participants, the trials were not informative regarding contraceptive efficacy. Data on continuation rates were also limited. In one of these trials, the levonorgestrel intrauterine system was found to have a similar 12-month continuation rate as the combined oral contraceptive (odds ratio (OR) 1.48; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.89). In that trial, a higher proportion of women discontinued the levonorgestrel intrauterine system because of pain (OR 14.62; 95% CI 0.81 to 263.16), whereas a higher proportion of women discontinued the combined oral contraceptive for personal reasons (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to compare contraceptive efficacy and continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine methods in women aged 25 years and younger. Limited data suggests that the levonorgestrel intrauterine system may be an acceptable alternative to the combined oral contraceptive in this population.

Education for contraceptive use by women after childbirth

BACKGROUND

Providing contraceptive education is now considered a standard component of postpartum care. The effectiveness is seldom examined. Questions have been raised about the assumptions on which such programs are based, e.g., that postpartum women are motivated to use contraception and that they will not return to a health center for family planning advice. Surveys indicate that women may wish to discuss contraception both prenatally and after hospital discharge. Nonetheless, two-thirds of postpartum women may have unmet needs for contraception. In the USA, many adolescents become pregnant again within a year a giving birth.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the effects of educational interventions for postpartum mothers about contraceptive use

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2012, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and POPLINE. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Previous searches also included EMBASE. In addition, we examined reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted subject experts to locate additional reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials were considered if they evaluated the effectiveness of postpartum education about contraceptive use. The intervention must have started postpartum and have occurred within one month of delivery.

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 entered into RevMan. Studies were examined for methodological quality. For dichotomous outcomes, the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Due to varied study designs, we did not conduct meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials met the inclusion criteria. Of four trials that provided one or two counseling sessions, two showed some evidence of effectiveness. In a study from Nepal, women with an immediate postpartum and a session three months later were more likely to use contraception at six months than those with only the later session (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.50). However, most comparisons did not show evidence of effectiveness. In a trial conducted in Pakistan, women in the counseling group were more likely than those without counseling to use contraception at 8 to 12 weeks postpartum (OR 19.56; 95% CI 11.65 to 32.83). The assessments were short-term. The remaining two studies were from the USA; one did not provided sufficient data and one had too small a sample to detect differences.Six trials provided multifaceted programs with many contacts. Three showed evidence of effectiveness. Of those, two USA studies focused on adolescents. Adolescents in a home-visiting program were less likely to have a second birth in two years compared to adolescents who received usual care (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.00). In the other trial, adolescents receiving enhanced well-baby care were less likely to have a repeat pregnancy by 18 months compared to those with usual well-baby care (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). In an Australian study, teenagers in a structured home-visiting program were more likely to use contraception at six months than those who had standard home visits (OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.35 to 7.79). The trials without evidence of effectiveness included two for adolescents in the USA (computer-assisted motivational interviewing and cell phone counseling) and a home-visiting program for women in Syria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Half of these postpartum interventions led to fewer repeat pregnancies or births or more contraceptive use. However, the evidence of intervention effectiveness was of low to moderate quality. Trials with evidence of effectiveness included two that provided one or two sessions and three that had multiple contacts. The former had limitations, such as self-reported outcomes and showing no effect for many comparisons. The interventions with multiple sessions were promising but would have to be adapted for other locations and then retested. Researchers and health care providers will have to determine which intervention might be appropriate for their setting and level of resources.

Pain management for tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy involves inserting a foreign body in both fallopian tubes. Over a three-month period, the tubal lumen is occluded by tissue growth stimulated by the insert. Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy has advantages over laparoscopy or mini-laparotomy, including the avoidance of abdominal incisions and the convenience of performing the procedure in an office-based setting. Pain, an important determinant of procedure acceptability, can be a concern when tubal sterilization is performed in the office.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions to decrease pain during tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

From January to March 2011, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL for relevant trials. We searched for current trials via Clinicaltrials.gov. We also examined the reference lists of pertinent articles and wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that evaluated pain management at the time of sterilization by hysteroscopy. The intervention could be compared to another intervention or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initial data were extracted by one review author. A second review author verified all extracted data. Whenever possible, the analysis was conducted with all women randomized and in the original assigned groups. Data were analyzed using RevMan software. Pain was measured using either a 10-cm or 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). When pain was measured at multiple points during the procedure, the overall pain score was considered the primary treatment effect. If this was not measured, a summation of all pain scores for the procedure was considered to be the primary treatment effect. For continuous variables, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval was computed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 167. Using a 10-cm VAS to measure pain, no significant difference emerged in overall pain for the entire procedure between women who received a paracervical block with lidocaine versus normal saline (mean difference -0.77; 95% CI -2.67 to 1.13). No significant difference in pain score was noted at the time of injection of study solution to the anterior lip of the cervix (mean difference -0.6; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.1), placement of the device in the tubal ostia (mean difference -0.60; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.7), and postprocedure pain (mean difference 0.2; 95% CI -0.8 to 1.2). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8 minutes) and successful bilateral placement (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.19 to 5.28) was not significantly different between groups. During certain portions of the procedure, such as placement of the tenaculum (mean difference -2.03; 95% CI -2.88 to -1.18), administration of the paracervical block (mean difference -1.92; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.00), and passage of the hysteroscope through the external (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.30 to -1.32) and internal os (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.39 to -1.23), use of paracervical block with lidocaine resulted in lower pain scores.Using a 600-point scale calculated by adding 100-point VAS scores from six different portions of the procedure, no significant difference emerged in overall pain between women who received intravenous conscious sedation versus oral analgesia (mean difference -23.00; CI -62.02 to 16.02). Using a 100-point VAS, no significant difference emerged at the time of speculum insertion (mean difference 4.0; 95% CI -4.0 to 12.0), cervical injection of lidocaine (mean difference -1.8; 95% CI -10.0 to 6.4), insertion of the hysteroscope (mean difference -8.7; 95% CI -19.7 to 2.3), placement of the first device (mean difference -4.4; 95% CI -15.8 to 7.0), and removal of the hysteroscope (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI -3.9 to 5.7). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.0 to 1.6 minutes) and time in the recovery area (mean difference 3.6 minutes; 95% CI -11.3 to 18.5 minutes) was not different between groups. However, women who received intravenous conscious sedation had lower pain scores at the time of insertion of the second tubal device compared to women who received oral analgesia (mean difference -12.60; CI -23.98 to -1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available literature is insufficient to determine the appropriate analgesia or anesthesia for sterilization by hysteroscopy. Compared to paracervical block with normal saline, paracervical block with lidocaine reduced pain during some portions of the procedure. Intravenous sedation resulted in lower pain scores during insertion of the second tubal device. However, neither paracervical block with lidocaine nor conscious sedation significantly reduced overall pain scores for sterilization by hysteroscopy.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2012, we searched for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne in the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (Aug 2011). For the initial review, we wrote to researchers to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on facial lesion counts, both total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules); acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant, and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous data, we calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 31 trials with 12,579 participants. Of 24 comparisons made, 6 compared a COC to placebo, 17 different COCs, and 1 compared a COC to an antibiotic. Of nine placebo-controlled trials with data for analysis, all showed COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. A levonorgestrel-COC group had fewer total lesion counts (MD -9.98; 95% CI -16.51 to -3.45), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and were more likely to have a clinician assessment of clear or almost clear lesions and participant self-assessment of improved acne lesions. A norethindrone acetate COC had better results for clinician global assessment of no acne to mild acne (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.62). In two combined trials, a norgestimate COC showed reduced total lesion counts (MD-9.32; 95% CI -14.19 to -4.45), reduced inflammatory lesion and comedones counts, and more with clinician assessment of improved acne. For two combined trials of a drospirenone COC, the investigators' assessment of clear or almost clear skin favored the drospirenone group (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.99 to 4.59). In one trial, the drospirenone-COC group showed greater (more positive) percent changes for total lesion count (MD 29.08; 95% CI 3.13 to 55.03), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and papule and closed comedone counts. A dienogest-COC group had greater percentage decreases in total lesion count (MD -15.30; 95% CI -19.98 to -10.62) and inflammatory lesion count, and more women assessed with overall improvement of facial acne. A CMA-COC group had more 'responders,' those with 50% or greater decrease in facial papules and pustules (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.55)Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages were less clear, and data were limited for any particular comparison. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel. A COC with cyproterone acetate showed better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel, but the studies produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes, but results were not consistent. A drospirenone COC appeared to be more effective than norgestimate or nomegestrol acetate plus 17β-estradiol but less effective than cyproterone acetate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update yielded six new trials but no change in conclusions. The six COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since only one trial addressed this issue. The use of standardized methods for assessing acne severity would help in synthesizing results across trials as well as aid in interpretation.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2012, we searched for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne in the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (Aug 2011). For the initial review, we wrote to researchers to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on facial lesion counts, both total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules); acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant, and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous data, we calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 31 trials with 12,579 participants. Of 24 comparisons made, 6 compared a COC to placebo, 17 different COCs, and 1 compared a COC to an antibiotic. Of nine placebo-controlled trials with data for analysis, all showed COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. A levonorgestrel-COC group had fewer total lesion counts (MD -9.98; 95% CI -16.51 to -3.45), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and were more likely to have a clinician assessment of clear or almost clear lesions and participant self-assessment of improved acne lesions. A norethindrone acetate COC had better results for clinician global assessment of no acne to mild acne (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.62). In two combined trials, a norgestimate COC showed reduced total lesion counts (MD-9.32; 95% CI -14.19 to -4.45), reduced inflammatory lesion and comedones counts, and more with clinician assessment of improved acne. For two combined trials of a drospirenone COC, the investigators' assessment of clear or almost clear skin favored the drospirenone group (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.99 to 4.59). In one trial, the drospirenone-COC group showed greater (more positive) percent changes for total lesion count (MD 29.08; 95% CI 3.13 to 55.03), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and papule and closed comedone counts. A dienogest-COC group had greater percentage decreases in total lesion count (MD -15.30; 95% CI -19.98 to -10.62) and inflammatory lesion count, and more women assessed with overall improvement of facial acne. A CMA-COC group had more 'responders,' those with 50% or greater decrease in facial papules and pustules (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.55)Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages were less clear, and data were limited for any particular comparison. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel. A COC with cyproterone acetate showed better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel, but the studies produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes, but results were not consistent. A drospirenone COC appeared to be more effective than norgestimate or nomegestrol acetate plus 17β-estradiol but less effective than cyproterone acetate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update yielded six new trials but no change in conclusions. The six COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since only one trial addressed this issue. The use of standardized methods for assessing acne severity would help in synthesizing results across trials as well as aid in interpretation.

Steroidal contraceptives: effect on carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes mellitus

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 primarily with contraceptives containing estrogen.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of hormonal contraceptives on carbohydrate metabolism in healthy women and those at risk for diabetes due to overweight.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2012, we searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, and LILACS for studies of hormonal contraceptives and carbohydrate metabolism. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Previous searches also included EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials were considered if they examined carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes who used hormonal contraceptives for contraception. Comparisons could be 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 measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed all titles and abstracts identified during the literature searches. The data were extracted and entered into RevMan. We wrote to researchers for missing data. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) was computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 31 trials that met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials compared combined oral contraceptives (COCs); others examined different COC regimens, progestin-only pills, injectables, a vaginal ring, and implants. None included a placebo. Of 34 comparisons, eight had any notable difference between the study groups in an outcome.Twelve trials studied desogestrel-containing COCs, and the few differences from levonorgestrel COCs were inconsistent. A meta-analysis of two studies showed the desogestrel group had a higher mean fasting glucose (MD 0.20; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41). Where data could not be combined, single studies showed lower mean fasting glucose (MD -0.40; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.08) and higher means for two-hour glucose response (MD 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.71) and insulin area under the curve (AUC) (MD 20.30; 95% CI 4.24 to 36.36).Three trials examined the etonogestrel vaginal ring and one examined an etonogestrel implant. One trial showed the ring group had lower mean AUC insulin than the levonorgestrel-COC group (MD -204.51; 95% CI -389.64 to -19.38).Of eight trials of norethisterone preparations, five compared COCs and three compared injectables. In a COC trial, a norethisterone group had smaller mean change in glucose two-hour response than a levonorgestrel-COC group (MD -0.30; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06). In an injectable study, a group using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate had higher means than the group using norethisterone enanthate for fasting glucose (MD 10.05; 95% CI 3.16 to 16.94), glucose two-hour response (MD 17.00; 95% CI 5.67 to 28.33), and fasting insulin (MD 3.40; 95% CI 2.07 to 4.73).Among five recent trials, two examined newer COCs with different estrogen types. One showed the group with nomegestrel acetate plus 17β-estradiol had lower means than the levonorgestrel group for incremental AUC glucose (MD -1.43; 95% CI -2.55 to -0.31) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.02). Two trials compared extended versus conventional (cyclic) regimens. With a dienogest COC, an extended-use group had greater mean change in AUC glucose (MD 82.00; 95% CI 10.72 to 153.28). In a small trial using two levonorgestrel COCs, the lower-dose group showed smaller mean change in fasting glucose (MD -3.00; 95% CI -5.89 to -0.11), but the obese and normal weight women did not differ significantly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests no major differences in carbohydrate metabolism between different hormonal contraceptives in women without diabetes. We cannot make strong statements due to having few studies that compared the same types of contraceptives. Many trials had small numbers of participants and some had large losses. Many of the earlier studies had limited reporting of methods.We still know very little about women at risk for metabolic problems due to being overweight. More than half of the trials had weight restrictions as inclusion criteria. Only one small trial stratified the groups by body mass index (obese versus normal).

Expectant care versus surgical treatment for miscarriage

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage is a common complication of early pregnancy that can have both medical and psychological consequences such as depression and anxiety. The need for routine surgical evacuation with miscarriage has been questioned because of potential complications such as cervical trauma, uterine perforation, hemorrhage, or infection.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and effectiveness of expectant management versus surgical treatment for early pregnancy failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 February 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4 of 4), PubMed (2005 to 11 January 2012), POPLINE (inception to 11 January 2012), LILACS (2005 to 11 January 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials comparing expectant care and surgical treatment (vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage) for miscarriage were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. For dichotomous data, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we computed the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We entered additional data such as medians into 'Other data' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials with 1521 participants in this review. The expectant-care group was more likely to have an incomplete miscarriage by two weeks (RR 3.98; 95% CI 2.94 to 5.38) or by six to eight weeks (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.15 to 5.69). The need for unplanned surgical treatment was greater for the expectant-care group (RR 7.35; 95% CI 5.04 to 10.72). The mean percentage needing surgical management in the expectant-care group was 28%, while 4% of the surgical-treatment group needed additional surgery. The expectant-care group had more days of bleeding (MD 1.59; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.45). Further, more of the expectant-care group needed transfusion (RR 6.45; 95% CI 1.21 to 34.42). The mean percentage needing blood transfusion was 1.4% for expectant care compared with none for surgical management. Results were mixed for pain. Diagnosis of infection was similar for the two groups (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.12), as were results for various psychological outcomes. Pregnancy data were limited. Costs were lower for the expectant-care group (MD -499.10; 95% CI -613.04 to -385.16; in UK pounds sterling).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Expectant management led to a higher risk of incomplete miscarriage, need for unplanned (or additional) surgical emptying of the uterus, bleeding and need for transfusion. Risk of infection and psychological outcomes were similar for both groups. Costs were lower for expectant management. Given the lack of clear superiority of either approach, the woman's preference should be important in decision making. Pharmacological ('medical') management has added choices for women and their clinicians and has been examined in other reviews.

Steroid hormones for contraception in men

BACKGROUND

Male hormonal contraception has been an elusive goal. Administration of sex steroids to men can shut off sperm production through effects on the pituitary and hypothalamus. However, this approach also decreases production of testosterone, so 'add-back' therapy is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of male hormonal contraception.

SEARCH METHODS

In January and February 2012, we searched the computerized databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for recent trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Previous searches included EMBASE. We wrote to authors of identified trials to seek additional unpublished or published trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs that compared a steroid hormone with another contraceptive. We excluded non-steroidal male contraceptives, such as gossypol. We included both placebo and active-regimen control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was the absence of spermatozoa on semen examination, often called azoospermia. Data were insufficient to examine pregnancy rates and side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 33 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The proportion of men who reportedly achieved azoospermia or had no detectable sperm varied widely. A few important differences emerged. 1) Levonorgestrel implants (160 μg daily) combined with injectable testosterone enanthate (TE) were more effective than levonorgestrel 125 µg daily combined with testosterone patches. 2) Levonorgestrel 500 μg daily improved the effectiveness of TE 100 mg injected weekly. 3) Levonorgestrel 250 μg daily improved the effectiveness of testosterone undecanoate (TU) 1000 mg injection plus TU 500 mg injected at 6 and 12 weeks. 4) Desogestrel 150 μg was less effective than desogestrel 300 μg (with testosterone pellets). 5) TU 500 mg was less likely to produce azoospermia than TU 1000 mg (with levonorgestrel implants). 6) Norethisterone enanthate 200 mg with TU 1000 mg led to more azoospermia when given every 8 weeks versus 12 weeks. 7) Four implants of 7-alpha-methyl-19-nortestosterone (MENT) were more effective than two MENT implants. We did not conduct any meta-analysis due to intervention differences.Several trials showed promising efficacy in percentages with azoospermia. Three examined desogestrel and testosterone preparations or etonogestrel and testosterone, and two examined levonorgestrel and testosterone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No male hormonal contraceptive is ready for clinical use. Most trials were small exploratory studies. Their power to detect important differences was limited and their results imprecise. In addition, assessment of azoospermia can vary by sensitivity of the method used. Future trials need more attention to the methodological requirements for RCTs. More trials with adequate power would also be helpful.

Triphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

Side effects of oral contraceptive (OC) pills discourage adherence to and continuation of OC regimens. Strategies to decrease adverse effects led to the introduction of the triphasic OC in the 1980s. Whether triphasic OCs have higher accidental pregnancy rates than monophasic pills is unknown. Nor is it known if triphasic pills give better cycle control and fewer side effects than the monophasic pills.

OBJECTIVES

To compare triphasic OCs with monophasic OCs in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) in May 2011. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers and pharmaceutical companies to identify other trials not found in our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any triphasic OC with any monophasic pill used to prevent pregnancy. Interventions had to include at least three treatment cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the studies found in the literature searches for possible inclusion and for their methodological quality. We contacted the authors of all included studies and of possibly randomized trials for supplemental information about the methods used and outcomes studied. We entered the data into RevMan and calculated odds ratios for the outcome measures of efficacy, breakthrough bleeding, spotting, withdrawal bleeding and discontinuation.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 23 trials included, 19 examined contraceptive effectiveness. The triphasic and monophasic preparations did not differ significantly. Several trials reported favorable bleeding patterns, that is less spotting, breakthrough bleeding or amenorrhea, in triphasic versus monophasic OC users. However, meta-analysis was generally not possible due to differences in measuring and reporting the cycle disturbance data as well as differences in progestogen type and hormone dosages. No significant differences were found in the numbers of women who discontinued due to medical reasons, cycle disturbances, intermenstrual bleeding or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether triphasic OCs differ from monophasic OCs in effectiveness, bleeding patterns or discontinuation rates. Therefore, we recommend monophasic pills as a first choice for women starting OC use. Large, high-quality RCTs that compare triphasic and monophasic OCs with identical progestogens are needed to determine whether triphasic pills differ from monophasic OCs. Future studies should follow the recommendations of Belsey or Mishell on recording menstrual bleeding patterns and the CONSORT reporting guidelines.

Oral contraceptives for functional ovarian cysts

BACKGROUND

Functional ovarian cysts are a common gynecological problem among women of reproductive age worldwide. When large, persistent, or painful, these cysts may require operations, sometimes resulting in removal of the ovary. Since early oral contraceptives were associated with a reduced incidence of functional ovarian cysts, many clinicians inferred that birth control pills could be used to treat cysts as well. This became a common clinical practice in the early 1970s.

OBJECTIVES

This review examined all randomized controlled trials that studied oral contraceptives as therapy for functional ovarian cysts.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, POPLINE, and EMBASE, as well as clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We also examined the reference lists of articles and wrote to authors of identified trials to seek articles we had missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials in any language that included oral contraceptives used for treatment and not prevention of functional ovarian cysts. Criteria for diagnosis of cysts were those used by authors of trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently abstracted data from the articles. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy of data entry. For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight randomized controlled trials from four countries; the studies included a total of 686 women. Treatment with combined oral contraceptives did not hasten resolution of functional ovarian cysts in any trial. This held true for cysts that occurred spontaneously as well as those that developed after ovulation induction. Most cysts resolved without treatment within a few cycles; persistent cysts tended to be pathological (e.g., endometrioma or para-ovarian cyst) and not physiological.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although widely used for treating functional ovarian cysts, combined oral contraceptives appear to be of no benefit. Watchful waiting for two or three cycles is appropriate. Should cysts persist, surgical management is often indicated.

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight

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.

Steroidal contraceptives: effect on bone fractures in women

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. 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 for studies of fracture or bone health and hormonal contraceptives in MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. We wrote to investigators to find additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered if they examined fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), or bone turnover in women with hormonal contraceptive use prior to menopause. Interventions could include comparing a hormonal contraceptive with a placebo or another hormonal contraceptive or could compare providing a supplement versus a placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed all titles and abstracts identified through the literature searches. Mean differences were computed using the inverse variance approach. For dichotomous outcomes, the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was calculated. Both included the 95% confidence interval (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. Due to different interventions, no trials could be combined for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 16 RCTs we found, 2 used a placebo and 1 used a non-hormonal method as the comparison, while 13 compared two hormonal contraceptives. No trial had fracture as an outcome. Most measured BMD and several assessed bone turnover. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) was associated with decreased bone mineral density. The placebo-controlled trials showed BMD increases for DMPA plus estrogen supplement and decreases for DMPA plus placebo. Combination contraceptives did not appear to negatively affect bone health, but none were placebo-controlled. For implants, the single-rod etonogestrel group showed a greater BMD decrease versus the two-rod levonorgestrel group. However, results were not consistent across all implant comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whether steroidal contraceptives influence fracture risk cannot be determined from existing information. 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.

Strategies to improve adherence and acceptability of hormonal methods of contraception

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.

Theory-based interventions for contraception

BACKGROUND

The explicit use of theory in research helps expand the knowledge base. Theories and models have been used extensively in HIV-prevention research and in interventions for preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The health behavior field uses many theories or models of change. However, educational interventions addressing contraception often have no stated theoretical base.

OBJECTIVES

Review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested a theoretical approach to inform contraceptive choice; encourage contraceptive use; or promote adherence to, or continuation of, a contraceptive regimen.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched computerized databases for trials that tested a theory-based intervention for improving contraceptive use (MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP). We also wrote to researchers to find other trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials tested a theory-based intervention for improving contraceptive use. We excluded trials focused on high-risk groups and preventing sexually transmitted infections or HIV. Interventions addressed the use of one or more contraceptive methods for contraception. The reports provided evidence that the intervention was based on a specific theory or model. The primary outcomes were pregnancy, contraceptive choice, initiating or changing contraceptive use, contraceptive regimen adherence, and contraception continuation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary author evaluated abstracts for eligibility. Two authors extracted data from included studies. We calculated the odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes. No meta-analysis was conducted due to intervention differences.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs met our inclusion criteria. In 2 of 10 trials with pregnancy or birth data, a theory-based group showed better results. Four of 10 trials with contraceptive use data (other than condoms) showed better outcomes in an experimental group. For condom use, a theory-based group had favorable results in three of eight trials. Social Cognitive Theory was the main theoretical basis for five trials, of which three showed positive results. Two based on other social cognition models had favorable results, as did two of four focused on motivational interviewing. Thirteen trials provided multiple sessions or contacts. Of seven effective interventions, five targeted adolescents, including four with group sessions. Three effective trials had individual sessions. Seven trials were rated as having high or moderate quality; three of those had favorable results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Family planning researchers and practitioners could adapt the effective interventions. Reproductive health needs high-quality research on behavior change, especially for clinical and low-resource settings. More thorough use of single theories would help, as would better reporting on research design and intervention implementation.