A multicenter randomized clinical trial of one-rod etonogestrel and two-rod levonorgestrel contraceptive implants with nonrandomized copper-IUD controls: methodology and insertion data

Acceptability of telemedicine for follow up after contraceptive implant initiation at an obstetrics and gynecologic training center

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has become a popular adjunct to in-person visits, including for family planning services. This study determined the proportion of clients participated in telemedicine services and the association between sociodemographic factors and telemedicine participation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The adverse effects within the first seven days post-insertion were also reported.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study considered data from all women initiating contraceptive implantation between June 2020 and August 2021 at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. Clients were offered the following two options for follow-up visits: in-person or communication via an online LINE® Official Account (LINE® OA), a free chat application widely used among the Thais. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between socio-demographic factors and telehealth usage.

RESULTS

In total, 574 of 947 (60.6%) clients participated in telemedicine follow-up services during the period considered. A significant association between telemedicine usage and the following were observed: the peak of second wave COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand, using the period preceding the second wave as a reference [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.96)]; participants receiving governmental benefits for contraceptive implant payment (aOR: 3.23, 95% CI: 1.86-5.60), and timing of contraceptive implant(s) initiation, using interval insertion as a reference for which aORs of postpartum and immediate postpartum insertions were 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43-0.90) and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.24-0.52), respectively. Significant ecchymosis at the insertion site was observed in 13.1% of participants.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the significance of telemedicine during the COVID-19 epidemic, particularly in facilitating contraceptive implant initiation. Our data show a significant increase in the uptake and utilization of telemedicine during the pandemic's peak. The data also shows that during the period of Thailand's second COVID-19 epidemic, government benefits for contraceptive implant payment, and the timing of contraceptive implant initiation, are significantly associated with telemedicine use. This finding supports the continued use of telemedicine in healthcare, particularly for services like family planning, where remote follow-ups can provide safe, efficient, and timely care.

Safety, Quality, and Acceptability of Contraceptive Implant Provision by Community Health Extension Workers versus Nurses and Midwives in Two States in Nigeria

Task sharing is a strategy with potential to increase access to effective modern contraceptive methods. This study examines whether community health extension workers (CHEWs) can insert contraceptive implants to the same safety and quality standards as nurse/midwives. We analyze data from 7,691 clients of CHEWs and nurse/midwives who participated in a noninferiority study conducted in Kaduna and Ondo States, Nigeria. Adverse events (AEs) following implant insertions were compared. On the day of insertion AEs were similar among CHEW and nurse/midwife clients—0.5 percent and 0.4 percent, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.92 (95 percent CI 0.38–2.23)—but noninferiority could not be established. At follow‐up 6.6 percent of CHEW clients and 2.1 percent of nurse/midwife clients experienced AEs. There was strong evidence of effect modification by State. In the final adjusted model, odds of AEs for CHEW clients in Kaduna was 3.34 (95 percent CI 1.53–7.33) compared to nurse/midwife clients, and 0.72 (95 percent CI 0.19–2.72]) in Ondo. Noninferiority could not be established in either State. Implant expulsions were higher among CHEW clients (142/2987) compared to nurse/midwives (40/3517). Results show the feasibility of training CHEWs to deliver implants in remote rural settings but attention must be given to provider selection, training, supervision, and follow‐up to ensure safety and quality of provision.

Safety and Benefits of Contraceptives Implants: A Systematic Review

Progestin-only contraceptive implants provide long-acting, highly effective reversible contraception. We searched the medical publications in PubMed, CENTRAL, and EMBASE for relevant articles on hormonal implants published in English between 1990 and 2021. Levonorgestrel (LNG) 6-capsule subdermal implants represented the first effective system approved for reversible contraception. The etonogestrel (ENG) single rod dispositive has been widely employed in clinical practice, since it is a highly effective and safe contraceptive method. Abnormal menstrual bleeding is a common ENG side effect, representing the main reason for its premature discontinuation. Emerging evidence demonstrated that it is possible to extend the use of the ENG implant beyond the three-year period for which it is approved. The ENG implant could be an effective and discrete alternative to the IUD in young girls, such as post-partum/post-abortion. Implants should be inserted by trained skilled clinicians who previously provide adequate counselling about their contraceptive effect, benefits, and any possible adverse events. More studies are needed to validate the extended use of the ENG implant for up to 5 years.

Randomized trial to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, safety and acceptability of a two-rod contraceptive implant over 4 years in the Dominican Republic

Objective

Sino-implant (II) is a contraceptive implant that had a commodity price one-third of the competing products a decade ago. To make Sino-implant (II) more widely available, we conducted a trial to collect safety and efficacy data required for World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification, a quality standard allowing global donors to procure a pharmaceutical product.

Study design

This was a randomized controlled trial allocating 650 participants to either Sino-implant (II) or Jadelle®. Participants were seen at 1 and 6 months, and then semiannually. The primary efficacy measure was the pregnancy Pearl Index [number of pregnancies per 100 women-years (WY) of follow-up] in the Sino-implant (II) group during up to 4 years of implant use.

Results

For the primary outcome, Sino-implant (II) had a 4-year Pearl Index of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.37) compared to 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-1.04) for Jadelle®. The Sino-implant (II) pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the fourth year (3.54 per 100 WY) than in the first 3 years combined (0.18 per 100 WY; p <.001). Total levonorgestrel concentrations were equivalent between groups at month 12, but were 19%, 22% and 32% lower in the Sino-implant (II) group at months 24, 36 and 48, respectively (p <.001 at each time point). Safety and acceptability of the two products were similar, while providers documented significantly higher breakage rates during removal of Sino-implant (II) (16.3% vs. 3.1%; p <.001).

Conclusion

Based on these results, WHO prequalified Sino-Implant (II) with a 3-year use label in June 2017, 2 years shorter than the 5-year duration of Jadelle®.

Implications

WHO prequalification allows global donors to procure Sino-implant (II), which means women in many low resource countries will have greater access to highly effective and acceptable contraceptive implants. Our study noted important clinical differences, including shorter duration of high effectiveness with Sino-implant (II) when compared to the other available two-rod system, Jadelle®. Introduction strategies should include appropriate training on these differences.

A multicenter randomized clinical trial of etonogestrel and levonorgestrel contraceptive implants with nonrandomized copper intrauterine device controls: effect on weight variations up to 3 years after placement

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate weight changes in women randomized to either the etonogestrel (ENG)- or the levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing contraceptive implants and to compare with users of the TCu380A intrauterine device (IUD).

STUDY DESIGN

A multicenter randomized trial with 1:1 allocation ratio of the ENG and the LNG implants with nonrandomized, age-matched control group of women choosing TCu380A IUD. The primary objective was to assess contraceptive efficacy and method continuation rates and, secondarily, the incidence of common complaints and side effects (including weight changes) associated with use of the three contraceptives. All women were enrolled in nine centers at seven countries. Weight change was evaluated from time at device(s) placement. Confounders were sociodemographic, baseline weight and body mass index, center and time from insertion. We used a linear mixed-effects regression modeling with random intercept and slope. Weight was compared between the two implants groups and between the implants and the IUD groups through linear mixed multivariable regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 995, 997 and 971 users in the ENG implant, LNG implant and IUD groups, respectively, were included. At 36 months of use, ENG and LNG implant users had similar significant mean weight increase of 3.0 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-3.5] and 2.9 kg (95% CI 2.4-3.4), respectively (p<.0001), while IUD users had an increase of 1.1 kg (95% CI 0.5-1.7) (p=.0003). On adding the group-time interaction term to the stratified baseline weight models, implant users gained 0.759 kg (standard error [SE] .11) and 0.787 kg (SE .22) more weight than their IUD-user counterparts per year since placement if their baseline weight was in the category 51-69 kg (p<.0001) or ≥70 kg (p=.0005), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ENG and LNG implant as well as IUD users had a small but significant weight increase with little clinical significance during the 3 years of follow-up, and it was slightly higher among implant than IUD users weighing >50 kg.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings must be useful for clinicians to counsel implant users which could improve method continuation.

Influence of age on tolerability, safety and effectiveness of subdermal contraceptive implants

The use of long-acting contraceptive methods is on the rise. The aim of this study was to describe the main variables (effectiveness, tolerability, menstrual bleeding) associated with the use of subdermal contraceptive implants and to investigate the influence of age on these variables. This was a descriptive, retrospective, observational study of 221 cases of contraceptive implants inserted at a Spanish hospital between 2006 and 2015. The mean age of implant users was 31.2 ± 7.5 years. Effectiveness was 100% and good tolerability was recorded for 86.5%. Infrequent bleeding was the most common bleeding pattern, followed by amenorrhoea. Of the 221 implants inserted, 47.5% were removed. The main reasons were expiration (54.3%) and discomfort due to bleeding alterations and other adverse effects (25.7%). Nulliparity and weight gain were significantly associated with an increased probability of implant removal. This study shows that implants were highly effective, safe and well-tolerated in our population. The age of users had no influence on any of the study variables analysed. Impact Statement What is already known on this subject? Subdermal contraceptive implants are long-acting reversible contraceptives which are both safe and effective. What do the results of this study add? The age of users had no influence on any of the study variables analysed. Nulliparity and weight gain were significantly associated with an increased probability of implant removal. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Subdermal contraceptive implants were a safe and effective long-acting progestin contraceptive method for women from all age groups in our series because no significant age-related differences were observed for the tolerability, vaginal bleeding patterns, the effectiveness, the adverse effects or any other variables.

Safety, Quality, and Acceptability of Contraceptive Subdermal Implant Provision by Community Health Extension Workers Versus Nurses and Midwives in Nigeria: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental, Noninferiority Study

Background

As part of its Family Planning 2020 commitment, the Nigerian government is aiming for a contraceptive prevalence rate of 36% by 2018, and in 2014, approved a policy to allow community health extension workers (CHEWs), in addition to doctors, nurses, and midwives, to provide contraceptive subdermal implants. There is a lack of rigorous evidence on the safety of long-acting reversible contraceptive provision, such as implants, among lower cadres of health providers.

Objective

This study aimed to compare implant provision by CHEWs versus nurses and midwives up to 14 days post insertion.

Methods

The quasi-experimental, noninferiority study will take place in public sector facilities in Kaduna and Ondo States. In each state, we will select 60 facilities, and from these, we will select a total of 30 nurses and midwives and 30 CHEWs to participate. Selected providers will be trained to provide implant services. Once trained, providers will recruit a minimum of 8125 women aged between 18 and 49 years who request and are eligible for an implant, following comprehensive family planning counseling. During implant insertion, providers will record data about the process and any adverse events, and 14 days post insertion, providers will ask 4410 clients about adverse events arising from the implant. Supervisors will observe 792 implant insertions to assess service provision quality and ask clients about their satisfaction with the procedure. We will conclude noninferiority if the CI for the difference in the proportion of adverse events between CHEWs and nurses and midwives on the day of insertion or 14 days post insertion lies to the right of −2%.

Results

In September and October 2015, we trained 60 CHEWs and a total of 60 nurses and midwives from 12 local government areas (LGAs) in Kaduna and 23 LGAs in Ondo. Recruitment took place between November 2015 and December 2016. Data analysis is being finalized, and results are expected in March 2018.

Conclusions

The strength of this study is having a standard care (nurse and midwife provision) group with which CHEW provision can be compared. The intervention builds on existing training and supervision procedures, which increases the sustainability and scalability of CHEW implant provision. Important limitations include the lack of randomization due to nurses and midwives in Nigeria working in separate types of health care facilities compared with CHEWs, and that providers self-assess their own practices. It is unfeasible to observe all procedures independently, and observation may change practice. Although providers will be trained to conduct implant removals, the study time will be too short to reach the sample size required to make noninferiority comparisons for removals.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03088722; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03088722 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xIHImWvu)

Canadian Contraception Consensus (Part 3 of 4): Chapter 8 - Progestin-Only Contraception

OBJECTIVE

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

OUTCOMES

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

EVIDENCE

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

VALUES

The quality of the evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). CHAPTER 8: PROGESTIN-ONLY CONTRACEPTION: Summary Statements Recommendations.

Hormonal and intrauterine methods for contraception for women aged 25 years and younger

BACKGROUND

Women between the ages of 15 and 24 years have high rates of unintended pregnancy; over half of women in this age group want to avoid pregnancy. However, women under age 25 years have higher typical contraceptive failure rates within the first 12 months of use than older women. High discontinuation rates may also be a problem in this population. Concern that adolescents and young women will not find hormonal or intrauterine contraceptives acceptable or effective might deter healthcare providers from recommending these contraceptive methods.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contraceptive failure (pregnancy) rates and to examine the continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraception among young women aged 25 years and younger.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched until 4 August 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hormonal or intrauterine methods of contraception in women aged 25 years and younger. Computerized databases included the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs in any language that reported the contraceptive failure rates for hormonal or intrauterine contraceptive methods, when compared with another contraceptive method, for women aged 25 years and younger. The other contraceptive method could have been another intrauterine contraceptive, another hormonal contraceptive or different dose of the same method, or a non-hormonal contraceptive. Treatment duration must have been at least three months. Eligible trials had to include the primary outcome of contraceptive failure rate (pregnancy). The secondary outcome was contraceptive continuation rate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author conducted the primary data extraction and entered the information into Review Manager. Another author performed an independent data extraction and verified the initial entry. For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Because of disparate interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies included a total of 1503 women, with a mean of 301 participants. The trials compared the following contraceptives: combined oral contraceptive (COC) versus transdermal contraceptive patch, vaginal contraceptive ring, or levonorgestrel intrauterine system 20 µg/day (LNG-IUS 20); LNG-IUS 12 µg/day (LNG-IUS 12) versus LNG-IUS 16 µg/day (LNG-IUS 16); and LNG-IUS 20 versus the copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD). In the trials comparing two different types of methods, the study arms did not differ significantly for contraceptive efficacy or continuation. The sample sizes were small for two of those studies. The only significant outcome was that a COC group had a higher proportion of women who discontinued for 'other personal reasons' compared with the group assigned to the LNG-IUS 20 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85), which may have little clinic relevance. The trial comparing LNG-IUS 12 versus LNG-IUS 16 showed similar efficacy over one and three years. In three trials that examined different LNG-IUS, continuation was at least 75% at 6 to 36 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We considered the overall quality of evidence to be moderate to low. Limitations were due to trial design or limited reporting. Different doses in the LNG-IUS did not appear to influence efficacy over three years. In another study, continuation of the LNG-IUS appeared at least as high as that for the COC. The current evidence was insufficient to compare efficacy and continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraceptive methods in women aged 25 years and younger.