More Harm Than Good: The Lack of Evidence for Administering Misoprostol Prior to IUD Insertion

Comparative efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine cream and vaginal misoprostol in reducing pain during levonorgestrel intrauterine device insertion in women delivered only by cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine (LP) cream versus misoprostol versus placebo before levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) insertion.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital from April 30, 2020 to March 1, 2021 on 210 parous women willing to receive LNG-IUD and delivered only by elective cesarean delivery (CD). Participants received 200 μg vaginal misoprostol or 5 ml of LP cream 5% or placebo 3 h before LNG-IUS insertion. Primary outcome was pain during LNG-IUD insertion, while secondary outcomes were pain 10 min post-procedure, ease of insertion, patient satisfaction, insertion time, and drug side effects.

RESULTS

Pain during LNG-IUS insertion was reduced in LP group and misoprostol group compared to placebo group (2.1 ± 1.0 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001) and (2.3 ± 1.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001), respectively. Ease of procedure and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in LP and misoprostol groups than placebo (P <0.001). Need for additional analgesia was significantly higher in placebo group than in the other two groups (P = 0.009). Adverse events were not significantly different between the three groups except vomiting and abdominal cramps, which were higher with misoprostol.

CONCLUSION

LP cream and 200 μg of vaginal misoprostol administration before LNG-IUD insertion in women delivered only by elective CD effectively reduced pain during insertion and 10 min post-procedure with easier insertions, high patient satisfaction, and tolerable side effects. Pain reduction with LP cream was clinically significant.

Uterine Length in Adolescents with Developmental Disability: Are Ultrasound Examinations Necessary before Insertion of the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

(1) To determine if there are any differences in uterine length between adolescents with developmental disability (DD) compared with their normally developing (ND) peers that might necessitate ultrasonography before insertion of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in patients with DD; and (2) to characterize the LNG-IUS insertion procedure in adolescents with disabilities.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 223 female adolescents with or without DDs. Seventy-five adolescents had DD; 33 underwent intrauterine system insertion in the operating room and 42 did not. A comparative cohort of 148 ND adolescents who had pelvic ultrasound examinations for abnormal uterine bleeding were included. The study period was between January 2006 and July 2013 at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. Cases were identified from surgical databases and medical records.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean uterine length on pelvic ultrasound, demographic characteristics (age, age at menarche, time from menarche to ultrasound, weight), and descriptive statistics on intrauterine system insertion.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference (P = .03) in uterine length between adolescents with and without DD (6.7 vs 7.1 cm). However, this was not a clinically significant difference because insertion of the LNG-IUS in patients with DD was successful in patients with uteri more than 5 cm long. There was no difference (P = .97) in uterine length of adolescents with DD whether they had LNG-IUS insertion or not (6.7 cm). Adolescents with DD were younger than adolescents without DD at time of ultrasound examination (P = .01). However, among patients with DD, those who underwent intrauterine system insertion were older (P = .001). Incidence of uterine anomaly in patients with DD is low (2.7%) and was the same as in ND adolescents. Rates of complications and expulsions were low and there were no failures of LNG-IUS insertion in adolescents with DD.

CONCLUSION

Routine pelvic ultrasound examinations are not necessary before insertion of the LNG-IUS for menstrual suppression in adolescents with DD. Renal abnormalities, obstructive symptoms, and very small stature might necessitate imaging. Insertion using anesthesia is often straightforward and successful with minimal complications.

Canadian Contraception Consensus (Part 3 of 4): Chapter 7--Intrauterine Contraception

OBJECTIVE

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

OUTCOMES

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

EVIDENCE

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

VALUES

The quality of the evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). CHAPTER 7: INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTION:

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

1. Intrauterine contraceptives are as effective as permanent contraception methods. (II-2) 2. The use of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg by patients taking tamoxifen is not associated with recurrence of breast cancer. (I) 3. Intrauterine contraceptives have a number of noncontraceptive benefits. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg significantly decreases menstrual blood loss (I) and dysmenorrhea. (II-2) Both the copper intrauterine device and the LNG-IUS significantly decrease the risk of endometrial cancer. (II-2) 4. The risk of uterine perforation decreases with inserter experience but is higher in postpartum and breastfeeding women. (II-2) 5. The risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is increased slightly in the first month after intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion, but the absolute risk is low. Exposure to sexually transmitted infections and not the IUC itself is responsible for PID occurring after the first month of use. (II-2) 6. Nulliparity is not associated with an increased risk of intrauterine contraceptive expulsion. (II-2) 7. Ectopic pregnancy with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) is rare, but when a pregnancy occurs with an IUC in situ, it is an ectopic pregnancy in 15% to 50% of the cases. (II-2) 8. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, early IUC removal improves outcomes but does not entirely eliminate risks. (II-2) 9. Intrauterine contraceptives do not increase the risk of infertility. (II-2) 10. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher continuation rate compared with insertion at 6 weeks postpartum. (I) 11. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC; 10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher risk of expulsion. (I) The benefit of inserting an IUC immediately postpartum or post-Caesarean section outweighs the disadvantages of increased risk of perforation and expulsion. (II-C) 12. Insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive in breastfeeding women is associated with a higher risk of uterine perforation in the first postpartum year. (II-2) 13. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) post-abortion significantly reduces the risk of repeat abortion (II-2) and increases IUC continuation rates at 6 months. (I) 14. Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive insertion does not significantly reduce postinsertion pelvic infection. (I) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Health care professionals should be careful not to restrict access to intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) owing to theoretical or unproven risks. (III-A) Health care professionals should offer IUCs as a first-line method of contraception to both nulliparous and multiparous women. (II-2A) 2. In women seeking intrauterine contraception (IUC) and presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding and/or dysmenorrhea, health care professionals should consider the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system 52 mg over other IUCs. (I-A) 3. Patients with breast cancer taking tamoxifen may consider a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system 52 mg after consultation with their oncologist. (I-A) 4. Women requesting a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or a copper-intrauterine device should be counseled regarding changes in bleeding patterns, sexually transmitted infection risk, and duration of use. (III-A) 5. A health care professional should be reasonably certain that the woman is not pregnant prior to inserting an intrauterine contraceptive at any time during the menstrual cycle. (III-A) 6. Health care providers should consider inserting an intrauterine contraceptive immediately after an induced abortion rather than waiting for an interval insertion. (I-B) 7. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy should be excluded as arly as possible. (II-2A) Once an ectopic pregnancy has been excluded, the IUC should be removed without an invasive procedure. The IUC may be removed at the time of a surgical termination. (II-2B) 8. In the case of pelvic inflammatory disease, it is not necessary to remove the intrauterine contraceptive unless there is no clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate antibiotic treatment. (II-2B) 9. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion is not indicated. (I-B) Health care providers should perform sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing in women at high risk of STI at the time of IUC insertion. If the test is positive for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea, the woman should be appropriately treated postinsertion and the IUC can remain in situ. (II-2B) 10. Unscheduled bleeding in intrauterine contraception users, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, should be investigated to rule out infection, pregnancy, gynecological pathology, expulsion or malposition. (III-A)

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.

[Intra-uterine device and nulliparous women]

Intra-uterine device (IUD) is one of the birth control methods, which is available for nulliparous women, even though misconceptions still remain in medical or popular opinion. Only 1.3 % of nulliparous have a IUD as contraception in France while it is the second methods used by all women, after pill. The best contraception is the one chosen by women; however, the choice for a nulliparous of an IUD may be really difficult, despite the increasing number of women wishing to use it. Long-acting reversible contraceptives utilization, including IUD, is probably one of the issues to decrease the unintended pregnancies. An exhaustive and clear information about IUD is necessary to allow an informed and real choice. This prescription must consider contraindications and medical conditions for safe insertion, especially to avoid infection by screening STD (Chlamydia trachomatis and Nesseria gonorrhoeae) in nulliparous women<25 years old. Insertion must be effected with usual precautions and short or SL IUD preferred. Even if side effects such as expulsion, pelvic pains or dysmenorrhea are more frequent by nulliparous, IUD is a first intention choice for contraception to be consider, that women could obtain easily, including in emergency contraception situation.

[Use of misoprostol in gynaecology]

OBJECTIVES

To assess the interest of misoprostol in gynaecology and particularly for cervical priming.

METHOD

Research in PubMed in English and French about misoprostol and its use in gynaecology.

RESULTS

We summarized the results of 3 meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials and literature review. Results show that misoprostol did not scientifically prove a benefit for cervical priming before hysteroscopy or before intra-uterine device (IUD). Results are the same with post-menopausal or nulliparous women. It did not lead either to lower the complications but increase adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

It is not indicated to use misoprostol for cervical priming in gynaecology.