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

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Emergency contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) refers to several contraceptive options that can be used within a few days after unprotected or under protected intercourse or sexual assault to reduce the risk of pregnancy. Current EC options available in the United States include the copper intrauterine device (IUD), levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg IUD, oral LNG (such as Plan B One-Step, My Way, Take Action), and oral ulipristal acetate (UPA) (ella). These clinical recommendations review the indications, effectiveness, safety, and side effects of emergency contraceptive methods; considerations for the use of EC by specific patient populations and in specific clinical circumstances and current barriers to emergency contraceptive access. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of LNG IUDs for emergency contraceptive use; address the effects of repeated use of UPA at different times in the same menstrual cycle; assess the impact on ovulation of initiating or reinitiating different regimens of regular hormonal contraception following UPA use; and elucidate effective emergency contraceptive pill options by body mass indices or weight.

Improving access to highly effective emergency contraception: an assessment of barriers and facilitators to integrating the levonorgestrel IUD as emergency contraception using two applications of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy after sexual intercourse. New evidence has demonstrated that the levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD is a highly effective method of emergency contraception. However, translating this research finding into clinical practice faces existing barriers to IUD access, including costs and provider training, novel barriers of providing IUDs for emergency contraception at unscheduled appointments. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to the utilization of the levonorgestrel IUD as emergency contraception from client, provider, and health systems perspectives.

METHODS

We conducted English and Spanish-speaking focus groups (n=5) of both contraceptive users (n=22) and providers (n=13) to examine how the levonorgestrel IUD as EC was perceived and understood by these populations and to determine barriers and facilitators of utilization. We used findings from our focus groups to design a high-fidelity in-situ simulation scenario around EC that we pilot tested with clinical teams in three settings (a county health department, a community clinic, and a midwifery clinic), to further explore structural and health systems barriers to care. Simulation scenarios examined health system barriers to the provision of the levonorgestrel IUD as EC. We coded both focus groups and in-clinic simulations using the modified Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We then applied our findings to the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Barrier Busting Tool and mapped results to implement recommendations provided by participants.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 9 constructs from the CFIR were consistently identified across focus groups and simulations. Main barriers included suboptimal knowledge and acceptability of the intervention itself, appropriately addressing knowledge and education needs among both providers and contraceptive clients, and adequately accounting for structural barriers inherent in the health system. The CFIR-ERIC Barrier Busting Tool identified eight strategies to improve levonorgestrel IUD as EC access: identifying implementation champions, conducting educational meetings, preparing educational toolkits, involving patients and their partners in implementation, conducting a local needs assessment, distributing educational materials, and obtaining patient feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

To sustainably incorporate the levonorgestrel IUD as EC into clinical practice, education, health systems strengthening, and policy changes will be necessary.

Exploring the Role of Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) as a Method of Emergency Contraception (EC)

Copper T 380-A (CuT380A) intrauterine device (IUD) has been an effective method of emergency contraception (EC). Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) has not been approved by the Food and Drug Association for EC till now. There are few studies that provide data regarding the efficacy of LNG-IUS as EC. This systematic review tried to explore the efficacy of LNG-IUS in preventing accidental pregnancies up to five days of unprotected intercourse. A systematic review of the published studies on the use of LNG-IUS as EC was done. All randomized trials, prospective cohorts, retrospective cohorts. and case-control study designs pertaining to this topic were included in this review. Abstracts were retrieved and reviewed by two authors independently. Variables pertaining to socio-demographic parameters, EC use-related variables (reason for use, frequency, time elapsed since coitus), and those associated with sexual habits were selected and recorded. A total of six articles were rendered for the review. High school students and those attending college accounted for 36.8%-51.8% of the study population. Data on the reason for seeking EC showed noncompliance to routine contraception as the most common reason, followed by failure of withdrawal method, breach of barrier contraception, and unplanned intercourse. With a negligible failure rate, LNG-IUS seemed to be a good alternative to the existing copper EC. Considering the plethora of noncontraceptive benefits associated, LNG-IUS can be safely provided as an option of EC in the cafeteria approach within five days of unprotected intercourse.

Contraception Selection, Effectiveness, and Adverse Effects: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Many women spend a substantial proportion of their lives preventing or planning for pregnancy, and approximately 87% of US women use contraception during their lifetime.

OBSERVATIONS

Contraceptive effectiveness is determined by a combination of drug or device efficacy, individual fecundability, coital frequency, and user adherence and continuation. In the US, oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used reversible method of contraception and comprise 21.9% of all contraception in current use. Pregnancy rates of women using oral contraceptives are 4% to 7% per year. Use of long-acting methods, such as intrauterine devices and subdermal implants, has increased substantially, from 6% of all contraceptive users in 2008 to 17.8% in 2016; these methods have failure rates of less than 1% per year. Estrogen-containing methods, such as combined oral contraceptive pills, increase the risk of venous thrombosis from 2 to 10 venous thrombotic events per 10 000 women-years to 7 to 10 venous thrombotic events per 10 000 women-years, whereas progestin-only and nonhormonal methods, such as implants and condoms, are associated with rare serious risks. Hormonal contraceptives can improve medical conditions associated with hormonal changes related to the menstrual cycle, such as acne, endometriosis, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Optimal contraceptive selection requires patient and clinician discussion of the patient's tolerance for risk of pregnancy, menstrual bleeding changes, other risks, and personal values and preferences.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used reversible contraceptives, intrauterine devices and subdermal implants have the highest effectiveness, and progestin-only and nonhormonal methods have the lowest risks. Optimal contraceptive selection incorporates patient values and preferences.

Contraceptive values and preferences of pregnant women, postpartum women, women seeking emergency contraceptives, and women seeking abortion services: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically review the literature on contraceptive values and preferences of pregnant women, postpartum women, women seeking emergency contraception, and women seeking abortion services, globally.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched ten electronic databases for articles from January 1, 2005 through July 27, 2020 regarding users' values and preferences for contraception. Results were divided into four sub-groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies from 10 countries met the inclusion criteria. Values and preferences across all four sub-groups were influenced by method effectiveness, access, availability, convenience, cost, side effects, previous experience, partner approval, and societal norms. Similarities and differences were evident across sub-groups, especially concerning contraceptive benefits and side effects. No contraceptive method had all the features users deemed important. Many studies emphasized values and preferences surrounding long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including convenience of accessing LARCs and concerns about side effect profiles.

DISCUSSION

Individuals must have access to a full range of safe and effective modern contraceptive options, allowing people to make decisions based on evolving contraceptive preferences over time. Future contraception guideline development, policy, and programmatic implementation should continue considering the added influence of these specific reproductive experiences on contraceptive values and preferences of users to improve access, counseling, and method choice.

Rates of pregnancy among levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine emergency contraception initiators: Implications for backup contraception recommendations

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the timing, frequency, use of backup method and 1-month pregnancy rates among individuals who had an intrauterine device (IUD) placed as emergency contraception and reported intercourse within 7 days post-placement.

STUDY DESIGN

In this secondary analysis of a randomized control trial of IUDs for emergency contraception, 518 individuals reporting unprotected intercourse in the preceding 5 days had a 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system (IUS) or 380 mm2 copper IUD placed outside the first week of their menstrual cycle. All participants were advised to use backup contraception for 7 days. We assessed pregnancy status 1 month after placement by urine testing or, when not available, by survey responses and electronic health record review.  Participants reported whether their first sexual activity after device placement occurred within 7 days of their placement, the frequency of intercourse and whether they used backup contraception.

RESULTS

Rapid return to sexual activity was common and use of backup contraception was rare, regardless of type of IUD placed. Of participants who resumed penile-vaginal intercourse in the first month, most (286/446, 64.1%) participants reported intercourse within 7 days of IUD placement; only 16.4% (74/446) used condoms or withdrawal. No pregnancies occurred among users of the levonorgestrel IUS who reported intercourse within 7 days of placement (0/138, 0.0%, 95% CI 0.0%, 2.6%) nor among users of the 380mm2 copper IUD (0/148, 0.0%, 95% CI 0.0%, 2.5%).

CONCLUSION

Pregnancy rates are low after placement of an IUD for emergency contraception, even among the many who resume intercourse within days following IUD placement without use of backup contraception.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinical guidelines should facilitate access to contraception, including elimination of unnecessary recommendations for backup contraception or abstinence in the 7 days following 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system.

[The history of emergency contraception]

Emergency contraception (EC) has evolved since the 1960's to enable a better tolerance. Lower hormone doses, simplified schemes, withdrawal of estrogens have led to a user friendly, over-the-counter available EC. The copper intra-uterine device, requiring health care professionals' intervention, is less accessible. However, it allows simultaneous initiation of a reliable long-term contraception. Unfortunately, EC is still underused and information reinforcement is needed to overcome reluctance to its use.

Risk of Pregnancy With Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System Placement 6-14 Days After Unprotected Sexual Intercourse

Pregnancy is unlikely when a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (52 mg) is placed 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse.

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.

Levonorgestrel vs. Copper Intrauterine Devices for Emergency Contraception

BACKGROUND

In the United States, more intrauterine device (IUD) users select levonorgestrel IUDs than copper IUDs for long-term contraception. Currently, clinicians offer only copper IUDs for emergency contraception because data are lacking on the efficacy of the levonorgestrel IUD for this purpose.

METHODS

This randomized noninferiority trial, in which participants were unaware of the group assignments, was conducted at six clinics in Utah and included women who sought emergency contraception after at least one episode of unprotected intercourse within 5 days before presentation and agreed to placement of an IUD. We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD or a copper T380A IUD. The primary outcome was a positive urine pregnancy test 1 month after IUD insertion. When a 1-month urine pregnancy test was unavailable, we used survey and health record data to determine pregnancy status. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 2.5 percentage points.

RESULTS

Among the 355 participants randomly assigned to receive levonorgestrel IUDs and 356 assigned to receive copper IUDs, 317 and 321, respectively, received the interventions and provided 1-month outcome data. Of these, 290 in the levonorgestrel group and 300 in the copper IUD group had a 1-month urine pregnancy test. In the modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, pregnancy rates were 1 in 317 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 1.7) in the levonorgestrel group and 0 in 321 (0%; 95% CI, 0 to 1.1) in the copper IUD group; the between-group absolute difference in both analyses was 0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -0.9 to 1.8), consistent with the noninferiority of the levonorgestrel IUD to the copper IUD. Adverse events resulting in participants seeking medical care in the first month after IUD placement occurred in 5.2% of participants in the levonorgestrel IUD group and 4.9% of those in the copper IUD group.

CONCLUSIONS

The levonorgestrel IUD was noninferior to the copper IUD for emergency contraception. (Supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02175030.).

Experience with same-day placement of the 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system

BACKGROUND

Prescribing information for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system allows placement when the clinician is reasonably certain the patient is not pregnant. A 6 item checklist aids clinicians in determining pregnancy risk but may be too restrictive, resulting in delaying placement for many women. Same-day placement, however, may risk placement during an unrecognized luteal-phase pregnancy, that is, a preimplantation fertilized ovum not yet detectable by urine pregnancy test.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the applicability of pregnancy checklist criteria in 2 gynecology practices that routinely provide same-day placements following a negative urine pregnancy test.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed electronic medical records of all women who underwent levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement from July 2009 to August 2012. We evaluated each record to identify whether the woman met any of the checklist criteria to exclude pregnancy. We ascertained luteal-phase pregnancies and other outcomes within 12 months following placement.

RESULTS

Of 885 placements, 293 (33%) were immediately after abortion. Of the remaining 592 placements, 353 (60%) met at least 1 pregnancy checklist criterion to rule out pregnancy but 239 (40%) met none. Two percent received levonorgestrel emergency contraception at the time of placement. One luteal-phase pregnancy occurred in the group not meeting pregnancy checklist criteria. Removals and expulsions were rare and similar whether or not patients met checklist criteria.

CONCLUSION

In 2 practices that provide same-day intrauterine system placements, strict adherence to pregnancy checklist criteria would have resulted in 239 patients (40%) not receiving a same-day intrauterine system. Twelve month outcomes were similar whether or not patients met pregnancy checklist criteria. Providers need not withhold intrauterine system placement based on the pregnancy checklist criteria.

Emergency Contraception

Despite significant declines over the past 2 decades, the United States continues to experience birth rates among teenagers that are significantly higher than other high-income nations. Use of emergency contraception (EC) within 120 hours after unprotected or underprotected intercourse can reduce the risk of pregnancy. Emergency contraceptive methods include oral medications labeled and dedicated for use as EC by the US Food and Drug Administration (ulipristal and levonorgestrel), the "off-label" use of combined oral contraceptives, and insertion of a copper intrauterine device. Indications for the use of EC include intercourse without use of contraception; condom breakage or slippage; missed or late doses of contraceptives, including the oral contraceptive pill, contraceptive patch, contraceptive ring, and injectable contraception; vomiting after use of oral contraceptives; and sexual assault. Our aim in this updated policy statement is to (1) educate pediatricians and other physicians on available emergency contraceptive methods; (2) provide current data on the safety, efficacy, and use of EC in teenagers; and (3) encourage routine counseling and advance EC prescription as 1 public health strategy to reduce teenaged pregnancy.

Copper intrauterine device placement 6-14 days after unprotected sex

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pregnancy risk following copper (CuT380A) intrauterine device (IUD) placement 6-14 days after unprotected intercourse.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a combined dataset from four protocols in which participants had received a CuT380A IUD regardless of recent unprotected intercourse. At entry, participants had negative point of care urine pregnancy testing and reported all acts of unprotected intercourse in the two weeks prior to IUD placement. We identified a subset of women who had placement 6-14 days after unprotected intercourse and provided follow-up information on pregnancy status 2-4 weeks after IUD insertion. This follow-up within the four protocols included self -administered home urine pregnancy test (UPT) results 2-4 weeks after IUD placement or continued contact for up to 6 months.

RESULTS

We identified 134 women who had a CuT380A IUD placed 6-14 days after unprotected intercourse and provided follow-up information on pregnancy status. Ninety-five (71%) participants reported UPT results 2-4 weeks after placement and the other 39 women were followed for 6 months after IUD placement to assess pregnancy status. Zero (97.5% CI 0-2.7%) participants reported a pregnancy within four weeks of CuT380A IUD placement.

CONCLUSION

In these collected data, no women with recent unprotected intercourse became pregnant within 1 month of CuT380A IUD placement.

IMPLICATION

These data indicate a low likelihood of pregnancy among women who reported unprotected intercourse 6-14 days preceding IUD insertion. For many women and their providers, these data may be sufficient to support same-day placement of a copper IUD rather than delaying IUD placement until the next menses.

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.

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.

State of emergency contraception in the U.S., 2018

Emergency contraception is indicated in instances of unprotected sexual intercourse, including reproductive coercion, sexual assault, and contraceptive failure. It plays a role in averting unintended pregnancies due to inconsistent use or non-use of contraception. Options for emergency contraception vary by efficacy as well as accessibility within the U.S. This paper provides an overview of levonorgestrel (Plan B One-Step and generic counterparts), ulipristal acetate (sold as ella), and the copper intrauterine device (IUD, sold as ParaGard), including the mechanisms of action, administration, efficacy, drug interactions, safety, side effects, advantages, and drawbacks. It will also review current misconceptions about emergency contraception and access for subpopulations, including adolescents, immigrants, survivors of sexual assault, rural populations, and military/veteran women. This paper will address barriers such as gaps in knowledge, and financial, health systems, and practice barriers. Continuing areas of research, including the impact of body weight on the efficacy of emergency contraceptive pills and potential interactions between ulipristal acetate and ongoing hormonal contraceptives, are also addressed.

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.

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.

The safety of available and emerging options for emergency contraception

INTRODUCTION

Emergency contraception (EC) is a way to significantly reduce the chance of becoming pregnant after an episode of unprotected intercourse. Considerable data support the safety of all available and emerging options for EC. Areas covered: This review presents a comprehensive summary of the literature regarding the safety of EC as well as directions for further study. PubMed was searched for all relevant studies published prior to June 2017. Expertopinion: All available methods of EC (i.e., ulipristal acetate pills, levonorgestrel pills, and the copper-IUD), carry only mild side effects and serious adverse events are essentially unknown. The copper IUD has the highest efficacy of EC methods. Given the excellent safety profiles of mifepristone and the levonorgestrel IUD, research is ongoing related to use of these products for EC.

Role of the community pharmacist in emergency contraception counseling and delivery in the United States: current trends and future prospects

Women and couples continue to experience unintended pregnancies at high rates. In the US, 45% of all pregnancies are either mistimed or unwanted. Mishaps with contraceptives, such as condom breakage, missed pills, incorrect timing of patch or vaginal ring application, contraceptive nonuse, forced intercourse, and other circumstances, place women at risk of unintended pregnancy. There is a critical role for emergency contraception (EC) in preventing those pregnancies. There are currently three methods of EC available in the US. Levonorgestrel EC pills have been available with a prescription for over 15 years and over-the-counter since 2013. In 2010, ulipristal acetate EC pills became available with a prescription. Finally, the copper intrauterine device remains the most effective form of EC. Use of EC is increasing over time, due to wider availability and accessibility of EC methods. One strategy to expand access for both prescription and nonprescription EC products is to include pharmacies as a point of access and allow pharmacist prescribing. In eight states, pharmacists are able to prescribe and provide EC directly to women: levonorgestrel EC in eight states and ulipristal acetate in seven states. In addition to access with a prescription written by a pharmacist or other health care provider, levonorgestrel EC is available over-the-counter in pharmacies and grocery stores. Pharmacists play a critical role in access to EC in community pharmacies by ensuring product availability in the inventory, up-to-date knowledge, and comprehensive patient counseling. Looking to the future, there are opportunities to expand access to EC in pharmacies further by implementing legislation expanding the pharmacist scope of practice, ensuring third-party reimbursement for clinical services delivered by pharmacists, and including EC in pharmacy education and training.

Unprotected intercourse in the 2 weeks prior to requesting emergency intrauterine contraception

BACKGROUND

Previous emergency contraception studies have excluded women who report >1 episode of unprotected or underprotected intercourse. Thus, clinical recommendations are based on exposure to a single episode of underprotected intercourse.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the prevalence and timing of underprotected intercourse episodes among women requesting emergency contraception and to examine the probability of pregnancy following an emergency contraception regimen including placement of either a copper intrauterine device or a levonorgestrel intrauterine device with simultaneous administration of an oral levonorgestrel pill in women reporting multiple underprotected intercourse episodes, including episodes beyond the Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception time frame (6-14 days).

STUDY DESIGN

Women seeking emergency contraception who had a negative pregnancy test and desired either a copper intrauterine device or levonorgestrel emergency contraception regimen enrolled in this prospective observational study. At enrollment, participants reported the number and timing of underprotected intercourse episodes in the previous 14 days. Two weeks later, participants reported the results of a self-administered home pregnancy test.

RESULTS

Of the 176 women who presented for emergency contraception and received a same-day intrauterine device, 43% (n = 76) reported multiple underprotected intercourse episodes in the 14 days prior to presenting for emergency contraception. Women with multiple underprotected intercourse episodes reported a median of 3 events (range 2-20). Two-week pregnancy data were available for 172 (98%) participants. Only 1 participant had a positive pregnancy test. Pregnancy occurred in 0 of 97 (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0-3.7%) women with a single underprotected intercourse episode and 1 of 75 (1.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0-7.2%) women reporting multiple underprotected intercourse episodes; this includes 1 of 40 (2.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0-13.2%) women reporting underprotected intercourse 6-14 days prior to intrauterine device insertion.

CONCLUSION

Women seeking emergency contraception from clinics commonly reported multiple recent underprotected intercourse episodes, including episodes occurring beyond the Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception time frame. However, the probability of pregnancy was low following same-day intrauterine device placement.

New developments in long-acting reversible contraception: the promise of intrauterine devices and implants to improve family planning services

After decades of having the developed world's highest rates of unintended pregnancy, the United States finally shows signs of improvement. This progress is likely due in large part to increased use of highly effective long-acting reversible methods of contraception. These methods can be placed and do not require any maintenance to provide years of contraception as effective as sterilization. Upon removal, fertility returns to baseline rates. This article addresses advances in both software-improved use and elimination of barriers to provide these methods; and hardware-novel delivery systems and devices.

New developments in intrauterine device use: focus on the US

Many more women in the US today rely upon intrauterine devices (IUDs) than in the past. This increased utilization may have substantially contributed to the decline in the percentage of unintended pregnancies in the US. Evidence-based practices have increased the number of women who are medically eligible for IUDs and have enabled more rapid access to the methods. Many women enjoy freedom to use IUDs without cost, but for many the impact of the Affordable Care Act has yet to be realized. Currently, there are three hormonal IUDs and one copper IUD available in the US. Each IUD is extremely effective, convenient, and safe. The newer IUDs have been tested in populations not usually included in clinical trials and provide reassuring answers to older concerns about IUD use in these women, including information about expulsion, infection, and discontinuation. On the other hand, larger surveillance studies have provided new estimates about the risks of complications such as perforation, especially in postpartum and breastfeeding women. This article summarizes significant features of each IUD and provides a summary of the differences to aid clinicians in the US and other countries in advising women about IUD choices.