Contraception

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The pandemic has affected reproductive health because of barriers to contraception access, potentially increasing unwanted pregnancies, reported Tracy Kuo Lin, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and associates.

During the pandemic, women have experienced an increased desire to avoid pregnancy, and when that desire is coupled with loss of income, accessing contraception becomes more difficult, Dr. Lin and colleagues observed in a cross-sectional survey published in the journal Contraception.

The study aimed to quantify the effect of COVID-19 on women’s economic status and reproductive health decisions related to childbearing and pregnancy. Women aged 18-49 who resided in the U.S. were targeted via Facebook and Instagram advertisements from May 16 to June 16, 2020. In all, 554 racially diverse respondents from 43 states were selected: 41% aged 18-24, 37% aged 25-34, and 23% aged 35-49.
 

Income losses affect nearly half of respondents

In determining risk of unwanted pregnancy, the researchers considered the influence of COVID-19 on a number of factors related to economic well-being as well as respondents’ sexual activity, intimate partner violence, overall desire for pregnancy, and access to contraception as issues affecting their interest in becoming pregnant and their ability to access medical care and contraception. Overall, 46% experienced a reduction in income, 43% reported no change, and 10% experienced an increase in income.

Difficulty in being able to afford food, transportation, and housing doubled among respondents from 8% to 16% as a result of the pandemic. The study authors cited education, race/ethnicity, federal poverty level, and change in income as predictors of inability to provide for these basic needs.

A total of 83% of respondents reported having sex within the past month; 54% of those had sex with someone they lived with, compared with 29% who had sex with someone they did not live with. The pandemic had no impact on sexual desire for 37% of respondents, compared with 32% who experienced a decrease in desire, and 29% who experienced more desire for sex. The presence of shelter-in-place orders had no effect on frequency of or desire for sex. Among the respondents, 4% noted intimate partner violence, which increased slightly from 3% before the pandemic.

Among respondents using contraception, the study authors noted that 17% reported greater difficulty accessing birth control during the pandemic compared with 4% who felt access had become easier. Of those citing increased difficulties, 9% noted increasing challenges getting to a pharmacy, 4% were less able to afford birth control, 3% said it had become harder to obtain a prescription, and 1% cited difficulties having long-acting reversible contraceptives removed.

Despite the pandemic’s overall impact on quality of life, 41% of respondents reported a stronger desire to become pregnant, compared with 25% who had a reduced desire, and 34% whose interest in pregnancy was unchanged by the pandemic.

More than one-third of respondents (37%) admitted that COVID-19 contributed to their fears of becoming pregnant while 13% indicated their fear of pregnancy stemmed from concerns over being able to afford the cost of having a child. Not surprisingly, the decrease in desire for pregnancy was twice as high in those who reported they were unable to afford food, transportation, and/or housing compared with those who saw no change in their ability to afford basic needs.

“In these uncertain economic times, it is of utmost importance to create policies that will ensure access to and comprehensive coverage of core sexual and reproductive health services,” Dr. Lin and colleagues urged. “By doing so, we safeguard people’s ability to make decisions that support their reproductive health goals.”
 

Will COVID-19 drive needed practice and policy changes?

“This study highlights the economic and reproductive health toll of COVID-19 and the pressing need for improved contraception access,” Eve Espey, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

“Ob.gyns. and other practitioners can use this information to consider evidence-based practice changes that incorporate telemedicine visits, extended refills on contraceptive methods, and a focus on postpartum and postabortion initiation of contraception,” noted Dr. Espey, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. For women who are experiencing economic hardship, consulting with state-based programs that offer pharmacy access and online access to contraceptives may offer a reasonable alternative, she added.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco’s National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health. Dr. Lin received funding from Lazarex Cancer Foundation. The remaining authors had no conflicts of interest and reported no disclosures.

The pandemic has affected reproductive health because of barriers to contraception access, potentially increasing unwanted pregnancies, reported Tracy Kuo Lin, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and associates.

During the pandemic, women have experienced an increased desire to avoid pregnancy, and when that desire is coupled with loss of income, accessing contraception becomes more difficult, Dr. Lin and colleagues observed in a cross-sectional survey published in the journal Contraception.

The study aimed to quantify the effect of COVID-19 on women’s economic status and reproductive health decisions related to childbearing and pregnancy. Women aged 18-49 who resided in the U.S. were targeted via Facebook and Instagram advertisements from May 16 to June 16, 2020. In all, 554 racially diverse respondents from 43 states were selected: 41% aged 18-24, 37% aged 25-34, and 23% aged 35-49.
 

Income losses affect nearly half of respondents

In determining risk of unwanted pregnancy, the researchers considered the influence of COVID-19 on a number of factors related to economic well-being as well as respondents’ sexual activity, intimate partner violence, overall desire for pregnancy, and access to contraception as issues affecting their interest in becoming pregnant and their ability to access medical care and contraception. Overall, 46% experienced a reduction in income, 43% reported no change, and 10% experienced an increase in income.

Difficulty in being able to afford food, transportation, and housing doubled among respondents from 8% to 16% as a result of the pandemic. The study authors cited education, race/ethnicity, federal poverty level, and change in income as predictors of inability to provide for these basic needs.

A total of 83% of respondents reported having sex within the past month; 54% of those had sex with someone they lived with, compared with 29% who had sex with someone they did not live with. The pandemic had no impact on sexual desire for 37% of respondents, compared with 32% who experienced a decrease in desire, and 29% who experienced more desire for sex. The presence of shelter-in-place orders had no effect on frequency of or desire for sex. Among the respondents, 4% noted intimate partner violence, which increased slightly from 3% before the pandemic.

Among respondents using contraception, the study authors noted that 17% reported greater difficulty accessing birth control during the pandemic compared with 4% who felt access had become easier. Of those citing increased difficulties, 9% noted increasing challenges getting to a pharmacy, 4% were less able to afford birth control, 3% said it had become harder to obtain a prescription, and 1% cited difficulties having long-acting reversible contraceptives removed.

Despite the pandemic’s overall impact on quality of life, 41% of respondents reported a stronger desire to become pregnant, compared with 25% who had a reduced desire, and 34% whose interest in pregnancy was unchanged by the pandemic.

More than one-third of respondents (37%) admitted that COVID-19 contributed to their fears of becoming pregnant while 13% indicated their fear of pregnancy stemmed from concerns over being able to afford the cost of having a child. Not surprisingly, the decrease in desire for pregnancy was twice as high in those who reported they were unable to afford food, transportation, and/or housing compared with those who saw no change in their ability to afford basic needs.

“In these uncertain economic times, it is of utmost importance to create policies that will ensure access to and comprehensive coverage of core sexual and reproductive health services,” Dr. Lin and colleagues urged. “By doing so, we safeguard people’s ability to make decisions that support their reproductive health goals.”
 

Will COVID-19 drive needed practice and policy changes?

“This study highlights the economic and reproductive health toll of COVID-19 and the pressing need for improved contraception access,” Eve Espey, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

“Ob.gyns. and other practitioners can use this information to consider evidence-based practice changes that incorporate telemedicine visits, extended refills on contraceptive methods, and a focus on postpartum and postabortion initiation of contraception,” noted Dr. Espey, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. For women who are experiencing economic hardship, consulting with state-based programs that offer pharmacy access and online access to contraceptives may offer a reasonable alternative, she added.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco’s National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health. Dr. Lin received funding from Lazarex Cancer Foundation. The remaining authors had no conflicts of interest and reported no disclosures.

The pandemic has affected reproductive health because of barriers to contraception access, potentially increasing unwanted pregnancies, reported Tracy Kuo Lin, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and associates.

During the pandemic, women have experienced an increased desire to avoid pregnancy, and when that desire is coupled with loss of income, accessing contraception becomes more difficult, Dr. Lin and colleagues observed in a cross-sectional survey published in the journal Contraception.

The study aimed to quantify the effect of COVID-19 on women’s economic status and reproductive health decisions related to childbearing and pregnancy. Women aged 18-49 who resided in the U.S. were targeted via Facebook and Instagram advertisements from May 16 to June 16, 2020. In all, 554 racially diverse respondents from 43 states were selected: 41% aged 18-24, 37% aged 25-34, and 23% aged 35-49.
 

Income losses affect nearly half of respondents

In determining risk of unwanted pregnancy, the researchers considered the influence of COVID-19 on a number of factors related to economic well-being as well as respondents’ sexual activity, intimate partner violence, overall desire for pregnancy, and access to contraception as issues affecting their interest in becoming pregnant and their ability to access medical care and contraception. Overall, 46% experienced a reduction in income, 43% reported no change, and 10% experienced an increase in income.

Difficulty in being able to afford food, transportation, and housing doubled among respondents from 8% to 16% as a result of the pandemic. The study authors cited education, race/ethnicity, federal poverty level, and change in income as predictors of inability to provide for these basic needs.

A total of 83% of respondents reported having sex within the past month; 54% of those had sex with someone they lived with, compared with 29% who had sex with someone they did not live with. The pandemic had no impact on sexual desire for 37% of respondents, compared with 32% who experienced a decrease in desire, and 29% who experienced more desire for sex. The presence of shelter-in-place orders had no effect on frequency of or desire for sex. Among the respondents, 4% noted intimate partner violence, which increased slightly from 3% before the pandemic.

Among respondents using contraception, the study authors noted that 17% reported greater difficulty accessing birth control during the pandemic compared with 4% who felt access had become easier. Of those citing increased difficulties, 9% noted increasing challenges getting to a pharmacy, 4% were less able to afford birth control, 3% said it had become harder to obtain a prescription, and 1% cited difficulties having long-acting reversible contraceptives removed.

Despite the pandemic’s overall impact on quality of life, 41% of respondents reported a stronger desire to become pregnant, compared with 25% who had a reduced desire, and 34% whose interest in pregnancy was unchanged by the pandemic.

More than one-third of respondents (37%) admitted that COVID-19 contributed to their fears of becoming pregnant while 13% indicated their fear of pregnancy stemmed from concerns over being able to afford the cost of having a child. Not surprisingly, the decrease in desire for pregnancy was twice as high in those who reported they were unable to afford food, transportation, and/or housing compared with those who saw no change in their ability to afford basic needs.

“In these uncertain economic times, it is of utmost importance to create policies that will ensure access to and comprehensive coverage of core sexual and reproductive health services,” Dr. Lin and colleagues urged. “By doing so, we safeguard people’s ability to make decisions that support their reproductive health goals.”
 

Will COVID-19 drive needed practice and policy changes?

“This study highlights the economic and reproductive health toll of COVID-19 and the pressing need for improved contraception access,” Eve Espey, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

“Ob.gyns. and other practitioners can use this information to consider evidence-based practice changes that incorporate telemedicine visits, extended refills on contraceptive methods, and a focus on postpartum and postabortion initiation of contraception,” noted Dr. Espey, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. For women who are experiencing economic hardship, consulting with state-based programs that offer pharmacy access and online access to contraceptives may offer a reasonable alternative, she added.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco’s National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health. Dr. Lin received funding from Lazarex Cancer Foundation. The remaining authors had no conflicts of interest and reported no disclosures.

A levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device is noninferior to a copper IUD for emergency contraception, according to randomized trial results published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the trial didn’t directly compare emergency oral contraception to the hormonal IUD, the authors speculated, on the basis of prior findings, that the levonorgestrel IUD is more effective than oral emergency contraceptive pills. In addition, there is no delay in providing ongoing contraception as there is when ulipristal acetate is used for emergency contraception.

Prior research has found that copper IUDs are a highly effective method of emergency contraception, but studies of the use of other IUDs as emergency contraception have been lacking.

To examine whether the levonorgestrel IUD is noninferior to the copper IUD as emergency contraception after unprotected sexual intercourse during the previous 5 days, David K. Turok, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and colleagues conducted a trial at six Planned Parenthood health centers in Utah.

Researchers enrolled patients between August 2016 and December 2019. Trial sites purchased levonorgestrel 52-mg IUDs (Liletta) and copper T380A IUDs (ParaGard) for the study. The companies that distribute the IUDs were not involved in the trial.

Pregnancy rates were 1 of 317 participants (0.3%) among those who received the levonorgestrel IUD, and 0 of 321 (0%) among those who received the copper IUD. The difference between the two arms was well within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 2.5%.

Adverse event rates were generally similar between the two groups, with 5.2% of participants in the levonorgestrel IUD group seeking medical care in the month after IUD placement, compared with 4.9% in the copper IUD group.
 

A welcome option

The study “benefits women by allowing us to introduce a new option into the method mix of emergency contraception,” commented Wing Kay Fok, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in family planning had followed preliminary data from this study and were anticipating the final results. Clinicians who are comfortable placing a copper IUD for emergency contraception are likely to be comfortable placing a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD, given these data, Dr. Fok said.

“This is definitely – from what we can tell – a more effective method than the pill,” she said.

Gabriela Aguilar, MD, MPH, fellow and clinical instructor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said she is reassured by the data and is prepared to offer the 52-mg levonorgestrel IUD as emergency contraception.

The trial is “an important clinical study that has the ability to significantly change clinical practice,” Dr. Aguilar said. She credited the University of Utah and Planned Parenthood for their roles in it.

“Anytime that there are more options, ideally, that means that access is also increased,” Dr. Aguilar said.

Many patients will still prefer oral emergency contraceptive pills, she said. “But for those who are interested in an IUD ... for the immediate and ongoing birth control after that, now they have the two options instead of just the one IUD option.”
 

One pregnancy

The trial included women aged 18-35 years who requested emergency contraception after unprotected sexual intercourse within the previous 5 days. Other inclusion criteria were that participants had a desire to initiate use of an IUD; a desire to prevent pregnancy for at least 1 year; a negative result on urine pregnancy testing; a history of regular menstrual cycles; and a known date of the last menstrual period. The investigators did not exclude individuals who had unprotected sexual intercourse more than 5 days before IUD placement.

Participants were unaware of their assigned intervention. The nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives who performed the IUD insertions were aware of the IUD type.

The primary outcome was pregnancy, as determined by a positive result on urine pregnancy testing 1 month after IUD insertion or by a review of survey and health record data.

One pregnancy “occurred in a participant who reported a single episode of unprotected sexual intercourse 48 hours before IUD placement,” the study authors wrote. “Pregnancy dating by an ultrasound examination at 10 weeks was consistent with conception occurring as a result of an emergency contraception failure. The pregnancy ended in a spontaneous abortion at 10 weeks with the IUD still in place.”

“We hope that providers can begin to deliver this method to everyone who wants and needs it and that people considering both emergency contraception and an ongoing method of birth control know that they now have the option of a hormonal IUD in addition to the nonhormonal, copper IUD,” Dr. Turok said in a news release from Planned Parenthood.

The study used a hormonal IUD manufactured by Liletta; Mirena also manufactures a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD. The results of the study would apply to Mirena’s product too, according to Planned Parenthood.

“There are various IUDs on the market that are at lower doses, and so those IUDs may not demonstrate similar results,” Dr. Aguilar said.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of Utah. Dr. Turok is the director of surgical services for Planned Parenthood Association of Utah; the trial was conducted at PPAU centers, but Dr. Turok does not work at the sites where the study was conducted. Dr. Turok has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals as the principal investigator for two phase 3 studies that assessed novel IUDs. Dr. Turok and one coauthor received grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Fok and Dr. Aguilar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device is noninferior to a copper IUD for emergency contraception, according to randomized trial results published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the trial didn’t directly compare emergency oral contraception to the hormonal IUD, the authors speculated, on the basis of prior findings, that the levonorgestrel IUD is more effective than oral emergency contraceptive pills. In addition, there is no delay in providing ongoing contraception as there is when ulipristal acetate is used for emergency contraception.

Prior research has found that copper IUDs are a highly effective method of emergency contraception, but studies of the use of other IUDs as emergency contraception have been lacking.

To examine whether the levonorgestrel IUD is noninferior to the copper IUD as emergency contraception after unprotected sexual intercourse during the previous 5 days, David K. Turok, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and colleagues conducted a trial at six Planned Parenthood health centers in Utah.

Researchers enrolled patients between August 2016 and December 2019. Trial sites purchased levonorgestrel 52-mg IUDs (Liletta) and copper T380A IUDs (ParaGard) for the study. The companies that distribute the IUDs were not involved in the trial.

Pregnancy rates were 1 of 317 participants (0.3%) among those who received the levonorgestrel IUD, and 0 of 321 (0%) among those who received the copper IUD. The difference between the two arms was well within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 2.5%.

Adverse event rates were generally similar between the two groups, with 5.2% of participants in the levonorgestrel IUD group seeking medical care in the month after IUD placement, compared with 4.9% in the copper IUD group.
 

A welcome option

The study “benefits women by allowing us to introduce a new option into the method mix of emergency contraception,” commented Wing Kay Fok, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in family planning had followed preliminary data from this study and were anticipating the final results. Clinicians who are comfortable placing a copper IUD for emergency contraception are likely to be comfortable placing a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD, given these data, Dr. Fok said.

“This is definitely – from what we can tell – a more effective method than the pill,” she said.

Gabriela Aguilar, MD, MPH, fellow and clinical instructor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said she is reassured by the data and is prepared to offer the 52-mg levonorgestrel IUD as emergency contraception.

The trial is “an important clinical study that has the ability to significantly change clinical practice,” Dr. Aguilar said. She credited the University of Utah and Planned Parenthood for their roles in it.

“Anytime that there are more options, ideally, that means that access is also increased,” Dr. Aguilar said.

Many patients will still prefer oral emergency contraceptive pills, she said. “But for those who are interested in an IUD ... for the immediate and ongoing birth control after that, now they have the two options instead of just the one IUD option.”
 

One pregnancy

The trial included women aged 18-35 years who requested emergency contraception after unprotected sexual intercourse within the previous 5 days. Other inclusion criteria were that participants had a desire to initiate use of an IUD; a desire to prevent pregnancy for at least 1 year; a negative result on urine pregnancy testing; a history of regular menstrual cycles; and a known date of the last menstrual period. The investigators did not exclude individuals who had unprotected sexual intercourse more than 5 days before IUD placement.

Participants were unaware of their assigned intervention. The nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives who performed the IUD insertions were aware of the IUD type.

The primary outcome was pregnancy, as determined by a positive result on urine pregnancy testing 1 month after IUD insertion or by a review of survey and health record data.

One pregnancy “occurred in a participant who reported a single episode of unprotected sexual intercourse 48 hours before IUD placement,” the study authors wrote. “Pregnancy dating by an ultrasound examination at 10 weeks was consistent with conception occurring as a result of an emergency contraception failure. The pregnancy ended in a spontaneous abortion at 10 weeks with the IUD still in place.”

“We hope that providers can begin to deliver this method to everyone who wants and needs it and that people considering both emergency contraception and an ongoing method of birth control know that they now have the option of a hormonal IUD in addition to the nonhormonal, copper IUD,” Dr. Turok said in a news release from Planned Parenthood.

The study used a hormonal IUD manufactured by Liletta; Mirena also manufactures a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD. The results of the study would apply to Mirena’s product too, according to Planned Parenthood.

“There are various IUDs on the market that are at lower doses, and so those IUDs may not demonstrate similar results,” Dr. Aguilar said.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of Utah. Dr. Turok is the director of surgical services for Planned Parenthood Association of Utah; the trial was conducted at PPAU centers, but Dr. Turok does not work at the sites where the study was conducted. Dr. Turok has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals as the principal investigator for two phase 3 studies that assessed novel IUDs. Dr. Turok and one coauthor received grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Fok and Dr. Aguilar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device is noninferior to a copper IUD for emergency contraception, according to randomized trial results published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the trial didn’t directly compare emergency oral contraception to the hormonal IUD, the authors speculated, on the basis of prior findings, that the levonorgestrel IUD is more effective than oral emergency contraceptive pills. In addition, there is no delay in providing ongoing contraception as there is when ulipristal acetate is used for emergency contraception.

Prior research has found that copper IUDs are a highly effective method of emergency contraception, but studies of the use of other IUDs as emergency contraception have been lacking.

To examine whether the levonorgestrel IUD is noninferior to the copper IUD as emergency contraception after unprotected sexual intercourse during the previous 5 days, David K. Turok, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and colleagues conducted a trial at six Planned Parenthood health centers in Utah.

Researchers enrolled patients between August 2016 and December 2019. Trial sites purchased levonorgestrel 52-mg IUDs (Liletta) and copper T380A IUDs (ParaGard) for the study. The companies that distribute the IUDs were not involved in the trial.

Pregnancy rates were 1 of 317 participants (0.3%) among those who received the levonorgestrel IUD, and 0 of 321 (0%) among those who received the copper IUD. The difference between the two arms was well within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 2.5%.

Adverse event rates were generally similar between the two groups, with 5.2% of participants in the levonorgestrel IUD group seeking medical care in the month after IUD placement, compared with 4.9% in the copper IUD group.
 

A welcome option

The study “benefits women by allowing us to introduce a new option into the method mix of emergency contraception,” commented Wing Kay Fok, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in family planning had followed preliminary data from this study and were anticipating the final results. Clinicians who are comfortable placing a copper IUD for emergency contraception are likely to be comfortable placing a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD, given these data, Dr. Fok said.

“This is definitely – from what we can tell – a more effective method than the pill,” she said.

Gabriela Aguilar, MD, MPH, fellow and clinical instructor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said she is reassured by the data and is prepared to offer the 52-mg levonorgestrel IUD as emergency contraception.

The trial is “an important clinical study that has the ability to significantly change clinical practice,” Dr. Aguilar said. She credited the University of Utah and Planned Parenthood for their roles in it.

“Anytime that there are more options, ideally, that means that access is also increased,” Dr. Aguilar said.

Many patients will still prefer oral emergency contraceptive pills, she said. “But for those who are interested in an IUD ... for the immediate and ongoing birth control after that, now they have the two options instead of just the one IUD option.”
 

One pregnancy

The trial included women aged 18-35 years who requested emergency contraception after unprotected sexual intercourse within the previous 5 days. Other inclusion criteria were that participants had a desire to initiate use of an IUD; a desire to prevent pregnancy for at least 1 year; a negative result on urine pregnancy testing; a history of regular menstrual cycles; and a known date of the last menstrual period. The investigators did not exclude individuals who had unprotected sexual intercourse more than 5 days before IUD placement.

Participants were unaware of their assigned intervention. The nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives who performed the IUD insertions were aware of the IUD type.

The primary outcome was pregnancy, as determined by a positive result on urine pregnancy testing 1 month after IUD insertion or by a review of survey and health record data.

One pregnancy “occurred in a participant who reported a single episode of unprotected sexual intercourse 48 hours before IUD placement,” the study authors wrote. “Pregnancy dating by an ultrasound examination at 10 weeks was consistent with conception occurring as a result of an emergency contraception failure. The pregnancy ended in a spontaneous abortion at 10 weeks with the IUD still in place.”

“We hope that providers can begin to deliver this method to everyone who wants and needs it and that people considering both emergency contraception and an ongoing method of birth control know that they now have the option of a hormonal IUD in addition to the nonhormonal, copper IUD,” Dr. Turok said in a news release from Planned Parenthood.

The study used a hormonal IUD manufactured by Liletta; Mirena also manufactures a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD. The results of the study would apply to Mirena’s product too, according to Planned Parenthood.

“There are various IUDs on the market that are at lower doses, and so those IUDs may not demonstrate similar results,” Dr. Aguilar said.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of Utah. Dr. Turok is the director of surgical services for Planned Parenthood Association of Utah; the trial was conducted at PPAU centers, but Dr. Turok does not work at the sites where the study was conducted. Dr. Turok has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals as the principal investigator for two phase 3 studies that assessed novel IUDs. Dr. Turok and one coauthor received grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Fok and Dr. Aguilar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most US women aged 15 to 49 currently use contraception, with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—IUDs and the contraceptive implant—increasing in popularity over the last decade.¹ Oral contraceptive pills, male condoms, and LARC are the most common reversible methods used.¹ While the efficacy and safety of contraception have been established, few studies have examined the effect of recent contraceptive use on fertility.

Fecundability is the probability of pregnancy during a single menstrual cycle for a couple engaging in regular intercourse and not using contraception.² Small studies have found short-term reductions in fecundability after discontinuing combined oral contraceptives and larger reductions after stopping injectable contraceptives, with no long-term differences among methods.^3,4

Data are limited regarding the effects of other forms of contraception on fecundability, particularly LARC methods. A recent study was designed to evaluate the association between the last contraceptive method used and subsequent fecundability.²

Details of the study

Yland and colleagues pooled data from 3 prospective cohort studies of 17,954 women planning pregnancies in Denmark, Canada, and the United States. Participants reported the contraceptive method used most recently before trying to conceive. They completed questionnaires every 2 months for 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy. Women were excluded if they tried to conceive for more than 6 menstrual cycles at study entry.

The authors calculated the fecundability ratio—the average probability of conception per cycle for a specific contraceptive method compared with a reference method—using proportional probability models adjusted for potential confounders. They also calculated pregnancy attempt time using participant-reported menstrual cycle length and date of last menstrual period during follow-up questionnaires.

Continue to: Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return...

After adjusting for personal factors, medical history, lifestyle characteristics, and indicators of underlying fertility, the authors found that injectable contraceptive use was associated with decreased fecundability compared with barrier method use (fecundability ratio [FR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.89). Hormonal IUD use was associated with slight increases in fecundability compared with barrier method use (FR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07–1.22) and copper IUD use (FR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.33). All other contraceptive methods were not significantly different from barrier methods.

LARC method use was associated with the shortest delay in return of normal fertility (2 cycles), followed by oral and ring contraceptives (3 cycles) and patch (4 cycles). Women using injectable contraceptives experienced the longest delay (5–8 menstrual cycles). Lifetime duration of contraceptive use did not impact fecundability in the North American cohort.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, prospective study contributes useful information about fecundability after stopping contraceptive methods. It confirms earlier studies’ findings that showed decreased fecundability after stopping injectable contraceptives. Study participants’ most recent method used was similar to overall US method distribution.¹

Study limitations include online recruitment of self-selecting participants, which introduces selection bias. The study population was overwhelmingly white (92%) and highly educated (70% with college degrees), quite different from the US population. These findings may therefore have limited generalizability. Additionally, injectable contraceptive users had higher body mass index and were more likely to smoke and have diabetes, infertility, or irregular menstrual cycles. IUD users were more likely to be parous and have a history of unplanned pregnancy, indicating possible higher baseline fertility. Even after adjusting, possible unmeasured factors could impact study results. ●

Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most US women aged 15 to 49 currently use contraception, with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—IUDs and the contraceptive implant—increasing in popularity over the last decade.¹ Oral contraceptive pills, male condoms, and LARC are the most common reversible methods used.¹ While the efficacy and safety of contraception have been established, few studies have examined the effect of recent contraceptive use on fertility.

Fecundability is the probability of pregnancy during a single menstrual cycle for a couple engaging in regular intercourse and not using contraception.² Small studies have found short-term reductions in fecundability after discontinuing combined oral contraceptives and larger reductions after stopping injectable contraceptives, with no long-term differences among methods.^3,4

Data are limited regarding the effects of other forms of contraception on fecundability, particularly LARC methods. A recent study was designed to evaluate the association between the last contraceptive method used and subsequent fecundability.²

Details of the study

Yland and colleagues pooled data from 3 prospective cohort studies of 17,954 women planning pregnancies in Denmark, Canada, and the United States. Participants reported the contraceptive method used most recently before trying to conceive. They completed questionnaires every 2 months for 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy. Women were excluded if they tried to conceive for more than 6 menstrual cycles at study entry.

The authors calculated the fecundability ratio—the average probability of conception per cycle for a specific contraceptive method compared with a reference method—using proportional probability models adjusted for potential confounders. They also calculated pregnancy attempt time using participant-reported menstrual cycle length and date of last menstrual period during follow-up questionnaires.

Continue to: Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return...

After adjusting for personal factors, medical history, lifestyle characteristics, and indicators of underlying fertility, the authors found that injectable contraceptive use was associated with decreased fecundability compared with barrier method use (fecundability ratio [FR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.89). Hormonal IUD use was associated with slight increases in fecundability compared with barrier method use (FR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07–1.22) and copper IUD use (FR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.33). All other contraceptive methods were not significantly different from barrier methods.

LARC method use was associated with the shortest delay in return of normal fertility (2 cycles), followed by oral and ring contraceptives (3 cycles) and patch (4 cycles). Women using injectable contraceptives experienced the longest delay (5–8 menstrual cycles). Lifetime duration of contraceptive use did not impact fecundability in the North American cohort.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, prospective study contributes useful information about fecundability after stopping contraceptive methods. It confirms earlier studies’ findings that showed decreased fecundability after stopping injectable contraceptives. Study participants’ most recent method used was similar to overall US method distribution.¹

Study limitations include online recruitment of self-selecting participants, which introduces selection bias. The study population was overwhelmingly white (92%) and highly educated (70% with college degrees), quite different from the US population. These findings may therefore have limited generalizability. Additionally, injectable contraceptive users had higher body mass index and were more likely to smoke and have diabetes, infertility, or irregular menstrual cycles. IUD users were more likely to be parous and have a history of unplanned pregnancy, indicating possible higher baseline fertility. Even after adjusting, possible unmeasured factors could impact study results. ●

Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Most US women aged 15 to 49 currently use contraception, with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—IUDs and the contraceptive implant—increasing in popularity over the last decade.¹ Oral contraceptive pills, male condoms, and LARC are the most common reversible methods used.¹ While the efficacy and safety of contraception have been established, few studies have examined the effect of recent contraceptive use on fertility.

Fecundability is the probability of pregnancy during a single menstrual cycle for a couple engaging in regular intercourse and not using contraception.² Small studies have found short-term reductions in fecundability after discontinuing combined oral contraceptives and larger reductions after stopping injectable contraceptives, with no long-term differences among methods.^3,4

Data are limited regarding the effects of other forms of contraception on fecundability, particularly LARC methods. A recent study was designed to evaluate the association between the last contraceptive method used and subsequent fecundability.²

Details of the study

Yland and colleagues pooled data from 3 prospective cohort studies of 17,954 women planning pregnancies in Denmark, Canada, and the United States. Participants reported the contraceptive method used most recently before trying to conceive. They completed questionnaires every 2 months for 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy. Women were excluded if they tried to conceive for more than 6 menstrual cycles at study entry.

The authors calculated the fecundability ratio—the average probability of conception per cycle for a specific contraceptive method compared with a reference method—using proportional probability models adjusted for potential confounders. They also calculated pregnancy attempt time using participant-reported menstrual cycle length and date of last menstrual period during follow-up questionnaires.

Continue to: Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return...

After adjusting for personal factors, medical history, lifestyle characteristics, and indicators of underlying fertility, the authors found that injectable contraceptive use was associated with decreased fecundability compared with barrier method use (fecundability ratio [FR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.89). Hormonal IUD use was associated with slight increases in fecundability compared with barrier method use (FR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07–1.22) and copper IUD use (FR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.33). All other contraceptive methods were not significantly different from barrier methods.

LARC method use was associated with the shortest delay in return of normal fertility (2 cycles), followed by oral and ring contraceptives (3 cycles) and patch (4 cycles). Women using injectable contraceptives experienced the longest delay (5–8 menstrual cycles). Lifetime duration of contraceptive use did not impact fecundability in the North American cohort.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, prospective study contributes useful information about fecundability after stopping contraceptive methods. It confirms earlier studies’ findings that showed decreased fecundability after stopping injectable contraceptives. Study participants’ most recent method used was similar to overall US method distribution.¹

Study limitations include online recruitment of self-selecting participants, which introduces selection bias. The study population was overwhelmingly white (92%) and highly educated (70% with college degrees), quite different from the US population. These findings may therefore have limited generalizability. Additionally, injectable contraceptive users had higher body mass index and were more likely to smoke and have diabetes, infertility, or irregular menstrual cycles. IUD users were more likely to be parous and have a history of unplanned pregnancy, indicating possible higher baseline fertility. Even after adjusting, possible unmeasured factors could impact study results. ●

In 2017, Global Pediatric Health published a case report series associated with the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives, specifically the etonogestrel implant. The cases highlighted challenging removals of the etonogestrel implants because of migration, fracture, or a bent device, and served as a caution to providers.

In November 2020, the makers of the etonogestrel implant (Merck) recommended a change in practice with the release of a notice to health care providers certified in the training of this product. This mass marketing blast included an updated warning and cautions for prescribers as well as patient information on the potential risks of migration, fracture, and bent devices attributable to trauma or sports. “Broken or Bent Implant (Section 5.16). The addition of the following underlined language: “There have been reports of broken or bent implants, which may be related to external forces (e.g., manipulation of the implant or contact sports) while in the patient’s arm. There have also been reports of migration of a broken implant fragment within the arm.”

Clearly the etonogestrel subdermal hormonal implant is an effective form of contraception and particularly beneficial in nonadherent sexually active teens who struggle to remember oral contraceptives. But it is important to be aware of this alert. Little is known about the type of trauma or rate of external force required to cause migration, fracture, or bend implants. This update requires adequate counseling of potential risks and complications of the etonogestrel implant, including the risk of migration, fracture, or bent devices specifically in the event of contact sports and trauma.
 

Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Ms. Thew at [email protected].

In 2017, Global Pediatric Health published a case report series associated with the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives, specifically the etonogestrel implant. The cases highlighted challenging removals of the etonogestrel implants because of migration, fracture, or a bent device, and served as a caution to providers.

In November 2020, the makers of the etonogestrel implant (Merck) recommended a change in practice with the release of a notice to health care providers certified in the training of this product. This mass marketing blast included an updated warning and cautions for prescribers as well as patient information on the potential risks of migration, fracture, and bent devices attributable to trauma or sports. “Broken or Bent Implant (Section 5.16). The addition of the following underlined language: “There have been reports of broken or bent implants, which may be related to external forces (e.g., manipulation of the implant or contact sports) while in the patient’s arm. There have also been reports of migration of a broken implant fragment within the arm.”

Clearly the etonogestrel subdermal hormonal implant is an effective form of contraception and particularly beneficial in nonadherent sexually active teens who struggle to remember oral contraceptives. But it is important to be aware of this alert. Little is known about the type of trauma or rate of external force required to cause migration, fracture, or bend implants. This update requires adequate counseling of potential risks and complications of the etonogestrel implant, including the risk of migration, fracture, or bent devices specifically in the event of contact sports and trauma.
 

Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Ms. Thew at [email protected].

In 2017, Global Pediatric Health published a case report series associated with the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives, specifically the etonogestrel implant. The cases highlighted challenging removals of the etonogestrel implants because of migration, fracture, or a bent device, and served as a caution to providers.

In November 2020, the makers of the etonogestrel implant (Merck) recommended a change in practice with the release of a notice to health care providers certified in the training of this product. This mass marketing blast included an updated warning and cautions for prescribers as well as patient information on the potential risks of migration, fracture, and bent devices attributable to trauma or sports. “Broken or Bent Implant (Section 5.16). The addition of the following underlined language: “There have been reports of broken or bent implants, which may be related to external forces (e.g., manipulation of the implant or contact sports) while in the patient’s arm. There have also been reports of migration of a broken implant fragment within the arm.”

Clearly the etonogestrel subdermal hormonal implant is an effective form of contraception and particularly beneficial in nonadherent sexually active teens who struggle to remember oral contraceptives. But it is important to be aware of this alert. Little is known about the type of trauma or rate of external force required to cause migration, fracture, or bend implants. This update requires adequate counseling of potential risks and complications of the etonogestrel implant, including the risk of migration, fracture, or bent devices specifically in the event of contact sports and trauma.
 

Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Ms. Thew at [email protected].

In the era of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), the pill can seem obsolete. However, it is still the second most commonly used birth control method in the United States, chosen by 19% of female contraceptive users as of 2015–2017.¹ It also has noncontraceptive benefits, so it is important that obstetrician-gynecologists are well-versed in its uses. In this article, I will focus on combined oral contraceptives (COCs; TABLE 1), reviewing the major risks, benefits, and adverse effects of COCs before focusing on recommendations for particular formulations of COCs for various patient populations.

Benefits and risks

There are numerous noncontraceptive benefits of COCs, including menstrual cycle regulation; reduced risk of ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancer; and treatment of menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea, acne, menstrual migraine, premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, pelvic pain due to endometriosis, and hirsutism.

Common patient concerns

In terms of adverse effects, there are more potential unwanted effects of concern to women than there are ones validated in the literature. Accepted adverse effects include nausea, breast tenderness, and decreased libido. However, one of the most common concerns voiced during contraceptive counseling is that COCs will cause weight gain. A 2014 Cochrane review identified 49 trials studying the weight gain question.² Of those, only 4 had a placebo or nonintervention group. Of these 4, there was no significant difference in weight change between the COC-receiving group and the control group. When patients bring up their concerns, it may help to remind them that women tend to gain weight over time whether or not they are taking a COC.

Another common concern is that COCs cause mood changes. A 2016 review by Schaffir and colleagues sheds some light on this topic,³ albeit limited by the paucity of prospective studies. This review identified only 1 randomized controlled trial comparing depression incidence among women initiating a COC versus a placebo. There was no difference in the incidence of depression among the groups at 3 months. Among 4 large retrospective studies of women using COCs, the agents either had no or a beneficial effect on mood. Schaffir’s review reports that there may be greater mood adverse effects with COCs among women with underlying mood disorders.

Patients may worry that COC use will permanently impair their fertility or delay return to fertility after discontinuation. Research does indicate that return of fertility after stopping COCs often takes several months (compared with immediate fertility after discontinuing a barrier method). However, there still seem to be comparable conception rates within 12 months after discontinuing COCs as there are after discontinuing other common nonhormonal or hormonal contraceptive methods. Fertility is not impacted by the duration of COC use. In addition, return to fertility seems to be comparable after discontinuation of extended cycle or continuous COCs compared with traditional-cycle COCs.⁴

COC safety

Known major risks of COCs include venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk of VTE is about double among COC users than among nonpregnant nonusers: 3–9 per 10,000 woman-years compared with 1–5.⁵ In a study by the US Food and Drug Administration, drospirenone-containing COCs had double the risk of VTE than other COCs. However, the position of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on this increased risk of VTE with drospirenone-containing pills is that it is “possible” and “minimal.”⁵ It is important to remember that an alternative to COC use is pregnancy, in which the VTE risk is about double that among COC users, at 5–20 per 10,000 woman-years. This risk increases further in the postpartum period, to 40–65 per 10,000 woman-years.⁵

Another known major risk of COCs is arterial embolic disease, including cerebrovascular accidents and myocardial infarctions. Women at increased risk for these complications include those with hypertension, diabetes, and/or obesity and women who are aged 35 or older and smoke. Interestingly, women with migraines with aura are at increased risk for stroke but not for myocardial infarction. These women increase their risk of stroke 2- to 4-fold if they use COCs.

Continue to: Different pills for different problems...

Different pills for different problems

With so many pills on the market, it is important for clinicians to know how to choose a particular pill for a particular patient. The following discussion assumes that the patient in question desires a COC for contraception, then offers guidance on how to choose a pill with patient-specific noncontraceptive benefits (TABLE 2).

• Introvale and Seasonique, both extended-cycle formulations
• Amethyst, which is formulated without placebo pills so that it can be used continuously
• any other COC prescribed with instructions for the patient to skip placebo pills.

An extrapolated benefit to extended-cycle or continuous COCs use for heavy menstrual bleeding is addressing anemia.

For premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the only randomized controlled trials showing improvement involve drospirenone-ethinyl estradiol pills (Yaz and Yasmin).⁷ There is also evidence that extended cyclic or continuous use of these formulations is more impactful for premenstrual dysphoric disorder than a traditional cycle.⁸

Keeping migraine avoidance and prevention in mind. Various studies have looked at the impact of different COC formulations on menstrual-related symptoms. There is evidence of greater improvement in headache, bloating, and dysmenorrhea with extended cyclic or continuous use compared with traditional cyclic use.⁶

In terms of headache, let us delve into menstrual migraine in particular. Menstrual migraines occur sometime between 2 days prior to 2 days after the first day of menses and are linked to a sharp drop in estrogen levels. COCs are contraindicated in women with menstrual migraines with aura because of the increased stroke risk. For women with menstrual migraines without aura, COCs can prevent migraines. Prevention depends on minimizing fluctuations in estrogen levels; any change in estrogen level greater than 10 µg of ethinyl estradiol may trigger an estrogen-related migraine. All currently available regimens of COCs that comprise 21 days of active pills and 7 days of placebo involve a drop of more than 10 µg. Options that involve a drop of 10 µg or less include any continuous formulation, the extended formulation LoSeasonique (levonorgestrel 0.1 mg and ethinyl estradiol 20 µg for 84 days, then ethinyl estradiol 10 µg for 7 days), and Lo Loestrin (ethinyl estradiol 10 µg and norethindrone 1 mg for 24 days, then ethinyl estradiol 10 µg for 2 days, then placebo for 2 days).⁹

What’s best for acne-prone patients? All COCs should improve acne by increasing levels of sex hormone binding globulin. However, some comparative studies have shown drospirenone-containing COCs to be the most effective for acne. This finding makes sense in light of studies demonstrating antiandrogenic effects of drospirenone.¹⁰

Managing PCOS symptoms. It seems logical, by extension, that drospirenone-containing COCs would be particularly beneficial for treating hirsutism associated with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Other low‒androgenic-potential progestins, such as a third-generation progestin (norgestimate or desogestrel), might similarly be hypothesized to be advantageous. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any one COC formulation over another for the indication of PCOS.¹¹

Ovarian cysts: Can COCs be helpful? COCs are commonly prescribed by gynecologists for patients with functional ovarian cysts. It is important to note that COCs have not been found to hasten the resolution of existing cysts, so they should not be used for this purpose.¹² Studies of early COCs, which had high doses of estrogen (on the order of 50 µg), showed lower rates of cysts among users. This effect seems to be attenuated with the lower-estrogen-dose pills that are currently available, but there still appears to be benefit. Therefore, for a patient prone to cysts who desires an oral contraceptive, a COC containing estrogen 35 µg is likely to be the most beneficial of COCs currently on the market.^13,14

Lower-dosage COCs in perimenopause may be beneficial. COCs can ameliorate perimenopausal symptoms including abnormal uterine bleeding and vasomotor symptoms. Clinicians are often hesitant to prescribe COCs for perimenopausal women because of increased risk of VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer with increasing age. However, age alone is not a contraindication to any contraceptive method. An extended cyclic or continuous regimen COC may be the best choice for a perimenopausal woman in order to avoid vasomotor symptoms that occur during hormone-free intervals. In addition, given the increasing risk of adverse effects like VTE with estrogen dose, a lower estrogen formulation is advisable.¹⁵

Patients with epilepsy who are taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are a special population when it comes to COCs. Certain AEDs induce hepatic enzymes involved in the metabolism and protein binding of COCs, which can result in contraceptive failure. Strong inducers are carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and primidone. Weak inducers are clobazam, eslicarbazepine, felbamate, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and topiramate. Women taking any of the above AEDs are recommended to choose a different form of contraception than a COC. However, if they are limited to COCs for some reason, a preparation containing estrogen 50 µg is recommended. It is speculated that the efficacy and adverse effects of COCs with increased hormone doses, used in combination with enzyme-inducing AEDs, should be comparable to those with standard doses when not combined with AEDs; however, this speculation is unproven.¹⁶ There are few COCs on the market with estrogen doses of 50 µg, but a couple of examples are Kelnor and Ogestrel.

Additional factors have to be considered with concurrent COC use with the AED lamotrigine since COCs increase clearance of this agent. Therefore, patients taking lamotrigine who start COCs will need an increase in lamotrigine dose. To avoid fluctuations in lamotrigine serum levels, use of a continuous COC is recommended.¹⁷

Continue to: Pill types to minimize adverse effects or risks...

For women who desire to use a COC for contraception but who are at risk for a particular complication or are bothered by a particular adverse effect, ObGyns can optimize the choice of pill (TABLE 3). For example, women who have adverse effects of nausea and/or breast tenderness may benefit from reducing the estrogen dose to 20 µg or lower.¹⁸

Considering VTE

As discussed previously, VTE is a risk with all COCs, but some pills confer greater risk than others. For one, VTE risk increases with estrogen dose. In addition, VTE risk depends on the type of progestin. Drospirenone and third-generation progestins (norgestimate, gestodene, and desogestrel) confer a higher risk of VTE than first- or second-generation progestins. For example, a pill with estradiol 30 µg and either a third-generation progestin or drospirenone has a 50% to 80% higher risk of VTE compared with a pill with estradiol 30 µg and levonorgestrel.

For patients at particularly high risk for VTE, COCs are contraindicated. For patients for whom COCs are considered medically appropriate but who are at higher risk (eg, obese women), it is wise to use a pill containing a first-generation (norethindrone) or second-generation progestin (levonorgestrel) combined with the lowest dose of estrogen that has tolerable adverse effects.¹⁹

What about hypertension concerns?

Let us turn our attention briefly to hypertension and its relation to COC use. While the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association redefined hypertension in 2017 using a threshold of 130/80 mm Hg, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) considers hypertension to be 140/90 mm Hg in terms of safety of using COCs. ACOG states, “women with blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg may use any hormonal contraceptive method.”²⁰ In women with hypertension in the range of 140‒159 mm Hg systolic or 90‒99 mm Hg diastolic, COCs are category 3 according to the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, meaning that the risks usually outweigh the benefits. For women with blood pressures of 160/110 mm Hg or greater, COCs are category 4 (contraindicated). If a woman with mild hypertension is started on a COC, a drospirenone-containing pill may be the best choice because of its diuretic effects. While other contemporary COCs have been associated with a mild increase in blood pressure, drospirenone-containing pills have not shown this association.²¹

Continue to: At issue: Break-through bleeding, mood, and weight gain...

At issue: Break-through bleeding, mood, and weight gain

For women bothered by intermenstrual bleeding, use of a COC with a third-generation progestin may be preferable to use of one with a first- or second-generation. It may be because of decreased abnormal bleeding that COCs with third-generation progestins have lower discontinuation rates.²² In addition, COCs containing estrogen 20 µg or less are associated with more intermenstrual bleeding than those with more than 20 µg estrogen.²³ Keep in mind that it is common with any COC to have intermenstrual bleeding for the first several months.

For women with pre-existing mood disorders or who report mood changes with COCs, it appears that fluctuations in hormone levels are problematic. Consistently, there is evidence that monophasic pills are preferable to multiphasic and that extended cyclic or continuous use is preferable to traditional cyclic use for mitigating mood adverse effects. There is mixed evidence on whether a low dose of ethinyl estradiol is better for mood.³

Although it is discussed above that randomized controlled trials have not shown an association between COC use and weight gain, many women remain concerned. For these women, a drospirenone-containing COC may be the best choice. Drospirenone has antimineralocorticoid activity, so it may help prevent water retention.

A brief word about multiphasic COCs. While these pills were designed to mimic physiologic hormone fluctuations and minimize hormonal adverse effects, there is insufficient evidence to compare their effects to those of monophasic pills.²⁴ Without such evidence, there is little reason to recommend a multiphasic pill to a patient over the more straightforward monophasic formulation.

Conclusion

There are more nuances to prescribing an optimal COC for a patient than may initially come to mind. It is useful to remember that any formulation of pill may be prescribed in an extended or continuous fashion, and there are benefits for such use for premenstrual dysphoric disorder, heavy menstrual bleeding, perimenopause, and menstrual symptoms. Although there are numerous brands of COCs available, a small cadre will suffice for almost all purposes. Such a “toolbox” of pills could include a pill formatted for continuous use (Seasonique), a low estrogen pill (Loestrin), a drospirenone-containing pill (Yaz), and a pill containing a third-generation progestin and a higher dose of estrogen (Sprintec). ●

In the era of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), the pill can seem obsolete. However, it is still the second most commonly used birth control method in the United States, chosen by 19% of female contraceptive users as of 2015–2017.¹ It also has noncontraceptive benefits, so it is important that obstetrician-gynecologists are well-versed in its uses. In this article, I will focus on combined oral contraceptives (COCs; TABLE 1), reviewing the major risks, benefits, and adverse effects of COCs before focusing on recommendations for particular formulations of COCs for various patient populations.

Benefits and risks

There are numerous noncontraceptive benefits of COCs, including menstrual cycle regulation; reduced risk of ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancer; and treatment of menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea, acne, menstrual migraine, premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, pelvic pain due to endometriosis, and hirsutism.

Common patient concerns

In terms of adverse effects, there are more potential unwanted effects of concern to women than there are ones validated in the literature. Accepted adverse effects include nausea, breast tenderness, and decreased libido. However, one of the most common concerns voiced during contraceptive counseling is that COCs will cause weight gain. A 2014 Cochrane review identified 49 trials studying the weight gain question.² Of those, only 4 had a placebo or nonintervention group. Of these 4, there was no significant difference in weight change between the COC-receiving group and the control group. When patients bring up their concerns, it may help to remind them that women tend to gain weight over time whether or not they are taking a COC.

Another common concern is that COCs cause mood changes. A 2016 review by Schaffir and colleagues sheds some light on this topic,³ albeit limited by the paucity of prospective studies. This review identified only 1 randomized controlled trial comparing depression incidence among women initiating a COC versus a placebo. There was no difference in the incidence of depression among the groups at 3 months. Among 4 large retrospective studies of women using COCs, the agents either had no or a beneficial effect on mood. Schaffir’s review reports that there may be greater mood adverse effects with COCs among women with underlying mood disorders.

Patients may worry that COC use will permanently impair their fertility or delay return to fertility after discontinuation. Research does indicate that return of fertility after stopping COCs often takes several months (compared with immediate fertility after discontinuing a barrier method). However, there still seem to be comparable conception rates within 12 months after discontinuing COCs as there are after discontinuing other common nonhormonal or hormonal contraceptive methods. Fertility is not impacted by the duration of COC use. In addition, return to fertility seems to be comparable after discontinuation of extended cycle or continuous COCs compared with traditional-cycle COCs.⁴

COC safety

Known major risks of COCs include venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk of VTE is about double among COC users than among nonpregnant nonusers: 3–9 per 10,000 woman-years compared with 1–5.⁵ In a study by the US Food and Drug Administration, drospirenone-containing COCs had double the risk of VTE than other COCs. However, the position of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on this increased risk of VTE with drospirenone-containing pills is that it is “possible” and “minimal.”⁵ It is important to remember that an alternative to COC use is pregnancy, in which the VTE risk is about double that among COC users, at 5–20 per 10,000 woman-years. This risk increases further in the postpartum period, to 40–65 per 10,000 woman-years.⁵

Another known major risk of COCs is arterial embolic disease, including cerebrovascular accidents and myocardial infarctions. Women at increased risk for these complications include those with hypertension, diabetes, and/or obesity and women who are aged 35 or older and smoke. Interestingly, women with migraines with aura are at increased risk for stroke but not for myocardial infarction. These women increase their risk of stroke 2- to 4-fold if they use COCs.

Continue to: Different pills for different problems...

Different pills for different problems

With so many pills on the market, it is important for clinicians to know how to choose a particular pill for a particular patient. The following discussion assumes that the patient in question desires a COC for contraception, then offers guidance on how to choose a pill with patient-specific noncontraceptive benefits (TABLE 2).

• Introvale and Seasonique, both extended-cycle formulations
• Amethyst, which is formulated without placebo pills so that it can be used continuously
• any other COC prescribed with instructions for the patient to skip placebo pills.

An extrapolated benefit to extended-cycle or continuous COCs use for heavy menstrual bleeding is addressing anemia.

For premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the only randomized controlled trials showing improvement involve drospirenone-ethinyl estradiol pills (Yaz and Yasmin).⁷ There is also evidence that extended cyclic or continuous use of these formulations is more impactful for premenstrual dysphoric disorder than a traditional cycle.⁸

Keeping migraine avoidance and prevention in mind. Various studies have looked at the impact of different COC formulations on menstrual-related symptoms. There is evidence of greater improvement in headache, bloating, and dysmenorrhea with extended cyclic or continuous use compared with traditional cyclic use.⁶

In terms of headache, let us delve into menstrual migraine in particular. Menstrual migraines occur sometime between 2 days prior to 2 days after the first day of menses and are linked to a sharp drop in estrogen levels. COCs are contraindicated in women with menstrual migraines with aura because of the increased stroke risk. For women with menstrual migraines without aura, COCs can prevent migraines. Prevention depends on minimizing fluctuations in estrogen levels; any change in estrogen level greater than 10 µg of ethinyl estradiol may trigger an estrogen-related migraine. All currently available regimens of COCs that comprise 21 days of active pills and 7 days of placebo involve a drop of more than 10 µg. Options that involve a drop of 10 µg or less include any continuous formulation, the extended formulation LoSeasonique (levonorgestrel 0.1 mg and ethinyl estradiol 20 µg for 84 days, then ethinyl estradiol 10 µg for 7 days), and Lo Loestrin (ethinyl estradiol 10 µg and norethindrone 1 mg for 24 days, then ethinyl estradiol 10 µg for 2 days, then placebo for 2 days).⁹

What’s best for acne-prone patients? All COCs should improve acne by increasing levels of sex hormone binding globulin. However, some comparative studies have shown drospirenone-containing COCs to be the most effective for acne. This finding makes sense in light of studies demonstrating antiandrogenic effects of drospirenone.¹⁰

Managing PCOS symptoms. It seems logical, by extension, that drospirenone-containing COCs would be particularly beneficial for treating hirsutism associated with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Other low‒androgenic-potential progestins, such as a third-generation progestin (norgestimate or desogestrel), might similarly be hypothesized to be advantageous. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any one COC formulation over another for the indication of PCOS.¹¹

Ovarian cysts: Can COCs be helpful? COCs are commonly prescribed by gynecologists for patients with functional ovarian cysts. It is important to note that COCs have not been found to hasten the resolution of existing cysts, so they should not be used for this purpose.¹² Studies of early COCs, which had high doses of estrogen (on the order of 50 µg), showed lower rates of cysts among users. This effect seems to be attenuated with the lower-estrogen-dose pills that are currently available, but there still appears to be benefit. Therefore, for a patient prone to cysts who desires an oral contraceptive, a COC containing estrogen 35 µg is likely to be the most beneficial of COCs currently on the market.^13,14

Lower-dosage COCs in perimenopause may be beneficial. COCs can ameliorate perimenopausal symptoms including abnormal uterine bleeding and vasomotor symptoms. Clinicians are often hesitant to prescribe COCs for perimenopausal women because of increased risk of VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer with increasing age. However, age alone is not a contraindication to any contraceptive method. An extended cyclic or continuous regimen COC may be the best choice for a perimenopausal woman in order to avoid vasomotor symptoms that occur during hormone-free intervals. In addition, given the increasing risk of adverse effects like VTE with estrogen dose, a lower estrogen formulation is advisable.¹⁵

Patients with epilepsy who are taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are a special population when it comes to COCs. Certain AEDs induce hepatic enzymes involved in the metabolism and protein binding of COCs, which can result in contraceptive failure. Strong inducers are carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and primidone. Weak inducers are clobazam, eslicarbazepine, felbamate, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and topiramate. Women taking any of the above AEDs are recommended to choose a different form of contraception than a COC. However, if they are limited to COCs for some reason, a preparation containing estrogen 50 µg is recommended. It is speculated that the efficacy and adverse effects of COCs with increased hormone doses, used in combination with enzyme-inducing AEDs, should be comparable to those with standard doses when not combined with AEDs; however, this speculation is unproven.¹⁶ There are few COCs on the market with estrogen doses of 50 µg, but a couple of examples are Kelnor and Ogestrel.

Additional factors have to be considered with concurrent COC use with the AED lamotrigine since COCs increase clearance of this agent. Therefore, patients taking lamotrigine who start COCs will need an increase in lamotrigine dose. To avoid fluctuations in lamotrigine serum levels, use of a continuous COC is recommended.¹⁷

Continue to: Pill types to minimize adverse effects or risks...

For women who desire to use a COC for contraception but who are at risk for a particular complication or are bothered by a particular adverse effect, ObGyns can optimize the choice of pill (TABLE 3). For example, women who have adverse effects of nausea and/or breast tenderness may benefit from reducing the estrogen dose to 20 µg or lower.¹⁸

Considering VTE

As discussed previously, VTE is a risk with all COCs, but some pills confer greater risk than others. For one, VTE risk increases with estrogen dose. In addition, VTE risk depends on the type of progestin. Drospirenone and third-generation progestins (norgestimate, gestodene, and desogestrel) confer a higher risk of VTE than first- or second-generation progestins. For example, a pill with estradiol 30 µg and either a third-generation progestin or drospirenone has a 50% to 80% higher risk of VTE compared with a pill with estradiol 30 µg and levonorgestrel.

For patients at particularly high risk for VTE, COCs are contraindicated. For patients for whom COCs are considered medically appropriate but who are at higher risk (eg, obese women), it is wise to use a pill containing a first-generation (norethindrone) or second-generation progestin (levonorgestrel) combined with the lowest dose of estrogen that has tolerable adverse effects.¹⁹

What about hypertension concerns?

Let us turn our attention briefly to hypertension and its relation to COC use. While the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association redefined hypertension in 2017 using a threshold of 130/80 mm Hg, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) considers hypertension to be 140/90 mm Hg in terms of safety of using COCs. ACOG states, “women with blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg may use any hormonal contraceptive method.”²⁰ In women with hypertension in the range of 140‒159 mm Hg systolic or 90‒99 mm Hg diastolic, COCs are category 3 according to the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, meaning that the risks usually outweigh the benefits. For women with blood pressures of 160/110 mm Hg or greater, COCs are category 4 (contraindicated). If a woman with mild hypertension is started on a COC, a drospirenone-containing pill may be the best choice because of its diuretic effects. While other contemporary COCs have been associated with a mild increase in blood pressure, drospirenone-containing pills have not shown this association.²¹

Continue to: At issue: Break-through bleeding, mood, and weight gain...

At issue: Break-through bleeding, mood, and weight gain

For women bothered by intermenstrual bleeding, use of a COC with a third-generation progestin may be preferable to use of one with a first- or second-generation. It may be because of decreased abnormal bleeding that COCs with third-generation progestins have lower discontinuation rates.²² In addition, COCs containing estrogen 20 µg or less are associated with more intermenstrual bleeding than those with more than 20 µg estrogen.²³ Keep in mind that it is common with any COC to have intermenstrual bleeding for the first several months.

For women with pre-existing mood disorders or who report mood changes with COCs, it appears that fluctuations in hormone levels are problematic. Consistently, there is evidence that monophasic pills are preferable to multiphasic and that extended cyclic or continuous use is preferable to traditional cyclic use for mitigating mood adverse effects. There is mixed evidence on whether a low dose of ethinyl estradiol is better for mood.³

Although it is discussed above that randomized controlled trials have not shown an association between COC use and weight gain, many women remain concerned. For these women, a drospirenone-containing COC may be the best choice. Drospirenone has antimineralocorticoid activity, so it may help prevent water retention.

A brief word about multiphasic COCs. While these pills were designed to mimic physiologic hormone fluctuations and minimize hormonal adverse effects, there is insufficient evidence to compare their effects to those of monophasic pills.²⁴ Without such evidence, there is little reason to recommend a multiphasic pill to a patient over the more straightforward monophasic formulation.

Conclusion

There are more nuances to prescribing an optimal COC for a patient than may initially come to mind. It is useful to remember that any formulation of pill may be prescribed in an extended or continuous fashion, and there are benefits for such use for premenstrual dysphoric disorder, heavy menstrual bleeding, perimenopause, and menstrual symptoms. Although there are numerous brands of COCs available, a small cadre will suffice for almost all purposes. Such a “toolbox” of pills could include a pill formatted for continuous use (Seasonique), a low estrogen pill (Loestrin), a drospirenone-containing pill (Yaz), and a pill containing a third-generation progestin and a higher dose of estrogen (Sprintec). ●

In the era of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), the pill can seem obsolete. However, it is still the second most commonly used birth control method in the United States, chosen by 19% of female contraceptive users as of 2015–2017.¹ It also has noncontraceptive benefits, so it is important that obstetrician-gynecologists are well-versed in its uses. In this article, I will focus on combined oral contraceptives (COCs; TABLE 1), reviewing the major risks, benefits, and adverse effects of COCs before focusing on recommendations for particular formulations of COCs for various patient populations.

Benefits and risks

There are numerous noncontraceptive benefits of COCs, including menstrual cycle regulation; reduced risk of ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancer; and treatment of menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea, acne, menstrual migraine, premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, pelvic pain due to endometriosis, and hirsutism.

Common patient concerns

In terms of adverse effects, there are more potential unwanted effects of concern to women than there are ones validated in the literature. Accepted adverse effects include nausea, breast tenderness, and decreased libido. However, one of the most common concerns voiced during contraceptive counseling is that COCs will cause weight gain. A 2014 Cochrane review identified 49 trials studying the weight gain question.² Of those, only 4 had a placebo or nonintervention group. Of these 4, there was no significant difference in weight change between the COC-receiving group and the control group. When patients bring up their concerns, it may help to remind them that women tend to gain weight over time whether or not they are taking a COC.

Another common concern is that COCs cause mood changes. A 2016 review by Schaffir and colleagues sheds some light on this topic,³ albeit limited by the paucity of prospective studies. This review identified only 1 randomized controlled trial comparing depression incidence among women initiating a COC versus a placebo. There was no difference in the incidence of depression among the groups at 3 months. Among 4 large retrospective studies of women using COCs, the agents either had no or a beneficial effect on mood. Schaffir’s review reports that there may be greater mood adverse effects with COCs among women with underlying mood disorders.

Patients may worry that COC use will permanently impair their fertility or delay return to fertility after discontinuation. Research does indicate that return of fertility after stopping COCs often takes several months (compared with immediate fertility after discontinuing a barrier method). However, there still seem to be comparable conception rates within 12 months after discontinuing COCs as there are after discontinuing other common nonhormonal or hormonal contraceptive methods. Fertility is not impacted by the duration of COC use. In addition, return to fertility seems to be comparable after discontinuation of extended cycle or continuous COCs compared with traditional-cycle COCs.⁴

COC safety

Known major risks of COCs include venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk of VTE is about double among COC users than among nonpregnant nonusers: 3–9 per 10,000 woman-years compared with 1–5.⁵ In a study by the US Food and Drug Administration, drospirenone-containing COCs had double the risk of VTE than other COCs. However, the position of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on this increased risk of VTE with drospirenone-containing pills is that it is “possible” and “minimal.”⁵ It is important to remember that an alternative to COC use is pregnancy, in which the VTE risk is about double that among COC users, at 5–20 per 10,000 woman-years. This risk increases further in the postpartum period, to 40–65 per 10,000 woman-years.⁵

Another known major risk of COCs is arterial embolic disease, including cerebrovascular accidents and myocardial infarctions. Women at increased risk for these complications include those with hypertension, diabetes, and/or obesity and women who are aged 35 or older and smoke. Interestingly, women with migraines with aura are at increased risk for stroke but not for myocardial infarction. These women increase their risk of stroke 2- to 4-fold if they use COCs.

Continue to: Different pills for different problems...

Different pills for different problems

With so many pills on the market, it is important for clinicians to know how to choose a particular pill for a particular patient. The following discussion assumes that the patient in question desires a COC for contraception, then offers guidance on how to choose a pill with patient-specific noncontraceptive benefits (TABLE 2).

• Introvale and Seasonique, both extended-cycle formulations
• Amethyst, which is formulated without placebo pills so that it can be used continuously
• any other COC prescribed with instructions for the patient to skip placebo pills.

An extrapolated benefit to extended-cycle or continuous COCs use for heavy menstrual bleeding is addressing anemia.

For premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the only randomized controlled trials showing improvement involve drospirenone-ethinyl estradiol pills (Yaz and Yasmin).⁷ There is also evidence that extended cyclic or continuous use of these formulations is more impactful for premenstrual dysphoric disorder than a traditional cycle.⁸

Keeping migraine avoidance and prevention in mind. Various studies have looked at the impact of different COC formulations on menstrual-related symptoms. There is evidence of greater improvement in headache, bloating, and dysmenorrhea with extended cyclic or continuous use compared with traditional cyclic use.⁶

In terms of headache, let us delve into menstrual migraine in particular. Menstrual migraines occur sometime between 2 days prior to 2 days after the first day of menses and are linked to a sharp drop in estrogen levels. COCs are contraindicated in women with menstrual migraines with aura because of the increased stroke risk. For women with menstrual migraines without aura, COCs can prevent migraines. Prevention depends on minimizing fluctuations in estrogen levels; any change in estrogen level greater than 10 µg of ethinyl estradiol may trigger an estrogen-related migraine. All currently available regimens of COCs that comprise 21 days of active pills and 7 days of placebo involve a drop of more than 10 µg. Options that involve a drop of 10 µg or less include any continuous formulation, the extended formulation LoSeasonique (levonorgestrel 0.1 mg and ethinyl estradiol 20 µg for 84 days, then ethinyl estradiol 10 µg for 7 days), and Lo Loestrin (ethinyl estradiol 10 µg and norethindrone 1 mg for 24 days, then ethinyl estradiol 10 µg for 2 days, then placebo for 2 days).⁹

What’s best for acne-prone patients? All COCs should improve acne by increasing levels of sex hormone binding globulin. However, some comparative studies have shown drospirenone-containing COCs to be the most effective for acne. This finding makes sense in light of studies demonstrating antiandrogenic effects of drospirenone.¹⁰

Managing PCOS symptoms. It seems logical, by extension, that drospirenone-containing COCs would be particularly beneficial for treating hirsutism associated with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Other low‒androgenic-potential progestins, such as a third-generation progestin (norgestimate or desogestrel), might similarly be hypothesized to be advantageous. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any one COC formulation over another for the indication of PCOS.¹¹

Ovarian cysts: Can COCs be helpful? COCs are commonly prescribed by gynecologists for patients with functional ovarian cysts. It is important to note that COCs have not been found to hasten the resolution of existing cysts, so they should not be used for this purpose.¹² Studies of early COCs, which had high doses of estrogen (on the order of 50 µg), showed lower rates of cysts among users. This effect seems to be attenuated with the lower-estrogen-dose pills that are currently available, but there still appears to be benefit. Therefore, for a patient prone to cysts who desires an oral contraceptive, a COC containing estrogen 35 µg is likely to be the most beneficial of COCs currently on the market.^13,14

Lower-dosage COCs in perimenopause may be beneficial. COCs can ameliorate perimenopausal symptoms including abnormal uterine bleeding and vasomotor symptoms. Clinicians are often hesitant to prescribe COCs for perimenopausal women because of increased risk of VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer with increasing age. However, age alone is not a contraindication to any contraceptive method. An extended cyclic or continuous regimen COC may be the best choice for a perimenopausal woman in order to avoid vasomotor symptoms that occur during hormone-free intervals. In addition, given the increasing risk of adverse effects like VTE with estrogen dose, a lower estrogen formulation is advisable.¹⁵

Patients with epilepsy who are taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are a special population when it comes to COCs. Certain AEDs induce hepatic enzymes involved in the metabolism and protein binding of COCs, which can result in contraceptive failure. Strong inducers are carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and primidone. Weak inducers are clobazam, eslicarbazepine, felbamate, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and topiramate. Women taking any of the above AEDs are recommended to choose a different form of contraception than a COC. However, if they are limited to COCs for some reason, a preparation containing estrogen 50 µg is recommended. It is speculated that the efficacy and adverse effects of COCs with increased hormone doses, used in combination with enzyme-inducing AEDs, should be comparable to those with standard doses when not combined with AEDs; however, this speculation is unproven.¹⁶ There are few COCs on the market with estrogen doses of 50 µg, but a couple of examples are Kelnor and Ogestrel.

Additional factors have to be considered with concurrent COC use with the AED lamotrigine since COCs increase clearance of this agent. Therefore, patients taking lamotrigine who start COCs will need an increase in lamotrigine dose. To avoid fluctuations in lamotrigine serum levels, use of a continuous COC is recommended.¹⁷

Continue to: Pill types to minimize adverse effects or risks...

For women who desire to use a COC for contraception but who are at risk for a particular complication or are bothered by a particular adverse effect, ObGyns can optimize the choice of pill (TABLE 3). For example, women who have adverse effects of nausea and/or breast tenderness may benefit from reducing the estrogen dose to 20 µg or lower.¹⁸

Considering VTE

As discussed previously, VTE is a risk with all COCs, but some pills confer greater risk than others. For one, VTE risk increases with estrogen dose. In addition, VTE risk depends on the type of progestin. Drospirenone and third-generation progestins (norgestimate, gestodene, and desogestrel) confer a higher risk of VTE than first- or second-generation progestins. For example, a pill with estradiol 30 µg and either a third-generation progestin or drospirenone has a 50% to 80% higher risk of VTE compared with a pill with estradiol 30 µg and levonorgestrel.

For patients at particularly high risk for VTE, COCs are contraindicated. For patients for whom COCs are considered medically appropriate but who are at higher risk (eg, obese women), it is wise to use a pill containing a first-generation (norethindrone) or second-generation progestin (levonorgestrel) combined with the lowest dose of estrogen that has tolerable adverse effects.¹⁹

What about hypertension concerns?

Let us turn our attention briefly to hypertension and its relation to COC use. While the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association redefined hypertension in 2017 using a threshold of 130/80 mm Hg, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) considers hypertension to be 140/90 mm Hg in terms of safety of using COCs. ACOG states, “women with blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg may use any hormonal contraceptive method.”²⁰ In women with hypertension in the range of 140‒159 mm Hg systolic or 90‒99 mm Hg diastolic, COCs are category 3 according to the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, meaning that the risks usually outweigh the benefits. For women with blood pressures of 160/110 mm Hg or greater, COCs are category 4 (contraindicated). If a woman with mild hypertension is started on a COC, a drospirenone-containing pill may be the best choice because of its diuretic effects. While other contemporary COCs have been associated with a mild increase in blood pressure, drospirenone-containing pills have not shown this association.²¹

Continue to: At issue: Break-through bleeding, mood, and weight gain...

At issue: Break-through bleeding, mood, and weight gain

For women bothered by intermenstrual bleeding, use of a COC with a third-generation progestin may be preferable to use of one with a first- or second-generation. It may be because of decreased abnormal bleeding that COCs with third-generation progestins have lower discontinuation rates.²² In addition, COCs containing estrogen 20 µg or less are associated with more intermenstrual bleeding than those with more than 20 µg estrogen.²³ Keep in mind that it is common with any COC to have intermenstrual bleeding for the first several months.

For women with pre-existing mood disorders or who report mood changes with COCs, it appears that fluctuations in hormone levels are problematic. Consistently, there is evidence that monophasic pills are preferable to multiphasic and that extended cyclic or continuous use is preferable to traditional cyclic use for mitigating mood adverse effects. There is mixed evidence on whether a low dose of ethinyl estradiol is better for mood.³

Although it is discussed above that randomized controlled trials have not shown an association between COC use and weight gain, many women remain concerned. For these women, a drospirenone-containing COC may be the best choice. Drospirenone has antimineralocorticoid activity, so it may help prevent water retention.

A brief word about multiphasic COCs. While these pills were designed to mimic physiologic hormone fluctuations and minimize hormonal adverse effects, there is insufficient evidence to compare their effects to those of monophasic pills.²⁴ Without such evidence, there is little reason to recommend a multiphasic pill to a patient over the more straightforward monophasic formulation.

Conclusion

There are more nuances to prescribing an optimal COC for a patient than may initially come to mind. It is useful to remember that any formulation of pill may be prescribed in an extended or continuous fashion, and there are benefits for such use for premenstrual dysphoric disorder, heavy menstrual bleeding, perimenopause, and menstrual symptoms. Although there are numerous brands of COCs available, a small cadre will suffice for almost all purposes. Such a “toolbox” of pills could include a pill formatted for continuous use (Seasonique), a low estrogen pill (Loestrin), a drospirenone-containing pill (Yaz), and a pill containing a third-generation progestin and a higher dose of estrogen (Sprintec). ●

The rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States has decreased to approximately 45%, based on data published in 2016, and “for the first time in many years, this decrease affected women of all race/ethnicity, income levels, and education levels,” Eve Espey, MD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Changes in contraceptive choices drove much of this decrease, said Dr. Espey, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Help patients feel empowered

Overall, the goal of contraception should be to empower women and people to make the reproductive decisions that are best for them. “My own approach to contraceptive counseling has changed over the years; I currently start by asking if the patient wants to talk about contraception,” Dr. Espey said.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many women’s reproductive options and plans, she said.

A survey showed that after COVID-19, more than 40% of women reported changing their plans about childbearing, 34% wanted to get pregnant later, and 33% reported trouble getting birth control or getting an appointment with a health care provider, she said.

ACOG issued a statement in March 2020 about the provision of contraception and how contraception is an essential component of comprehensive health care. The COVID-19 ACOG guidance on contraception includes use of telehealth for services including screening new patients, offering prescriptions and refills as appropriate, and managing side effects. Providers can counsel patients on the use of emergency contraception and provide advance prescriptions for ulipristal acetate, and ideally provide a year’s worth of prescription refills to reduce pharmacy visits, although not all insurance companies allow this, Dr. Espey noted.

ACOG’s COVID-19 guidance on the use of LARCs includes preserving access when possible, and focusing on postpartum contraception as a key access point.

“The postpartum period is a very convenient time for patients who want contraceptives, including LARC,” especially since they are already in the hospital setting, Dr. Espey said. However, it is important to preserve patients’ reproductive autonomy and avoid placing barriers to LARC removal for those who request it, she emphasized.
 

Consider MEC categories for contraception

When advising patients about contraception, Dr. Espey noted the development of a simple app with the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) as a useful tool. The app includes the four MEC categories based on the latest evidence-based guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on contraceptive practice.

Patients in category 1 have no restriction on the use of a particular contraceptive method; category 2 means that “advantages generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks”; in category 3, these risks usually outweigh the advantages; and category 4 indicates “unacceptable health risk if the contraceptive method is used,” according to the MEC.

“What complicates category 3 is that many patients have a condition that is associated with adverse outcomes in pregnancy,” Dr. Espey noted, “So it is even more important that category 3 options only be considered if other options are not available or not acceptable to the patient,”

For example, a patient with complicated diabetes who wants depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception for a year must weigh the benefits with the theoretical risk of thromboembolic disease related to a higher dose progestin, and the fact that the injection is not reversible in the case of an adverse event. “Close follow-up is recommended for patients using contraception with category 3 recommendations,” Dr. Espey emphasized.

Some new elements of contraception that are ongoing in the pandemic health care setting include increased pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraception, Dr. Espey said. Over-the-counter access to contraception is not yet an option, but a progestin-only pill will likely be the first, she added.

Although the Essure birth control implant is no longer available in the United States, new options for a contraceptive patch (Twirla [ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel] and Xulane [ethinyl estradiol and norelgestromin]) offer weekly contraceptive options for women with a body mass index less than 30 kg/m².
 

Annovera offers more options

The newest choice on the market is Annovera, a flexible ring that delivers 150 mcg/day of segesterone acetate and 13 mcg/day of ethinyl estradiol. The ring is meant to remain in place for 21 days, with 7 days out, to repeat for a year.

During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Espey was asked whether it would be an off-label use to leave Annovera in continuously. Although this has not been studied, there is no biologically plausible reason not to leave it in for a year without taking it out. In either case, this is a patient-controlled LARC, she said.

Overall, “it remains to be seen how Annovera will do, as a potentially exciting, new, long-acting option” she said. “A major advantage is that it is controlled by the user,” she noted. However, “the price point will be very important as well.”

As for the off-label use by women with a BMI greater than 29 kg/m², it is complicated. Two women with higher BMIs enrolled in clinical trials developed venous thromboembolisms, so an increased risk can’t be ruled out, although the good news is that BMI has not been shown to impact effectiveness of the product, she added.
 

IUDs appropriate for younger women

When asked for her guidelines about IUD options in the absence of head-to-head trials, Dr. Espey said that she often recommends either Mirena and Liletta. These levonorgestrel-releasing IUDS are essentially the same, can be used off label for 7 years (both are currently Food and Drug Administration approved for 6 years), and have a favorable bleeding profile. Other IUDs are marketed as having a smaller diameter designed for increased patient comfort with insertion, but she views this as less important than bleeding profile and duration given the length of time the device is in place.

Dr. Espey added that she doesn’t see age as a barrier to IUD use, and that the evidence does not support an increased risk of infertility. In fact, “we are seeing a higher demand among younger and nulliparous women.”

“We should respect the reproductive autonomy and the choices that our patients make,” Dr. Espey concluded.

Dr. Espey had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States has decreased to approximately 45%, based on data published in 2016, and “for the first time in many years, this decrease affected women of all race/ethnicity, income levels, and education levels,” Eve Espey, MD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Changes in contraceptive choices drove much of this decrease, said Dr. Espey, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Help patients feel empowered

Overall, the goal of contraception should be to empower women and people to make the reproductive decisions that are best for them. “My own approach to contraceptive counseling has changed over the years; I currently start by asking if the patient wants to talk about contraception,” Dr. Espey said.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many women’s reproductive options and plans, she said.

A survey showed that after COVID-19, more than 40% of women reported changing their plans about childbearing, 34% wanted to get pregnant later, and 33% reported trouble getting birth control or getting an appointment with a health care provider, she said.

ACOG issued a statement in March 2020 about the provision of contraception and how contraception is an essential component of comprehensive health care. The COVID-19 ACOG guidance on contraception includes use of telehealth for services including screening new patients, offering prescriptions and refills as appropriate, and managing side effects. Providers can counsel patients on the use of emergency contraception and provide advance prescriptions for ulipristal acetate, and ideally provide a year’s worth of prescription refills to reduce pharmacy visits, although not all insurance companies allow this, Dr. Espey noted.

ACOG’s COVID-19 guidance on the use of LARCs includes preserving access when possible, and focusing on postpartum contraception as a key access point.

“The postpartum period is a very convenient time for patients who want contraceptives, including LARC,” especially since they are already in the hospital setting, Dr. Espey said. However, it is important to preserve patients’ reproductive autonomy and avoid placing barriers to LARC removal for those who request it, she emphasized.
 

Consider MEC categories for contraception

When advising patients about contraception, Dr. Espey noted the development of a simple app with the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) as a useful tool. The app includes the four MEC categories based on the latest evidence-based guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on contraceptive practice.

Patients in category 1 have no restriction on the use of a particular contraceptive method; category 2 means that “advantages generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks”; in category 3, these risks usually outweigh the advantages; and category 4 indicates “unacceptable health risk if the contraceptive method is used,” according to the MEC.

“What complicates category 3 is that many patients have a condition that is associated with adverse outcomes in pregnancy,” Dr. Espey noted, “So it is even more important that category 3 options only be considered if other options are not available or not acceptable to the patient,”

For example, a patient with complicated diabetes who wants depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception for a year must weigh the benefits with the theoretical risk of thromboembolic disease related to a higher dose progestin, and the fact that the injection is not reversible in the case of an adverse event. “Close follow-up is recommended for patients using contraception with category 3 recommendations,” Dr. Espey emphasized.

Some new elements of contraception that are ongoing in the pandemic health care setting include increased pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraception, Dr. Espey said. Over-the-counter access to contraception is not yet an option, but a progestin-only pill will likely be the first, she added.

Although the Essure birth control implant is no longer available in the United States, new options for a contraceptive patch (Twirla [ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel] and Xulane [ethinyl estradiol and norelgestromin]) offer weekly contraceptive options for women with a body mass index less than 30 kg/m².
 

Annovera offers more options

The newest choice on the market is Annovera, a flexible ring that delivers 150 mcg/day of segesterone acetate and 13 mcg/day of ethinyl estradiol. The ring is meant to remain in place for 21 days, with 7 days out, to repeat for a year.

During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Espey was asked whether it would be an off-label use to leave Annovera in continuously. Although this has not been studied, there is no biologically plausible reason not to leave it in for a year without taking it out. In either case, this is a patient-controlled LARC, she said.

Overall, “it remains to be seen how Annovera will do, as a potentially exciting, new, long-acting option” she said. “A major advantage is that it is controlled by the user,” she noted. However, “the price point will be very important as well.”

As for the off-label use by women with a BMI greater than 29 kg/m², it is complicated. Two women with higher BMIs enrolled in clinical trials developed venous thromboembolisms, so an increased risk can’t be ruled out, although the good news is that BMI has not been shown to impact effectiveness of the product, she added.
 

IUDs appropriate for younger women

When asked for her guidelines about IUD options in the absence of head-to-head trials, Dr. Espey said that she often recommends either Mirena and Liletta. These levonorgestrel-releasing IUDS are essentially the same, can be used off label for 7 years (both are currently Food and Drug Administration approved for 6 years), and have a favorable bleeding profile. Other IUDs are marketed as having a smaller diameter designed for increased patient comfort with insertion, but she views this as less important than bleeding profile and duration given the length of time the device is in place.

Dr. Espey added that she doesn’t see age as a barrier to IUD use, and that the evidence does not support an increased risk of infertility. In fact, “we are seeing a higher demand among younger and nulliparous women.”

“We should respect the reproductive autonomy and the choices that our patients make,” Dr. Espey concluded.

Dr. Espey had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States has decreased to approximately 45%, based on data published in 2016, and “for the first time in many years, this decrease affected women of all race/ethnicity, income levels, and education levels,” Eve Espey, MD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Changes in contraceptive choices drove much of this decrease, said Dr. Espey, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Help patients feel empowered

Overall, the goal of contraception should be to empower women and people to make the reproductive decisions that are best for them. “My own approach to contraceptive counseling has changed over the years; I currently start by asking if the patient wants to talk about contraception,” Dr. Espey said.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many women’s reproductive options and plans, she said.

A survey showed that after COVID-19, more than 40% of women reported changing their plans about childbearing, 34% wanted to get pregnant later, and 33% reported trouble getting birth control or getting an appointment with a health care provider, she said.

ACOG issued a statement in March 2020 about the provision of contraception and how contraception is an essential component of comprehensive health care. The COVID-19 ACOG guidance on contraception includes use of telehealth for services including screening new patients, offering prescriptions and refills as appropriate, and managing side effects. Providers can counsel patients on the use of emergency contraception and provide advance prescriptions for ulipristal acetate, and ideally provide a year’s worth of prescription refills to reduce pharmacy visits, although not all insurance companies allow this, Dr. Espey noted.

ACOG’s COVID-19 guidance on the use of LARCs includes preserving access when possible, and focusing on postpartum contraception as a key access point.

“The postpartum period is a very convenient time for patients who want contraceptives, including LARC,” especially since they are already in the hospital setting, Dr. Espey said. However, it is important to preserve patients’ reproductive autonomy and avoid placing barriers to LARC removal for those who request it, she emphasized.
 

Consider MEC categories for contraception

When advising patients about contraception, Dr. Espey noted the development of a simple app with the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) as a useful tool. The app includes the four MEC categories based on the latest evidence-based guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on contraceptive practice.

Patients in category 1 have no restriction on the use of a particular contraceptive method; category 2 means that “advantages generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks”; in category 3, these risks usually outweigh the advantages; and category 4 indicates “unacceptable health risk if the contraceptive method is used,” according to the MEC.

“What complicates category 3 is that many patients have a condition that is associated with adverse outcomes in pregnancy,” Dr. Espey noted, “So it is even more important that category 3 options only be considered if other options are not available or not acceptable to the patient,”

For example, a patient with complicated diabetes who wants depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception for a year must weigh the benefits with the theoretical risk of thromboembolic disease related to a higher dose progestin, and the fact that the injection is not reversible in the case of an adverse event. “Close follow-up is recommended for patients using contraception with category 3 recommendations,” Dr. Espey emphasized.

Some new elements of contraception that are ongoing in the pandemic health care setting include increased pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraception, Dr. Espey said. Over-the-counter access to contraception is not yet an option, but a progestin-only pill will likely be the first, she added.

Although the Essure birth control implant is no longer available in the United States, new options for a contraceptive patch (Twirla [ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel] and Xulane [ethinyl estradiol and norelgestromin]) offer weekly contraceptive options for women with a body mass index less than 30 kg/m².
 

Annovera offers more options

The newest choice on the market is Annovera, a flexible ring that delivers 150 mcg/day of segesterone acetate and 13 mcg/day of ethinyl estradiol. The ring is meant to remain in place for 21 days, with 7 days out, to repeat for a year.

During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Espey was asked whether it would be an off-label use to leave Annovera in continuously. Although this has not been studied, there is no biologically plausible reason not to leave it in for a year without taking it out. In either case, this is a patient-controlled LARC, she said.

Overall, “it remains to be seen how Annovera will do, as a potentially exciting, new, long-acting option” she said. “A major advantage is that it is controlled by the user,” she noted. However, “the price point will be very important as well.”

As for the off-label use by women with a BMI greater than 29 kg/m², it is complicated. Two women with higher BMIs enrolled in clinical trials developed venous thromboembolisms, so an increased risk can’t be ruled out, although the good news is that BMI has not been shown to impact effectiveness of the product, she added.
 

IUDs appropriate for younger women

When asked for her guidelines about IUD options in the absence of head-to-head trials, Dr. Espey said that she often recommends either Mirena and Liletta. These levonorgestrel-releasing IUDS are essentially the same, can be used off label for 7 years (both are currently Food and Drug Administration approved for 6 years), and have a favorable bleeding profile. Other IUDs are marketed as having a smaller diameter designed for increased patient comfort with insertion, but she views this as less important than bleeding profile and duration given the length of time the device is in place.

Dr. Espey added that she doesn’t see age as a barrier to IUD use, and that the evidence does not support an increased risk of infertility. In fact, “we are seeing a higher demand among younger and nulliparous women.”

“We should respect the reproductive autonomy and the choices that our patients make,” Dr. Espey concluded.

Dr. Espey had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

Menstrual cup use is becoming increasingly popular as an option for menstrual hygiene among women in the United States, but little is known about the potential for IUD expulsion with menstrual cup use, Jill Long, MD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Dr. Long cited a 2019 Internet survey of IUD users in which 11% reported menstrual cup use; reports of IUD expulsion were approximately three times higher among menstrual cup users. The results of the survey were limited by the self-reported responses and lack of data on when the expulsions occurred related to menstrual cup use.

Similar concerns about expulsion surfaced in an ongoing phase 3, randomized trial designed to support the marketing application of the Mona Lisa NT Cu380 Mini IUD, which is not currently approved in the United States.

“Nine months into the study, more expulsions were observed than expected, particularly among menstrual cup users,” said Dr. Long, medical officer and project officer for the Contraceptive Clinical Trials Network at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers then began to advise study participants to avoid menstrual cup use, and to collect data on use of menstrual hygiene products.

The preliminary study results reported by Dr. Long included 1,092 women assigned in a 4:1 ratio to receive the Mona Lisa NT Cu380 Mini and ParaGard, an IUD approved in the United States. Participants had follow-up visits at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after placement to verify the IUD position.

At 34 months, the overall rate of IUD expulsion was 9%. Of 277 women who reported menstrual cup use, the expulsion rate was 18%, compared with a 6% expulsion rates among the 704 women who reported tampon use.
 

Patient behavior persists despite advisory

Overall IUD expulsion was not significantly different among patients enrolled before and after the advisory against menstrual cup use (9.8% vs. 8.8%, respectively). In addition, menstrual cup use did not decrease after the implementation of the advisory (24% preadvisory vs. 28% post advisory).

The expulsion rates between menstrual cup users and nonusers were significantly different at both 12 months (14% vs. 5%) and 24 months (21% vs. 6%).

In addition, the researchers created a category of accidental self-removal, defined as the percent of expulsions occurring at the time the menstrual hygiene product was removed. Accidental self-removal was significantly higher among menstrual cup users, compared with tampon users (43% vs. 10%).

Study limitations included study blinding with regard to IUD type, parity, and age, so the impact of these factors on expulsion remains unclear, Dr. Long said. In addition, data on menstrual hygiene product use was collected retrospectively for the first 9 months, and no data were available on the impact on expulsion of combined use of menstrual cups and tampons.

Despite the apparent lack of impact of counseling, “women should be informed of the increased risk of expulsion if they choose to use menstrual cups concurrently with copper IUDs,” Dr. Long concluded.
 

More data to come from further analysis

During a question-and-answer session following the presentation, Dr. Long was asked whether suction might contribute to expulsion. “We advised subjects to break the seal on the menstrual cup prior to removal, but we did not see a decrease in expulsion rates with menstrual cup use after this advisory,” she said.

“The type of menstrual cup may be a factor,” she added. “We still need to analyze the data by the type of menstrual cup used as different cups have different degrees of suction.”

When asked about the potential role of coital activity on expulsion, Dr. Long said that the researchers had not yet reviewed coital activity logs to compare expulsion data with the timing of sexual activity.

Any increased pregnancy rates among menstrual cup users are “unlikely, but we don’t know for sure,” she added.

The current study also did not evaluate quantitative differences in bleeding, and participants are using bleeding diaries, Dr. Long noted. She added that participants are able to report problems with bleeding to the study sites, and that these are captured as adverse events.

The study was supported by a partnership between NICHD and FHI 360, a nonprofit human development organization based in North Carolina, with FHI 360 funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Long had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Menstrual cup use is becoming increasingly popular as an option for menstrual hygiene among women in the United States, but little is known about the potential for IUD expulsion with menstrual cup use, Jill Long, MD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Dr. Long cited a 2019 Internet survey of IUD users in which 11% reported menstrual cup use; reports of IUD expulsion were approximately three times higher among menstrual cup users. The results of the survey were limited by the self-reported responses and lack of data on when the expulsions occurred related to menstrual cup use.

Similar concerns about expulsion surfaced in an ongoing phase 3, randomized trial designed to support the marketing application of the Mona Lisa NT Cu380 Mini IUD, which is not currently approved in the United States.

“Nine months into the study, more expulsions were observed than expected, particularly among menstrual cup users,” said Dr. Long, medical officer and project officer for the Contraceptive Clinical Trials Network at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers then began to advise study participants to avoid menstrual cup use, and to collect data on use of menstrual hygiene products.

The preliminary study results reported by Dr. Long included 1,092 women assigned in a 4:1 ratio to receive the Mona Lisa NT Cu380 Mini and ParaGard, an IUD approved in the United States. Participants had follow-up visits at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after placement to verify the IUD position.

At 34 months, the overall rate of IUD expulsion was 9%. Of 277 women who reported menstrual cup use, the expulsion rate was 18%, compared with a 6% expulsion rates among the 704 women who reported tampon use.
 

Patient behavior persists despite advisory

Overall IUD expulsion was not significantly different among patients enrolled before and after the advisory against menstrual cup use (9.8% vs. 8.8%, respectively). In addition, menstrual cup use did not decrease after the implementation of the advisory (24% preadvisory vs. 28% post advisory).

The expulsion rates between menstrual cup users and nonusers were significantly different at both 12 months (14% vs. 5%) and 24 months (21% vs. 6%).

In addition, the researchers created a category of accidental self-removal, defined as the percent of expulsions occurring at the time the menstrual hygiene product was removed. Accidental self-removal was significantly higher among menstrual cup users, compared with tampon users (43% vs. 10%).

Study limitations included study blinding with regard to IUD type, parity, and age, so the impact of these factors on expulsion remains unclear, Dr. Long said. In addition, data on menstrual hygiene product use was collected retrospectively for the first 9 months, and no data were available on the impact on expulsion of combined use of menstrual cups and tampons.

Despite the apparent lack of impact of counseling, “women should be informed of the increased risk of expulsion if they choose to use menstrual cups concurrently with copper IUDs,” Dr. Long concluded.
 

More data to come from further analysis

During a question-and-answer session following the presentation, Dr. Long was asked whether suction might contribute to expulsion. “We advised subjects to break the seal on the menstrual cup prior to removal, but we did not see a decrease in expulsion rates with menstrual cup use after this advisory,” she said.

“The type of menstrual cup may be a factor,” she added. “We still need to analyze the data by the type of menstrual cup used as different cups have different degrees of suction.”

When asked about the potential role of coital activity on expulsion, Dr. Long said that the researchers had not yet reviewed coital activity logs to compare expulsion data with the timing of sexual activity.

Any increased pregnancy rates among menstrual cup users are “unlikely, but we don’t know for sure,” she added.

The current study also did not evaluate quantitative differences in bleeding, and participants are using bleeding diaries, Dr. Long noted. She added that participants are able to report problems with bleeding to the study sites, and that these are captured as adverse events.

The study was supported by a partnership between NICHD and FHI 360, a nonprofit human development organization based in North Carolina, with FHI 360 funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Long had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Menstrual cup use is becoming increasingly popular as an option for menstrual hygiene among women in the United States, but little is known about the potential for IUD expulsion with menstrual cup use, Jill Long, MD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Dr. Long cited a 2019 Internet survey of IUD users in which 11% reported menstrual cup use; reports of IUD expulsion were approximately three times higher among menstrual cup users. The results of the survey were limited by the self-reported responses and lack of data on when the expulsions occurred related to menstrual cup use.

Similar concerns about expulsion surfaced in an ongoing phase 3, randomized trial designed to support the marketing application of the Mona Lisa NT Cu380 Mini IUD, which is not currently approved in the United States.

“Nine months into the study, more expulsions were observed than expected, particularly among menstrual cup users,” said Dr. Long, medical officer and project officer for the Contraceptive Clinical Trials Network at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers then began to advise study participants to avoid menstrual cup use, and to collect data on use of menstrual hygiene products.

The preliminary study results reported by Dr. Long included 1,092 women assigned in a 4:1 ratio to receive the Mona Lisa NT Cu380 Mini and ParaGard, an IUD approved in the United States. Participants had follow-up visits at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after placement to verify the IUD position.

At 34 months, the overall rate of IUD expulsion was 9%. Of 277 women who reported menstrual cup use, the expulsion rate was 18%, compared with a 6% expulsion rates among the 704 women who reported tampon use.
 

Patient behavior persists despite advisory

Overall IUD expulsion was not significantly different among patients enrolled before and after the advisory against menstrual cup use (9.8% vs. 8.8%, respectively). In addition, menstrual cup use did not decrease after the implementation of the advisory (24% preadvisory vs. 28% post advisory).

The expulsion rates between menstrual cup users and nonusers were significantly different at both 12 months (14% vs. 5%) and 24 months (21% vs. 6%).

In addition, the researchers created a category of accidental self-removal, defined as the percent of expulsions occurring at the time the menstrual hygiene product was removed. Accidental self-removal was significantly higher among menstrual cup users, compared with tampon users (43% vs. 10%).

Study limitations included study blinding with regard to IUD type, parity, and age, so the impact of these factors on expulsion remains unclear, Dr. Long said. In addition, data on menstrual hygiene product use was collected retrospectively for the first 9 months, and no data were available on the impact on expulsion of combined use of menstrual cups and tampons.

Despite the apparent lack of impact of counseling, “women should be informed of the increased risk of expulsion if they choose to use menstrual cups concurrently with copper IUDs,” Dr. Long concluded.
 

More data to come from further analysis

During a question-and-answer session following the presentation, Dr. Long was asked whether suction might contribute to expulsion. “We advised subjects to break the seal on the menstrual cup prior to removal, but we did not see a decrease in expulsion rates with menstrual cup use after this advisory,” she said.

“The type of menstrual cup may be a factor,” she added. “We still need to analyze the data by the type of menstrual cup used as different cups have different degrees of suction.”

When asked about the potential role of coital activity on expulsion, Dr. Long said that the researchers had not yet reviewed coital activity logs to compare expulsion data with the timing of sexual activity.

Any increased pregnancy rates among menstrual cup users are “unlikely, but we don’t know for sure,” she added.

The current study also did not evaluate quantitative differences in bleeding, and participants are using bleeding diaries, Dr. Long noted. She added that participants are able to report problems with bleeding to the study sites, and that these are captured as adverse events.

The study was supported by a partnership between NICHD and FHI 360, a nonprofit human development organization based in North Carolina, with FHI 360 funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Long had no financial conflicts to disclose.