A comparative study of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system Mirena versus the Copper T380A intrauterine device during lactation: breast-feeding performance, infant growth and infant development

Safety of Progestogen Hormonal Contraceptive Methods during Lactation: An Overview

BACKGROUND

Breastfeeding is a process for not only nourishing infants but also for building a unique emotional bond between mother and child. Therefore, the ideal contraception during lactation should not affect lactation (milk composition, milk volume) and offspring development.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyze the literature on the safety of progestogen hormonal contraceptive methods during lactation.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search across various databases, including the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and the Cochrane Database, Drugs and Lactation Database (LactMed). Our search utilized specific phrases such as: "lactation" and "breastfeeding" and "oral contraception" with "drospirenone" or "desogestrel", with "subcutaneous etonogestrel implant" or "etonogestrel implant", with "levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system", and "emergency contraception", with "levonorgestrel" or "ulipristal acetate".

CONCLUSIONS

Based on published scientific reports, progestogen hormonal contraceptives can be considered a relatively safe solution for women desiring to continue feeding their infant with their milk while using hormonal contraception. It is important to seek guidance on selecting the best contraception method based on the latest medical knowledge, tailored to the individual needs and clinical circumstances of each woman and place of residence. A woman should always be informed of the potential risks of such a treatment and then allowed to make her own decision based on the knowledge received from a specialist.

Exploring the potential for a set of UK hormone replacement therapy eligibility guidelines: A suggested proposal on the topic of venous thromboembolism

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility for a set of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) eligibility guidelines that follow a similar structure and appearance to the UKMEC guidance for contraception. To enable non-specialists to feel confident in safely prescribing HRT and to aid selection of the most appropriate first line treatment.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken with evidence summarised on the topic of venous thromboembolism (VTE) which is an area frequently considered a barrier to prescribing. Medical eligibility tables which separated HRT by type were then produced for a set of VTE-related topics.

RESULTS

The literature search confirmed the importance of distinguishing between different types and routes of administration when considering the suitability of HRT. Much of the evidence has been based on older synthetic types of HRT and whilst they still have a role in management, these medications carry different risks to the now more accepted use of body identical types. The search also highlighted the nuances involved, increasing the complexity of forming guidelines, with the need for consideration to be given to an individual's own perception of risks and benefits.

CONCLUSION

The demand for HRT has risen in recent years and there is a need for this to be managed effectively, particularly for patients in primary care. The production of this type of guidance will enable the non-specialist to feel confident in safe and evidence-based prescribing. The guidelines are also designed to demonstrate to prescribers which complex patients should be referred onto menopause specialists.

Postpartum contraception: A matter of guidelines

The postpartum period is the perfect time to access family planning services. WHO guidelines contraindicate combined hormonal contraceptives postpartum in breastfeeding patients between 6 weeks and 6 months after delivery (Medical Eligibility Criteria category 3). On the contrary, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines do not contraindicate their use in women who breastfeed from 6 weeks to 6 months postpartum. New combined hormonal contraceptives with natural estrogens have never been studied in this setting. Guidelines agree on the prescription of the progestin-only pill postpartum in non-breastfeeding women (category 1). Differences are found in women who breastfeed. In non-breastfeeding women, an implant is considered safe (category 1) by all guidelines, without any distinction in time. Regarding postpartum breastfeeding women, the guidelines for implants give quite different indications but are still permissive. Intrauterine devices are viable options for postpartum contraception but guidelines give different indications about the timing of insertion. Postplacental intrauterine device placement can reduce the subsequent unintended pregnancy rate, particularly in settings at greatest risk of not having recommended postpartum controls. However, it has yet to be understood whether this approach can really have an advantage in high-income countries. Postpartum contraception is not a 'matter of guidelines': it is the best customization for each woman, as early as possible but at the ideal timing.

Breastfeeding and Hormonal Contraception: A Scoping Review of Clinical Guidelines, Professional Association Recommendations, and the Literature

Background: Postpartum contraceptive use can help prevent short-interval pregnancies, which have been associated with adverse neonatal and maternal health outcomes. Many contraceptive methods are safe for postpartum use, but patients and providers may be confused as to what impact hormonal contraception has on lactation. We performed a scoping review of the most recent U.S.-based guidelines regarding hormonal contraception on lactation to provide synthesis and recommendations to aid providers in counseling their patients. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by identifying the most recent clinical recommendations and guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and three maternal and child health professional associations (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine [SMFM], and Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine [ABM]). We also reviewed the citations in these guidelines used in their development. We then conducted an updated literature review to capture studies published since the most recent systematic reviews were conducted. Results: We reviewed 1 clinical guideline from the CDC and 2 systematic reviews cited in its references, 6 professional association recommendations, and 28 publications identified through the updated literature review. Progestin-only contraceptive methods continue to demonstrate safety in breastfeeding patients, while low-quality evidence supports concerns of decreased milk supply with combined hormonal contraception. Discussion: Organizations should consider updating counseling recommendations regarding progestin-only contraceptives and lactation. Further research is needed to examine new contraceptive methods as well as the effect of hormonal contraception on lactation in the setting of preterm birth.

A cross-sectional study of factors associated with immediate postpartum uptake of contraceptive implants in Papua New Guinea

OBJECTIVES

In 2016 the Port Moresby General Hospital in Papua New Guinea introduced a midwife led postpartum contraception service to educate patients and provide contraceptive implants. This study examines the factors that were associated with immediate postpartum uptake of the implants.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients on the hospital postnatal ward who gave birth between March 2017 and January 2018. Patients aged 16-45 who had a vaginal birth with a singleton, live baby not requiring admission to the special care nursery were eligible for inclusion and invited to complete a survey prior to discharge.

RESULTS

Of 2082 patients approached, all consented to participate in the survey. Of those completing the survey, 531 (25.5%) chose to have the contraceptive implant provided immediately postpartum. Excluding patients who chose tubal ligation (n = 330), in multivariable analysis, higher odds of implant uptake was associated with no prior contraception use compared to prior use (aOR 1.38; 95% CI 1.07 -1.77), unplanned pregnancy compared to planned (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.79), and having received antenatal education about the implant compared to no information (AOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.23-2.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Antenatal education about the contraceptive implant impacted on likelihood of immediate postpartum method uptake. Patients who had no prior use of contraception and those with unplanned pregnancies were also more likely to request the implants, suggesting that the midwife-led postpartum service is successfully reaching patients with a previous unmet need for contraception.

IMPLICATIONS

This study demonstrates successful delivery of a postpartum implant program in a setting where community access to contraception is limited. Antenatal information and education can support implant uptake and that the program provides the opportunity for birth spacing and limiting in patients with a previous unmet need.

Postpartum hormonal contraception in breastfeeding women

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of recent research and guidelines regarding contraception and breastfeeding.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies assessed lactogenesis, breastfeeding rates, and milk supply concerns in patients starting postpartum hormonal contraception. One study showed a small but statistically significant increase in milk supply concerns between users and nonusers of postpartum hormonal contraception. Mean time to lactogenesis and breastfeeding rates were similar between patients with immediate and delayed insertion of the levonorgestrel (LNG) implant in one study and the LNG intrauterine device (IUD) in another study. Two studies assessed nursing knowledge and attitudes toward postpartum contraception in breastfeeding women, showing that postpartum nurses had incorrect knowledge of contraceptive safety in this patient population. Both studies demonstrated persistent erroneous beliefs that depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) adversely affects breastfeeding. In postpartum patients intending to breastfeed, more than half intended to initiate contraception within 6 weeks postpartum and few indicated effect on breastfeeding as a factor in their decision.

SUMMARY

There are no significant differences in lactogenesis, breastfeeding, and infant growth parameters between immediate postpartum (IPP) and delayed insertion of LNG implants and IUDs. Labor and delivery and postpartum nurses have persistent erroneous beliefs that DMPA negatively affects breastfeeding. Patients desire to use contraception postpartum but prenatal counseling rates and practices are of variable content and quality.

Postpartum LARC discontinuation and short interval pregnancies among women with HIV: a retrospective 9-year cohort study in South Carolina

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rates of discontinuation and short interval pregnancy among women with HIV who received a postpartum IUD or implant.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who had an IUD or implant placed within 3 months postpartum during a 9-year period (1/1/09 to 2/14/18). We assessed the prevalence of discontinuation within 12 months and rates of subsequent delivery within 18 months. We examined differences in these outcomes between women with and without HIV.

RESULTS

Of the 794 women who received a long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) within 3 months postpartum, most chose an IUD (85%). Twenty-one percent (165) elected for immediate postpartum placement: 119 IUDs and 46 implants. Women with HIV were more likely to receive an implant (48% vs 13%, p<.0001) and were more likely to have immediate postpartum placement (76% vs 17%, p<.0001). Women with HIV (n=50) were not more likely to remove LARC devices within 12 months of placement (38% vs 36%, p=.9), and they did not experience any short interval pregnancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with HIV in South Carolina were more likely than HIV-negative women to receive immediate postpartum LARC and to receive an implant. They were not more likely to discontinue LARC within 12 months nor experience short interval pregnancies.

IMPLICATIONS

Further study is needed to evaluate preferences for implants and immediate postpartum insertion among women with HIV.

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).

Committee Opinion No. 670: Immediate Postpartum Long-Acting Reversible Contraception

Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has the potential to reduce unintended and short-interval pregnancy. Women should be counseled about all forms of postpartum contraception in a context that allows informed decision making. Immediate postpartum LARC should be offered as an effective option for postpartum contraception; there are few contraindications to postpartum intrauterine devices and implants. Obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric care providers should discuss LARC during the antepartum period and counsel all pregnant women about options for immediate postpartum initiation. Education and institutional protocols are needed to raise clinician awareness and to improve access to immediate postpartum LARC insertion. Obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric care providers should incorporate immediate postpartum LARC into their practices, counsel women appropriately about advantages and risks, and advocate for institutional and payment policy changes to support provision.

Optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes with postpartum contraception: impact on breastfeeding and birth spacing

Postpartum contraception is important to prevent unintended pregnancies. Assisting women in achieving recommended inter-pregnancy intervals is a significant maternal-child health concern. Short inter-pregnancy intervals are associated with negative perinatal, neonatal, infant, and maternal health outcomes. More than 30% of women experience inter-pregnancy intervals of less than 18 months in the United States. Provision of any contraceptive method after giving birth is associated with improved inter-pregnancy intervals. However, concerns about the impact of hormonal contraceptives on breastfeeding and infant health have limited recommendations for such methods and have led to discrepant recommendations by organizations such as the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In this review, we discuss current recommendations for the use of hormonal contraception in the postpartum period. We also discuss details of the lactational amenorrhea method and effects of hormonal contraception on breastfeeding. Given the paucity of high quality evidence on the impact on hormonal contraception on breastfeeding outcomes, and the strong evidence for improved health outcomes with achievement of recommended birth spacing intervals, the real risk of unintended pregnancy and its consequences must not be neglected for fear of theoretical neonatal risks. Women should establish desired hormonal contraception before the risk of pregnancy resumes. With optimization of postpartum contraception provision, we will step closer toward a healthcare system with fewer unintended pregnancies and improved birth outcomes.

Progestogen-only contraceptive use among breastfeeding women: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Postpartum women need effective contraception. Concerns have been raised that use of progestogen-only contraceptives (POCs) may affect breastfeeding performance and infant health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the clinical outcomes of breastfeeding duration, initiation of supplemental feeding and weaning, as well as infant outcomes including infant growth, health and development among breastfeeding women using POCs compared with breastfeeding women not using POCs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the PubMed database for all articles published from database inception through December 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included primary research studies of breastfeeding women of any age or parity who received POCs, including progestogen-only pills, injectables, implants or hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). The main outcomes were breastfeeding performance (as measured by initiation, continuation, frequency and exclusivity of breastfeeding) and infant health (as measured by growth, development or adverse health effects).

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles reporting on 47 different studies were identified that investigated the use of POCs in breastfeeding women and reported clinically relevant outcomes of infant growth, health or breastfeeding performance. Studies ranged from poor to fair methodological quality and generally failed to show negative effects of the use of POCs on breastfeeding outcomes or on infant growth or development. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) raises concerns that immediate insertion of the levonorgestrel IUD postpartum may be associated with poorer breastfeeding performance when compared with delayed insertion, although two other RCTs evaluating early etonogestrel implants compared with delayed initiation of implants or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate failed to find such an association.

CONCLUSION

The preponderance of evidence fails to demonstrate adverse breastfeeding outcomes or negative health outcomes in infants such as restricted growth, health problems or impaired development. Evidence newly added to this review was largely consistent with previous evidence.

Lactation and contraception

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines evidence relevant to the effect of hormonal contraception on breastfeeding; and compares global and US recommendations for contraceptive initiation and use. Breastfeeding and use of postpartum contraception have high public health priority, making research in this area critical for optimizing guidance.

RECENT FINDINGS

High quality evidence remains limited with only a small number of well-conducted randomized controlled trials of hormonal methods and breastfeeding/neonatal growth outcomes. More evidence supports early initiation of progestin-only methods. Evidence on early initiation of combination hormonal methods is sparse.

SUMMARY

The WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) differs from that of the US MEC. Generally, the WHO MEC is more restrictive, reflecting the potential greater impact on maternal child health if there is a negative impact from hormonal contraception on breastfeeding. Only well conducted clinical trials will further elucidate such an impact.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/COG/A15.

Postpartum contraception

As birth spacing has demonstrated health benefits for a woman and her children, contraception after childbirth is recognized as an important health issue. The potential risk of pregnancy soon after delivery underscores the importance of initiating postpartum contraception in a timely manner. The contraceptive method initiated in the postpartum period depends upon a number of factors including medical history, anatomic and hormonal factors, patient preference, and whether or not the woman is breastfeeding. When electing a contraceptive method, informed choice is paramount. The availability of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods immediately postpartum provides a strategy to achieve reductions in unintended pregnancy.

Clinical versus laboratory screening for sexually transmitted infections prior to insertion of intrauterine contraception among women living with HIV/AIDS: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does laboratory testing after syndromic screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) reduce the rate of intrauterine contraception (IUC) removal among women living with HIV/AIDS (WLHA)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Additional laboratory testing after syndromic screening for STIs did not affect the likelihood that a woman would remove an IUC immediately or within 1 year of IUC use or the frequency of post-insertion unscheduled clinic visits. In low-risk WLHA, the incidence rate of IUC removal is low with or without laboratory testing.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Fear of infectious morbidity remains an obstacle to uptake of IUC by WLHA. The value of laboratory testing after syndromic screening for STI before the insertion of IUC remains uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We enrolled WLHA from 2 September to 6 December 2013 and followed them up to 31 December 2014. After syndromic screening, 703 women free of STIs were randomized to either additional laboratory screening or no additional screening for STI before IUC insertion. The randomization sequence was generated by an independent statistician and randomization numbers placed in opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. All women randomized had an IUC inserted and in all 672 participants completed the 1-year follow-up. The study staff who followed up the participants were blinded to the study allocation groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to compare the incidence rates of IUC removal, unscheduled clinic attendance and IUC continuation between the two groups.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women eligible to participate were 18-49 years old at study entry, in a relationship with a male partner, wanted to avoid pregnancy for at least 1 year and were undergoing HIV/AIDS care at Mulago Hospital, Uganda. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and up to four follow-up questionnaires until discontinuation of IUC, loss to follow-up or end of study observation after 12 months.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The rate of IUC removal was 8.8% (29/331) in the no additional screening group and 8.0% (27/341) in the additional laboratory screening group [IRR 1.1 (95% CI 0.63-1.93)]. Unscheduled clinic attendances were similar in the two groups at 1 year of IUC insertion: 13.6% (45/331) in the no additional screening group and 12.3% (42/241) in the additional laboratory screening group. During the 1-year follow-up, only five women, three from the no additional screening group and two from the additional laboratory screening group, developed pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), as defined by established diagnostic criteria.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were not able to carry out STI risk assessment directly from the men thus women with high-risk partners could have been included in the study and this may be responsible for the lack of a demonstrable effect of additional laboratory screening on incidence rates of IUC removals and unscheduled clinic attendance. The diagnosis of PID was based on clinical signs and symptoms; therefore, subclinical PID could have been missed.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Among WLHA, the incidence rate of IUC removal is low and IUC continuation high. Syndromic screening for STIs could be sufficient in indentifying WLHA who are suitable for IUC use. However, our findings are only generalizable to women in HIV/AIDS care who have access to good follow-up.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The study was supported by Medical Education for Equitable Services to all Ugandans, a Medical Education Partnership Initiative grant number 5R24TW008886 from the office of Global AIDS Coordinator and the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration and National Institutes of Health. Additional funding was from the Swedish International Development Agency, Swedish Research Council (SIDA/VR). The authors have no competing interests to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial was registered at Pan African Clinical Trial, Registry. PACTR 201308000561212.

Five-year follow-up of two types of contraceptive device fitted during elective cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

To present follow-up data for patients fitted with a copper intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) or the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (IUS) during cesarean delivery.

METHODS

Between March 2006 and December 2011, a prospective study was undertaken of women who were scheduled to have a repeat cesarean for a singleton pregnancy and had chosen to undergo intraoperative fitting of an IUCD or the IUS. Participants were followed up for up to 5 years using transvaginal ultrasonography, clinical evaluation, and a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among 143 participants, 63 requested the IUCD and 80 the IUS. Misalignment was more common at 6 weeks with the IUS (37 [46.3%] patients) than with the IUCD (22 [34.9%]; P=0.06). Spontaneous expulsion occurred in the IUCD group only (4 [6.3%] patients). No pregnancies were reported in the IUS group, whereas 4 (6.3%) women with the IUCD became pregnant.

CONCLUSION

Although misalignment of an IUCD or the IUS is fairly common after intraoperative insertion, the contraceptive performance and menstrual pattern are not affected. Therefore, there is no need to remove or replace a misaligned IUCD or IUS.

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.

Woman's contraceptive needs and preferences in the postpartum period: an Italian study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe what puerperal women know about postpartum contraception and to identify their related needs and expectations.

BACKGROUND

Puerperal women face the problem of beginning or resuming contraception, the choice of the right method of contraception and the right time to start it. This choice becomes particularly important in case they breastfeed since the contraceptive method should not interfere with breastfeeding. Different factors, such as the level of knowledge women have about various contraceptive methods, their individual preferences or their desire to have a baby, can strongly influence this choice.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study had been carried out within the period of six months, from November 2011-February 2012.

METHODS

Three hundred puerperal women were interviewed before their discharge from a Maternity Home. The women were asked for their personal characteristics, their maternity history, the information they had received, their knowledge and expectations about postpartum contraception and their intention to use contraception.

RESULTS

During pregnancy and postpartum, 45.5% of the women reported that they had received adequate information about contraception. Of these ones, 64.3% reported their intention to use contraception either to avoid pregnancy or to space out future births, even if they did not always have appropriate knowledge about fertility and the use of contraceptive methods during postpartum. During this study, we also discovered that women's intention to use contraception was proportional to their level of education.

CONCLUSION

Women need more and appropriate information about postpartum contraception, to make a conscious choice in relation to their needs and without putting their health at risk.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

To promote awareness of the choices related to postpartum contraception, it is important to understand the personal characteristics that influence or hinder this choice. Midwives can play a very important role in informing women and in developing educational interventions to support a safe contraceptive choice.

Combined hormonal versus nonhormonal versus progestin-only contraception in lactation

BACKGROUND

Postpartum contraception improves the health of mothers and children by lengthening birth intervals. For lactating women, contraception choices are limited by concerns about hormonal effects on milk quality and quantity and passage of hormones to the infant. Ideally, the contraceptive chosen should not interfere with lactation or infant growth. Timing of contraception initiation is also important. Immediately postpartum, most women have contact with a health professional, but many do not return for follow-up contraceptive counseling. However, immediate initiation of hormonal methods may disrupt the onset of milk production.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of hormonal contraceptives on lactation and infant growth

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for eligible trials until 2 March 2015. Sources included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, POPLINE, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We also examined review articles and contacted investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomized controlled trials in any language that compared hormonal contraception versus another form of hormonal contraception, nonhormonal contraception, or placebo during lactation. Hormonal contraception includes combined or progestin-only oral contraceptives, injectable contraceptives, implants, and intrauterine devices.Trials had to have one of our primary outcomes: breast milk quantity or biochemical composition; lactation initiation, maintenance, or duration; infant growth; or timing of contraception initiation and effect on lactation. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive efficacy while breastfeeding and birth interval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For continuous variables, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Due to differing interventions and outcome measures, we did not aggregate the data in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

In 2014, we added seven trials for a new total of 11. Five reports were published before 1985 and six from 2005 to 2014. They included 1482 women. Four trials examined combined oral contraceptives (COCs), and three studied a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). We found two trials of progestin-only pills (POPs) and two of the etonogestrel-releasing implant. Older studies often lacked quantified results. Most trials did not report significant differences between the study arms in breastfeeding duration, breast milk composition, or infant growth. Exceptions were seen mainly in older studies with limited information.For breastfeeding duration, two of eight trials indicated a negative effect on lactation. A COC study reported a negative effect on lactation duration compared to placebo but did not quantify results. Another trial showed a lower percentage of the LNG-IUS group breastfeeding at 75 days versus the nonhormonal IUD group (reported P < 0.05) but no significant difference at one year.For breast milk volume, two older studies indicated lower volume for the COC group versus the placebo group. One trial did not quantify results. The other showed lower means (mL) for the COC group, e.g. at 16 weeks (MD -24.00, 95% CI -34.53 to -13.47) and at 24 weeks (MD -24.90, 95% CI -36.01 to -13.79). Another four trials did not report any significant difference between the study groups in milk volume or composition with two POPs, a COC, or the etonogestrel implant.Seven trials studied infant growth; one showed greater weight gain (grams) for the etonogestrel implant versus no method for six weeks (MD 426.00, 95% CI 58.94 to 793.06) but less compared with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) from 6 to 12 weeks (MD -271.00, 95% CI -355.10 to -186.90). The others studied POPs, COCs versus POPs, or an LNG-IUS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results were not consistent across the 11 trials. The evidence was limited for any particular hormonal method. The quality of evidence was moderate overall and low for three of four placebo-controlled trials of COCs or POPs. The sensitivity analysis included six trials with moderate quality evidence and sufficient outcome data. Five trials indicated no significant difference between groups in breastfeeding duration (etonogestrel implant insertion times, COC versus POP, and LNG-IUS). For breast milk volume or composition, a COC study showed a negative effect, while an implant trial showed no significant difference. Of four trials that assessed infant growth, three indicated no significant difference between groups. One showed greater weight gain in the etonogestrel implant group versus no method but less versus DMPA.

ABM Clinical Protocol #13: Contraception During Breastfeeding, Revised 2015

A central goal of The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.

Intrauterine contraception after cesarean section and during lactation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

All postpartum women, including those who are breastfeeding or have had a cesarean section, appear potentially suited to intrauterine contraception, a long acting reversible contraceptive (LARC). Like any other method used after delivery, it should not interfere with lactation or be affected by cesarean section.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed, Popline, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from January 1968 through to December 2012. Studies were included if they reported event rates in women who had a cesarean section and event rates and clinical outcomes in lactating women or their infants in the breastfeeding group. Summary odds ratios were not calculated because of the diverse methods of reporting event rates in the cesarean section group and the heterogeneity of the results in the breastfeeding group.

RESULTS

We found 26 articles on event rates in interval and post-placental intrauterine device (IUD) use, and 18 on event rates and clinical outcomes in breastfeeding IUD users. Four prospective studies and one retrospective study showed an increased expulsion rate in interval insertion. There were 19 studies, of which five were controlled in post-placental IUD insertion after cesarean section. Four studies had expulsion rates of 10 or more per 100 woman-years of use and 15 expulsion rates below 10 per 100 woman-years of use. Three studies showed that event rates for lactating IUD users are the same as those for non-lactating users. Fifteen controlled studies showed that the IUD had no effect on milk production and seven of these showed no effect on infant growth. Pharmacovigilance databases report an increased rate of IUD perforations in lactating women, while the event rate studies report that insertion is generally easier and less painful than expected. These were uncontrolled reports.

CONCLUSION

The IUD is a long-acting reversible method of contraception with expulsion rates of 5-15 per 100 woman-years of use when used as a post-placental method immediately after cesarean section. As an interval procedure (6 or more weeks after cesarean section) it appears to have a high expulsion rate (5% or higher) notably in older devices. The IUD does not affect breastfeeding and is easy to insert in these women, but appears to be associated with a higher perforation rate (>1 per 100). Providers should not be deterred from using this contraception method, especially in developing countries, but should be attentive to preventing these potential problems.

Immediate post-partum initiation of intrauterine contraception and implants: a review of the safety and guidelines for use

Women are particularly susceptible to unintended pregnancies in the first year after birth, with 10-44% of pregnancies being unintended. In many settings, post-partum birth control is initiated at the six-week post-partum visit but most women are sexually active by this time, and ovulation can occur as early as day 28. There are many potential advantages of initiating intrauterine contraception (IUC) and implants use in the immediate post-partum period, including their high efficacy and reversibility which rivals sterilisation as well as ease of access to providers trained in their insertion. This review aims to describe the benefits and risks of use of IUC and implants in the immediate post-partum period. It discusses the maternal and infant health safety issues of early initiation of the progestogen containing methods and provides a critical review of existing international guidelines. Overall low rates of adverse effects such as pain, bleeding, infection and perforation, are documented to occur in all studies regardless of the timing or route of IUC insertion. Expulsion rates are significantly higher immediately after vaginal delivery compared to interval insertions, but are no higher after insertion at caesarean section. Post-partum implants appear to have the same side effects as interval insertions, and to date, no adverse impact on breast milk or infant growth has been demonstrated. Most international evidence-based guidelines support the initiation of IUC and progestogen containing contraceptive methods in the immediate post-partum period as they regard the advantages of provision at this time to outweigh the risks.

Effects of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and T380A intrauterine copper device on dysmenorrhea and days of bleeding in women with and without adenomyosis

BACKGROUND

The study was conducted to compare the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and Copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD) in women with and without adenomyosis and to investigate the effects on menstruation and dysmenorrhea.

STUDY DESIGN

Women diagnosed as having adenomyosis on transvaginal ultrasound were assigned to receive LNG-IUS (Group 1, n=23), and women seeking contraception were assigned to receive either LNG-IUS (Group 2, n=25) or Copper T380A IUD (Group 3, n=26) for 12 months.

RESULTS

The LNG-IUS significantly improved the duration of menstrual bleeding, dysmenorrhea and hemoglobin levels at the 1st and 12th month of the treatment in Group 1 and Group 2 as compared to Group 3. Moreover, LNG-IUS had similar efficacy but significantly lower side effects when compared to Copper T380A regarding contraception. However, acne was significantly increased after insertion in women using LNG-IUS.

CONCLUSIONS

The LNG-IUS results in significant improvements in adenomyosis-associated heavy menstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea. Moreover, this study also shows that it is an effective contraceptive method with significantly lower side effects compared to CuT 380A IUD except for acne.

A clinical guideline for intrauterine device use in adolescents

PURPOSE

To present an evidence-based review of the data for and against the use of the intrauterine device (IUD) in adolescent females and to provide guidelines for selection of appropriate candidates.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical research, expert opinions, and systematic reviews of IUD use in adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the IUD in adolescents has been questioned in the past as a result of concerns surrounding increased risks for pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility in adolescents. Current research reveals no contraindications to IUD use based solely on age or parity and illuminates many benefits to use, including a decrease in menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The U.S. adolescent pregnancy rates rose from 2005 to 2007, reversing a decade-long downward trend. Adolescents need safe, effective, user-friendly contraceptive methods. IUDs are a safe and effective option for adolescents and provide an additional contraceptive option for nurse practitioners to offer their patients to prevent unintended pregnancy and enhance adolescent sexual health and well-being. Proper selection of candidates for IUD use can mitigate clinical and legal risks associated with IUD use.

The benefits and risks of using a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for contraception

The contraceptive profile of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena®) is well established, with efficacy similar to that achieved with sterilization and rapid return to fertility after discontinuation of use. The LNG-IUS is typically associated with transient menstrual disturbance during the first few months of use, but this usually settles with continued use, with a concomitant decrease in menstrual blood loss. Overall, the safety profile of the LNG-IUS has been well established across a wide population of women, and the available data do not suggest that the LNG-IUS adversely affects bone health or increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events or breast and uterine cancers. This article reviews the literature to provide updated information on the risks and benefits associated with the LNG-IUS, particularly focusing on its use in contraception.

Contraceptive Effectiveness of Levonorgestrel Releasing Intrauterine System

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the contraceptive effectiveness of progesterone releasing intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCD) and compared it with the Copper T device.

METHODS

Seventy patients were selected in each group. Menstrual charts were maintained and data recorded at one, three, six months and one year after insertion of the device.

RESULT

One year follow up was completed by 66 patients in the Levonorgestrel Releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) group and 62 in the Cu T group. They were age, parity and education level matched. The mean duration of menstrual flow for the LNG-IUS group was 3.6 days and that for CuT group was 5.1 days (p>0.05). Insertion of LNG-IUS was found to be significantly difficult than the Cu T 380, with increased pain at insertion (p<0.05). There was no pregnancy in the LNG-IUS group and expulsion rates were low. The most significant difference was scanty periods and at times amenorrhoea in the LNG-IUS group. Termination rates for various reasons were almost equal in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both devices were effective, safe, well accepted and tolerated. LNG-IUS scores high in patients with preexisting menorrhagia or dysmenorrhoea while Cu T 380 has advantages of lower cost, ease of insertion and comparable efficacy.

Postplacental or delayed levonorgestrel intrauterine device insertion and breast-feeding duration

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of timing of postpartum levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD) insertion on breast-feeding continuation.

STUDY DESIGN

Women interested in using a levonorgestrel IUD postpartum were randomized to immediate postplacental insertion (postplacental group) or insertion 6-8 weeks after vaginal delivery (delayed group). Duration and exclusivity of breast-feeding were assessed at 6-8 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postpartum. Only women who received an IUD were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Breast-feeding was initiated by 32 (64%) of 50 of women receiving a postplacental IUD and 27 (58.7%) of 46 of women receiving a delayed IUD (p=.59). More women in the delayed group compared with the postplacental group continued to breast-feed at 6-8 weeks (16/46 vs. 15/50, p=.62), 3 months (13/46 vs. 7/50, p=.13), and 6 months postpartum (11/46 vs. 3/50, p=.02). The results did not differ when only women who initiated breast-feeding or only primiparous women with no prior breast-feeding experience were analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate postplacental insertion of the levonorgestrel IUD is associated with shorter duration of breast-feeding and less exclusive breast-feeding. Further studies on the effects of early initiation of progestin-only methods on women's lactation experience are needed.

Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Acceptability of the Copper T-380A Intrauterine Contraceptive Device

The ParaGard Copper T 380A intrauterine device (CuT380A) provides reversible contraception that is as effective as sterilization for up to 20 years. The CuT380A is a mainstream, first-line contraceptive option for most healthy women, including nulligravid women, as well as many women who have serious medical problems. Because it is the most cost-effective method of birth control, the CuT380A is the preferred IUD, except for women who desire lighter or no menstrual blood loss. Surveys reveal that 95% of US CuT380A users are “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their method. This article describes current candidates for IUD use, discusses the mechanisms of action of the CuT380A, provides guidance to reduce barriers to IUD access, suggests counseling points for patients, and outlines techniques to reduce the risks and side effects that can be associated with use of the CuT380A.

Review of the safety, efficacy and patient acceptability of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system

The levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine system is an extremely effective, reversible and safe form of long-term yet reversible birth control. In view of its efficacy, it is a safer alternative to permanent contraceptive methods such as sterilization. It is especially useful in situations where use of estrogen-containing contraceptives is contraindicated. While menstrual disturbances are a common side effect, proper counseling improves compliance. In addition to its contraceptive effect, the levonorgestrel intrauterine system offers potential therapeutic benefits in other clinical contexts, including menorrhagia, symptomatic fibroids, endometriosis, and endometrial protection.

Modern management of abnormal uterine bleeding: the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system

Since its launch, more than 9 million women worldwide have used the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (IUS) for contraception, as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding and as the progestogen component of hormone-replacement therapy. For women in their reproductive years, the IUS has become one of the most acceptable medical treatments for menorrhagia, reducing referrals to specialists and decreasing the need for operative gynaecological surgery. This article will outline the development of the IUS, highlighting the most important recent areas of research covering its use to control menstrual blood loss and pain.

Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy

BACKGROUND

In the 1970s a new approach to the delivery of hormonal contraception was researched and developed. It was suggested that the addition of a progestogen to a non-medicated contraceptive device improved its contraceptive action. An advantage of these hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUS) is that they are relatively maintenance free, with users having to consciously discontinue using them to become pregnant rather than taking a proactive daily decision to avoid conception.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) in comparison to other reversible contraceptive methods.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Literature was identified through database searches, reference lists and individuals/organisations working in the field. Searches covered the period from 1972 to November 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing IUSs with other forms of reversible contraceptives and reporting on pre-determined outcomes in women of reproductive years. The primary outcomes were pregnancy due to method/user failure and continuation rate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The quality assessment of studies and data extraction were completed independently by two blinded reviewers. A quality checklist was designed to identify general methodological and contraceptive specific factors which could bias results. Events per women months and single decrement life table rates were extracted where possible for pregnancy, continuation, adverse events and reasons for discontinuation. Events per total number of women at follow up were collected for hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance. When appropriate, data were pooled at the same points of follow up to calculate rate ratios in order to determine the relative effectiveness of one method compared to another. For the single decrement life table rates, the rate differences were pooled to determine the absolute difference in effectiveness of one method compared to another. Interventions were only combined if the contraceptive methods were similar. Non-hormonal IUDs were divided into three categories for the purpose of comparison with IUSs: IUDs >250mm2 (i.e. CuT 380A IUD and CuT 380 Ag IUD), IUDs <=250mm2 (i.e. Nova-T, Multiload, CuT 200 and CuT 220 IUDs) and non-medicated IUDs.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs comparing hormonally impregnated IUSs to a reversible contraceptive method met the inclusion criteria and it was possible to include eight of these in the meta-analyses, four comparing LNG-20 IUSs with non-hormonal IUDs, one comparing the LNG-20 IUS with Norplant-2 and three comparing Progestasert with non-hormonal IUDs. No significant difference was observed between the pregnancy rates for the LNG-20 users and those for the IUD >250mm2 users. However, women using the LNG-20 IUS were significantly less likely to become pregnant than those using the IUD <=250mm2. Women using the LNG-20 IUS were more likely to experience amenorrhoea and device expulsion than women using IUDs >250mm2. LNG-20 users were significantly more likely than all the IUD users to discontinue because of hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance, which on further breakdown of the data was due to amenorrhoea. When the LNG-20 IUS was compared to Norplant-2, the LNG-20 users were significantly more likely to experience amenorrhoea and oligomenorrhoea, but significantly less likely to experience prolonged bleeding and spotting. No other significant differences were observed. Progestasert users were significantly less likely to become pregnant and less likely to continue on the method than non-medicated IUD users after one year, but no significant difference was noted for these two outcomes when Progestasert users were compared to IUD<=250mm2 users. The only other significant differences found in the meta-analyses were that Progestasert users were less likely to expel the device and more likely to discontinue the method because of menstrual bleeding and pain than users of IUDs <=250mm2. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONl the device and more likely to discontinue the method because of menstrual bleeding and pain than users of IUDs <=250mm2.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests LNG-20 IUS users are no more or less likely to have unwanted pregnancies than IUD >250mm2 and Norplant-2 users. The LNG-20 IUS was more effective in preventing either intrauterine or extrauterine pregnancies than IUDs <=250mm2. The contraceptive effectiveness of Progestasert was significantly better than non-medicated IUDs, but no difference was observed when compared to IUDs<=250mm2. Continuation of LNG-20 IUS use was similar to continuation of the non-hormonal IUDs and Norplant-2. Amenorrhoea was the main reason for the discontinuation for the LNG-20 IUS and women should be informed of this prior to starting this method.