Copper intrauterine device placement 6-14 days after unprotected sex

Emergency contraception - A narrative review of literature

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception includes several methods of contraception that can be used after unprotected sexual intercourse, after failure of any used method of contraception or in case of sexual abuse, to prevent pregnancy.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study was to analyze the available methods of emergency contraception, their mechanisms of action, efficacy, forms of administration, clinical applications and possible adverse effects.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane datebases were searched for articles from 2010 to 2024 about emergency contraception.

RESULTS

The analyzed types of emergency contraception included single oral dose of ulipristal acetate, single oral dose of levonorgestrel and intrauterine system releasing levonorgestrel or copper intrauterine device. Taking emergency contraception in the optimum time according to the drug characteristics allows for avoiding pregnancy in more than 90% of cases (depending on the type of emergency contraception and time from unprotected intercourse). The analyzed literature shows that intrauterine copper intrauterine device is the most effective method of emergency contraception, also together with intrauterine system releasing levonorgestrel leading to the lowest rate of adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking emergency contraception can result in various adverse effects, therefore it should be introduced after thorough analysis of woman's medical history, including gynecological and obstetric history and potential contraindications. Additionally, the patient should receive detailed information about the drug mechanism of efficacy and potential adverse effects.

Frequency of same-day contraceptive initiation, recent unprotected intercourse, and pregnancy risk: a prospective cohort study of multiple contraceptive methods

BACKGROUND

Same-day start removes barriers to contraceptive initiation and may reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy. It may be appropriate for all contraceptive methods, but we lack data comparing methods.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the frequency of same-day start with 6 contraceptive methods among new contraceptive users and describe the efficacy of same-day start in terms of first-cycle pregnancy risk overall and by each method.

STUDY DESIGN

Using prospective data from the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative, we identified and assessed outcomes for participants initiating a new method of contraception beyond the first 7 days of their menstrual cycle (same-day start). Enrolled participants at 4 family planning clinics in Salt Lake County, Utah between September 2015 and March 2017 received their method of choice regardless of their cycle day or recent unprotected intercourse. All participants self-reported last menstrual period data and unprotected intercourse events in the previous 2 weeks. We excluded participants who received care immediately after or within 2 weeks of abortion care. Clinical electronic health records provided information on contraceptive method initiation and use of oral emergency contraception. Participants reported pregnancy outcomes in 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up surveys with clinic verification to identify any pregnancy resulting from same-day initiation. The primary outcomes report the frequency of same-day start use and first-cycle pregnancy risk among same-day start users of all contraceptive methods. The secondary outcomes include frequency of and pregnancy risk in the first cycle of use among same-day start contraception users by method. We also report the frequency of unprotected intercourse within 5 days and 6 to 14 days of contraception initiation, frequency of concomitant receipt of oral emergency contraception with initiation of ongoing contraception, and pregnancy risk with these exposures. We analyzed pregnancy risk for each contraceptive method initiated on the same day and assessed the simultaneous use of oral emergency contraception.

RESULTS

Of the 3568 individuals enrolled, we identified most as same-day start users (n=2575/3568; 72.2%), with 1 in 8 of those reporting unprotected intercourse in the previous 5 days (n=322/2575; 12.5%) and 1 in 10 reporting unprotected intercourse 6 to 14 days before contraceptive method initiation (n=254/2575; 9.9%). We identified 11 pregnancies among same-day start users (0.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.7), as opposed to 1 (0.1%; 95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.6) among those who initiated contraception within 7 days from the last menstrual period. Users of oral hormonal contraception and vaginal hormonal methods reported the highest first-cycle pregnancy rates (1.0-1.2). Among same-day start users, 174 (6.8%) received oral emergency contraception at enrollment in conjunction with another method. Among the same-day start users who received emergency contraception at initiation, 4 (2.3%) pregnancies were reported.

CONCLUSION

Same-day start is common and associated with a low pregnancy risk. Using the "any method, any-time" approach better meets contraceptive clients' needs and maintains a low risk of pregnancy.

Emergency contraception - A review

Emergency contraception (EC), or postcoital contraception, is a therapy aimed at preventing unintended pregnancy after an act of unprotected or under-protected sexual intercourse. Options include both emergency contraceptive pills (most commonly containing levonorgestrel or ulipristal acetate) and insertion of an intrauterine device. The aim of this paper is to summarize current evidence surrounding the use of emergency contraceptives and to present an evidence-based approach to EC provision. Emergency contraception is a safe and effective option in preventing unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of age, weight, or breastfeeding status. Efforts should be made to increase their availability, as well as knowledge of these methods, both among patients and healthcare providers.

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.

Emergency Contraception: Access and Challenges at Times of Uncertainty

BACKGROUND

The UN Commission on Life-Saving Commodities for Women's and Children's Health identified emergency contraceptive pills as 1 of the 13 essential underused, low-cost, and high-impact commodities that could save the lives of millions of women and children worldwide. In the US, 2 emergency contraceptive regimens are currently approved, and their most plausible mechanism of action involves delaying and/or inhibiting ovulation.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Abortion and contraception are recognized as essential components of reproductive health care. In the US, in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2022, 26 states began to or are expected to severely restrict abortion. It is anticipated that these restrictions will increase the demand for emergency contraception (EC). Several obstacles to EC access have been described, and these include cost, hurdles to over-the-counter purchase, low awareness, myths about their mechanisms of action, widespread misinformation, and barriers that special populations face in accessing them. The politicization of EC is a major factor limiting access. Improving sex education and health literacy, along with eHealth literacy, are important initiatives to improve EC uptake and access.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, The Guttmacher Institute, Society of Family Planning, American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, The United Nations.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

A randomized noninferiority trial showed that the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine device was noninferior to the copper intrauterine device when used as an EC method in the first 5 days after unprotected intercourse. This is a promising and highly effective emergency contraceptive option, particularly for overweight and obese patients, and a contraceptive option with a different bleeding profile than the copper intrauterine device.

CONCLUSIONS

EC represents an important facet of medicine and public health. The 2 medical regimens currently approved in the US are very effective, have virtually no medical contraindications, and novel formulations are actively being investigated to make them more convenient and effective for all patient populations. Barriers to accessing EC, including the widespread presence of contraception deserts, threaten to broaden and accentuate the already existing inequities and disparities in society, at a time when they have reached the dimensions of a public health crisis.

Contraceptive Technology: Present and Future

Many sexually active, reproductive-aged persons capable of becoming pregnant use some method of contraception. To expand options for those desiring birth control, new choices include a vaginal ring, transdermal patch, progestin-only pill, and spermicide. Compared with currently available methods, additional technologies that are highly effective, easy to use, cost efficient, and well-tolerated lay on the horizon. During contraceptive counseling, patient choice, and reproductive autonomy should remain paramount.

Pregnancy Risk by Frequency and Timing of Unprotected Intercourse Before Intrauterine Device Placement for Emergency Contraception

OBJECTIVE

To assess pregnancy risk after intrauterine device (IUD) placement by the number and timing of unprotected intercourse episodes in the prior 14 days.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared the copper T380A IUD and levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system for emergency contraception. At enrollment, participants had a negative urine pregnancy test result and reported the frequency and timing of any unprotected intercourse in the preceding 14 days. We assessed pregnancies 1 month after IUD placement and compared pregnancy risk by single or multiple unprotected intercourse episodes and by timing (5 or fewer days before IUD placement or 6 or more days before).

RESULTS

Among the 655 participants, one pregnancy occurred in a patient who reported intercourse once 48 hours before IUD placement. Multiple unprotected intercourse episodes were reported by 286 participants (43.7%), and 95 participants (14.4%) reported at least one unprotected intercourse episode 6 or more days before IUD placement. No pregnancies occurred among those with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes (0%, 97.5% CI 0-1.3%) or with any unprotected intercourse episode 6-14 days before IUD placement (0.0%, 97.5% CI 0.0-3.8%). Pregnancy risk difference did not significantly differ by single compared with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes (0.3%, 95% CI -0.3% to 0.8%), nor by unprotected intercourse 5 or fewer days before IUD placement or 6 or more days before (0.2%, 95% CI -0.2% to 0.5%).

CONCLUSION

With a negative urine pregnancy test result at IUD placement, 1-month pregnancy risk remains low, regardless of frequency or timing of unprotected intercourse in the prior 14 days.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02175030.

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.

Clinical availability of the copper IUD in rural versus urban settings: A simulated patient study

Objective

To assess the proportion of Washington state clinics that offer the copper IUD in rural vs urban settings.

Study design

We employed a simulated patient model to survey clinics in the Human Health Resources and Services Administration 340B database to primarily assess the availability of the copper IUD.

Results

We successfully surveyed 194/212 (92%) clinics. More urban than rural clinics reported copper IUD availability (76/97 [78%] vs 49/97 [51%]; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Rural clinics are less likely than urban clinics to have the copper IUD available.

Implications

The frequency of unintended pregnancies is high in the United States. We should focus our attention on decreasing barriers to the copper IUD as a long-acting reversible contraceptive, particularly for women living in rural settings.

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.).

Oral and IUD emergency contraception provision among a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists

OBJECTIVE

To assess obstetrician-gynecologists' practices related to emergency contraception (EC). We performed a survey of ACOG Fellows and Junior Fellows between August 2016 and March 2017.

RESULTS

The final sample was 1280 respondents (52.2% response rate). The majority (84%) reported offering at least one form of EC, with 18% offering ulipristal acetate and 29% offering copper IUDs. Fifty-seven percent of those offering IUDs reported recommending them in the last 12 months. Few had placed IUDs for EC. Half of ob-gyns reported not recommending copper IUDs because patients rarely seek EC.

CONCLUSION

Many obstetrician-gynecologists are not offering the most effective forms of EC.

IMPLICATIONS

Both patients and clinicians need more outreach about the most effective methods of emergency contraception.