A pilot study of the Copper T380A IUD and oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception

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.

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.

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.

The safety of intrauterine contraception initiation among women with current asymptomatic cervical infections or at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) among women with current asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or who are at high risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), comparing those who have a copper-bearing (Cu-) or levonorgestrel (LNG-) intrauterine device (IUD) placed with women who do not.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library for articles from January 1984 through January 2016 addressing our objective. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 2220 articles, of which 10 met inclusion criteria. Two studies provided direct evidence of PID rates in women with undiagnosed gonococcal or chlamydial (GC/CT) infection or at high risk for STIs initiating IUDs versus other contraceptive methods (level II-2, fair to poor), and neither study found a difference. Eight studies provided indirect evidence (II-2 to II-3, fair to poor). One study found no difference in PID rates between initiators of Cu- versus LNG-IUDs. Five studies compared algorithms based on patient factors with laboratory GC/CT screening to predict cervical infection. Based on likelihood ratios, none of these algorithms adequately identified women at high risk of asymptomatic cervical infection who should not undergo IUD placement. Two studies compared IUD placement on the same day as STI screening with delayed placement after screening and found no difference in PID rates.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence suggests that IUD placement does not increase the risk of PID compared with no IUD placement among women with asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or at high risk of STIs. Algorithms based on patient characteristics to identify women with asymptomatic GC/CT may be overly restrictive, leading to missed opportunities for IUD initiation. Historical concerns about higher PID risk among women at risk for STIs who use IUDs may not be relevant with modern devices and STI screening and treatment practices.

Experiences of Advanced Practitioners with Inserting the Copper Intrauterine Device as Emergency Contraception

INTRODUCTION

The copper intrauterine device (IUD) is the most effective method of emergency contraception (EC) available for use after unprotected intercourse. Family planning clinics, commonly staffed by advanced practice clinicians, fulfill a significant role in health care and contraceptive service delivery for women in the United States. There are limited data assessing the perspectives and experiences of these providers in using the copper IUD as EC in these settings.

METHODS

Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 12 advanced practice clinicians with experience inserting the copper IUD. A phenomenological approach was used to frame the study and analysis. A modified version of the Van Kaam method of analysis was used to analyze the data from interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Participants reported feelings of responsibility to support long-acting and highly effective methods of contraception. Patients' abilities to provide an accurate history of the last instance of unprotected intercourse in relation to their menstrual cycles and fear of painful insertions influenced participants' willingness to offer the copper IUD. This included provider concerns about causing uterine perforation prompting discontinuation of IUD insertion attempts. The participants perceived patients as having little knowledge about the copper IUD in general and as not being committed to using the copper IUD long term.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous factors influenced advanced practice clinicians' decisions to present the copper IUD as a method of EC. Promoting support and sharing practitioner experiences with inserting the copper IUD as EC may increase practitioner comfort with the copper IUD as EC.

Practical Advice for Emergency IUD Contraception in Young Women

Too few women are aware of the very high efficacy of intrauterine copper devices (IUDs) to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Women who frequently engage in unprotected intercourse or seek emergency contraception (EC) are at high risk of unplanned pregnancy and possible abortion. It is therefore important that these women receive precise and accurate information about intrauterine devices as they may benefit from using an IUD for EC as continuing contraception. Copper IUDs should be used as first choice options given their rapid onset of action and their long-term contraceptive action which require minimal thought or intervention on the part of the user. In the United States, there is only one copper IUD presently available which limits treatment options. There are numerous copper IUDs available for use in EC, however, their designs and size are not always optimal for use in nulliparous women or women with smaller or narrower uteruses. Utilization of frameless IUDs which do not require a larger transverse arm for uterine retention may have distinct advantages, particularly in young women, as they will be suitable for use in all women irrespective of uterine size. This paper provides practical information on EC use with emphasis on the use of the frameless IUD.

Emergency contraception with a copper IUD or oral levonorgestrel: an observational study of 1-year pregnancy rates

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the 1-year pregnancy rates for emergency contraception (EC) users who selected the copper T380 intrauterine device (IUD) or oral levonorgestrel (LNG) for EC.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective study followed women for 1 year after choosing either the copper T380 IUD or oral LNG for EC. The study was powered to detect a 6% difference in pregnancy rates within the year after presenting for EC.

RESULTS

Of the 542 women who presented for EC, agreed to participate in the trial and met the inclusion criteria, 215 (40%) chose the copper IUD and 327 (60%) chose oral LNG. In the IUD group, 127 (59%) were nulligravid. IUD insertion failed in 42 women (19%). The 1-year follow-up rate was 443/542 (82%); 64% of IUD users contacted at 1 year still had their IUDs in place. The 1-year cumulative pregnancy rate in women choosing the IUD was 6.5% vs. 12.2% in those choosing oral LNG [hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.97, p=.041]. By type of EC method actually received, corresponding values were 5.2% for copper IUD users vs. 12.3% for oral LNG users (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.85, p=.017). A multivariable logistic regression model controlling for demographic variables demonstrates that women who chose the IUD for EC had fewer pregnancies in the following year than those who chose oral LNG (HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96, p=.037).

CONCLUSION

One year after presenting for EC, women choosing the copper IUD for EC were half as likely to have a pregnancy compared to those choosing oral LNG.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared to EC users who choose oral levonorgestrel, those who select the copper IUD have lower rates of pregnancy in the next year. Greater use of the copper IUD for EC may lower rates of unintended pregnancy in high-risk women.

The copper intrauterine device for emergency contraception: an opportunity to provide the optimal emergency contraception method and transition to highly effective contraception

Worldwide, 40% of all pregnancies are unintended. Widespread, over-the-counter availability of oral emergency contraception (EC) has not reduced unintended pregnancy rates. The EC visit presents an opportunity to initiate a highly effective method of contraception in a population at high risk of unintended pregnancy who are actively seeking to avoid pregnancy. The copper intrauterine device (IUD), the most effective method of EC, continues to provide contraception as effective as sterilization for up to 12 years, and it should be offered as the first-line method of EC wherever possible. Increased demand for and supply of the copper IUD for EC may have an important role in reducing rates of unintended pregnancy. The EC visit should include access to the copper IUD as optimal care but should ideally include access to all highly effective methods of contraception.

Emergency contraception

There have been numerous attempts to control fertility after unprotected sexual intercourse (UPSI). From very bizarre methods like the vaginal application of Coca Cola to the more serious attempts using calcium antagonists influencing fertility parameters in sperm to hormonal methods or intrauterine devices. So far, hormonal methods preventing or delaying ovulation have proved to be the most popular starting with the combination of ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel (LNG), known as the Yuzpe regimen. The first dose had to be taken within 72 hours of UPSI, a second one 12 hours later. Later on, LNG alone, at first in a regimen similar to the Yuzpe method (2 × 0.75 mg 12 hours apart) showed to be more successful, eventually resulting in the development of a 1.5 mg LNG pill that combined good efficacy with a high ease of use. Several efficacious and easy to use methods for emergency contraception (EC) are available on the market today with the most widely spread being LNG in a single dose of 1.5 mg (given as one tablet of 1.5 mg or 2 tablets of 0.75 mg each) for administration up to 3 days (according to WHO up to 5 days) after UPSI. Its limitations are the non-optimal efficacy which is decreasing the later the drug is taken and the fact that it is only approved for up to 72 hours after UPSI. This regimen has no effect on the endometrium, corpus luteum function and implantation, is not abortive and don't harm the fetus if accidentally taken in early pregnancy. It has no impact on the rate of ectopic pregnancies. It has become the standard method used up to this day in most countries. Since the mid 1970s copper IUDs have been used for EC, which show a high efficacy. Their disadvantages lie in the fact that EC is considered an off label use for most IUDs (not for the GynFix copper IUD in the European Union) and that they might not be acceptable for every patient. Furthermore IUD-insertion is an invasive procedure and it is required trained providers and sterilized facilities. Mifepristone in the dosages of 10 or 25 mg is used with good results as an emergency contraceptive in China for up to 120 hours after UPSI, but has never received any significant consideration in Western countries. While high doses of mifepristone has an effect on endometrial receptivity and will inhibit ovulation if given in the follicular phase and prevent implantation if given in the early luteal phase, low doses such as 10 mg has no impact on the endometrium. Mifepristone does not increase the rate of ectopic pregnancies. The most recent development is the approval of the selective progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate (UPA) in the dosage of 30 mg for EC up to 5 days after UPSI, combining the safe and easy application of the single dose LNG pill with an even higher efficacy. It has shown to be more efficacious than LNG and can be used for up to 120 hours after UPSI; the difference in efficacy is highest for 0-24 hours, followed by 0-72 hours following UPSI. No VTE has been reported following UPA-administration or any progesterone receptor modulator. No effect on endometrium, corpus luteum function and implantation has been observed with doses used for EC. Independent of the substance it should be noted that, if there is a choice, the intake of an oral emergency contraceptive pill should happen as soon as possible after the risk situation. A pre-existing pregnancy must be excluded. Possible contraindications and drug interactions must be considered according to the individual special product informations.

Emergency contraception

This review will focus on the available methods for emergency contraception (EC), efficacy, side effects and mechanisms of action. Copper intrauterine device (IUD) has been shown to be the most effective method for EC which can be continually used for regular contraception. However, this possibility is seldom used and may be little known. Among the hormonal EC methods 1.5 mg levonorgestrel is the most widely used EC pill while the more recently developed Ulipristal acetate (UPA) has been shown to be the most effective option. This is probably due to a more pronounced prevention of follicular rupture compared with other hormonal EC methods. Knowledge is needed to better advise lactating women and obese women on optimal EC method. Furthermore a possible interaction of UPA with regular hormonal contraception and possibilities for "bridging" from EC to regular contraception needs to be explored. To increase efficacy future studies should focus on EC methods that target the endometrium.

Criterion-based screening for sexually transmitted infection: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of commonly used questions

INTRODUCTION

Practice protocols that mandate prescreening for sexually transmitted infection prior to insertion of an intrauterine device for contraception can pose obstacles for women seeking this highly effective method of birth control. Some practices screen for presumed risk factors for sexually transmitted infection in order to identify those who may be infected or those in whom laboratory testing should be obtained. The value of such criterion-based screening is unclear.

METHODS

Data from a prospective observational trial of offering the copper intrauterine device for emergency contraception were used to assess the value of several screening questions in predicting the presence of sexually transmitted infection. Criteria evaluated were age under 25 years, history of a sexually transmitted infection, and having 2 or more sexual partners in the previous 3 months. The sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio of both positive and negative test results and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for 3 separate questions as well as for combinations of these 3 questions.

RESULTS

There were 197 women who received a copper intrauterine device for emergency contraception at the same time they were tested for sexually transmitted infection. In this sample, there were 8 cases of Chlamydia trachomatis identified and no cases of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The sensitivity of individual and combined questions in identifying those who were infected ranged from 0% to 88%; specificity ranged from 37% to 97%. The positive predictive values for single or combined screening questions were in the range of 4% to 6%. Likelihood ratios for both positive and negative test results did not change posttest likelihood of disease in any appreciable way.

DISCUSSION

Standard screening questions used to identify sexually transmitted infection risk could presume infection in large numbers of uninfected women and are of little value in identifying the women who are truly infected.

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.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

The search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, PubMed, Biosis/EMBASE, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (July 2011). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Quality assessment was also done by two review authors independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity a random-effects model was applied.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred trials with 55,666 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (86/100). Meta-analysis indicated that mid-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) (20 trials; RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92) or low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) (11 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.97) were significantly more effective than levonorgestrel (LNG), but the significance was marginal when only high-quality studies were included (4 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01). Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone (25 trials; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). This difference was not statistically significant when only high-quality trials were considered (6 trials; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10). Ulipristal acetate (UPA) appeared more effective (2 trials; RR 0.63) than LNG at a marginal level (P = 0.09) within 72 hours of intercourse.Regarding effectiveness in relation to the time of administration, women who took LNG within 72 hours of intercourse were significantly less likely to be pregnant than those who took it after 72 hours (4 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84). It was not evident that the coitus-treatment time affected the effectiveness of mifepristone and UPA.Single-dose LNG (1.5 mg) showed similar effectiveness as the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 h apart) (3 trials; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33). This conclusion was not modified by the time elapsed from intercourse to treatment administration.Mifepristone (all doses) (3 trials; RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) and LNG (5 trials; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80) were more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy. One trial compared gestrinone with mifepristone. No significant difference of effectiveness was identified in this trial (996 women; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.76).All methods of EC were safe. Nausea and vomiting occurred with oestrogen-containing EC methods and progestogen and anti-progestogen methods caused changes in subsequent menses. LNG users were more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date, but UPA users were more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) was superior to LNG and Yuzpe regimens. Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) may be more effective than LNG (0.75 mg two doses), but this was not conclusive. UPA may be more effective than LNG. LNG proved to be more effective than the Yuzpe regimen. The copper IUD was the most effective EC method and was the only EC method to provide ongoing contraception if left in situ.

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

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) have been studied for use for emergency contraception for at least 35 years. IUDs are safe and highly effective for emergency contraception and regular contraception, and are extremely cost-effective as an ongoing method. The objective of this study was to evaluate the existing data to estimate the efficacy of IUDs for emergency contraception.

METHODS

The reference list for this study was generated from hand searching the reference lists of relevant articles and our own article archives, and electronic searches of several databases: Medline, Global Health, Clinicaltrials.gov, Popline, Wanfang Data (Chinese) and Weipu Data (Chinese). We included studies published in English or Chinese, with a defined population of women who presented for emergency contraception and were provided with an IUD, and in which the number of pregnancies was ascertained and loss to follow-up was clearly defined. Data from each article were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The 42 studies (of 274 retrieved) that met our inclusion criteria were conducted in six countries between 1979 and 2011 and included eight different types of IUD and 7034 women. The maximum timeframe from intercourse to insertion of the IUD ranged from 2 days to 10 or more days; the majority of insertions (74% of studies) occurred within 5 days of intercourse. The pregnancy rate (excluding one outlier study) was 0.09%.

CONCLUSIONS

IUDs are a highly effective method of contraception after unprotected intercourse. Because they are safe for the majority of women, highly effective and cost-effective when left in place as ongoing contraception, whenever clinically feasible IUDs should be included in the range of emergency contraception options offered to patients presenting after unprotected intercourse. This review is limited by the fact that the original studies did not provide sufficient data on the delay between intercourse and insertion of the IUD, parity, cycle day of intercourse or IUD type to allow analysis by any of these variables.

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.