Effect of vaginal administration of misoprostol before intrauterine contraceptive insertion following previous insertion failure: a double blind RCT

Comparative Efficacy of Vaginal Misoprostol vs Vaginal Dinoprostone Administered 3 Hours Prior to Copper T380A Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of misoprostol and dinoprostone tablets administered vaginally 3 hours before copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion vs placebo in reducing pain and increasing ease of insertion among nulliparous women.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 129 nulliparous women requesting a Copper T380A IUD insertion.

INTERVENTIONS

Women were randomized to receive 200 μg misoprostol or 3 mg dinoprostone or placebo 3 hours before IUD insertion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Primary outcome was patient-reported pain during IUD insertion using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes include provider ease of insertion, women satisfaction level, and side effects.

RESULTS

Participants' baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. Mean pain score during IUD insertion was lower with misoprostol than placebo (3.1 ± 2.3 vs 4.4 ± 2.2; P = .02) and dinoprostone compared to placebo (2.4 ± 1.8 vs 4.4 ± 2.2; P < .001). Clinicians reported easier IUD insertion with misoprostol than placebo (2.4 ± 1.7 vs 4.0 ± 2.4; P = .001) and dinoprostone compared to placebo (2.0 ± 1.5 vs 4.0 ± 2.4; P < .001). Women's satisfaction levels were higher with both misoprostol and dinoprostone than placebo (P < .001). Side effects did not differ among the 3 study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with vaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone effectively lowered pain during copper IUD insertion. However, the reduction in pain scores was clinically significant only in women who received dinoprostone. In both the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, clinicians found the procedure easier, and women were more satisfied with IUD insertion. Side effects and complications were similar in all groups.

Adherence to Recommended Practices for Provision of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Among Providers in a Large U.S. Health Care System

Background: There is little research examining adherence to practice guidelines for long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). We assessed same-day LARC provision and adherence to other guideline-recommended practices among providers in a large academic health care system. Materials and Methods: We surveyed 363 providers who had billed using LARC-related codes within the prior 12 months. Primary outcomes were, for women requesting an intrauterine device (IUD) or implant, the typical number of visits for method provision and ability to add an insertion procedure to an annual examination. We used chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with primary outcomes and described other practices and barriers to same-day LARC. Results: Our response rate was 42% (153/363). A typical single visit for women requesting an IUD or implant was reported by 37% of IUD providers and 51% of implant providers, respectively, and was associated with obstetrician-gynecologist specialty versus family medicine (IUD: 44% vs. 12%, p = 0.001; implant: 57% vs. 26%, p = 0.002) and practicing in the county of the main academic medical center versus any other county (IUD: 48% vs. 20%, p = 0.001; implant: 65% vs. 27%, p < 0.001). High ability to add LARC insertion to an annual examination was reported by 48% of IUD providers and 51% of implant providers, with similar associations of specialty and county. Barriers to same-day LARC included scheduling constraints, insurance and billing concerns, and device stocking. Nearly all respondents provide LARC to nulliparous women and adolescents. Among IUD providers, 73% schedule routine follow-up after insertion. Conclusions: Same-day LARC provision is low among providers in a large academic health care system. Provider-identified barriers suggest interventions to improve LARC access, including incentivizing device stocking and billing and insurance education.

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.

Misoprostol administration prior to intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objectives: Misoprostol has been used before intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) insertion to prime the cervical os. As the literature about this topic is controversial, we aimed to evaluate IUCD insertion failure, women's pain perception, use of cervical dilators and prevalence of side effects following the administration of misoprostol.Methods: Trials published in MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (last search on 23 October 2019). The primary outcome was IUCD insertion failure; secondary outcomes were women's pain perception, use of cervical dilators to facilitate insertion, and prevalence of side effects.Results: Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion. Misoprostol premedication reduced IUCD insertion failure rates and the use of cervical dilators but significantly increased the prevalence of side effects. The risk of IUCD insertion failure with misoprostol premedication was reduced among women who had undergone previous caesarean section and among women who had experienced previous IUCD insertion failure. Nulliparas did not benefit from misoprostol premedication. Buccal misoprostol administration did not seem to be effective in reducing IUCD insertion failure. Visual analogue scale pain scores were increased with both sublingual and buccal misoprostol administration if IUCD insertion was performed ≤2.5 h after misoprostol premedication.Conclusion: Our data demonstrate reduced IUCD insertion failure among women with previous caesarean section and those with previous IUCD insertion failure, suggesting that misoprostol may be a reasonable choice in these groups of women. Although misoprostol premedication reduced insertion failures, it significantly increased side effects and had a heterogeneous pattern of efficacy; thus, its routine use is not supported by the evidence.

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.

Vaginal misoprostol before copper IUD insertion after previous insertion failure: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial

Objective: The aim of the study was to assess whether vaginal administration of misoprostol before copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion increased the success of the procedure among parous women with previous insertion failure. Methods: A single-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial was conducted at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Cairo, Egypt, between October 2015 and August 2016. The study comprised 90 parous women undergoing TCu380A IUD insertion after a failed attempt. A computer-generated list of random numbers was used to assign participants to receive either misoprostol 200 μg or a placebo tablet, applied vaginally 10 h and 4 h prior to the second attempted IUD insertion, without ultrasound guidance. The primary outcome was the success of IUD insertion. Secondary outcomes were to establish the effect on insertion success of cervical dilation, cervical softening and previous mode of delivery. Results: Forty-two women (93.3%) in the misoprostol group and 24 women (53.3%) in the placebo group had a successful IUD insertion (p < .001). Cervical dilation was required in 24 women in the misoprostol group and 44 women in the placebo group. Misoprostol application significantly increased insertion success in women with previous caesarean delivery (p < .001) but did not affect insertion success in women with previous vaginal delivery (p = .481). Conclusion: Vaginal misoprostol before IUD insertion in parous women with previous insertion failure increased the rate of successful insertion, particularly in women with previous caesarean delivery.

Control of endometriosis-associated pain with etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant and 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of an etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing contraceptive implant or the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the control of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain.

DESIGN

Noninferiority randomized clinical trial in which women with endometriosis were assigned to use an ENG implant (experimental treatment) or an LNG-IUS (active comparator). Monthly follow-up visits were conducted up to 6 months.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred three women, with endometriosis-associated chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, or both for more than 6 months. In cases of deep endometriosis, vaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were used as additional diagnostic tools.

INTERVENTION(S)

The ENG implant or the LNG-IUS were inserted within the first 5 days of the menstrual cycle.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Daily scores of noncyclic pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea were evaluated using a daily visual analogue scale. Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at baseline and up to 6 months. Bleeding patterns were assessed daily from a menstrual calendar.

RESULT(S)

Both contraceptives improved significantly the mean visual analogue scale endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea, without significant differences between treatment group profiles. Health-related quality of life improved significantly in all domains of the core and modular segments of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire, with no difference between both treatment groups. The most common bleeding patterns at 180 days of follow-up were amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding and infrequent bleeding and spotting among ENG implant and LNG-IUS users, respectively.

CONCLUSION(S)

In this noninferiority study both contraceptives improved significantly pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and health-related quality of life in endometriosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov under number NCT02480647.

[Intrauterine contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

OBJECTIVE

To provide national clinical guidelines focusing on intrauterine contraception.

METHODS

A systematic review of available literature was performed using Pubmed and Cochrane libraries. American, British and Canadian guidelines were considered as well.

RESULTS

Intrauterine contraception (IUC) displays a wide panel of indications, including adolescents, nulliparous, patients living with HIV before AIDS (Grade B) and women with history of ectopic pregnancy (Grade C). Cervical cancer screening should not be modified in women with IUC (Grade B). Bimanual examination and cervix inspection are mandatory before device insertion (Grade B). Patients should not systematically undergo screening for sexually transmitted infections (STI) before device insertion (Grade B). Screening for STI should be preferably done before insertion but it can be performed at the time of device insertion in asymptomatic women (Grade B). Routine antibiotic prophylaxis and premedication are not recommended before insertion (Grade A). A follow-up visit may be offered several weeks after insertion (Professional consensus). Routine pelvic ultrasound examination in not recommended after device insertion (Grade B). In patients with IUC, unscheduled bleeding, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, requires further investigation to rule out complication (Professional agreement). Suspected uterine perforation warrants radiological workup to locate the device (Professional consensus). Laparoscopic approach should be preferred for elective removal of intrauterine device from abdominal cavity (Professional consensus). In case of accidental pregnancy with intrauterine device in situ, ectopic pregnancy should be excluded (Grade B). In case of viable and desired intrauterine pregnancy, intrauterine device removal is recommended if the strings are reachable (Grade C). Detection of Actinomyces-like organisms on pap smear in asymptomatic patients with intrauterine contraception does not require further intervention (Grade B). Immediate removal of intrauterine device is not recommended in case of STI or pelvic inflammatory disease (Grade B). Device removal should be considered in the absence of clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate treatment (Grade B).

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine contraception is a long-acting and reversible contraception method displaying great efficacy and high continuation rate. In contrast, complication rate is low. It should thus be offered to both nulliparous and multiparous women.

The use of long-acting reversible contraceptives in Latin America and the Caribbean: current landscape and recommendations

STUDY QUESTION

Can the high rate and associated burden of unintended pregnancy (UP) and adolescent pregnancy in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) be reduced through wider access to and use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Studies show that impoved access to and use of LARC methods is an effective tool for reducing the high rates of UP, unsafe abortion and abortion-related complications, and maternal deaths (as well as reducing their social and financial burden), and we have provided recommendations to help achieve this in LAC.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

LAC comprises 46 countries with 650 million inhabitants, and shows large disparities in socioeconomic development, access to health services and attention to sexual and reproductive health rights. The exercise of these rights and universal access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programmes is a key strategy for improving maternal health by reducing the number of UPs, the rate of women’s and child mortality and morbidity, and the number of unsafe abortions. The implementation of SRH programmes in the region has contributed to a decrease in pregnancy rates of more than 50% over 40 years. However, despite this progress, the numbers of UP and adolescent pregnancies are still among the highest worldwide, which can be attributed in large part to the low prevalence of use of LARC methods.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a position paper with the objective of reviewing the magnitude and burden of UP in LAC, as well as available LARC methods and barriers to their access, with the goal of increasing knowledge and awareness among healthcare professionals (HCP), policymakers and the general public about the potential to reduce UP rates through the increased use of LARC.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD

We searched the electronic databases of PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies published up to May 2017. We also searched for websites regarding LAC, LARC methods, and UP including, for example, those from the United Nations, the World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization, the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the United States Agency for International Development. Studies were included if they investigated mainly UP and their consequences as well as the use of LARC methods in the region. During 3 days of meetings, the importance of the studies identified and the appropriateness of inclusion were discussed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

LAC is not one unit and shows great ethnic diversity as well as economic and cultural differences among the various countries. These differences must be taken into account when developing policies related to disseminating information and combatting misinformation regarding the use of LARC among different audiences, such as adolescents and young women, nulligravidas, indigenous populations and women with disabilities. Furthermore, only some governments have made efforts to increase accessibility to LARC methods, and there is a need to implement training programmes for HCPs, launch education campaigns for the general public, increase access and review the cost-benefit analyses specific to LARC, which have already demonstrated that the upfront cost of LARC is less than the cummulative expense of short-term contraceptives. Recommendations to achieve these goals are presented.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Knowledge and awareness of the contraceptive method itself and of the mix of individual countries in the region is essential to the development of specific strategies and actions, tailored to each particular country situation, aimed at increasing access to modern contraceptive methods, especially LARC.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Healthcare systems in LAC should consider LARC as a primary option for decreasing UP and adolescent pregnancy. Disseminating information, increasing awareness of their efficacy, removing barriers and improving access to LARC methods are the urgent actions recommended for government, academia, professional organizations, insurance companies and policymakers in order to address this major public health problem in LAC.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This manuscript was supported by a grant from the Americas Health Foundation (AHF), a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to improving healthcare throughout the Latin American Region. LB and IM received additional support from the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) award # 2015/20504-9. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

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

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

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.