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

One-year pregnancy and continuation rates after placement of levonorgestrel or copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device for emergency contraception vs the copper T380A intrauterine device. Of note, 1-year pregnancy and continuation rates after intrauterine device placement for emergency contraception remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared 1-year pregnancy and intrauterine device continuation rates and reasons for discontinuation among emergency contraception users randomized to the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device or the copper intrauterine device.

STUDY DESIGN

This participant-masked, randomized noninferiority trial recruited emergency contraception individuals desiring an intrauterine device from 6 Utah family planning clinics between August 2016 and December 2019. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device group or the copper T380A intrauterine device group. Treatment allocation was revealed to participants at the 1-month follow-up. Trained personnel followed up the participants by phone, text, or e-mail at 5 time points in 1 year and reviewed electronic health records for pregnancy and intrauterine device continuation outcomes for both confirmation and nonresponders. We assessed the reasons for the discontinuation and used Cox proportional-hazard models, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and log-rank tests to assess differences in the continuation and pregnancy rates between the groups.

RESULTS

The levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine device groups included 327 and 328 participants, respectively, receiving the respective interventions. By intention-to-treat analysis at 1 year, the pregnancy rates were similar between intrauterine device types (2.8% [9/327] in levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device vs 3.0% [10/328] in copper intrauterine device; risk ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-2.2; P=.82). Most pregnancies occurred in participants after intrauterine device removal, with only 1 device failure in each group. Of note, 1-year continuation rates did not differ between groups with 204 of 327 levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device users (62.4%) and 183 of 328 copper T380A intrauterine device users (55.8%) continuing intrauterine device use at 1 year (risk ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.2; P=.09). There were differences concerning the reasons for discontinuation between intrauterine device types, with more bleeding and cramping cited among copper intrauterine device users.

CONCLUSION

The pregnancy rates were low and similar between intrauterine device types. Of note, 6 of 10 intrauterine device emergency contraception users continued use at 1 year. Moreover, 1-year continuation rates were similar between intrauterine device types.

Development and Pilot Testing of a Dispensing Protocol on Emergency Contraceptive Pills for Community Pharmacists in Belgium

Community pharmacists in Belgium frequently dispense emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs). However, variable and insufficient counseling practices exist across pharmacies, highlighting the need for standardization and quality improvement strategies. The aim of this project was to develop and test an ECP dispensing protocol for pharmacists. An ‘experience-based’ co-design approach involving academic and practicing pharmacists was applied, followed by a 4-month test period and interviews to assess users’ experiences. In total, eight geographically dispersed pharmacies participated. Pharmacists (n = 15) reached a consensus on most items to be included in the protocol, which was subsequently tested in seven pharmacies, with overall 97 registered ECP conversations. Pharmacists considered the protocol complete but felt that not all items should be mentioned/questioned during all conversations. They suggested only subtle modifications to be made prior to delivering a final protocol ready for nationwide distribution. Despite attributing positive effects to having a protocol, no single pharmacist ‘actively’ used it at-the-counter but used it instead as a ‘checklist’ after the encounter. Pharmacists found that the paper-based format of the protocol hindered protocol-based dispensing. Future research is needed to provide evidence on the actual benefits of protocol application, as well as to identify factors influencing the implementation of ECP dispensing using a software-integrated protocol.

Continuation of post-coital intrauterine contraceptive devices beyond index cycle at Sexual Health Sheffield

We aimed to observe the continuation of Emergency IUD beyond the index cycle and reasons for removal. We analysed data from the patients' electronic records of fifty consecutive women who had an IUD fitted at Sexual Health Sheffield for emergency contraception. 48 (96%) women continued with the IUD beyond the index cycle and 31 (62%) women for more than 1 year. Heavy menstrual bleeding, dysmenorrhoea and pain were the most frequent reasons cited for removal.

The intrauterine device versus oral hormonal methods as emergency contraceptives: A systematic review of recent comparative studies

Oral emergency contraceptives do not appear to be as effective as the copper IUD as an emergency contraceptive. There is as yet no estimation of the relative efficacy rates rather than the failure rates. The references for this study were obtained by entering the terms "intrauterine device" "and "emergency contraception" in Medline, PubMed, Popline, Global Health and ClinicalTrials.gov. Chinese references were obtained from the Wanfang database. For the short term study articles with a defined population who were followed up after the index cycle were eligible. Women who were adequately followed for at least 6 months were included in the long term study. There were 13(of 228) studies which met our selection criteria and were conducted between August 2011 and January 2019. There were 960 insertions of four types of copper IUD with a failure rate of 0.104%. There were 22 failures out of 1453 oral emergency contraception users with a failure rate of 1.51%. The relative risk of failure for an intrauterine device versus an oral method was 0.1376(95% CI -0.03-0.58). The 6 month to 12 month pregnancy rate was 0-6% for IUDs and 2.7-12% for oral methods. The copper IUD appears to be more effective than oral methods as an emergency contraceptive. The 6 to 12 month pregnancy rates after using either method is 4-10%. Emergency contraception is not a solution to unintended pregnancy.

The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception and beyond: a systematic review update

Background

The copper intrauterine device (IUD) is a very effective form of emergency contraception. The failure rate is about 0.1%. IUDs are also very cost-effective when used as long acting-reversible contraception (LARC). The purpose of this review is to attempt to confirm these findings.

Methods

The references for this study were generated by entering the terms “intrauterine device” and “emergency contraception” in Medline, PubMed, Popline, Global Health and ClinicalTrials.gov. Chinese references were obtained from the Wanfang database. For the emergency contraception study, articles with a defined population who were followed up until outcome were eligible. Women who were adequately followed for at least 6 months were included in the long term arm of the study.

Results

There were 18 (of 228) studies which met our selection criteria and were conducted in five countries, between August 2011 and January 2018. There were 1720 insertions of seven types of copper IUD with a failure rate of 0.12%. The maximum time from intercourse to IUD insertion was 14 days. The discontinuation rate at 12 months was over 20% in the long term studies.

Conclusion

There are now a combined total of 8550 reported insertions from two reviews with 8 pregnancies and a failure rate of 0.093%. Copper IUDs remain an effective form of emergency contraception, for which they are under-promoted. The major limitation of the studies is the lack of data relating unprotected intercourse to the day of the cycle.

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.

Levonorgestrel only emergency contraceptive use and risk of ectopic pregnancy in Eldoret Kenya: a case-control study

INTRODUCTION

ectopic pregnancy is one of the causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. Levonorgestrel (LNG) only emergency contraceptive pill is a well-established emergency contraceptive pill that is administered within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse. This study aimed at determining whether or not there is a significant association between levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive use and the occurrence of ectopic pregnancy.

METHODS

case-control (1:3) study among 79 women with ectopic pregnancy (cases) matched against 237 women without (controls) at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya; Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected using a questionnaire. Association between ectopic pregnancy and LNG-EC was assessed using Pearson chi-square test. The relationship between outcome and exposure (while adjusting for confounders) was assessed using logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The mean age was 27.15 years. Both cases and controls were similar by age (p = 0.990), educational level (p = 0.850), marital status (p = 0.559), employment status (p = 0.186) and parity (p = 0.999). Seventy-eight (24.7%) participants had a history of miscarriage. A higher proportion of the cases had history of using LNG-EC compared to the controls (32.9% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001). The use of LNG-EC portended more than nine times increased odds of ectopic pregnancy compared to other contraceptive methods {OR = 9.34 (95% CI: 3.9 - 16.0)}.

CONCLUSION

levonorgestrel only emergency contraceptive use was associated with ectopic pregnancy. One of the limitations of this study is that we could not control for all confounders of ectopic pregnancy.

[Emergency contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

OBJECTIVES

Edit, by the French National College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF), recommendations based on the evidence available in the literature for the use in terms of effectiveness, safety and side effects of emergency contraception (EC).

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted by consulting Medline, Cochrane Library and international recommendations in French and English from January 1, 1979 to May 1, 2018.

RESULTS

It is recommended to inform patients that EC is not 100% effective. A pregnancy test is recommended if there is a delay after taking an EC. It is recommended to use EC as soon as possible after the unprotected intercourse. In the absence of long-term contraception, in the first 72hours after unprotected intercourse, ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) may be offered with a superiority of UPA from 0 to 72h. Beyond 72hours, the data suggest a better efficiency of the UPA. However, taking into account practical elements (access to EC, cost, impact on the taking of hormonal contraception after UPA), it is difficult to recommend the UPA as a priority between 0 and 72h. Menstruation is more likely to happen early with LNG. The copper IUD is an effective method that can be used in EC until 120hours after unprotected intercourse or when there is a risk of contraceptive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

EC is not 100% effective. The closer the intake of EC with the unprotected intercourse, the more effective is the EC in terms of pregnancy rate.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency contraception options over 1 year

BACKGROUND

The copper intrauterine device is the most effective form of emergency contraception and can also provide long-term contraception. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device has also been studied in combination with oral levonorgestrel for women seeking emergency contraception. However, intrauterine devices have higher up-front costs than oral methods, such as ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Health care payers and decision makers (eg, health care insurers, government programs) with financial constraints must determine if the increased effectiveness of intrauterine device emergency contraception methods are worth the additional costs.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 emergency contraception strategies-ulipristal acetate, oral levonorgestrel, copper intrauterine device, and oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device-over 1 year from a US payer perspective.

STUDY DESIGN

Costs (2017 US dollars) and pregnancies were estimated over 1 year using a Markov model of 1000 women seeking emergency contraception. Every 28-day cycle, the model estimated the predicted number of pregnancy outcomes (ie, live birth, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion) resulting from emergency contraception failure and subsequent contraception use. Model inputs were derived from published literature and national sources. An emergency contraception strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ie, the cost to prevent 1 additional pregnancy) was less than the weighted average cost of pregnancy outcomes in the United States ($5167). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probability of being the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy were calculated from 1000 probabilistic model iterations. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty in the cost of emergency contraception, subsequent contraception, and pregnancy outcomes as well as the model probabilities.

RESULTS

In 1000 women seeking emergency contraception, the model estimated direct medical costs of $1,228,000 and 137 unintended pregnancies with ulipristal acetate, compared to $1,279,000 and 150 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel, $1,376,000 and 61 unintended pregnancies with copper intrauterine devices, and $1,558,000 and 63 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device was the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy in the majority (63.9%) of model iterations and, compared to ulipristal acetate, cost $1957 per additional pregnancy prevented. Model estimates were most sensitive to changes in the cost of the copper intrauterine device (with higher copper intrauterine device costs, oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device became the most cost-effective option) and the cost of a live birth (with lower-cost births, ulipristal acetate became the most cost-effective option). When the proportion of obese women in the population increased, the copper intrauterine device became even more most cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Over 1 year, the copper intrauterine device is currently the most cost-effective emergency contraception option. Policy makers and health care insurance companies should consider the potential for long-term savings when women seeking emergency contraception can promptly obtain whatever contraceptive best meets their personal preferences and needs; this will require removing barriers and promoting access to intrauterine devices at emergency contraception visits.

The intrauterine device as emergency contraception: how much do young women know?

BACKGROUND

Unprotected intercourse is common, especially among teens and young women. Access to intrauterine device (IUD) as emergency contraception (EC) can help interested patients more effectively prevent unintended pregnancy and can also offer ongoing contraception. This study evaluated young women's awareness of IUD as EC and interest in case of need.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from young women aged 18-25 years, not desiring pregnancy within 12 months, and receiving contraceptive counseling within a cluster-randomized trial in 40 US Planned Parenthood health centers in 2011-2013 (n=1500). Heath centers were randomized to receive enhanced training on contraceptive counseling and IUD placement, or to provide standard care. The intervention did not focus specifically on IUD as EC. We assessed awareness of IUD as EC, desire to learn more about EC and most trusted source of information of EC among women in both intervention and control groups completing baseline and 3- or 6-month follow-up questionnaires (n=1138).

RESULTS

At follow-up, very few young women overall (7.5%) visiting health centers had heard of IUD as EC. However, if they needed EC, most (68%) reported that they would want to learn about IUDs in addition to EC pills, especially those who would be very unhappy to become pregnant (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.6, p<.05). Most (91%) reported a doctor or nurse as their most trusted source of EC information, over Internet (6%) or friends (2%), highlighting providers' essential role.

CONCLUSION

Most young women at risk of unintended pregnancy are not aware of IUD as EC and look to their providers for trusted information. Contraceptive education should explicitly address IUD as EC.

IMPLICATIONS

Few young women know that the IUD can be used for EC or about its effectiveness. However, if they needed EC, most reported that they would want to learn about IUDs in addition to EC pills, especially those very unhappy to become pregnant. Contraceptive education should explicitly address IUD as EC.

Update on emergency contraception

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Emergency contraception provides a critical and time-sensitive opportunity for women to prevent undesired pregnancy after intercourse. Both access and available options for emergency contraception have changed over the last several years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emergency contraceptive pills can be less effective in obese women. The maximum achieved serum concentration of levonorgestrel (LNG) is lower in obese women than women of normal BMI, and doubling the dose of LNG (3 mg) increases its concentration maximum, approximating the level in normal BMI women receiving one dose of LNG. Repeated use of both LNG and ulipristal acetate (UPA) is well tolerated. Hormonal contraception can be immediately started following LNG use, but should be delayed for 5 days after UPA use to avoid dampening the efficacy of UPA. The copper intrauterine device (IUD) is the only IUD approved for emergency contraception (and the most effective method of emergency contraception), but use of LNG IUD as emergency contraception is currently being investigated. Accurate knowledge about emergency contraception remains low both for patients and healthcare providers.

SUMMARY

Emergency contraception is an important yet underutilized tool available to women to prevent pregnancy. Current options including copper IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are safe and well tolerated. Significant gaps in knowledge of emergency contraception on both the provider and user level exist, as do barriers to expedient access of emergency contraception.

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).

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.

One-year continuation of copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine devices initiated at the time of emergency contraception

OBJECTIVE(S)

This study compares 1-year intrauterine device (IUD) continuation among women presenting for emergency contraception (EC) and initiating the copper (Cu T380A) IUD or the levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg IUD plus 1.5 mg oral LNG.

STUDY DESIGN

This cohort study enrolled 188 women who presented at a single family planning clinic in Utah between June 2013 and September 2014 and selected either the Cu T380A IUD or LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG for EC. Trained personnel followed participants by phone, text or e-mail for 12 months or until discontinuation occurred. We assessed reasons for discontinuation and used Cox proportional hazard models, Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to assess differences in continuation rates between IUDs.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six women received IUDs; 66 (37%) chose the Cu T380A IUD and 110 (63%) chose the LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG. At 1 year, we accounted for 147 (84%) participants, 33 (22%) had requested removals, 13 (9%) had an expulsion and declined reinsertion, 3 (2%) had a pregnancy with their IUD in place and 98 (67%) were still using their device. Continuation rates did not differ by IUD type; 60% of Cu T380A IUD users and 70% of LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG users were still using their device at 12 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.3).

CONCLUSION(S)

Two-thirds of women who chose IUD placement at the EC clinical encounter continued use at 1 year. Women initiating Cu T380A IUD and LNG 52 mg IUD had similar 1-year continuation rates. These findings support same-day insertion of IUDs for women who are seeking EC and would like to use a highly effective reversible method going forward.

IMPLICATIONS

Providing IUD options for EC users presents an opportunity to increase availability of highly effective contraception.

Emergency Contraception Algorithm and Guide for Clinicians

There are currently three forms of emergency contraception: oral levonorgestrel, oral ulipristal acetate, and the copper intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device is the most effective, followed by ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel, respectively. Although levonorgestrel is the least effective method, studies show that more prescribers are familiar with it and that is the most frequently used method. Clinicians should consider several factors when helping women make informed medical decisions regarding emergency contraception, including access to the products, a woman's individual preference, timing since unprotected intercourse, body mass index or weight, and initiation or resumption of routine contraception. This article explains and summarizes these considerations and provides an algorithm to guide clinicians.

2016 Updates to US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use and Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use: Highlights for Adolescent Patients

The US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) and US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (SPR) provide evidence-based guidance to safely provide contraception counseling and services. Both documents were updated in 2016 and are endorsed by the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. The purpose of this mini-review is to highlight updates to the US MEC and US SPR that are most relevant to health care providers of adolescents to support dissemination and implementation of these evidence-based best practices. This document is intended to highlight these changes and to complement, not replace, the detailed practice guidance within the US MEC and US SPR.

Choice of Emergency Contraceptive and Decision Making Regarding Subsequent Unintended Pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively evaluate (1) pregnancy desirability, (2) stated intentions should pregnancy occur among emergency contraception (EC) users, and (3) explore differences between women selecting the copper T380 intrauterine device (Cu IUD) or oral levonorgestrel (LNG) regarding hypothetical pregnancy plans and actual pregnancy actions during subsequent unintended pregnancies.

STUDY DESIGN

In this prospective observational trial, women received the Cu IUD or oral LNG for EC without cost barriers. At baseline, participants completed a visual analogue scale measuring pregnancy desirability (anchors: 0, "trying hard not to get pregnant"; 10, "trying hard to get pregnant") and self-reported plans (abortion, adoption, parenting, and unsure) if the pregnancy test were to come back positive. Pregnancies were tracked for 12 months, and actions regarding unintended pregnancies were compared between EC method groups.

RESULTS

Of 548 enrolled women, 218 chose the Cu IUD and 330 the oral LNG for EC. Pregnancy desirability at baseline was low, with no difference between EC groups (IUD group: 0.51, SD ± 1.60; LNG group: 0.68, SD ± 1.74). Fifty-four (10%) women experienced unintended pregnancies. Pregnancy plans from baseline changed for 27 (50%) women when they became pregnant. EC groups did not differ in hypothetical pregnancy intention (p = 0.15) or in agreement of hypothetical pregnancy intention with actual pregnancy action (p = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Women presenting for EC state high desire to prevent pregnancy regardless of method selected. When considering a hypothetical pregnancy, half of women had a plan for how they would respond to that situation, but when confronting an actual unintended pregnancy, half altered their plan.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00966771.

Hormonal contraception and obesity

The rising rate of overweight and obesity is a public health crisis in the United States and increasingly around the globe. Rates of contraceptive use are similar among women of all weights, but because contraceptive development studies historically excluded women over 130% of ideal body weight, patients and providers have a gap in understanding of contraceptive efficacy for obese and overweight women. Because of a range of drug metabolism alterations in obesity, there is biologic plausibility for changes in hormonal contraception effectiveness in obese women. However, these pharmacokinetic changes are not linearly related to body mass index or weight, and it is unknown what degree of obesity begins to affect pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamics processes. Overall, most studies of higher quality do not demonstrate a difference in oral contraceptive pill effectiveness in obese compared with non-obese women. However, data are scant for women in the highest categories of obesity, and differences by progestin type are incompletely understood. Effectiveness of most non-oral contraceptives does not seem to be compromised in obesity. Exceptions to this include the combined hormonal patch and oral levonorgestrel emergency contraception, which may have lower rates of effectiveness in obese women. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence on contraceptive use in women with obesity, including differences in steroid hormone metabolism, contraceptive effectiveness, and safety, compared with women of normal weight or body mass index using the same methods.

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.

Preference for and efficacy of oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception with concomitant placement of a levonorgestrel IUD: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

We assessed intrauterine device (IUD) preference among women presenting for emergency contraception (EC) and the probability of pregnancy among concurrent oral levonorgestrel (LNG) plus LNG 52 mg IUD EC users.

METHODS

We offered women presenting for EC at a single family planning clinic the CuT380A IUD (copper IUD) or oral LNG 1.5 mg plus the LNG 52 mg IUD. Two weeks after IUD insertion, participants reported the results of a self-administered home urine pregnancy test. The primary outcome, EC failure, was defined as pregnancies resulting from intercourse occurring within five days prior to IUD insertion.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-eight women enrolled and provided information regarding their current menstrual cycle and recent unprotected intercourse. Sixty-seven (36%) chose the copper IUD and 121 (64%) chose oral LNG plus the LNG IUD. The probability of pregnancy two weeks after oral LNG plus LNG IUD EC use was 0.9% (95% CI 0.0-5.1%). The only positive pregnancy test after treatment occurred in a woman who received oral LNG plus the LNG IUD and who had reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse including an episode more than 5 days prior to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Study participants seeking EC who desired an IUD preferentially chose oral LNG 1.5 mg with the LNG 52 mg IUD over the copper IUD. Neither group had EC treatment failures. Including the option of oral LNG 1.5 mg with concomitant insertion of the LNG 52 mg IUD in EC counseling may increase the number of EC users who opt to initiate highly effective reversible contraception.

IMPLICATIONS

Consideration should be given to LNG IUD insertion with concomitant use of oral LNG 1.5 mg for EC. Use of this combination may increase the number of women initiating highly effective contraception at the time of their EC visit.

Practice Bulletin No. 152: Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception, also known as postcoital contraception, is therapy used to prevent pregnancy after an unprotected or inadequately protected act of sexual intercourse. Common indications for emergency contraception include contraceptive failure (eg, condom breakage or missed doses of oral contraceptives) and failure to use any form of contraception (). Although oral emergency contraception was first described in the medical literature in the 1960s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first dedicated product for emergency contraception in 1998. Since then, several new products have been introduced. Methods of emergency contraception include oral administration of combined estrogen-progestin, progestin only, or selective progesterone receptor modulators and insertion of a copper intrauterine device (IUD). Many women are unaware of the existence of emergency contraception, misunderstand its use and safety, or do not use it when a need arises (). The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of available methods of emergency contraception and to increase awareness of these methods among obstetrician-gynecologists and other gynecologic providers.

Long-acting reversible contraception in the pediatric emergency department: clinical implications and common challenges

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is recommended as first-line contraception for adolescents and young adults. As the use of LARC increases, pediatric emergency medicine clinicians should be able to recognize different types of LARC and address their common adverse effects, adverse reactions, and complications. This continuing medical education activity provides an overview of LARC and will assist clinicians in the evaluation and management of patients with LARC-associated complaints.

Emergency contraception review: evidence-based recommendations for clinicians

Several options for emergency contraception are available in the United States. This article describes each method, including efficacy, mode of action, safety, side effect profile, and availability. The most effective emergency contraceptive is the copper intrauterine device (IUD), followed by ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel pills. Levonorgestrel is available for sale without restrictions, whereas ulipristal acetate is available with prescription only, and the copper IUD must be inserted by a clinician. Although EC pills have not been shown to reduce pregnancy or abortion rates at the population level, they are an important option for individual women seeking to prevent pregnancy after sex.

We should really keep in touch: predictors of the ability to maintain contact with contraception clinical trial participants over 12 months

OBJECTIVES

This study assesses the ability to maintain contact with participants enrolled in an emergency contraception (EC) trial with 12 months of follow-up based on the modes of contact they provided at enrollment.

STUDY DESIGN

Data came from a clinical trial offering women the copper intrauterine device or oral levonorgestrel for EC. A modified Poisson regression was used to assess predictors associated with the ability to contact study participants 12 months after enrollment.

RESULTS

Data were available for 542 participants; 443 (82%) could be contacted at 12 months. Contact at 12 months was greatest for those whose preferred the method of contact was text messaging, e-mail or any (62/68; 91% contacted) and worst for the 18 who had a landline phone (only 7 contacted; 39%). After controlling for age, having an e-mail address, text messaging, language preference, type of EC chosen and insurance, preferred contact other than phone increased the likelihood of follow-up by 10% [risk ratio (RR) 1.1 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.2], while having a landline reduced a woman's likelihood of being contacted at 12 months by 50% compared to women with a contract cell (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0).

CONCLUSION

The few women with a landline for contact had poor follow-up at 1 year, while women who preferred e-mail or text had the highest rate of follow-up.

IMPLICATIONS

Understanding how best to reduce loss to follow-up is an essential component of conducting a contraceptive clinical trial. Improved participant retention maximizes internal validity and allows for important clinical outcomes, such as pregnancy, to be assessed.