The challenges of location and removal of Implanon® contraceptive implants

Clinical, logistic, and geographic factors in ensuring adequate access to implant removals: A cross-sectional survey of public facilities and GIS modeling of geographic access in two districts of Senegal

Introduction

Ensuring adequate access to contraceptive implant removal services requires an understanding of potential clinical, logistical, and geographic challenges.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 39 public health facilities in two districts of Senegal. To assess facility readiness, we reported the proportion of facilities meeting all minimum conditions for regular and difficult implant removals. We then describe characteristics of referral networks. Geographic access modeling was conducted in a geographic information system to estimate the proportion of women of reproductive age living within specific travel times of facilities ready for regular and difficult removals.

Results

72% of facilities met all conditions for regular removals, and 8% for difficult removals. In both cases, the main gaps related to equipment availability (79% of facilities had the minimum equipment for regular removals and 8% for difficult removals). 72% of facilities organized in three referral networks sent clients to other facilities for cases they could not manage. Of 11 receiving or single-network facilities, seven were ready for regular removals and one for difficult removals. Altogether, 36% of women in Dakar Centre and 99% of women in Kolda lived within two hours of a facility that was equipped to handle regular removals, compared to 15% and 69%, respectively, for difficult removals.

Conclusion

Data such as those provided in this assessment are important to provide a realistic picture of the state of readiness of the health system and its ability to meet the inevitable demand for implant removals. Referral networks should be considered as an emerging strategy to avail sufficient capacity at the systems level, including for managing difficult removals. However, careful thought should be given to the location of facilities that are ready to receive cases in order to target upgrades.

Removal of a well-palpable one-rod subdermal contraceptive implant using a dedicated hand-held device or standard technique: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is a mechanical hand-held device for removing a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant safe for implant users?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In terms of safety, the device is non-inferior to the standard technique for implant removal.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

An easy-to-use device for removing a subdermal contraceptive implant may be helpful in settings where skilled providers are in short supply. Prior to this study, the only report on the world’s first hand-held, mechanical device with build-in incisor was a Swedish study using earlier versions of the product.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

From December 2019 to November 2020, we conducted a three-arm, open-label non-inferiority randomized trial involving 225 Ugandan women to assess safety (primary outcome) and measure implant removal efficacy (secondary outcomes) of a newly developed, hand-held device, compared to the standard removal technique.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We randomized participants desiring removal of their one-rod contraceptive implant in a 1:1:1 ratio: standard technique/lidocaine injection, new device/lidocaine patch or new device/lidocaine injection. For primary safety endpoints, we examined removal complications and grouped them according to severity. For secondary endpoints on efficacy, we defined three device outcomes: intact implant removed without additional tools (primary), implant removed allowing implant breakage, but without tools (secondary) and implant removed allowing implant breakage and non-scalpel tools (tertiary). We assessed provider feedback on the device and used chi-square tests for all comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We recruited 225 participants and randomly assigned (n = 75) to each group. For safety, no primary complications occurred in any treatment group, while only one secondary complication occurred in each treatment group (1%). Primary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 85% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 73% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Secondary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 92% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 79% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Tertiary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 96% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 91% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P = 0.017). Unsuccessful removals with the new device did not hinder subsequent implant extractions with standard back-up tools. In over 90% of the 150 device procedures, providers agreed or strongly agreed that the product is an acceptable alternative to standard removal technique.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We tested a new removal device in the hands of Ugandan nurses who were adept at standard removal techniques; our estimates of removal efficacy may not apply to lower-level providers who arguably may be the prime beneficiaries of this technology.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The study was conducted in a region of the world where the new device could be used to expand access to implant removal services. Intended beneficiaries of the new product are implant users who cannot easily find skilled providers for traditional scalpel-dependent removals and/or users who are intimidated by scalpel procedures, and lower-level providers who can be trained to help deliver services to meet a growing demand. The new device is a safe, acceptable alternative; efficacy was high, but not on par with standard technique.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funding for this study was provided by the RemovAid AS of Norway with grants from Research Council of Norway (GLOBVAC number 228319), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant INV-007571) and SkatteFUNN. M.B. is founder and former CEO of RemovAid AS, Norway. M.B. holds contraceptive rod remover patents (2012 1307156.8 and 2015), pre-removal test (filed) and shares in RemovAid AS. All of the remaining authors’ institutions received payments in the form of contracts to help conduct the study; the funds for these contracts emanated from RemovAid AS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04120337

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

9 October 2019

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

23 December 2019

Hand-held device to remove a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant: Results of early trials in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as subdermal implants and intrauterine devices are promoted and increasingly used worldwide. Hence, in the light of this we also need to ensure easy access to the reversibility, i.e. emphasise the R in LARC. Our overall aim is to develop a device to facilitate implant removals. We evaluated the safety and performance of the two initial field prototypes where the main outcome was percentage of successful fixations and secondary outcomes were percentage of successful removals without the use of additional tools, duration of the procedure, satisfaction and adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a feasibility study including 41 subjects.

RESULTS

We estimated a fixation rate of 35/41 (85%) and an overall removal rate of 24/41 (59%). Further, we measured that the median time for removals was 80 s and that subjects and operators were satisfied with the procedure. We recorded adverse events such as bruising and superficial abrasions.

CONCLUSIONS

The device demonstrated a successful fixation rate, however, the removal rate will need to be further improved.

IMPLICATIONS

This feasibility study shows that the device has potential and further research is needed to modify and optimize the device.

Pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implants in the UK: comparison of two 5-year reporting periods

OBJECTIVES

(1) To identify pregnancies associated with the use of the contraceptive implants Implanon and Nexplanon in the UK during two 5-year reporting periods. (2) To classify the possible reasons for device failure in cases reported for each implant. (3) To examine any differences between reasons for pregnancies associated with these products.

STUDY DESIGN

Extraction of data from the UK spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions in relation to etonogestrel implants. Reports indicating pregnancy were identified for the periods 2005-2009 (Implanon) and 2012-2016 (Nexplanon). Possible reasons for failure of the method in each reported case were assigned to one of eight predetermined categories.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 229 Implanon and 234 Nexplanon cases contained sufficient information for analysis. True method failures accounted for a majority of the pregnancies in those using contraceptive implants (58%); the next most common cause was missing implants (26% of pregnancies). In all categories of cases, there was no difference in frequency of pregnancy when the two time periods were compared.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still potential for greater avoidance of pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implant use.

IMPLICATIONS

This study underscores the continuing need for taking a full drug history, timing the insertion on days 1-5 or according to recommended quick starting routines and palpating the arm after implant insertion.

A medical simulator for subcutaneous contraceptive implant insertion

New contraceptive methods like the subcutaneous implant offers a new kind of comfort for women with an efficiency similar to the contraceptive pill. Unfortunately the few numbers of unintended pregnancies that have been reported are generally due to a bad insertion of the implant. In order to give more security to patients, we have designed, in close collaboration with physicians, a new kind of medical simulator. This paper focuses on a device dedicated to a specific subcutaneous implant but it is worth noting that this simulator is relatively generic since it will be used for other subcutaneous techniques or other implant instruments. This simulator can be used for two purposes: one for training novice physicians in the correct manipulation and the other for physician certification which will help determine if they are capable of inserting the implant in vivo. This paper describes the approach which has led to the design of this simulator. It describes its functionalities, its several components but also methods used to analyze the manipulation of the implant insertion inside the patient. Finally first experimental results are reported and discussed. The system used in this paper makes possible to carry out training in a constraint-free context and provides the first mean of visualizing a maneuver that, until now, has been performed blindly.