Assessment of Implanon insertion and removal

Removal of a well-palpable one-rod subdermal contraceptive implant using a dedicated hand-held device or standard technique: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is a mechanical hand-held device for removing a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant safe for implant users?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In terms of safety, the device is non-inferior to the standard technique for implant removal.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

An easy-to-use device for removing a subdermal contraceptive implant may be helpful in settings where skilled providers are in short supply. Prior to this study, the only report on the world’s first hand-held, mechanical device with build-in incisor was a Swedish study using earlier versions of the product.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

From December 2019 to November 2020, we conducted a three-arm, open-label non-inferiority randomized trial involving 225 Ugandan women to assess safety (primary outcome) and measure implant removal efficacy (secondary outcomes) of a newly developed, hand-held device, compared to the standard removal technique.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We randomized participants desiring removal of their one-rod contraceptive implant in a 1:1:1 ratio: standard technique/lidocaine injection, new device/lidocaine patch or new device/lidocaine injection. For primary safety endpoints, we examined removal complications and grouped them according to severity. For secondary endpoints on efficacy, we defined three device outcomes: intact implant removed without additional tools (primary), implant removed allowing implant breakage, but without tools (secondary) and implant removed allowing implant breakage and non-scalpel tools (tertiary). We assessed provider feedback on the device and used chi-square tests for all comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We recruited 225 participants and randomly assigned (n = 75) to each group. For safety, no primary complications occurred in any treatment group, while only one secondary complication occurred in each treatment group (1%). Primary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 85% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 73% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Secondary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 92% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 79% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Tertiary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 96% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 91% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P = 0.017). Unsuccessful removals with the new device did not hinder subsequent implant extractions with standard back-up tools. In over 90% of the 150 device procedures, providers agreed or strongly agreed that the product is an acceptable alternative to standard removal technique.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We tested a new removal device in the hands of Ugandan nurses who were adept at standard removal techniques; our estimates of removal efficacy may not apply to lower-level providers who arguably may be the prime beneficiaries of this technology.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The study was conducted in a region of the world where the new device could be used to expand access to implant removal services. Intended beneficiaries of the new product are implant users who cannot easily find skilled providers for traditional scalpel-dependent removals and/or users who are intimidated by scalpel procedures, and lower-level providers who can be trained to help deliver services to meet a growing demand. The new device is a safe, acceptable alternative; efficacy was high, but not on par with standard technique.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funding for this study was provided by the RemovAid AS of Norway with grants from Research Council of Norway (GLOBVAC number 228319), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant INV-007571) and SkatteFUNN. M.B. is founder and former CEO of RemovAid AS, Norway. M.B. holds contraceptive rod remover patents (2012 1307156.8 and 2015), pre-removal test (filed) and shares in RemovAid AS. All of the remaining authors’ institutions received payments in the form of contracts to help conduct the study; the funds for these contracts emanated from RemovAid AS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04120337

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

9 October 2019

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

23 December 2019

Pre-Clinical Evaluation of a Task-Shifting Contraceptive Implant Insertion Device for Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Worldwide, 225 million women have unmet contraceptive needs which, every year, leads to 52 million unintended pregnancies. A challenge to providing universal access to contraception is the large proportion of the population living in rural, difficult to access settings in low- and middle-income countries. The availability and delivery of effective contraception in rural areas is limited by the lack of trained healthcare providers. Barriers to the use of long-acting contraceptives in rural areas are more pronounced due to the advanced skill and training to administer. In this study, we describe the design and testing of the SubQ Assist, a task-shifting contraceptive implant insertion device that aims to reduce the training requirements for administering contraceptive implants while simultaneously ensuring safe and high quality administration. Cadaver testing in conjunction with ultrasound depth measurements were used to evaluate the efficacy of the SubQ Assist. Implant insertion between the SubQ Assist and a trained physician are compared. Cadaver testing and ultrasound depth measurements demonstrate that the SubQ Assist results in implant insertions that are statistically equivalent to implants inserted by a trained physician. Additionally, the results show that the lateral positioning of these implants would facilitate uncomplicated removal at a later date. These findings demonstrate proof of concept for the SubQ Assist and provide evidence for moving towards clinical testing. They demonstrate that the SubQ Assist may be an effective method of task-shifting the insertion of contraceptive implants to minimally trained providers in order to expand access in rural areas.

Ultrasound First for Removal of Nonpalpable Contraceptive Implants

The Sound Judgment Series consists of invited articles highlighting the clinical value of using ultrasound first in specific clinical diagnoses where ultrasound has shown comparative or superior value. The series is meant to serve as an educational tool for medical and sonography students and clinical practitioners and may help integrate ultrasound into clinical practice.

Acceptability of ENG-releasing subdermal implants among postpartum Brazilian young women during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate etonogestrel (ENG)-implant acceptance during the immediate postnatal period among adolescents and young women during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to compare variables according to choice and discuss possible implications of this measure during the pandemic period.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was designed. All women aged up to 24 years, who delivered between April 25, 2020, and June 24, 2020, at Women's Hospital, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil were considered. The ENG-implant or other contraceptive methods were offered prior to hospital discharge. The participants were split into two groups: (1) those who chose the ENG-implant and (2) those that refused the implant. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

151 women were included, with 76.2% selecting the ENG-implant. The average age was 19.5 years; 73.2% of pregnancies were unplanned, 32.5% already had a previous pregnancy, 74% were single, and 75.5% were not in full time education. Further, 70.5% had previously used contraceptives, with 89.1% unsatisfied with their previous method that opted for the ENG-implant (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Offering the ENG-implant to youths during the immediate postnatal period is evidence-based care, and contraceptive provision is an essential health promotion tool, even during a pandemic. Thinking quickly about public policies in times of crisis is important to guarantee sexual and reproductive rights.

Hand-held device to remove a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant: Results of early trials in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as subdermal implants and intrauterine devices are promoted and increasingly used worldwide. Hence, in the light of this we also need to ensure easy access to the reversibility, i.e. emphasise the R in LARC. Our overall aim is to develop a device to facilitate implant removals. We evaluated the safety and performance of the two initial field prototypes where the main outcome was percentage of successful fixations and secondary outcomes were percentage of successful removals without the use of additional tools, duration of the procedure, satisfaction and adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a feasibility study including 41 subjects.

RESULTS

We estimated a fixation rate of 35/41 (85%) and an overall removal rate of 24/41 (59%). Further, we measured that the median time for removals was 80 s and that subjects and operators were satisfied with the procedure. We recorded adverse events such as bruising and superficial abrasions.

CONCLUSIONS

The device demonstrated a successful fixation rate, however, the removal rate will need to be further improved.

IMPLICATIONS

This feasibility study shows that the device has potential and further research is needed to modify and optimize the device.

ENG-releasing subdermal implants in postpartum teenagers - an open-label trial study protocol

Background

Higher than expected adolescent pregnancy high rates continue globally, with repeated unplanned pregnancy (UP) in this age group is a public health problem. In Brazil, 16% of pregnancies occur in adolescents under 18 years old, with high maternal morbidity and mortality rates in this age group. Effective and safe contraception is required to reduce UP rates. The objective of our study is to evaluate acceptance of etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant after childbirth, before discharge, as well as clinical performance up to one year after placement. Comparison between teenagers who opt for ENG-implant versus other contraceptive methods after childbirth will be also evaluated, specifically regarding UP, continuation and discontinuation rates and reasons, body composition, pelvic ultrasound characteristics and user satisfaction.

Methods

A non-randomized open-label trial will be conducted with teenagers after childbirth and followed up to one year at the Women’s Hospital, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. The study group will consist of patients who accepted to use ENG-implant and placed before discharge. The comparison group will include adolescents who choose to use other contraceptive methods at the first postpartum visit (42 ± 3 days after childbirth). All women will follow-up at 40–60 days postpartum, as well as, at 6 and 12 months post-enrollment. Patient satisfaction, contraceptive effectiveness, reasons of discontinuation, continuation rate and body composition will be evaluated. Transvaginal ultrasound and electric bio impedance tests will be performed at all follow-up appointments. A 5% significance level was assumed, as well as, a sampling error (absolute) for 10% prevalence. The sample size was calculated at n = 100, obtaining an estimate of 50 to 70 adolescents who would accept the method offered, according to the prevalence and sample error assumed.

Discussion

Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods include subdermal implants and intrauterine contraceptives, are considered first line contraception for teenagers. Immediate postpartum use is a safe option, which significantly reduces rates of repeated UP and all the undesirable consequences inherent to this process.

Trial registration

This study was approved by the Ethics and Research Commission of UNICAMP (CAAE: 92869018.5.0000.5404) and the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC): http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-4z7bc6, (number 2.901.752).

Contraceptive Implant Migration and Removal by Interventional Radiology

As the reversible contraceptive arm implants grow more popular, there is an increasing need to recognize the complications resulting from implant migration and removal. This review summarizes the findings of imaging and removal methods. When an implant is lost, the axillary region should be investigated first. If the implant still cannot be found, visualization though different methods have been employed for non-radiopaque implants. Real-time fluoroscopic-guided localization and removal can be accomplished for radiopaque Nexplanon. Once the implant has been located, standard removal method and other modified techniques can be used to safely remove the implant depending on the implant's location.

Factors associated with removal difficulties of etonogestrel-containing contraceptive implants (Nexplanon®)

OBJECTIVES

Nexplanon^®'s new applicator system was designed to limit deep implant placements, known to lead to difficult removals. However, removal difficulties still exist and induce specific and potentially severe complications. Our objective was to identify risk factors associated with difficult removals.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective single-center study was performed from January 2015 to December 2016. Participants were divided into two groups depending on whether implant was removed during a standard ("standard removal" group) or difficult consultation ("difficult removal" group) after an initial failed removal attempt.

RESULTS

The difficult and standard removal groups comprised 63 and 660 women, respectively. In a univariate analysis, significant intergroup differences were found for weight gain (3.7 ± 7.3 kg in the difficult removal group vs. 1.3 ± 5.1 in the standard removal group), proportion of placements performed in private practice (66.7% vs. 19.8%, respectively), and duration of Nexplanon^® placement (29.4 ± 11.3 months versus 26 ± 13.6, respectively). We also reported more frequent sub-brachial fascia placements when Nexplanon^® was implanted by a private practitioner (7.5% cases versus 0.4% in hospital implantations, p < 0.001). In a stepwise binary logistic regression analysis, placement by a private practitioner, weight gain >1 kg since placement, and duration of implant placement >25 months were confirmed as independent risk factors for removal difficulties (respective risk ratios 7.63 [95% IC 4.35-13.33], 2.10 [1.18-3.70], and 1.91 [1.06-3.44], p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of these three simple parameters might help physicians to identify "at risk-patients", and suggest a specific consultation before risking a potentially hazardous removal (with its associated, specific morbidity). Our results also emphasize importance of training in implant insertion.

Axillary migration of Nexplanon®: Case report

A 19-year-old patient presented to the clinic, and we inserted a single rod subdermal etonogestrel implant (Nexplanon ®), which subsequently migrated to the ipsilateral axilla. Distant Nexplanon® migration is a rare serious complication that should be considered when a device is nonpalpable. Management options are discussed.

Contraception for adolescents

A working knowledge of contraception will assist the pediatrician in both sexual health promotion as well as treatment of common adolescent gynecologic problems. Best practices in adolescent anticipatory guidance and screening include a sexual health history, screening for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, counseling, and if indicated, providing access to contraceptives. Pediatricians' long-term relationships with adolescents and families allow them to help promote healthy sexual decision-making, including abstinence and contraceptive use. Additionally, medical indications for contraception, such as acne, dysmenorrhea, and heavy menstrual bleeding, are frequently uncovered during adolescent visits. This technical report provides an evidence base for the accompanying policy statement and addresses key aspects of adolescent contraceptive use, including the following: (1) sexual history taking, confidentiality, and counseling; (2) adolescent data on the use and side effects of newer contraceptive methods; (3) new data on older contraceptive methods; and (4) evidence supporting the use of contraceptives in adolescent patients with complex medical conditions.

Contraceptive procedures

Although most women desire to control the size and spacing of their family, the rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States remains high, with approximately half of all pregnancies being unintended. Reducing unintended pregnancy is a national public health goal, and the increased use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) (intrauterine devices and implants) can help meet this goal. LARCs are among the most effective forms of contraception available. There are few contraindications to their use, and insertion and removal are straightforward procedures that are well tolerated in the outpatient office setting.

Efficacy and safety of long-acting reversible contraception

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) includes intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the subdermal implant. These methods are the most effective reversible methods of contraception, and have the additional advantages of being long-lasting, convenient, well liked by users and cost effective. Compared with other user-dependent methods that increase the risk of noncompliance-related method failure, LARC methods can bring 'typical use' failure rates more in line with 'perfect use' failure rates. LARC methods are 'forgettable'; they are not dependent on compliance with a pill-taking regimen, remembering to change a patch or ring, or coming back to the clinician for an injection. LARC method failure rates rival that of tubal sterilization at <1% for IUDs and the subdermal implant. For these reasons, we believe that IUDs and implants should be offered as first-line contraception for most women. This article provides a review of the LARC methods that are currently available in the US, including their effectiveness, advantages, disadvantages and contraindications. Additionally, we dispel myths and misconceptions regarding IUDs, and address the barriers to LARC use.

The state of hormonal contraception today: benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptives: progestin-only contraceptives

The progestin component of hormonal contraceptives accounts for most of their contraceptive effects. Several dosage forms of progestin-only contraceptives have been developed, including pills, injectables, implants, and intrauterine devices. Emergency contraceptives may also contain progestin only and are indicated for prevention of pregnancy following unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure. Each form has benefits, some specific to the form. An understanding of benefits and risks allows clinicians a wider choice when recommending effective hormonal contraception.

Clinician satisfaction and insertion characteristics of a new applicator to insert radiopaque Implanon: an open-label, noncontrolled, multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

The etonogestrel (ENG) implant Implanon is a progestin-only contraceptive that provides effective contraception for up to 3 years. A new radiopaque ENG implant has been developed to extend the diagnostic modalities of Implanon and a next-generation applicator (NGA) was designed to facilitate correct subdermal insertion of Implanon.

STUDY DESIGN

In this open-label study, 23 investigators, experienced and inexperienced with Implanon, performed 301 insertions of the new radiopaque implant using the NGA. Primary outcome measurements were obtained from clinician satisfaction questionnaires completed after the 4th, 8th and 12th insertions. Additionally, insertion characteristics and X-ray visibility were assessed.

RESULTS

Almost all investigators were satisfied with the NGA from the first insertion onward, and all were satisfied or very satisfied after 12 insertions. The most frequently reported advantages included ease of use, one-handed action and fast insertion time; 2% of insertions were considered difficult in skin puncturing and/or sliding the needle subdermally. Three incorrect insertions occurred due to noncompliance with instructions. All assessed implants were visible on plain X-ray imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

The NGA was well accepted by investigators with or without prior experience with Implanon. The results stressed the importance of correctly following implant insertion instructions.