Immediate start of hormonal contraceptives for contraception

A randomized single-blind non-inferiority trial of delayed start with drospirenone-only and ethinyl estradiol-gestodene pills for ovulation inhibition

We compared the efficacy of 4 mg drospirenone (DRSP) progestin-only pills (POPs) versus combined oral contraceptive pills (COCs) containing 0.02 mg of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and 0.075 mg of gestodene (GS) in ovulation inhibition and inducing unfavorable cervical mucus changes using a delayed-starting approach. This randomized controlled trial involved 36 participants aged 18-45 years. The major outcomes included ovulation inhibition assessed using the Hoogland and Skouby score, and cervical mucus permeability, assessed using the modified World Health Organization score. The results demonstrated ovulation inhibition rates of 77.8% for the EE/GS group and 88.9% for the DRSP group. The risk ratio and absolute risk reduction were 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10, 2.40) and - 0.11 (95% CI: - 0.35, 0.13), respectively, satisfying the 20% non-inferiority margin threshold. The median time to achieve unfavorable cervical mucus changes was comparable between the DRSP (3 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 6 days) and EE/GS (3.5 days, IQR: 4 days) groups. However, the DRSP group had a higher incidence of unscheduled vaginal bleeding (55.56% vs. 11.11%; p = 0.005). DRSP-only pills, initiated on days 7-9 of the menstrual cycle, were non-inferior to EE/GS pills in ovulation inhibition. However, they exhibited delayed unfavorable cervical mucus changes compared to the standard two-day backup recommendation.Clinical trial registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20220819001) https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220819001 .

Immediate versus delayed postabortal insertion of contraceptive implant

BACKGROUND

Contraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this method is suitable for optimizing the interpregnancy interval, especially for women undergoing abortion. Women who have had abortions are at high risk of rapid repeat pregnancies. Provision of effective contraception at the time of an abortion visit can be a key strategy to increase access and uptake of contraception. A review of the evidence was needed to evaluate progestin-releasing implants for immediate use at the time of abortion, including whether immediate placement impacts the effectiveness of medical abortion, which relies on antiprogestogens.

OBJECTIVES

To compare contraceptive implant initiation rates, contraceptive effectiveness, and adverse outcomes associated with immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implants following abortion.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status up to September 2019, with an update search in March 2021. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health (Ovid), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We examined the reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception following abortion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard procedures recommended by Cochrane. To identify potentially relevant studies, two review authors (JS, LS) independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We computed the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We found three RCTs including a total of 1162 women. Our GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Utilization rate at six months may be slightly higher for immediate compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 3 RCTs; 1103 women; I2 = 62%; low certainty evidence). Unintended pregnancy within six months after abortion was probably lower with immediate insertion compared with delayed insertion (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77; 3 RCTs; 1029 women; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Immediate insertion of contraceptive implants probably improves the initiation rate compared to delayed insertion following medical abortion (RR 1.26 for medical abortion, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.32; 2 RCTs; 1014 women; I2 = 89%; moderate certainty evidence) and may also improve initiation following surgical abortion (RR 2.32 for surgical abortion, 95% CI 1.79 to 3.01; 1 RCT; 148 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence). We did not pool results for the implant initiation outcome over both abortion types because of very high statistical heterogeneity. For medical termination of pregnancy, we found there is probably little or no difference between immediate and delayed insertion in overall failure of medical abortion (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.40; 2 RCTs; 1001 women; I2 = 68%;moderate certainty evidence). There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion on rates of abnormal bleeding at one month after abortion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; 1 RCT; 462 women; I2 = not applicable; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Provision of progestin-releasing implants concurrently with abortifacient agents likely has little or no negative impact on overall failure rate of medical abortion. Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate of contraceptive implant, as well as unintended pregnancy rate within six months after abortion, compared to delayed insertion. There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion approaches in bleeding adverse effects at one month after abortion.

Challenges in Translating PrEP Interest Into Uptake in an Observational Study of Young Black MSM

BACKGROUND

HIV incidence among US young, black men who have sex with men (YBMSM) is high, and structural barriers (eg lack of health insurance) may limit access to Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Research studies conducted with YBMSM must ensure access to the best available HIV prevention methods, including PrEP.

METHODS

We implemented an optional, nonincentivized PrEP program in addition to the standard HIV prevention services in a prospective, observational cohort of HIV-negative YBMSM in Atlanta, GA. Provider visits and laboratory costs were covered; participant insurance plans and/or the manufacturer assistance program were used to obtain drugs. Factors associated with PrEP initiation were assessed with prevalence ratios and time to PrEP initiation with Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Of 192 enrolled YBMSM, 4% were taking PrEP at study entry. Of 184 eligible men, 63% indicated interest in initiating PrEP, 10% reported no PrEP interest, and 27% wanted to discuss PrEP again at a future study visit. Of 116 interested men, 46% have not attended a PrEP initiation appointment. Sixty-three men (63/184; 34%) initiated PrEP; 11/63 (17%) subsequently discontinued PrEP. The only factor associated with PrEP initiation was reported sexually transmitted infection in the previous year (prevalence ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval: 1.002 to 2.25). Among interested men, median time to PrEP initiation was 16 weeks (95% confidence interval: 7 to 36).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high levels of interest, PrEP uptake may be suboptimal among YBMSM in our cohort even with amelioration of structural barriers that can limit use. PrEP implementation as the standard of HIV prevention care in observational studies is feasible; however, further research is needed to optimize uptake for YBMSM.

Contraceptive Method Initiation: Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Selected Practice Guidelines

The US Selected Practice Recommendations is a companion document to the Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use that focuses on how providers can use contraceptive methods most effectively as well as problem-solve common issues that may arise. These guidelines serve to help clinicians provide contraception safely as well as to decrease barriers that prevent or delay a woman from obtaining a desired method. This article summarizes the Selected Practice Recommendations on timing of contraceptive initiation, examinations, and tests needed prior to starting a method and any necessary follow-up.

Intrauterine devices and other forms of contraception: thinking outside the pack

A variety of contraception options are available in addition to traditional combined oral contraceptive pills. Newer long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods such as intrauterine devices and subcutaneous implants are preferred because they do not depend on patient compliance. They are highly effective and appropriate for most women. Female and male sterilization are other effective but they are irreversible and require counseling to minimize regret. The contraceptive injection, patch, and ring do not require daily administration, but their typical efficacy rates are lower than LARC methods and similar to those for combined oral contraceptive pills.

Oral contraception

Oral contraception (OC) remains a popular noninvasive, readily reversible approach for pregnancy prevention and, largely off label, for control of acne, hirsutism, dysmenorrhea, irregular menstruation, menorrhagia, and other menstrual-related symptoms. Many OC formulations exist, with generics offering lower cost and comparable efficacy. Certain medical conditions, including hypertension, migraine, breast cancer, and risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), present contraindications. Blood pressure measurement is the only physical examination or testing needed before prescription. Although no OC is clearly superior to others, OCs containing the second-generation progestin levonorgestrel have been associated with lower VTE risk than those containing other progestins.

Progestin-only pills for contraception

BACKGROUND

The introduction of a new progestin-only oral contraceptive in Europe has renewed interest in this class of oral contraceptives. Unlike the more widely used combined oral contraceptives containing an estrogen plus progestin, these pills contain only a progestin (progestogen) and are taken without interruption. How these pills compare to others in their class or to combined oral contraceptives is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

This review examined randomized controlled trials of progestin-only pills for differences in efficacy, acceptability, and continuation rates.

SEARCH METHODS

Through October 2013, we searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), POPLINE, and LILACS for studies of progestin-only pills. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Previous searches also included EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials in any language that included progestin-only pills for contraception.  We incorporated any comparison with a progestin-only pill; this could include different doses, other progestin-only pills, combined oral contraceptives, or other contraceptives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The first author abstracted the data and entered the information into RevMan 5. Another author performed a second, independent data abstraction to verify the initial data entry.We attempted to extract life-table rates (actuarial or continuous) and used the rate difference as the effect measure. Where life-table rates were not published, we used the incidence rate ratio (ratio of Pearl rates). Where only the crude number of events was published, we calculated the Peto odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) was computed with 95% CI. Because of disparate exposures, we were not able to combine studies in meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials met the inclusion criteria. We have not found any new studies since the initial review. In the trial comparing the desogestrel versus levonorgestrel progestin-only pill, desogestrel was not associated with a significantly lower risk of accidental pregnancy; the rate ratio was 0.27 (95% CI 0.06 to 1.19). However, the desogestrel progestin-only pill caused more bleeding problems, although this difference was not statistically significant. The trial comparing low-dose mifepristone versus a levonorgestrel progestin-only pill found similar pregnancy rates. In the trial comparing ethynodiol diacetate versus a combined oral contraceptive, irregular cycles occurred in all women assigned to the progestin-only pill (odds ratio 135.96; 95% CI 7.61 to 2421.02). In a trial comparing two progestin-only and two combined oral contraceptives, the progestin-only pill containing levonorgestrel 30 μg had higher efficacy than did the pill containing norethisterone 350 μg. An early trial found megestrol acetate inferior to other progestin-only pills in terms of efficacy. A study of the timing of pill initiation after birth found no important differences, but high losses to follow up undermined the trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to compare progestin-only pills to each other or to combined oral contraceptives.