The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience

Video counseling about emergency contraception: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses emergency contraception (EC) dispensed before and after a 3-min video counseling intervention on EC.

METHODS

We used a quasi-experimental design and two data sources to assess the impact of offering the video counseling intervention. We used electronic health records from six Planned Parenthood Association of Utah health centers with onsite oral EC dispensing to determine pre- and postintervention EC distribution. Beginning July 2015, three participating locations offered the video counseling intervention to English-speaking EC clients. These clients completed a brief survey assessing EC knowledge and uptake, providing a patient-level data source. We used a difference-in-difference analysis of the clinic-level data to assess the effect of the video counseling intervention. This analysis compares the variation in oral EC distribution between clinics offering the video intervention and clinics not offering the video counseling before and after the video counseling was introduced. Multivariable logistic regression assessed client characteristics associated with receiving ulipristal.

RESULTS

The six health centers served 8269 English-language EC clients during 2015. At participating sites, provision of ulipristal increased from 12% (269/2315) preintervention to 28% (627/2266) postintervention (p<.001). Nonparticipating sites did not see a change. Clients seeking EC at sites offering video counseling were more likely to receive ulipristal even after controlling for age, insurance and ethnicity (adjusted OR 3.4, 95% CI 3.0-3.9). Using the difference-in-difference analysis, the video counseling intervention accounted for an 18% (95% CI 14%-21%) increase in ulipristal provision at the participating health centers. Among the 2266 women seeking EC who were offered video counseling, 19% (425/2266) watched the video, and 60% (254/425) reported the video affected their EC preferences. Knowledge of the IUD for EC increased, but reported uptake of this method remained low (6.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to video counseling increased use of more effective oral EC and increased knowledge about all EC options.

IMPLICATIONS

Use of a brief informational video about EC options at family planning clinics may increase the proportion of EC clients receiving more effective EC methods.

Cystoscopic removal of a migrated intrauterine device to the bladder; a case report

Background

An intrauterine device (IUD) is a well-accepted means of reversible contraception. Migration of IUD to the bladder through partial or complete perforation has been rarely reported. This phenomenon could be strongly associated with history of prior cesarean sections (C-section) or early insertion of the device in the postpartum period.

Case presentation

In this study, a case of copper IUD migration through cesarean scar defect is presented, in such a way that was successfully managed by cystoscopic removal. A 31-year-old female with a history of lower urinary symptoms referred to the clinic for her secondary infertility work-up. A copper IUD outside the uterus in the bladder was found using hysterosalpingraphy. A plain abdominal radiography also confirmed the presence of a T-shaped IUD in the pelvis. According to ultrasound, the copper IUD was partly in the bladder lumen and within the bladder wall. The patient had a history of an intrauterine device insertion eight years ago followingher second cesarean delivery. Three years later, her IUD was expelled, and another copper IUD was inserted. Thesecond copper IUD was alsoremoved while she decided to be pregnant. The patient finally underwent a hysteroscopic cystoscopy. The intrauterine device with its short arms embedded in the bladder wall was successfully extracted through the urethra.

Conclusions

IUD insertion seems to be more challenging in women with prior uterine incisions and requires more attention. Cystoscopic removal should be considered as a safe and effective minimally invasive approach tomanage a migrated intrauterine device in the bladder.

Emergency Contraception Counseling in California Community Pharmacies: A Mystery Caller Study

This study was conducted to determine which emergency contraception (EC) methods are offered by community pharmacists in response to patient calls. Female mystery callers called all community pharmacies in two California cities using standardized scripts. The callers inquired about options available to prevent pregnancy after sex and whether that method was available at the pharmacy, using follow-up probes if necessary. A total of 239 calls were completed in San Diego (n = 127, 53%) and San Francisco (n = 112, 47%). Pharmacists indicated availability at most sites (n = 220, 92%) with option(s) reported as levonorgestrel only (LNG; n = 211, 88.3%), both ulipristal acetate (UPA) and LNG (n = 4, 1.6%), UPA only (n = 1, 0.4%), or non-specific EC (n = 4, 1.7%). Nineteen pharmacies (7.9%) did not have EC available on the day of the call. Following additional probing, some pharmacists discussed UPA (n = 49, 20.5%) or the copper intrauterine device (n = 1, 0.4%) as EC options. LNG EC products were available same-day in 90.1% of pharmacies, whereas UPA was available same-day in 9.6% of pharmacies. The majority of pharmacies called in this study offered and stocked at least one EC option, but the focus of discussions was on LNG and matched what was in stock and available.

Use of levonorgestrel as emergency contraception in overweight women

OBJECTIVE

Levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) may have decreased efficacy for women with body mass indices (BMI)≥26kg/m². This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of LNG EC use and EC counseling among overweight women.

METHODS

The 2013-2015 dataset from the National Survey of Family Growth was analyzed to determine the proportion of women with BMI≥26kg/m² who report recent use of LNG EC and EC counseling.

RESULTS

Overall, 2.4% of respondents reported recent use of LNG EC. Among women using oral LNG for EC, 29.8% of survey participants reported BMI≥26kg/m². Additionally, 40.2% of women with BMI≥26kg/m² using oral LNG EC reported having a doctor or medical provider talk to them about emergency contraception within the last 12 months, compared to 18.3% of LNG EC users with BMI<26kg/m² (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent counseling from clinicians and concerns for decreased efficacy, a significant number of overweight women continue to use LNG for EC. Clinicians should counsel women with BMI≥26kg/m² on the potential limitations of oral LNG for EC and offer more effective EC methods, including the copper intrauterine device and oral ulipristal acetate.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence).Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I² = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I² = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA may be more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Access to emergency contraception in Kansas City clinics

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accessibility of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs) for emergency contraception (EC) in reproductive health centers in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a secret shopper method, two female investigators called the reproductive health centers listed as EC providers on the nonprofit website bedsider.org that were located within 25 miles of the University of Kansas Medical Center. We categorized clinics as Title X providers vs. not according to the grantee list from the Office of Population Affairs. Investigators inquired about obtaining a UPA prescription by phone, the availability of the copper IUD for EC and time to first available appointment for EC. We evaluated correlates of EC access and provision with Fisher's Exact Tests.

RESULTS

We identified 40 clinics as potential EC providers. Some clinics reported that UPA could be prescribed by phone to existing patients (13/40, 32%), while others reported that women must meet with a provider first (15/40, 38%). Few clinics offered copper IUDs as EC (3/40, 8%). Title X clinic status did not predict provision of UPA by phone or copper IUDs as EC. The average time to next available appointment was 9±9 days to discuss EC and 13±9 days for a copper IUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Accessing the most efficacious forms of EC in a timely fashion presents many logistic challenges for women.

IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare systems should streamline protocols, train providers and improve rapid-access referral networks to facilitate timely provision of UPA and copper IUDs for EC.

Contraceptive care for Canadian youth

Sexual and reproductive health is an important component of comprehensive health care for youth. This statement provides guidance for selecting and prescribing contraceptives for youth, including commonly prescribed hormonal contraceptives-the pill, patch, ring and injectable progestin-and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs). LARCs, including subdermal implants (which are not available in Canada) and intrauterine contraceptives (IUCs), are substantially more effective during typical use than hormonal contraceptives. This statement endorses LARCs as the first-line option for contraception for Canadian youth, while emphasizing that providers must collaborate with youth to select a contraceptive method that is acceptable, safe, effective and practical for them. Strategies that eliminate obstacles to initiating and continuing contraception are provided.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency contraception options over 1 year

BACKGROUND

The copper intrauterine device is the most effective form of emergency contraception and can also provide long-term contraception. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device has also been studied in combination with oral levonorgestrel for women seeking emergency contraception. However, intrauterine devices have higher up-front costs than oral methods, such as ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Health care payers and decision makers (eg, health care insurers, government programs) with financial constraints must determine if the increased effectiveness of intrauterine device emergency contraception methods are worth the additional costs.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 emergency contraception strategies-ulipristal acetate, oral levonorgestrel, copper intrauterine device, and oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device-over 1 year from a US payer perspective.

STUDY DESIGN

Costs (2017 US dollars) and pregnancies were estimated over 1 year using a Markov model of 1000 women seeking emergency contraception. Every 28-day cycle, the model estimated the predicted number of pregnancy outcomes (ie, live birth, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion) resulting from emergency contraception failure and subsequent contraception use. Model inputs were derived from published literature and national sources. An emergency contraception strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ie, the cost to prevent 1 additional pregnancy) was less than the weighted average cost of pregnancy outcomes in the United States ($5167). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probability of being the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy were calculated from 1000 probabilistic model iterations. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty in the cost of emergency contraception, subsequent contraception, and pregnancy outcomes as well as the model probabilities.

RESULTS

In 1000 women seeking emergency contraception, the model estimated direct medical costs of $1,228,000 and 137 unintended pregnancies with ulipristal acetate, compared to $1,279,000 and 150 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel, $1,376,000 and 61 unintended pregnancies with copper intrauterine devices, and $1,558,000 and 63 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device was the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy in the majority (63.9%) of model iterations and, compared to ulipristal acetate, cost $1957 per additional pregnancy prevented. Model estimates were most sensitive to changes in the cost of the copper intrauterine device (with higher copper intrauterine device costs, oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device became the most cost-effective option) and the cost of a live birth (with lower-cost births, ulipristal acetate became the most cost-effective option). When the proportion of obese women in the population increased, the copper intrauterine device became even more most cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Over 1 year, the copper intrauterine device is currently the most cost-effective emergency contraception option. Policy makers and health care insurance companies should consider the potential for long-term savings when women seeking emergency contraception can promptly obtain whatever contraceptive best meets their personal preferences and needs; this will require removing barriers and promoting access to intrauterine devices at emergency contraception visits.

The intrauterine device as emergency contraception: how much do young women know?

BACKGROUND

Unprotected intercourse is common, especially among teens and young women. Access to intrauterine device (IUD) as emergency contraception (EC) can help interested patients more effectively prevent unintended pregnancy and can also offer ongoing contraception. This study evaluated young women's awareness of IUD as EC and interest in case of need.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from young women aged 18-25 years, not desiring pregnancy within 12 months, and receiving contraceptive counseling within a cluster-randomized trial in 40 US Planned Parenthood health centers in 2011-2013 (n=1500). Heath centers were randomized to receive enhanced training on contraceptive counseling and IUD placement, or to provide standard care. The intervention did not focus specifically on IUD as EC. We assessed awareness of IUD as EC, desire to learn more about EC and most trusted source of information of EC among women in both intervention and control groups completing baseline and 3- or 6-month follow-up questionnaires (n=1138).

RESULTS

At follow-up, very few young women overall (7.5%) visiting health centers had heard of IUD as EC. However, if they needed EC, most (68%) reported that they would want to learn about IUDs in addition to EC pills, especially those who would be very unhappy to become pregnant (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.6, p<.05). Most (91%) reported a doctor or nurse as their most trusted source of EC information, over Internet (6%) or friends (2%), highlighting providers' essential role.

CONCLUSION

Most young women at risk of unintended pregnancy are not aware of IUD as EC and look to their providers for trusted information. Contraceptive education should explicitly address IUD as EC.

IMPLICATIONS

Few young women know that the IUD can be used for EC or about its effectiveness. However, if they needed EC, most reported that they would want to learn about IUDs in addition to EC pills, especially those very unhappy to become pregnant. Contraceptive education should explicitly address IUD as EC.

Update on emergency contraception

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Emergency contraception provides a critical and time-sensitive opportunity for women to prevent undesired pregnancy after intercourse. Both access and available options for emergency contraception have changed over the last several years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emergency contraceptive pills can be less effective in obese women. The maximum achieved serum concentration of levonorgestrel (LNG) is lower in obese women than women of normal BMI, and doubling the dose of LNG (3 mg) increases its concentration maximum, approximating the level in normal BMI women receiving one dose of LNG. Repeated use of both LNG and ulipristal acetate (UPA) is well tolerated. Hormonal contraception can be immediately started following LNG use, but should be delayed for 5 days after UPA use to avoid dampening the efficacy of UPA. The copper intrauterine device (IUD) is the only IUD approved for emergency contraception (and the most effective method of emergency contraception), but use of LNG IUD as emergency contraception is currently being investigated. Accurate knowledge about emergency contraception remains low both for patients and healthcare providers.

SUMMARY

Emergency contraception is an important yet underutilized tool available to women to prevent pregnancy. Current options including copper IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are safe and well tolerated. Significant gaps in knowledge of emergency contraception on both the provider and user level exist, as do barriers to expedient access of emergency contraception.

Methods of contraception: the nurse's role in providing care and advice

Most women require contraception during their reproductive years, and many methods are available. Women should have access to all of these methods and be encouraged to take an active role in decision-making about their choice of contraceptive, within medical eligibility constraints. Long-acting reversible contraceptives are more effective than user-dependent methods, such as condoms, and should be offered to all women during contraceptive consultations. In primary care settings, nurses often provide much basic contraception care and advice. Nurses should ensure that they work within the limits of their competence and are aware of how and where to refer women for specialist support, if required.

Practice Bulletin No. 186: Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Implants and Intrauterine Devices

Intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants, also called long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC), are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods. The major advantage of LARC compared with other reversible contraceptive methods is that they do not require ongoing effort on the part of the patient for long-term and effective use. In addition, after the device is removed, the return of fertility is rapid (1, 2). The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to provide information for appropriate patient selection and evidence-based recommendations for LARC initiation and management. The management of clinical challenges associated with LARC use is beyond the scope of this document and is addressed in Committee Opinion No. 672, Clinical Challenges of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods (3).

Contraception options: Aspects unique to adolescent and young adult

Sexual health for adolescents is based on three components: recognizing sexual rights, sexuality education and counseling, and thirdly confidential high quality services. Contraception needs to include prevention of both STIs and pregnancies. The first option for adolescents is condoms backed-up by emergency contraception; and later hormonal contraceptives in a longer, mutually monogamous relationship. Condoms and hormonal contraception together can be well recommended for adolescents for dual protection. Long acting reversible contraception (LARC) including both intrauterine contraception and implants are safe and highly effective and thus well suited for adolescents. Improved contraceptive methods do not automatically lead to reduced numbers of adolescent abortions. When sexuality education, proper counseling and sexual health services are all provided, it is possible to profoundly improve adolescent sexual health.

Knowledge of and Interest in the Copper Intrauterine Device Among Women Seeking Emergency Contraception

OBJECTIVE

Emergency contraception (EC) includes hormonal pills (levonorgestrel or ulipristal acetate) and the copper IUD (Cu-IUD). The Cu-IUD is more effective for EC than hormonal pills but remains underused, possibly because of lack of knowledge or interest. The objective of this study was to examine knowledge of and interest in the Cu-IUD for EC among Canadian women seeking EC.

METHODS

The study used a cross-sectional convenience survey of English-speaking women presenting for EC at two sexual health clinics in Toronto. The anonymous paper-based survey was completed in the waiting room. The main outcome measures were women's knowledge of and interest in the Cu-IUD for EC. Demographic and reproductive health data were also collected.

RESULTS

Between January and December 2013, 124 surveys were completed. Mean age of respondents was 26 years (SD ± 6.9). Most were single (85%), and over one half had completed postsecondary education. Overall, 77% had heard of the Cu-IUD, but only 21% were aware of its use for EC. Over 50% were aware that the Cu-IUD is hormone-free and may be used for long-term contraception. Women were less familiar with the window of administration of the Cu-IUD for EC (26%) and its efficacy (6%). In total, 23% (28 of 124) of women were interested in the Cu-IUD, including eight women scheduled to receive one that day.

CONCLUSION

Women presenting for EC were unaware of the Cu-IUD but were moderately interested in it once informed. Public education and routine counselling about the Cu-IUD at EC visits may increase the uptake of this method.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency. Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence). Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I2 = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I2 = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA was more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

One-year continuation of copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine devices initiated at the time of emergency contraception

OBJECTIVE(S)

This study compares 1-year intrauterine device (IUD) continuation among women presenting for emergency contraception (EC) and initiating the copper (Cu T380A) IUD or the levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg IUD plus 1.5 mg oral LNG.

STUDY DESIGN

This cohort study enrolled 188 women who presented at a single family planning clinic in Utah between June 2013 and September 2014 and selected either the Cu T380A IUD or LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG for EC. Trained personnel followed participants by phone, text or e-mail for 12 months or until discontinuation occurred. We assessed reasons for discontinuation and used Cox proportional hazard models, Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to assess differences in continuation rates between IUDs.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six women received IUDs; 66 (37%) chose the Cu T380A IUD and 110 (63%) chose the LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG. At 1 year, we accounted for 147 (84%) participants, 33 (22%) had requested removals, 13 (9%) had an expulsion and declined reinsertion, 3 (2%) had a pregnancy with their IUD in place and 98 (67%) were still using their device. Continuation rates did not differ by IUD type; 60% of Cu T380A IUD users and 70% of LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG users were still using their device at 12 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.3).

CONCLUSION(S)

Two-thirds of women who chose IUD placement at the EC clinical encounter continued use at 1 year. Women initiating Cu T380A IUD and LNG 52 mg IUD had similar 1-year continuation rates. These findings support same-day insertion of IUDs for women who are seeking EC and would like to use a highly effective reversible method going forward.

IMPLICATIONS

Providing IUD options for EC users presents an opportunity to increase availability of highly effective contraception.

Emergency Contraception Algorithm and Guide for Clinicians

There are currently three forms of emergency contraception: oral levonorgestrel, oral ulipristal acetate, and the copper intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device is the most effective, followed by ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel, respectively. Although levonorgestrel is the least effective method, studies show that more prescribers are familiar with it and that is the most frequently used method. Clinicians should consider several factors when helping women make informed medical decisions regarding emergency contraception, including access to the products, a woman's individual preference, timing since unprotected intercourse, body mass index or weight, and initiation or resumption of routine contraception. This article explains and summarizes these considerations and provides an algorithm to guide clinicians.

The safety of available and emerging options for emergency contraception

INTRODUCTION

Emergency contraception (EC) is a way to significantly reduce the chance of becoming pregnant after an episode of unprotected intercourse. Considerable data support the safety of all available and emerging options for EC. Areas covered: This review presents a comprehensive summary of the literature regarding the safety of EC as well as directions for further study. PubMed was searched for all relevant studies published prior to June 2017. Expertopinion: All available methods of EC (i.e., ulipristal acetate pills, levonorgestrel pills, and the copper-IUD), carry only mild side effects and serious adverse events are essentially unknown. The copper IUD has the highest efficacy of EC methods. Given the excellent safety profiles of mifepristone and the levonorgestrel IUD, research is ongoing related to use of these products for EC.

The use of selective progestin receptor modulators (SPRMs) and more specifically ulipristal acetate in the practice of gynaecology

This review discusses the development of selective progestin receptor modulators (SPRMs) for use in women's health and specifically the use of ulipristal acetate (UPA) as emergency contraception (EC) and as a treatment for symptomatic fibroids in women who want to preserve their fertility or avoid a hysterectomy. As an EC, UPA 30 mg should be recommended for women, within 102 h of unprotected intercourse. As a treatment of fibroids, UPA (5 mg daily dose) should be administered for periods of three months as a pre-surgical strategy, reducing bleeding and fibroid size and facilitating surgery. A proportion of these patients may even avoid surgery. Future developments will demonstrate whether UPA can be used for other indications such as endometriosis and breast cancer prevention or treatment.

Sometimes You Do Get a Second Chance: Emergency Contraception for Adolescents

Unplanned or unintended pregnancy remains a significant challenge for adolescents; many teens who plan ahead but opt not to choose long-acting reversible contraceptive methods have high failure rates with condom usage, oral contraceptives, and other less long-acting methods. Emergency contraception (EC) remains a necessity for those adolescents seeking a second chance to prevent the unintended consequences of unplanned sexual activity. At present, 5 postcoital methods remain available as EC globally: intrauterine devices, ulipristal acetate, a selective progesterone modulator, mifepristone; levonorgestrel, and ethinyl estradiol plus levonorgestrel or norgestrel (rarely used now that progestin only methods are more readily available).

2016 Updates to US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use and Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use: Highlights for Adolescent Patients

The US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) and US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (SPR) provide evidence-based guidance to safely provide contraception counseling and services. Both documents were updated in 2016 and are endorsed by the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. The purpose of this mini-review is to highlight updates to the US MEC and US SPR that are most relevant to health care providers of adolescents to support dissemination and implementation of these evidence-based best practices. This document is intended to highlight these changes and to complement, not replace, the detailed practice guidance within the US MEC and US SPR.

Role of the community pharmacist in emergency contraception counseling and delivery in the United States: current trends and future prospects

Women and couples continue to experience unintended pregnancies at high rates. In the US, 45% of all pregnancies are either mistimed or unwanted. Mishaps with contraceptives, such as condom breakage, missed pills, incorrect timing of patch or vaginal ring application, contraceptive nonuse, forced intercourse, and other circumstances, place women at risk of unintended pregnancy. There is a critical role for emergency contraception (EC) in preventing those pregnancies. There are currently three methods of EC available in the US. Levonorgestrel EC pills have been available with a prescription for over 15 years and over-the-counter since 2013. In 2010, ulipristal acetate EC pills became available with a prescription. Finally, the copper intrauterine device remains the most effective form of EC. Use of EC is increasing over time, due to wider availability and accessibility of EC methods. One strategy to expand access for both prescription and nonprescription EC products is to include pharmacies as a point of access and allow pharmacist prescribing. In eight states, pharmacists are able to prescribe and provide EC directly to women: levonorgestrel EC in eight states and ulipristal acetate in seven states. In addition to access with a prescription written by a pharmacist or other health care provider, levonorgestrel EC is available over-the-counter in pharmacies and grocery stores. Pharmacists play a critical role in access to EC in community pharmacies by ensuring product availability in the inventory, up-to-date knowledge, and comprehensive patient counseling. Looking to the future, there are opportunities to expand access to EC in pharmacies further by implementing legislation expanding the pharmacist scope of practice, ensuring third-party reimbursement for clinical services delivered by pharmacists, and including EC in pharmacy education and training.

Improving adolescent knowledge of emergency contraception: challenges and solutions

Globally, unintended adolescent pregnancies pose a significant burden. One of the most important tools that can help prevent unintended pregnancy is the timely use of emergency contraception (EC), which in turn will decrease the need for abortions and complications related to adolescent pregnancies. Indications for the use of EC include unprotected sexual intercourse, contraceptive failure, or sexual assault. Use of EC is recommended within 120 hours, though is most effective if used as soon as possible after unprotected sex. To use EC, adolescents need to be equipped with knowledge about the various EC methods, and how and where EC can be accessed. Great variability in the knowledge and use of EC around the world exists, which is a major barrier to its use. The aims of this paper were to 1) provide a brief overview of EC, 2) discuss key social determinants affecting knowledge and use of EC, and 3) explore best practices for overcoming the barriers of lack of knowledge, use, and access of EC.

Unprotected intercourse in the 2 weeks prior to requesting emergency intrauterine contraception

BACKGROUND

Previous emergency contraception studies have excluded women who report >1 episode of unprotected or underprotected intercourse. Thus, clinical recommendations are based on exposure to a single episode of underprotected intercourse.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the prevalence and timing of underprotected intercourse episodes among women requesting emergency contraception and to examine the probability of pregnancy following an emergency contraception regimen including placement of either a copper intrauterine device or a levonorgestrel intrauterine device with simultaneous administration of an oral levonorgestrel pill in women reporting multiple underprotected intercourse episodes, including episodes beyond the Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception time frame (6-14 days).

STUDY DESIGN

Women seeking emergency contraception who had a negative pregnancy test and desired either a copper intrauterine device or levonorgestrel emergency contraception regimen enrolled in this prospective observational study. At enrollment, participants reported the number and timing of underprotected intercourse episodes in the previous 14 days. Two weeks later, participants reported the results of a self-administered home pregnancy test.

RESULTS

Of the 176 women who presented for emergency contraception and received a same-day intrauterine device, 43% (n = 76) reported multiple underprotected intercourse episodes in the 14 days prior to presenting for emergency contraception. Women with multiple underprotected intercourse episodes reported a median of 3 events (range 2-20). Two-week pregnancy data were available for 172 (98%) participants. Only 1 participant had a positive pregnancy test. Pregnancy occurred in 0 of 97 (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0-3.7%) women with a single underprotected intercourse episode and 1 of 75 (1.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0-7.2%) women reporting multiple underprotected intercourse episodes; this includes 1 of 40 (2.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0-13.2%) women reporting underprotected intercourse 6-14 days prior to intrauterine device insertion.

CONCLUSION

Women seeking emergency contraception from clinics commonly reported multiple recent underprotected intercourse episodes, including episodes occurring beyond the Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception time frame. However, the probability of pregnancy was low following same-day intrauterine device placement.

Access to Emergency Contraception in the Over-the-Counter Era

INTRODUCTION

After years of complex regulatory changes, levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) is now approved for unrestricted sale in the United States. Timely access to EC pills is critical because they are more likely to work the sooner they are taken. This study assesses whether LNG EC is sold in accordance with current Food and Drug Administration regulations.

METHODS

We distributed an online questionnaire through an EC-focused listserv for reproductive health professionals, asking data collectors to visit local stores and document product names, price, over-the-counter shelf availability, and misinformation about age restrictions. We used χ2 analysis to assess bivariate associations and t tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to determine differences in means.

RESULTS

We collected information about 220 stores. The majority (65%) stocked EC on over-the-counter shelves, although only 22% of these displayed it without a locked security enclosure. Chain pharmacies were more likely to shelf-stock EC than independent pharmacies (77% vs. 5%; p = .000), but variation existed among stores within the same chain. Among stores that were asked, 40% incorrectly reported an age restriction for non-prescription purchase of LNG EC, whereas 95% correctly reported that men can buy LNG EC. The average price of branded and generic LNG EC was $49.64 and $40.05, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in the regulatory status of LNG EC have resulted in widespread confusion about how EC can be sold, and its high price contributes to access barriers. Retailers should ensure that consumers can access LNG EC quickly and easily by stocking the product on over-the-counter shelves and educating staff about current regulations.

Access to the copper IUD as post-coital contraception: results from a mystery caller study

OBJECTIVE

To assess access to the copper IUD as post-coital contraception (PCC) and identify barriers to obtaining this contraceptive method.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a "mystery caller" approach to survey primary care, family planning, and Ob/Gyn clinics in nine U.S. cities, identified via online search. A single researcher called 199 clinics, assuming the role of a patient seeking the copper IUD for PCC. Using a standard script, the researcher collected information regarding access to the copper IUD and respondent's knowledge of the copper IUD's indication for PCC. The primary outcome was availability of the copper IUD as PCC. Secondary outcomes included any provision of the copper IUD, awareness of the copper IUD's indication for use as PCC, and offering accurate information regarding the copper IUD as PCC. Fisher's exact test was used to compare outcomes by clinic type.

RESULTS

Two thirds (68%) of primary care clinics, 87% of family planning clinics, and all Ob/Gyn clinics offered the copper IUD (p<.001). Only 11% of primary care clinics, however, were aware of the copper IUD's use as PCC, as compared with 63% of family planning clinics and 24% of Ob/Gyn clinics (p<.001). Few primary care or Ob/Gyn clinics offered the copper IUD as PCC, while 49% of family planning clinics did so (p<.001).

CONCLUSION

Access to the copper IUD as PCC is limited and varies by clinic type. Knowledge gaps exist regarding the use of the copper IUD as PCC, as well as regarding the general medical guidelines for copper IUD placement.

IMPLICATIONS

A majority of primary care and Ob/Gyn clinics do not offer the copper IUD as PCC, and only about half of family planning clinics do so. Barriers included lack of knowledge, unavailability of device, unavailability of an appointment with a trained provider, and outdated IUD provision protocols.

"I don't know what I would have done." Women's experiences acquiring ulipristal acetate emergency contraception online from 2011 to 2015

OBJECTIVES

This study describes women's reasons for seeking ulipristal acetate (UPA) for emergency contraception (EC) through the only authorized online retailer for UPA EC in the US.

STUDY DESIGN

Women aged 14 to 59 years, living in states that allow prescription medications to be shipped from out-of-state, accessed the KwikMed online pharmacy between January 2011 and December 2015. After completing a medical eligibility screener, women answered optional multiple-choice questions. To obtain UPA through KwikMed, individuals must be female, 50 years of age or younger, not currently pregnant or breastfeeding and not attempting to order UPA more than once within 30 days or more than four times per year.

RESULTS

Over the 5-year period, KwikMed provided 8019 prescriptions for UPA, and the number of women using this service more than tripled over time. Among women who responded to the survey questions (n=7133; response rate = 89%), most sought EC because of a condom failure (45.3%) or because they did not use regular contraception (41.2%). More than half (53.5%) of women reported that they chose UPA because of its effectiveness compared to levonorgestrel EC pills, and 58.9% preferred ordering UPA online because they found it easier than getting it from a doctor, clinic or pharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents the importance of providing confidential services for acquiring EC online. Benefits of online access include convenience, less embarrassment, avoiding situations in which a provider might refuse to provide EC because of their own ideological belief and more reliable availability for this time-sensitive contraceptive.

IMPLICATIONS

Though physical, logistical and societal barriers can restrict women's access to EC, this study demonstrates that providing access to UPA online empowers women to obtain EC when they need it.

New developments in long-acting reversible contraception: the promise of intrauterine devices and implants to improve family planning services

After decades of having the developed world's highest rates of unintended pregnancy, the United States finally shows signs of improvement. This progress is likely due in large part to increased use of highly effective long-acting reversible methods of contraception. These methods can be placed and do not require any maintenance to provide years of contraception as effective as sterilization. Upon removal, fertility returns to baseline rates. This article addresses advances in both software-improved use and elimination of barriers to provide these methods; and hardware-novel delivery systems and devices.

Choice of Emergency Contraceptive and Decision Making Regarding Subsequent Unintended Pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively evaluate (1) pregnancy desirability, (2) stated intentions should pregnancy occur among emergency contraception (EC) users, and (3) explore differences between women selecting the copper T380 intrauterine device (Cu IUD) or oral levonorgestrel (LNG) regarding hypothetical pregnancy plans and actual pregnancy actions during subsequent unintended pregnancies.

STUDY DESIGN

In this prospective observational trial, women received the Cu IUD or oral LNG for EC without cost barriers. At baseline, participants completed a visual analogue scale measuring pregnancy desirability (anchors: 0, "trying hard not to get pregnant"; 10, "trying hard to get pregnant") and self-reported plans (abortion, adoption, parenting, and unsure) if the pregnancy test were to come back positive. Pregnancies were tracked for 12 months, and actions regarding unintended pregnancies were compared between EC method groups.

RESULTS

Of 548 enrolled women, 218 chose the Cu IUD and 330 the oral LNG for EC. Pregnancy desirability at baseline was low, with no difference between EC groups (IUD group: 0.51, SD ± 1.60; LNG group: 0.68, SD ± 1.74). Fifty-four (10%) women experienced unintended pregnancies. Pregnancy plans from baseline changed for 27 (50%) women when they became pregnant. EC groups did not differ in hypothetical pregnancy intention (p = 0.15) or in agreement of hypothetical pregnancy intention with actual pregnancy action (p = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Women presenting for EC state high desire to prevent pregnancy regardless of method selected. When considering a hypothetical pregnancy, half of women had a plan for how they would respond to that situation, but when confronting an actual unintended pregnancy, half altered their plan.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00966771.

Trends in the use of emergency contraception in Britain: evidence from the second and third National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles

OBJECTIVE

To examine the changes in the prevalence of, and the factors associated with, the use of emergency contraception (EC) in Britain between 2000 and 2010, spanning the period of deregulation and increase in pharmacy supply.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional probability sample surveys.

SETTING AND POPULATION

British general population.

METHODS

Data were analysed from the second and third British National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal), undertaken in 1999-2001 and 2010-12. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to measure change in EC use amongst sexually active women aged 16-44 years not intending pregnancy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of EC use and factors associated with use.

RESULTS

Of the 5430 women surveyed in 1999-2001 and the 4825 women surveyed in 2010-12, 2.3 and 3.6%, respectively, reported using EC in the year prior to interview (P = 0.0019 for change over time). The prevalence of EC use increased amongst single women and those with higher educational attainment (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 1.04-2.20; P = 0.0308). Increases in EC use were generally greater among women without behavioural risk factors, such as those with no history of abortion within 5 years (aOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.17-2.12; P = 0.0029), or those whose first heterosexual intercourse occurred after the age of 16 years (aOR 1.68; 95% CI 1.21-2.35; P = 0.0021). The increase in EC use was also more marked among women usually accessing contraception from retail sources than among those doing so from healthcare sources, which may reflect a use of condoms amongst EC users.

CONCLUSION

The increase in EC use among women in Britain in the first decade of the 21st century was associated with some, but not all, risk factors for unplanned pregnancy. Advice and provision may need to be targeted at those at highest risk of unplanned pregnancy.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Despite pharmacy access, only a small rise in emergency contraception use has been seen in Britain over 10 years.

Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) may help prevent pregnancy in various circumstances, such as contraceptive method failure, unprotected sexual intercourse, or sexual assault, yet it remains underused. There are 4 approved EC options in the United States. Although ulipristal acetate requires a provider's prescription, oral levonorgestrel (LNG) is available over the counter for women of all ages. The most effective method of EC is the copper intrauterine device, which can be left in place for up to 10 years for efficacious, cost-effective, hormone-free, and convenient long-term primary contraception. Ulipristal acetate tends to be more efficacious in pregnancy prevention than is LNG, especially when taken later than 72 hours postcoitus. The mechanism of action of oral EC is delay of ovulation, and current evidence reveals that it is ineffective postovulation. Women who weigh more than 75 kg or have a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m(2) may have a higher risk of unintended pregnancy when using oral LNG EC; therefore, ulipristal acetate or copper intrauterine devices are preferable in this setting. Providers are often unaware of the range of EC options or are unsure of how to counsel patients regarding the access and use of EC. This article critically reviews current EC literature, summarizes recommendations, and provides guidance for counseling women about EC. Useful tips for health care providers are provided, with a focus on special populations, including breast-feeding women and those transitioning to long-term contraception after EC use. When treating women of reproductive age, clinicians should be prepared to counsel them about EC options, provide EC appropriately, and, if needed, refer for EC in a timely manner.

Safety and effectiveness data for emergency contraceptive pills among women with obesity: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine whether emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are less safe and effective for women with obesity compared with those without obesity.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched PubMed for articles through November 2015 regarding the safety and effectiveness of ECPs [ulipristal acetate (UPA), levonorgestrel (LNG) and combined estrogen and progestin] among obese users. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system.

RESULTS

We identified four pooled secondary analyses (quality: poor to fair), two of which examined UPA and three examined LNG formulations. Three analyses pooled overlapping data from a total of three primary studies and demonstrated significant associations between obesity and risk of pregnancy after ECP use. One analysis reported a 4-fold increased risk of pregnancy among women with obesity (BMI≥30kg/m²) compared with women within normal/underweight categories (BMI<25kg/m²) after use of LNG ECPs [odds ratio (OR) 4.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-9.4]. Further analysis of the same LNG data found that, at an approximate weight of 80 kg, the rate of pregnancy rose above 6%, which is the estimated pregnancy probability without contraception; at weights less than 75 kg, the rate of pregnancy was less than 2%. Two analyses examining UPA suggested an approximate 2-fold increased risk of pregnancy among women with obesity compared with either normal/underweight women or nonobese (BMI<30kg/m²) women (OR 2.6; 95% CI 0.9-7.0 and OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.0-4.3, respectively), but CIs were wide. Finally, the fourth secondary analysis pooled data from three separate randomized controlled trials on LNG ECPs and found no increase in pregnancy risk with increasing weight or BMI and found no consistent association between pregnancy and both factors when adjusted for other covariates.

CONCLUSION

While data are limited and poor to fair quality, findings suggest that women with obesity experience an increased risk of pregnancy after use of LNG ECP compared with those normal/underweight. Women with obesity may also experience an increased risk of pregnancy compared with women without obesity after use of UPA ECP, though differences did not reach statistical significance. Providers should counsel all women at risk for unintended pregnancy, including those with obesity, about the effectiveness of the full range of emergency contraception options in order for them to understand their options, to receive advanced supplies of emergency contraception as needed and to understand how to access an emergency copper intrauterine device if desired.

Preference for and efficacy of oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception with concomitant placement of a levonorgestrel IUD: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

We assessed intrauterine device (IUD) preference among women presenting for emergency contraception (EC) and the probability of pregnancy among concurrent oral levonorgestrel (LNG) plus LNG 52 mg IUD EC users.

METHODS

We offered women presenting for EC at a single family planning clinic the CuT380A IUD (copper IUD) or oral LNG 1.5 mg plus the LNG 52 mg IUD. Two weeks after IUD insertion, participants reported the results of a self-administered home urine pregnancy test. The primary outcome, EC failure, was defined as pregnancies resulting from intercourse occurring within five days prior to IUD insertion.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-eight women enrolled and provided information regarding their current menstrual cycle and recent unprotected intercourse. Sixty-seven (36%) chose the copper IUD and 121 (64%) chose oral LNG plus the LNG IUD. The probability of pregnancy two weeks after oral LNG plus LNG IUD EC use was 0.9% (95% CI 0.0-5.1%). The only positive pregnancy test after treatment occurred in a woman who received oral LNG plus the LNG IUD and who had reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse including an episode more than 5 days prior to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Study participants seeking EC who desired an IUD preferentially chose oral LNG 1.5 mg with the LNG 52 mg IUD over the copper IUD. Neither group had EC treatment failures. Including the option of oral LNG 1.5 mg with concomitant insertion of the LNG 52 mg IUD in EC counseling may increase the number of EC users who opt to initiate highly effective reversible contraception.

IMPLICATIONS

Consideration should be given to LNG IUD insertion with concomitant use of oral LNG 1.5 mg for EC. Use of this combination may increase the number of women initiating highly effective contraception at the time of their EC visit.

Canadian Contraception Consensus (Part 3 of 4): Chapter 7--Intrauterine Contraception

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for health care providers on the use of contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy and on the promotion of healthy sexuality.

OUTCOMES

Overall efficacy of cited contraceptive methods, assessing reduction in pregnancy rate, safety, ease of use, and side effects; the effect of cited contraceptive methods on sexual health and general well-being; and the relative cost and availability of cited contraceptive methods in Canada.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of Medline and The Cochrane Database from January 1994 to January 2015 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., contraception, sexuality, sexual health) and key words (e.g., contraception, family planning, hormonal contraception, emergency contraception). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies published in English from January 1994 to January 2015. Searches were updated on a regular basis in incorporated in the guideline to June 2015. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALUES

The quality of the evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). CHAPTER 7: INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTION:

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

1. Intrauterine contraceptives are as effective as permanent contraception methods. (II-2) 2. The use of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg by patients taking tamoxifen is not associated with recurrence of breast cancer. (I) 3. Intrauterine contraceptives have a number of noncontraceptive benefits. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg significantly decreases menstrual blood loss (I) and dysmenorrhea. (II-2) Both the copper intrauterine device and the LNG-IUS significantly decrease the risk of endometrial cancer. (II-2) 4. The risk of uterine perforation decreases with inserter experience but is higher in postpartum and breastfeeding women. (II-2) 5. The risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is increased slightly in the first month after intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion, but the absolute risk is low. Exposure to sexually transmitted infections and not the IUC itself is responsible for PID occurring after the first month of use. (II-2) 6. Nulliparity is not associated with an increased risk of intrauterine contraceptive expulsion. (II-2) 7. Ectopic pregnancy with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) is rare, but when a pregnancy occurs with an IUC in situ, it is an ectopic pregnancy in 15% to 50% of the cases. (II-2) 8. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, early IUC removal improves outcomes but does not entirely eliminate risks. (II-2) 9. Intrauterine contraceptives do not increase the risk of infertility. (II-2) 10. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher continuation rate compared with insertion at 6 weeks postpartum. (I) 11. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC; 10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher risk of expulsion. (I) The benefit of inserting an IUC immediately postpartum or post-Caesarean section outweighs the disadvantages of increased risk of perforation and expulsion. (II-C) 12. Insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive in breastfeeding women is associated with a higher risk of uterine perforation in the first postpartum year. (II-2) 13. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) post-abortion significantly reduces the risk of repeat abortion (II-2) and increases IUC continuation rates at 6 months. (I) 14. Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive insertion does not significantly reduce postinsertion pelvic infection. (I) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Health care professionals should be careful not to restrict access to intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) owing to theoretical or unproven risks. (III-A) Health care professionals should offer IUCs as a first-line method of contraception to both nulliparous and multiparous women. (II-2A) 2. In women seeking intrauterine contraception (IUC) and presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding and/or dysmenorrhea, health care professionals should consider the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system 52 mg over other IUCs. (I-A) 3. Patients with breast cancer taking tamoxifen may consider a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system 52 mg after consultation with their oncologist. (I-A) 4. Women requesting a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or a copper-intrauterine device should be counseled regarding changes in bleeding patterns, sexually transmitted infection risk, and duration of use. (III-A) 5. A health care professional should be reasonably certain that the woman is not pregnant prior to inserting an intrauterine contraceptive at any time during the menstrual cycle. (III-A) 6. Health care providers should consider inserting an intrauterine contraceptive immediately after an induced abortion rather than waiting for an interval insertion. (I-B) 7. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy should be excluded as arly as possible. (II-2A) Once an ectopic pregnancy has been excluded, the IUC should be removed without an invasive procedure. The IUC may be removed at the time of a surgical termination. (II-2B) 8. In the case of pelvic inflammatory disease, it is not necessary to remove the intrauterine contraceptive unless there is no clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate antibiotic treatment. (II-2B) 9. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion is not indicated. (I-B) Health care providers should perform sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing in women at high risk of STI at the time of IUC insertion. If the test is positive for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea, the woman should be appropriately treated postinsertion and the IUC can remain in situ. (II-2B) 10. Unscheduled bleeding in intrauterine contraception users, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, should be investigated to rule out infection, pregnancy, gynecological pathology, expulsion or malposition. (III-A)

Intrauterine contraception

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are effective, reversible forms of contraception with high patient satisfaction and continuation. IUDs can be safely used by most women and should be considered the first-line method of contraception for all women. This descriptive review will discuss the clinical issues associated with IUDs - including management of side effects, noncontraceptive uses and insertion and removal. When the burdens of cost are removed, women are more likely to select and IUDs. Health policy changes that increase insurance coverage for contraception will improve access to IUDs. IUDs remain an underutilized form of contraception in USA and efforts to improve availability and access to long-acting reversible contraception methods is needed to optimize their use.

Practice Bulletin No. 152: Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception, also known as postcoital contraception, is therapy used to prevent pregnancy after an unprotected or inadequately protected act of sexual intercourse. Common indications for emergency contraception include contraceptive failure (eg, condom breakage or missed doses of oral contraceptives) and failure to use any form of contraception (). Although oral emergency contraception was first described in the medical literature in the 1960s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first dedicated product for emergency contraception in 1998. Since then, several new products have been introduced. Methods of emergency contraception include oral administration of combined estrogen-progestin, progestin only, or selective progesterone receptor modulators and insertion of a copper intrauterine device (IUD). Many women are unaware of the existence of emergency contraception, misunderstand its use and safety, or do not use it when a need arises (). The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of available methods of emergency contraception and to increase awareness of these methods among obstetrician-gynecologists and other gynecologic providers.

Emergency contraception: What is new?

Unintended pregnancy rates remain high throughout the World and increase the risk of poor maternal and infant outcomes. Most of unintended pregnancies occur in women who were not using contraception or who became pregnant despite the reported use of contraception. Women who have had recent unprotected intercourse including those who have had another form of contraception fail are potential candidates for this intervention. Currently used emergency contraceptive methods are pills that contain combined estrogen-progesterone, only progestin, antiprogestins and copper intrauterine devices. The most common form of this type of contraception is oral progestin-only pills (levonorgestrel). The most effective method is copper intrauterine devices followed by anti-progestins and oral progestin-only pills. The major pathogenesis of oral emergency contraceptives is the prevention or delay of ovulation. Although conception is possible on only a few days of the cycle, emergency contraception is offered when indicated without regard to the timing of the menstrual cycle because of uncertainty in the timing of the ovulation. Levonorgestrel and E/P regimes are most effective as soon as possible after unprotected sexual intercourse. A linear relationship has been shown between effectiveness and the time of dose. The effectiveness continues for 120 h, but it is recommended to be used within 72 h after intercourse. Intrauterine devices may prevent pregnancy when 5 d after ovulation.