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

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.

Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

The copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) is a highly effective method of contraception that can also be used for emergency contraception (EC). It is the most effective form of EC, and is more effective than other existing oral regimens also used for EC. The Cu-IUD provides the unique benefit of providing ongoing contraception after it is inserted for EC; however, uptake of this intervention has been limited. Progestin IUDs are a popular method of long-acting, reversible contraception. If these devices were also found to be effective for EC, they would provide a critical additional option for women. These IUDs could not only provide EC and ongoing contraception, but additional non-contraceptive benefits, including a reduction in menstrual bleeding, cancer prevention, and pain management.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety and effectiveness of progestin-containing IUDs for emergency contraception, compared with copper-containing IUDs, or compared with dedicated oral hormonal methods.

SEARCH METHODS

We considered all randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions that compared outcomes for individuals seeking a levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) for EC to a Cu-IUD or dedicated oral EC method. We considered full-text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data. We considered studies irrespective of their publication status and language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing progestin IUDs with copper-containing IUDs, or oral EC methods for emergency contraception.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We systematically searched nine medical databases, two trials registries, and one gray literature site. We downloaded all titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching to a reference management database, and removed duplicates. Three review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text reports to determine studies eligible for inclusion. We followed standard Cochrane methodology to assess risk of bias, and analyze and interpret the data. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included only one relevant study (711 women); a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing LNG-IUDs to Cu-IUDs for EC, with a one-month follow-up. With one study, the evidence was very uncertain for the difference in pregnancy rates, failed insertion rates, expulsion rates, removal rates and the difference in the acceptability of the IUDs. There was also uncertain evidence suggesting the Cu-IUD may slightly increase rates of cramping and the LNG-IUD may slightly increase bleeding and spotting days.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is limited in its ability to provide definitive evidence regarding the LNG-IUD's equivalence, superiority, or inferiority to the Cu-IUD for EC. Only one study was identified in the review, which had possible risks of bias related to randomization and rare outcomes. Additional studies are needed to provide definitive evidence related to the effectiveness of the LNG-IUD for EC.

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.

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.