Novel topical formulation of lidocaine provides significant pain relief for intrauterine device insertion: pharmacokinetic evaluation and randomized placebo-controlled trial

Mepivacaine instillation for pain reduction during intrauterine device placement in nulliparous women: a double-blinded randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain associated with intrauterine device (IUD) placement has been identified as a significant barrier to the adoption of long-acting reversible contraception, contributing to lower utilization of the most effective reversible contraceptive methods.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether instillation of intrauterine mepivacaine before IUD placement alleviates pain more effectively than a placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving nulliparous women undergoing IUD placement. An intrauterine instillation of 10 mL of 20 mg/mL mepivacaine or 0.9 mg/mL sodium chloride was administrated through a hydrosonography catheter 2 minutes prior to IUD placement. Pain scores were assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) at prespecified time points. Primary outcome measured the difference in VAS pain scores between the intervention group and the placebo group during IUD placement. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain scores at instillation and 10 minutes after placement, tolerability of the placement pain, as well as acceptability of the analgesia method.

RESULTS

We enrolled 151 participants, with 76 assigned to the mepivacaine group and 75 to the placebo group. The mean VAS pain score during IUD placement showed a difference of 13.3 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.75-20.87; P<.001): the mepivacaine group had a mean of 53.9 mm (standard deviation [SD] 22.8), while the placebo group had a mean of 67.2 mm (SD 22.4). After adjusting for each individual provider's impact, the difference in mean pain scores remained statistically significant (12.2 mm 95% CI 4.85-19.62; P<.001). A greater proportion of women in the intervention group reported tolerable pain during placement with 70/75 participants (93.3%) compared to 53/66 participants (80.3%) in the placebo group (P=.021).

CONCLUSION

The intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine results in statistically significant reduction in pain score among nulliparous women during IUD placement. Although the precise clinical impact of this pain reduction method remains uncertain, the observed reduction in pain score result in a higher proportion of women reporting tolerable pain. This finding and the high acceptance as a pain reduction method thereby suggests clinical relevance. Intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine is a possible strategy to increase IUD utilization, particularly among nulliparous women who are at high risk of unintended pregnancy.

Self-administrated vaginal 2% lidocaine in-situ gel for pain relief during copper intrauterine device insertion in women with previous caesarean delivery only: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the analgesic effect of self-administered vaginal 2% lidocaine in-situ gel in pain relief during copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in women with previous caesarean delivery only.

METHODS

A Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03166111) included reproductive-aged women who previously delivered only by caesarean section (CS) requesting Copper IUD insertion. Eligible women were recruited and randomised (1:1) to lidocaine in-situ gel vs. placebo. Each woman was supplied by a syringe filled with five ml lidocaine or placebo in-situ gel to be self-administered vaginally ten minutes before insertion. The primary outcome was the difference in pain scores during IUD placement using a 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The final analysis included 216 women (n = 108 in each arm). Women in the Lidocaine in situ gel group were more likely to report statistically significant lower pain scores during vulsellum application, uterine sound placement, and during IUD placement [Mean difference (95%CI) = 2.04 (1.66-2.42), 2.62 (2.20-3.04), and 2.57 (2.12-3.01), respectively, p = 0.0001]. A significantly lower IUD insertion score indicating easier insertion was reported in the lidocaine group (p = 0.004). Similarly, the duration of IUD insertion was significantly shorter in the lidocaine group (p = 0.008). There was a higher level of satisfaction in the lidocaine group (5.92 vs. 3.34) in the placebo group (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-administered vaginal lidocaine in-situ gel 10 min before copper IUD insertion is effective in pain reduction in women with previous caesarean delivery only.

Providing Long-acting Reversible Contraception to Adolescents: A Review

Unintended teen pregnancy continues to be a problem in the United States which has the highest rate of adolescent pregnancy among developed nations. Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has much higher continuation rates compared with moderately effective reversible contraception; however, moderately effective reversible contraception is more commonly used by adolescents. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend LARC as first-line contraception for adolescents. Clinicians providing contraception to adolescents should be knowledgeable of LARC indications, side effects, initiation guidelines, management of adverse reactions, and adolescent specific issues regarding LARC counseling, initiation, and continuation.

Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain during the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives is a barrier to using these methods, especially for nulligravidas. An intracervical block may be easier and more reproducible than a paracervical block; however, this intervention has not been evaluated in nulligravid women to reduce pain with intrauterine contraceptive insertion.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block reduces pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas; and, in addition, to assess whether the intracervical block has any effect on the ease of device insertion and on the overall experience with the procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, nulligravidas were block-randomized to 1 of 3 arms prior to 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: 3.6-mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block, sham injection (intracervical dry-needling), or no intervention. The primary outcome was pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. Secondary outcomes were pain at tenaculum placement, ease of insertion (assessed by healthcare providers), and the overall experience with the procedure (pain with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion compared with expectations, discomfort level, wish to undergo another device insertion in the future, and recommendation of the procedure to others). Participants' pain was measured with a 10-cm visual analogue scale and a 5-point Faces Pain Scale. Pain was summarized into categories (none, mild, moderate, severe) and also analyzed as a continuous variable (mean and 95% confidence interval). Our sample size had 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect a 15% difference in pain score measured by visual analogue scale (mean [standard deviation] visual analogue scale score = 5.9 [2.0] cm) and an absolute difference of 20% in the proportion of women reporting severe pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among groups. We used a χ² test and a mixed-effects linear regression model. We calculated the number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion.

RESULTS

A total of 302 women were randomized (99 to the intracervical block, 101 to the intracervical sham, and 102 to no intervention), and 300 had a successful device insertion. The intracervical block group had fewer women reporting severe pain than the other groups, both at tenaculum placement (intracervical block: 2% vs sham: 30.2% vs no intervention: 15.2%, P < .0001) and at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion (intracervical block: 26.5% vs sham: 59.4% vs no intervention: 50.5%, P < .0001). The mean (95% confidence interval) pain score reported at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was lower in the intracervical block group than in the other groups (intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs sham: 6.6 [6.2-7.0], P < .0001; intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs no intervention: 5.8 [5.3-6.4], P < .0001). Women from the intracervical block group reported less pain than expected (P < .0001), rated the insertion as less uncomfortable (P < .0001), and were more willing to undergo another device insertion in the future (P < .01) than women in the other groups. The ease of insertion were similar among groups. The number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was 2 and 4, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block decreased pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas. It also provided a better overall experience during the procedure.

Strategies to Mitigate Anxiety and Pain in Intrauterine Device Insertion: A Systematic Review

One barrier to the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) as a contraceptive method is the experience of anxiety and pain during the insertion procedure. Previous reviews have focused on pharmacological methods used to relieve pain during IUD insertion; however, few similar reviews have examined non-pharmacological methods to relieve pain or strategies to reduce anxiety. The objectives of this study were to identify and categorize strategies for reducing anxiety and pain with respect to IUD insertion and the ways in which anxiety and pain were assessed. In particular, the study aimed to identify non-pharmacological interventions and studies that included anxiety as a research outcome. A literature search was conducted of all English-language studies between inception and the week of July 29, 2018 from the following online databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. The search revealed 426 studies after removal of duplicates, 35 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 29 studies were identified as assessing pharmacological interventions for the management of pain, and six studies assessed non-pharmacological interventions. Only one study included a measurement of patient anxiety during the procedure as an outcome measure. Research on non-pharmacological interventions for the management of anxiety and pain during IUD insertion is lacking. This review found that evidence for the studied pharmacological interventions is conflicting, and there is very little evidence on understanding the effectiveness of strategies to manage anxiety during the IUD insertion procedure. Further high-quality research on non-pharmacological pain and anxiety management strategies is warranted.

Interventions for the prevention of pain associated with the placement of intrauterine contraceptives: An updated review

A 2013 review found no evidence to support the routine use of pain relief for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) placement; however, fear of pain with placement continues to be a barrier to use for some women. This narrative review set out to identify (1) new evidence that may support routine use of pain management strategies for IUC placement; (2) procedure‐related approaches that may have a positive impact on the pain experience; and (3) factors that may help healthcare professionals identify women at increased risk of pain with IUC placement. A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane library databases revealed 550 citations, from which we identified 43 new and pertinent studies for review. Thirteen randomized clinical trials, published since 2012, described reductions in placement‐related pain with administration of oral and local analgesia (oral ketorolac, local analgesia with different lidocaine formulations) and cervical priming when compared with placebo or controls. Four studies suggested that ultrasound guidance, balloon dilation, and a modified placement device may help to minimize the pain experienced with IUC placement. Eight publications suggested that previous cesarean delivery, timing of insertion relative to menstruation, dysmenorrhea, expected pain, baseline anxiety, and size of insertion tube may affect the pain experienced with IUC placement. Oral and local analgesia and cervical priming can be effective in minimizing IUC placement‐related pain when compared with placebo, but routine use remains subject for debate. Predictive factors may help healthcare professionals to identify women at risk of experiencing pain. Targeted use of effective strategies in these women may be a useful approach while research continues in this area.

Efficacy of Intrauterine Lidocaine Instillation in Reducing Pain during Endometrial Biopsy by Novak

Abnormal uterine bleeding in women aged 35 years or over is an important clinical sign of many gynecological conditions. The diagnoses of these conditions require the pathological report of the endometrial tissue. Outpatient-based endometrial biopsy is an excellent option compared to standard fractional uterine curettage or hysteroscopy with endometrial biopsy in providing a definite diagnosis for abnormal uterine bleeding as it is less painful and does not require high potency anesthesia. This study evaluates the effect of intrauterine lidocaine on the patient's pain score during endometrial biopsy by the Novak curette. We included patients aged 35 years or more who had abnormal uterine bleeding between December 2016 and March 2018. The study was conducted at Thammasat University Hospital, Pathum Thani, Thailand. 250 patients were randomly allocated to either receive intrauterine lidocaine (study group) or normal saline (control group). Assessment of pain severity was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 6 time-points, namely, before performing the procedure, when grasping the cervix by the tenaculum, during the intrauterine instillation of lidocaine or normal saline, during the uterine curettage, and then 15 minutes and 2 hours after the procedure. This study showed that there was significant pain reduction in patients who received intrauterine instillation of lidocaine compared to placebo, during uterine curettage, as well as 15 minutes and 2 hours after procedure (p<0.0001). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the two groups, while physician satisfaction significantly improved in the lidocaine group. Serious complications were not found during this study. (This research project had been approved for registration at Thai Clinical Trials Registry. TCTR identification number is TCTR20161031003.).

Pain Perception during Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women: A Systematic Review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) still remain underused in adolescents. Pain during insertion might prevent adolescents to opt for a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and critically appraise published data with respect to the efficacy of various substances (analgesics or not) in preventing pain during levonorgestrel-releasing IUD insertion in nulliparous women as a proxy for adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comprehensive computerized systematic literature search of all English language studies between 2006 and 2016 was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar. Relevant article reference lists were manually searched.

RESULTS

The computerized database search revealed 31 citations of relevance, 9 of which with a total of 355 treated women and 345 controls fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In women treated with misoprostol (n = 150) vs placebo (n = 145), the median visual analogue scale (VAS) score ± SD were 5.7 ± 2.1 vs 5.1 ± 2.2, respectively. In the previously mentioned population, there was a nonsignificant change in VAS score (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-2.40). In women treated with lidocaine (n = 140) vs placebo (n = 136), the median VAS score ± SD were 4.6 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2, respectively. In the aforementioned population, there was a significant decrease in VAS score (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.91).

CONCLUSION

In nulliparous women, lidocaine treatment seems to be a reasonable choice. However, further studies are required to examine the different routes and modes of administration as well as optimal quantities.

Highlights From the U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently updated the U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use to foster a reduction in unplanned pregnancy rates and to provide clinicians an evidence-based guide for contraception management. Nurses play an important role in helping women and families with reproductive life planning. By bridging knowledge gaps and removing access barriers with regard to contraception, nurses can contribute to reducing rates of unintended pregnancy. Nurses and other clinicians are encouraged to use the U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use when counseling women about safe and effective contraception management.

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.

Medications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures, insertion success).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined medications to ease interval insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs and copper T IUDs.

RESULTS

From 1855 articles, we identified 15 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Most evidence suggested that misoprostol did not improve provider ease of insertion, reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures or improve insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD (evidence Level I, good to fair). However, one RCT found significantly higher insertion success among women receiving misoprostol prior to a second IUD insertion attempt after failed attempt versus placebo (evidence Level I, good). Two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good to poor), and one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (evidence Level I, fair).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo.

Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Interventions for pain control during IUC insertion include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local cervical anesthetics, and cervical ripening agents such as misoprostol.

OBJECTIVES

To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for reducing IUC insertion-related pain

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The most recent search was 22 June 2015. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that evaluated an intervention for preventing IUC insertion-related pain. The comparison could have been a placebo, no intervention, or another active intervention. The primary outcomes were self-reported pain at tenaculum placement, during IUC insertion, and after IUC insertion (up to six hours).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data from eligible trials. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. In meta-analysis of trials with different measurement scales, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials with 5710 participants total; 29 were published from 2010 to 2015. Studies examined lidocaine, misoprostol, NSAIDs, and other interventions. Here we synthesize results from trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate- or high-quality evidence.For lidocaine, meta-analysis showed topical 2% gel had no effect on pain at tenaculum placement (two trials) or on pain during IUC insertion (three trials). Other formulations were effective compared with placebo in individual trials. Mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower with lidocaine and prilocaine cream (MD -1.96, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.92). Among nulliparous women, topical 4% formulation showed lower scores for IUC-insertion pain assessed within 10 minutes (MD -15.90, 95% CI -22.77 to -9.03) and at 30 minutes later (MD -11.10, 95% CI -19.05 to -3.15). Among parous women, IUC-insertion pain was lower with 10% spray (median 1.00 versus 3.00). Compared with no intervention, pain at tenaculum placement was lower with 1% paracervical block (median 12 versus 28).For misoprostol, meta-analysis showed a higher mean score for IUC insertion compared with placebo (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.46; four studies). In meta-analysis, cramping was more likely with misoprostol (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.76; four studies). A trial with nulliparous women found a higher score for IUC-insertion pain with misoprostol (median 46 versus 34). Pain before leaving the clinic was higher for misoprostol in two trials with nulliparous women (MD 7.60, 95% CI 6.48 to 8.72; medians 35.5 versus 20.5). In one trial with nulliparous women, moderate or severe pain at IUC insertion was less likely with misoprostol (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55). In the same trial, the misoprostol group was more likely to rate the experience favorably. Within two trials of misoprostol plus diclofenac, shivering, headache, or abdominal pain were more likely with misoprostol. Participants had no vaginal delivery. One trial showed the misoprostol group less likely to choose or recommend the treatment.Among multiparous women, mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower for tramadol 50 mg versus naproxen 550 mg (MD -0.63, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.32) and for naproxen versus placebo (MD -1.94, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.53). The naproxen group was less likely than the placebo group to report the insertion experience as unpleasant and not want the medication in the future. An older trial showed repeated doses of naproxen 300 mg led to lower pain scores at one hour (MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.41) and two hours (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.32) after insertion. Most women were nulliparous and also had lidocaine paracervical block.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all trials used modern IUC. Most effectiveness evidence was of moderate quality, having come from single trials. Lidocaine 2% gel, misoprostol, and most NSAIDs did not help reduce pain. Some lidocaine formulations, tramadol, and naproxen had some effect on reducing IUC insertion-related pain in specific groups. The ineffective interventions do not need further research.