Contraception

A combination of ulipristal acetate (UA) and a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor holds promise as a pericoital, “on- demand” female oral contraceptive, taken only when needed, according to an exploratory study published in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

The prospective, open-label, pilot study showed that UA and meloxicam successfully disrupted ovulation at “the peak of luteal surge, when conception risk is highest,” reported lead author Erica P Cahill, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“There are many people who report being interested in preventing pregnancy who are not using contraception,” Dr. Cahill said in an interview. The ideal is to be able to take a medication to prevent ovulation and know that you wouldn’t ovulate or be able to become pregnant for the next 3-5 days. These would be pericoital contraceptive pills that one could take prior to or immediately after intercourse that would expand the contraceptive options available and meet some of this need, she said.

Dr. Cahill said currently approved emergency contraceptives containing ulipristal acetate or levonorgestrel “work by inhibiting ovulation at the level of the luteal surge, the pituitary signal that starts the ovulation cascade. Because of this mechanism, they are only effective when taken prior to that signal. If they are taken near or after ovulation has occurred, they are not effective.” She said combining meloxicam with UA could address this because meloxicam “has been shown to prevent some of the later steps of ovulation just prior to the egg being released.”

The study included nine healthy women, with a mean age of 31.4 years, and a mean body mass index of 24.5 ± 3.9 kg/m². All subjects had no exposure to hormonal medication, pregnancy, or lactation in the prior 3 months.

Each participant was followed for two cycles: The first without treatment, to establish normal ovulatory function; and the second during treatment with a one-time dose of UA 30 mg and meloxicam 30 mg during the “fertile window.” This window was defined as when the lead ovarian follicle had a mean diameter of 18 mm, and was determined via thrice-weekly ultrasounds, as well as luteinizing hormone (LH) measurements.

The primary outcome of the study was ovulation disruption, defined as unruptured dominant follicle for 5 days, a blunted LH peak, defined as <15 IU/L, and a nonovulatory luteal phase progesterone level, defined as <3 ng/mL.

Ovulation disruption was achieved in six subjects (67.7%), with eight subjects (88.9%) meeting some criteria.

“When we compare ovulation disruption rates in our study with the previous studies on which our protocol is based, the combination of UA and meloxicam disrupted ovulation at each phase of the fertile window more than any other medication previously studied,” the researchers wrote. “This medication combination is an important candidate to evaluate as oral pericoital contraception.”

When comparing subjects’ baseline cycles with their treatment cycles, the latter were approximately 3 days longer, although there was no difference in endometrial stripe thickness or irregular bleeding.

“Cycle length changes are an important parameter as people interested in oral, on-demand contraception may also be using fertility awareness methods which can be affected by cycle length changes.”

The authors noted that measures of full efficacy and side effects were beyond the scope of the study and would require repeat dosing. Similarly, liver enzymes were not measured, because there was only one dose of study medication, but “given the potential impact of repeat UA on liver enzymes, this measurement is critical for future studies.”

Asked to comment on the study, Eve Espey, MD, said that although it was limited in size and the use of an “intermediate outcome” of ovulation disruption, “the combination does show some promise as a focus of future research.” However, Dr. Espey, distinguished professor and chair in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said it is too early to determine the significance of the findings. “But it does point the way to further research,” she noted. “Compared with existing emergency contraception, this study shows that the UA-meloxicam combination disrupts ovulation over a broader mid-cycle time period – [an] extended duration of action [that] could theoretically translate into increased effectiveness as a contraceptive.”

The study was supported by the Society for Family Planning Research Fund. None of the authors, or Dr. Espey, declared competing interests.

A combination of ulipristal acetate (UA) and a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor holds promise as a pericoital, “on- demand” female oral contraceptive, taken only when needed, according to an exploratory study published in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

The prospective, open-label, pilot study showed that UA and meloxicam successfully disrupted ovulation at “the peak of luteal surge, when conception risk is highest,” reported lead author Erica P Cahill, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“There are many people who report being interested in preventing pregnancy who are not using contraception,” Dr. Cahill said in an interview. The ideal is to be able to take a medication to prevent ovulation and know that you wouldn’t ovulate or be able to become pregnant for the next 3-5 days. These would be pericoital contraceptive pills that one could take prior to or immediately after intercourse that would expand the contraceptive options available and meet some of this need, she said.

Dr. Cahill said currently approved emergency contraceptives containing ulipristal acetate or levonorgestrel “work by inhibiting ovulation at the level of the luteal surge, the pituitary signal that starts the ovulation cascade. Because of this mechanism, they are only effective when taken prior to that signal. If they are taken near or after ovulation has occurred, they are not effective.” She said combining meloxicam with UA could address this because meloxicam “has been shown to prevent some of the later steps of ovulation just prior to the egg being released.”

The study included nine healthy women, with a mean age of 31.4 years, and a mean body mass index of 24.5 ± 3.9 kg/m². All subjects had no exposure to hormonal medication, pregnancy, or lactation in the prior 3 months.

Each participant was followed for two cycles: The first without treatment, to establish normal ovulatory function; and the second during treatment with a one-time dose of UA 30 mg and meloxicam 30 mg during the “fertile window.” This window was defined as when the lead ovarian follicle had a mean diameter of 18 mm, and was determined via thrice-weekly ultrasounds, as well as luteinizing hormone (LH) measurements.

The primary outcome of the study was ovulation disruption, defined as unruptured dominant follicle for 5 days, a blunted LH peak, defined as <15 IU/L, and a nonovulatory luteal phase progesterone level, defined as <3 ng/mL.

Ovulation disruption was achieved in six subjects (67.7%), with eight subjects (88.9%) meeting some criteria.

“When we compare ovulation disruption rates in our study with the previous studies on which our protocol is based, the combination of UA and meloxicam disrupted ovulation at each phase of the fertile window more than any other medication previously studied,” the researchers wrote. “This medication combination is an important candidate to evaluate as oral pericoital contraception.”

When comparing subjects’ baseline cycles with their treatment cycles, the latter were approximately 3 days longer, although there was no difference in endometrial stripe thickness or irregular bleeding.

“Cycle length changes are an important parameter as people interested in oral, on-demand contraception may also be using fertility awareness methods which can be affected by cycle length changes.”

The authors noted that measures of full efficacy and side effects were beyond the scope of the study and would require repeat dosing. Similarly, liver enzymes were not measured, because there was only one dose of study medication, but “given the potential impact of repeat UA on liver enzymes, this measurement is critical for future studies.”

Asked to comment on the study, Eve Espey, MD, said that although it was limited in size and the use of an “intermediate outcome” of ovulation disruption, “the combination does show some promise as a focus of future research.” However, Dr. Espey, distinguished professor and chair in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said it is too early to determine the significance of the findings. “But it does point the way to further research,” she noted. “Compared with existing emergency contraception, this study shows that the UA-meloxicam combination disrupts ovulation over a broader mid-cycle time period – [an] extended duration of action [that] could theoretically translate into increased effectiveness as a contraceptive.”

The study was supported by the Society for Family Planning Research Fund. None of the authors, or Dr. Espey, declared competing interests.

A combination of ulipristal acetate (UA) and a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor holds promise as a pericoital, “on- demand” female oral contraceptive, taken only when needed, according to an exploratory study published in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

The prospective, open-label, pilot study showed that UA and meloxicam successfully disrupted ovulation at “the peak of luteal surge, when conception risk is highest,” reported lead author Erica P Cahill, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“There are many people who report being interested in preventing pregnancy who are not using contraception,” Dr. Cahill said in an interview. The ideal is to be able to take a medication to prevent ovulation and know that you wouldn’t ovulate or be able to become pregnant for the next 3-5 days. These would be pericoital contraceptive pills that one could take prior to or immediately after intercourse that would expand the contraceptive options available and meet some of this need, she said.

Dr. Cahill said currently approved emergency contraceptives containing ulipristal acetate or levonorgestrel “work by inhibiting ovulation at the level of the luteal surge, the pituitary signal that starts the ovulation cascade. Because of this mechanism, they are only effective when taken prior to that signal. If they are taken near or after ovulation has occurred, they are not effective.” She said combining meloxicam with UA could address this because meloxicam “has been shown to prevent some of the later steps of ovulation just prior to the egg being released.”

The study included nine healthy women, with a mean age of 31.4 years, and a mean body mass index of 24.5 ± 3.9 kg/m². All subjects had no exposure to hormonal medication, pregnancy, or lactation in the prior 3 months.

Each participant was followed for two cycles: The first without treatment, to establish normal ovulatory function; and the second during treatment with a one-time dose of UA 30 mg and meloxicam 30 mg during the “fertile window.” This window was defined as when the lead ovarian follicle had a mean diameter of 18 mm, and was determined via thrice-weekly ultrasounds, as well as luteinizing hormone (LH) measurements.

The primary outcome of the study was ovulation disruption, defined as unruptured dominant follicle for 5 days, a blunted LH peak, defined as <15 IU/L, and a nonovulatory luteal phase progesterone level, defined as <3 ng/mL.

Ovulation disruption was achieved in six subjects (67.7%), with eight subjects (88.9%) meeting some criteria.

“When we compare ovulation disruption rates in our study with the previous studies on which our protocol is based, the combination of UA and meloxicam disrupted ovulation at each phase of the fertile window more than any other medication previously studied,” the researchers wrote. “This medication combination is an important candidate to evaluate as oral pericoital contraception.”

When comparing subjects’ baseline cycles with their treatment cycles, the latter were approximately 3 days longer, although there was no difference in endometrial stripe thickness or irregular bleeding.

“Cycle length changes are an important parameter as people interested in oral, on-demand contraception may also be using fertility awareness methods which can be affected by cycle length changes.”

The authors noted that measures of full efficacy and side effects were beyond the scope of the study and would require repeat dosing. Similarly, liver enzymes were not measured, because there was only one dose of study medication, but “given the potential impact of repeat UA on liver enzymes, this measurement is critical for future studies.”

Asked to comment on the study, Eve Espey, MD, said that although it was limited in size and the use of an “intermediate outcome” of ovulation disruption, “the combination does show some promise as a focus of future research.” However, Dr. Espey, distinguished professor and chair in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said it is too early to determine the significance of the findings. “But it does point the way to further research,” she noted. “Compared with existing emergency contraception, this study shows that the UA-meloxicam combination disrupts ovulation over a broader mid-cycle time period – [an] extended duration of action [that] could theoretically translate into increased effectiveness as a contraceptive.”

The study was supported by the Society for Family Planning Research Fund. None of the authors, or Dr. Espey, declared competing interests.

Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.

But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.

The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.

That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”

The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.

For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.

Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.

Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.

In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.

The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.

The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.

Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.

The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.

Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.

Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.

“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”

Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.

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

Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.

But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.

The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.

That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”

The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.

For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.

Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.

Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.

In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.

The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.

The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.

Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.

The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.

Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.

Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.

“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”

Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.

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

Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.

But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.

The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.

That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”

The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.

For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.

Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.

Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.

In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.

The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.

The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.

Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.

The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.

Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.

Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.

“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”

Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.

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

Topiramate, introduced as an antiepileptic drug (AED), is currently most widely used for prevention of migraine headaches.

Because reproductive-aged women represent a population in which migraines are prevalent, clinicians need guidance to help women taking topiramate make sound contraceptive choices.

Several issues are relevant here. First, women who have migraines with aura should avoid estrogen-containing contraceptive pills, patches, and rings. Instead, progestin-only methods, including the contraceptive implant, may be recommended to patients with migraines.

Second, because topiramate, as with a number of other AEDs, is a teratogen, women using this medication need highly effective contraception. This consideration may also lead clinicians to recommend use of the implant in women with migraines.

Finally, topiramate, along with other AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, and oxcarbazepine) induces hepatic enzymes, which results in reduced serum contraceptive steroid levels.

Because there is uncertainty regarding the degree to which the use of topiramate reduces serum levels of etonogestrel (the progestin released by the implant), investigators performed a prospective study to assess the pharmacokinetic impact of topiramate in women with the implant.

Ongoing users of contraceptive implants who agreed to use additional nonhormonal contraception were recruited to a 6-week study, during which they took topiramate and periodically had blood drawn.

Overall, use of topiramate was found to lower serum etonogestrel levels from baseline on a dose-related basis. At study completion, almost one-third of study participants were found to have serum progestin levels lower than the threshold associated with predictable ovulation suppression.

The results of this carefully conducted study support guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that women seeking contraception and using topiramate or other enzyme-inducing AEDs should be encouraged to use intrauterine devices or injectable contraception. The contraceptive efficacy of these latter methods is not diminished by concomitant use of enzyme inducers.

I am Andrew Kaunitz. Please take care of yourself and each other.

Any views expressed above are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Andrew M. Kaunitz is a professor and Associate Chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida, Jacksonville.

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

Topiramate, introduced as an antiepileptic drug (AED), is currently most widely used for prevention of migraine headaches.

Because reproductive-aged women represent a population in which migraines are prevalent, clinicians need guidance to help women taking topiramate make sound contraceptive choices.

Several issues are relevant here. First, women who have migraines with aura should avoid estrogen-containing contraceptive pills, patches, and rings. Instead, progestin-only methods, including the contraceptive implant, may be recommended to patients with migraines.

Second, because topiramate, as with a number of other AEDs, is a teratogen, women using this medication need highly effective contraception. This consideration may also lead clinicians to recommend use of the implant in women with migraines.

Finally, topiramate, along with other AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, and oxcarbazepine) induces hepatic enzymes, which results in reduced serum contraceptive steroid levels.

Because there is uncertainty regarding the degree to which the use of topiramate reduces serum levels of etonogestrel (the progestin released by the implant), investigators performed a prospective study to assess the pharmacokinetic impact of topiramate in women with the implant.

Ongoing users of contraceptive implants who agreed to use additional nonhormonal contraception were recruited to a 6-week study, during which they took topiramate and periodically had blood drawn.

Overall, use of topiramate was found to lower serum etonogestrel levels from baseline on a dose-related basis. At study completion, almost one-third of study participants were found to have serum progestin levels lower than the threshold associated with predictable ovulation suppression.

The results of this carefully conducted study support guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that women seeking contraception and using topiramate or other enzyme-inducing AEDs should be encouraged to use intrauterine devices or injectable contraception. The contraceptive efficacy of these latter methods is not diminished by concomitant use of enzyme inducers.

I am Andrew Kaunitz. Please take care of yourself and each other.

Any views expressed above are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Andrew M. Kaunitz is a professor and Associate Chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida, Jacksonville.

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

Topiramate, introduced as an antiepileptic drug (AED), is currently most widely used for prevention of migraine headaches.

Because reproductive-aged women represent a population in which migraines are prevalent, clinicians need guidance to help women taking topiramate make sound contraceptive choices.

Several issues are relevant here. First, women who have migraines with aura should avoid estrogen-containing contraceptive pills, patches, and rings. Instead, progestin-only methods, including the contraceptive implant, may be recommended to patients with migraines.

Second, because topiramate, as with a number of other AEDs, is a teratogen, women using this medication need highly effective contraception. This consideration may also lead clinicians to recommend use of the implant in women with migraines.

Finally, topiramate, along with other AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, and oxcarbazepine) induces hepatic enzymes, which results in reduced serum contraceptive steroid levels.

Because there is uncertainty regarding the degree to which the use of topiramate reduces serum levels of etonogestrel (the progestin released by the implant), investigators performed a prospective study to assess the pharmacokinetic impact of topiramate in women with the implant.

Ongoing users of contraceptive implants who agreed to use additional nonhormonal contraception were recruited to a 6-week study, during which they took topiramate and periodically had blood drawn.

Overall, use of topiramate was found to lower serum etonogestrel levels from baseline on a dose-related basis. At study completion, almost one-third of study participants were found to have serum progestin levels lower than the threshold associated with predictable ovulation suppression.

The results of this carefully conducted study support guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that women seeking contraception and using topiramate or other enzyme-inducing AEDs should be encouraged to use intrauterine devices or injectable contraception. The contraceptive efficacy of these latter methods is not diminished by concomitant use of enzyme inducers.

I am Andrew Kaunitz. Please take care of yourself and each other.

Any views expressed above are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Andrew M. Kaunitz is a professor and Associate Chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida, Jacksonville.

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

The medicated intrauterine devices (IUDs), including the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD (LNG-IUD) (Mirena, Kyleena, Skyla, and Liletta) and the copper IUD (Cu-IUD; Paragard), are remarkably effective contraceptives. For the 52-mg LNG-IUD (Mirena, Liletta) the pregnancy rate over 6 years of use averaged less than 0.2% per year.^1,2 For the Cu-IUD, the pregnancy rate over 10 years of use averaged 0.5% per year for the first 3 years of use and 0.2% per year over the following 7 years of use.³ IUD perforation of the uterus, expulsion, and malposition are recognized complications of IUD use. Our understanding of the prevalence and management of malpositioned IUDs is evolving and the main focus of this editorial.

Complete and partial uterus perforation

A complete uterine perforation occurs when the entire IUD is outside the walls of the uterus. A partial uterine perforation occurs when the IUD is outside the uterine cavity, but a portion of the IUD remains in the myometrium. When uterine perforation is suspected, ultrasound can determine if the IUD is properly sited within the uterus. If ultrasonography does not detect the IUD within the uterus, an x-ray of the pelvis and abdomen should be obtained to determine if the IUD is in the peritoneal cavity. If both an ultrasound and a pelvic-abdominal x-ray do not detect the IUD, the IUD was probably expelled from the patient.

Uterine perforation is uncommon and occurs once in every 500 to 1,000 insertions in non-breastfeeding women.^4-8 The most common symptoms reported by patients with a perforated IUD are pain and/or bleeding.⁸ Investigators in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices (EURAS) enrolled more than 60,000 patients who had an IUD insertion and followed them for 12 months with more than 39,000 followed for up to 60 months.^7,8 The uterine perforation rate per 1,000 IUD insertions in non-breastfeeding women with 60 months of follow-up was 1.6 for the LNG-IUD and 0.8 for the Cu-IUD.⁸ The rate of uterine perforation was much higher in women who are breastfeeding or recently postpartum. In the EURAS study after 60 months of follow-up, the perforation rate per 1,000 insertions among breastfeeding women was 7.9 for the LNG-IUS and 4.7 for the Cu-IUD.⁸

Remarkably very few IUD perforations were detected at the time of insertion, including only 2% of the LNG-IUD insertions and 17% of the Cu-IUD insertions.⁸ Many perforations were not detected until more than 12 months following insertion, including 32% of the LNG-IUD insertions and 22% of the Cu-IUD insertions.⁸ Obviously, an IUD that has completely perforated the uterus and resides in the peritoneal cavity is not an effective contraceptive. For some patients, the IUD perforation was initially diagnosed after they became pregnant, and imaging studies to locate the IUD and assess the pregnancy were initiated. Complete perforation is usually treated with laparoscopy to remove the IUD and reduce the risk of injury to intra-abdominal organs.

Patients with an IUD partial perforation may present with pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding.⁹ An ultrasound study to explore the cause of the presenting symptom may detect the partial perforation. It is estimated that approximately 20% of cases of IUD perforation are partial perforation.⁹ Over time, a partial perforation may progress to a complete perforation. In some cases of partial perforation, the IUD string may still be visible in the cervix, and the IUD may be removed by pulling on the strings.⁸ Hysteroscopy and/or laparoscopy may be needed to remove a partially perforated IUD. Following a partial or complete IUD perforation, if the patient desires to continue with IUD contraception, it would be wise to insert a new IUD under ultrasound guidance or assess proper placement with a postplacement ultrasound.

Continue to: Expulsion...

IUD expulsion occurs in approximately 3% to 11% of patients.^10-13 The age of the patient influences the rate of expulsion. In a study of 2,748 patients with a Cu-IUD, the rate of expulsion by age for patients <20 years, 20–24 years, 25–29 years, 30–34 years, and ≥35 years was 8.2%, 3.2%, 3.0%, 2.3%, and 1.8%, respectively.¹⁰ In this study, age did not influence the rate of IUD removal for pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding, which was 4% to 5% across all age groups.¹⁰ In a study of 5,403 patients with an IUD, the rate of IUD expulsion by age for patients <20 years, 20–29 years, and 30–45 years was 14.6%, 7.3%, and 7.2%, respectively.¹² In this study, the 3-year cumulative rate of expulsion was 10.2%.¹² There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year cumulative rate of expulsion for the 52-mg LNG-IUD (10.1%) and Cu-IUD (10.7%).¹²

The majority of patients who have an IUD expulsion recognize the event and seek additional contraception care. A few patients first recognize the IUD expulsion when they become pregnant, and imaging studies detect no IUD in the uterus or the peritoneal cavity. In a study of more than 17,000 patients using an LNG-IUD, 108 pregnancies were reported. Seven pregnancies occurred in patients who did not realize their IUD was expelled.¹⁴ Patients who have had an IUD expulsion and receive a new IUD are at increased risk for re-expulsion. For these patients, reinsertion of an IUD could be performed under ultrasound guidance to ensure and document optimal initial IUD position within the uterus, or ultrasound can be obtained postinsertion to document appropriate IUD position.

Malposition—prevalence and management

Our understanding of the prevalence and management of a malpositioned IUD is evolving. For the purposes of this discussion a malpositioned IUD is defined as being in the uterus, but not properly positioned within the uterine cavity. Perforation into the peritoneal cavity and complete expulsion of an IUD are considered separate entities. However, a malpositioned IUD within the uterus may eventually perforate the uterus or be expelled from the body. For example, an IUD embedded in the uterine wall may eventually work its way through the wall and become perforated, residing in the peritoneal cavity. An IUD with the stem in the cervix below the internal os may eventually be expelled from the uterus and leave the body through the vagina.

High-quality ultrasonography, including 2-dimensional (2-D) ultrasound with videoclips or 3-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound with coronal views, has greatly advanced our understanding of the prevalence and characteristics of a malpositioned IUD.^15-18 Ultrasound features of an IUD correctly placed within the uterus include:

• the IUD is in the uterus
• the shaft is in the midline of the uterine cavity
• the shaft of the IUD is not in the endocervix
• the IUD arms are at a 90-degree angle from the shaft
• the top of the IUD is within 2 cm of the fundus
• the IUD is not rotated outside of the cornual plane, inverted or transverse.

Ultrasound imaging has identified multiple types of malpositioned IUDs, including:

• IUD embedded in the myometrium—a portion of the IUD is embedded in the uterine wall
• low-lying IUD—the IUD is low in the uterine cavity but not in the endocervix
• IUD in the endocervix—the stem is in the endocervical canal
• rotated—the IUD is rotated outside the cornual plane
• malpositioned arms—the arms are not at a 90-degree angle to the stem
• the IUD is inverted, transverse, or laterally displaced.

IUD malposition is highly prevalent and has been identified in 10% to 20% of convenience cohorts in which an ultrasound study was performed.^15-18

Benacerraf, Shipp, and Bromley were among the first experts to use ultrasound to detect the high prevalence of malpositioned IUDs among a convenience sample of 167 patients with an IUD undergoing ultrasound for a variety of indications. Using 3-D ultrasound, including reconstructed coronal views, they identified 28 patients (17%) with a malpositioned IUD based on the detection of the IUD “poking into the substance of the uterus or cervix.” Among the patients with a malpositioned IUD, the principal indication for the ultrasound study was pelvic pain (39%) or abnormal uterine bleeding (36%). Among women with a normally sited IUD, pelvic pain (19%) or abnormal uterine bleeding (15%) were less often the principal indication for the ultrasound.¹⁵ The malpositioned IUD was removed in 21 of the 28 cases and the symptoms of pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding resolved in 20 of the 21 patients.¹⁵

Other investigators have confirmed the observation that IUD malposition is common.^16-18 In a retrospective study of 1,748 pelvic ultrasounds performed for any indication where an IUD was present, after excluding 13 patients who were determined to have expelled their IUD (13) and 13 patients with a perforated IUD, 156 patients (8.9%) were diagnosed as having a malpositioned IUD.¹⁶ IUD malposition was diagnosed when the IUD was in the uterus but positioned in the lower uterine segment, cervix, rotated or embedded in the uterus. An IUD in the lower uterine segment or cervix was detected in 133 patients, representing 85% of cases. Among these cases, 29 IUDs were also embedded and/or rotated, indicating that some IUDs have multiple causes of the malposition. Twenty-one IUDs were near the fundus but embedded and/or rotated. Controls with a normally-sited IUD were selected for comparison to the case group. Among IUD users, the identification of suspected adenomyosis on the ultrasound was associated with an increased risk of IUD malposition (odds ratio [OR], 3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-8.52).¹⁶ In this study, removal of a malpositioned LNG-IUD, without initiating a highly reliable contraceptive was associated with an increased risk of pregnancy. It is important to initiate a highly reliable form of contraception if the plan is to remove a malpositioned IUD.^16,19

In a study of 1,253 pelvic ultrasounds performed for any indication where an IUD was identified in the uterus, 263 IUDs (19%) were determined to be malpositioned.¹⁷ In this study the location of the malpositioned IUDs included¹⁷:

• the lower uterine segment not extending into the cervix (38%)
• in the lower uterine segment extending into the cervix (22%)
• in the cervix (26%)
• rotated axis of the IUD (12%)
• other (2%).

Among the 236 malpositioned IUDs, 24% appeared to be embedded in the uterine wall.¹⁷ Compared with patients with a normally-sited IUD on ultrasound, patients with a malpositioned IUD more frequently reported vaginal bleeding (30% vs 19%; P<.005) and pelvic pain (43% vs 30%; P<.002), similar to the findings in the Benacerraf et al. study.¹⁴

Connolly and Fox¹⁸ designed an innovative study to determine the rate of malpositioned IUDs using 2-D ultrasound to ensure proper IUD placement at the time of insertion with a follow-up 3-D ultrasound 8 weeks after insertion to assess IUD position within the uterus. At the 8-week 3-D ultrasound, among 763 women, 16.6% of the IUDs were malpositioned.¹⁸ In this study, IUD position was determined to be correct if all the following features were identified:

• the IUD shaft was in the midline of the uterine cavity
• the IUD arms were at 90 degrees from the stem
• the top of the IUD was within 3 to 4 mm of the fundus
• the IUD was not rotated, inverted or transverse.

IUD malpositions were categorized as:

• embedded in the uterine wall
• low in the uterine cavity
• in the endocervical canal
• misaligned
• perforated
• expulsed.

At the 8-week follow-up, 636 patients (83.4%) had an IUD that was correctly positioned.¹⁸ In 127 patients (16.6%) IUD malposition was identified, with some patients having more than one type of malposition. The types of malposition identified were:

• embedded in the myometrium (54%)
• misaligned, including rotated, laterally displaced, inverted, transverse or arms not deployed (47%)
• low in the uterine cavity (39%)
• in the endocervical canal (14%)
• perforated (3%)
• expulsion (0%).

Recall that all of these patients had a 2-D ultrasound at the time of insertion that identified the IUD as correctly placed. This suggests that during the 8 weeks following IUD placement there were changes in the location of the IUD or that 2-D ultrasound has lower sensitivity than 3-D ultrasound to detect malposition. Of note, at the 8-week follow-up, bleeding or pain was reported by 36% of the patients with a malpositioned IUD and 20% of patients with a correctly positioned IUD.¹⁷ Sixty-seven of the 127 malpositioned IUDs “required” removal, but the precise reasons for the removals were not delineated. The investigators concluded that 3-D ultrasonography is useful for the detection of IUD malposition and could be considered as part of ongoing IUD care, if symptoms of pain or bleeding occur.¹⁸

Continue to: IUD malposition following postplacental insertion...

IUD malposition following postplacental insertion

IUD malposition is common in patients who have had a postplacental insertion. Ultrasound imaging plays an important role in detecting IUD expulsion and malposition in these cases. Postplacental IUD insertion is defined as the placement of an IUD within 10 minutes following delivery of the placenta. Postplacental IUD insertion can be performed following a vaginal or cesarean birth and with a Cu-IUD or LNG-IUD. The good news is that postplacental IUD insertion reduces the risk of unplanned pregnancy in the years following birth. However, postplacental IUD insertion is associated with a high rate of IUD malposition.

In a study of 162 patients who had postplacental insertion of a Cu-IUD following a vaginal birth, ultrasound and physical examination at 6 months demonstrated complete IUD expulsion in 8%, partial expulsion in 16%, and malposition in 15%.²⁰ The IUD was correctly sited in 56% of patients. Seven patients (4%) had the IUD removed, and 1 patient had a perforated IUD. Among the 25 malpositioned IUDs, 14 were not within 1 cm of the fundus, and 11 were rotated outside of the axis of the cornuas. In this study partial expulsion was defined as an IUD protruding from the external cervical os on physical exam or demonstration of the distal tip of the IUD below the internal os of the cervix on ultrasound. Malposition was defined as an IUD that was >1 cm from the fundus or in an abnormal location or axis, but not partially expelled.

In a study of 69 patients who had postplacental insertion of a Cu-IUD following a cesarean birth, ultrasound and physical examination at 6 months demonstrated complete IUD expulsion in 3%, partial expulsion (stem in the cervix below the internal os) in 4% and malposition in 30%.²⁰ The IUD was correctly positioned in 59% of the patients.²¹ The IUD had been electively removed in 3%. Among the 21 patients with a malpositioned IUD, 10 were rotated within the uterine cavity, 6 were inverted (upside down), 3 were low-lying, and 2 were transverse.²¹ Given the relatively high rate of IUD malposition following postplacental insertion, it may be useful to perform a pelvic ultrasound at a postpartum visit to assess the location of the IUD, if ultrasonography is available.

Management of the malpositioned IUD

There are no consensus guidelines on how to care for a patient with a malpositioned IUD. Clinicians need to use their best judgment and engage the patient in joint decision making when managing a malpositioned IUD. When an IUD is malpositioned and the patient has bothersome symptoms of pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding that have not responded to standard interventions, consideration may be given to a remove and replace strategy. When the stem of the IUD is below the level of the internal os on ultrasound or visible at the external os on physical examination, consideration should be given to removing and replacing the IUD. However, if the IUD is removed without replacement or the initiation of a highly reliable contraceptive, the risk of unplanned pregnancy is considerable.^16,19

IUD totally or partially within the cervix or low-lying. When an IUD is in the cervix, the contraceptive efficacy of the IUD may be diminished, especially with a Cu-IUD.²² In these cases, removing and replacing the IUD is an option. In a survey of 20 expert clinicians, >80% recommended replacing an IUD that was totally or partially in the cervical canal.²³ But most of the experts would not replace an IUD that was incidentally noted on ultrasound to be low-lying, being positioned more than 2 cm below the fundus, with no portion of the IUD in the cervical canal. In the same survey, for patients with a low-lying IUD and pelvic pain or bleeding, the majority of experts reported that they would explore other causes of bleeding and pelvic pain not related to the IUD itself and not replace the IUD, but 30% of the experts reported that they would remove and replace the device.²³

IUD embedded in the myometrium with pelvic pain. Based on my clinical experience, when a patient has persistent pelvic pain following the insertion of an IUD and the pain does not resolve with standard measures including medication, an ultrasound study is warranted to assess the position of the IUD. If the ultrasound demonstrates that an arm of the IUD is embedded in the myometrium, removal of the IUD may be associated with resolution of the pain. Reinsertion of an IUD under ultrasound guidance may result in a correctly-sited IUD with no recurrence of pelvic pain.

IUD rotated within the uterus with no pain or abnormal bleeding. For an IUD that is near the fundus and rotated on its axis within the uterus, if the patient has no symptoms of pain or abnormal bleeding, my recommendation to the patient would be to leave the device in situ.

Without available guidelines, engage in clinician-patient discussion

It is clear that IUD malposition is common, occurring in 10% to 20% of patients with an IUD. High-quality ultrasound imaging is helpful in detecting IUD malposition, including 2-D ultrasound with videoclips and/or 3-D ultrasound with coronal reconstruction. More data are needed to identify the best options for managing various types of malpositioned IUDs in patients with and without bothersome symptoms such as pain and bleeding. Until consensus guidelines are developed, clinicians need to engage the patient in a discussion of how to best manage the malpositioned IUD. Medicated IUDs and progestin subdermal implants are our two most effective reversible contraceptives. They are among the most important advances in health care over the past half-century. ●

The medicated intrauterine devices (IUDs), including the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD (LNG-IUD) (Mirena, Kyleena, Skyla, and Liletta) and the copper IUD (Cu-IUD; Paragard), are remarkably effective contraceptives. For the 52-mg LNG-IUD (Mirena, Liletta) the pregnancy rate over 6 years of use averaged less than 0.2% per year.^1,2 For the Cu-IUD, the pregnancy rate over 10 years of use averaged 0.5% per year for the first 3 years of use and 0.2% per year over the following 7 years of use.³ IUD perforation of the uterus, expulsion, and malposition are recognized complications of IUD use. Our understanding of the prevalence and management of malpositioned IUDs is evolving and the main focus of this editorial.

Complete and partial uterus perforation

A complete uterine perforation occurs when the entire IUD is outside the walls of the uterus. A partial uterine perforation occurs when the IUD is outside the uterine cavity, but a portion of the IUD remains in the myometrium. When uterine perforation is suspected, ultrasound can determine if the IUD is properly sited within the uterus. If ultrasonography does not detect the IUD within the uterus, an x-ray of the pelvis and abdomen should be obtained to determine if the IUD is in the peritoneal cavity. If both an ultrasound and a pelvic-abdominal x-ray do not detect the IUD, the IUD was probably expelled from the patient.

Uterine perforation is uncommon and occurs once in every 500 to 1,000 insertions in non-breastfeeding women.^4-8 The most common symptoms reported by patients with a perforated IUD are pain and/or bleeding.⁸ Investigators in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices (EURAS) enrolled more than 60,000 patients who had an IUD insertion and followed them for 12 months with more than 39,000 followed for up to 60 months.^7,8 The uterine perforation rate per 1,000 IUD insertions in non-breastfeeding women with 60 months of follow-up was 1.6 for the LNG-IUD and 0.8 for the Cu-IUD.⁸ The rate of uterine perforation was much higher in women who are breastfeeding or recently postpartum. In the EURAS study after 60 months of follow-up, the perforation rate per 1,000 insertions among breastfeeding women was 7.9 for the LNG-IUS and 4.7 for the Cu-IUD.⁸

Remarkably very few IUD perforations were detected at the time of insertion, including only 2% of the LNG-IUD insertions and 17% of the Cu-IUD insertions.⁸ Many perforations were not detected until more than 12 months following insertion, including 32% of the LNG-IUD insertions and 22% of the Cu-IUD insertions.⁸ Obviously, an IUD that has completely perforated the uterus and resides in the peritoneal cavity is not an effective contraceptive. For some patients, the IUD perforation was initially diagnosed after they became pregnant, and imaging studies to locate the IUD and assess the pregnancy were initiated. Complete perforation is usually treated with laparoscopy to remove the IUD and reduce the risk of injury to intra-abdominal organs.

Patients with an IUD partial perforation may present with pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding.⁹ An ultrasound study to explore the cause of the presenting symptom may detect the partial perforation. It is estimated that approximately 20% of cases of IUD perforation are partial perforation.⁹ Over time, a partial perforation may progress to a complete perforation. In some cases of partial perforation, the IUD string may still be visible in the cervix, and the IUD may be removed by pulling on the strings.⁸ Hysteroscopy and/or laparoscopy may be needed to remove a partially perforated IUD. Following a partial or complete IUD perforation, if the patient desires to continue with IUD contraception, it would be wise to insert a new IUD under ultrasound guidance or assess proper placement with a postplacement ultrasound.

Continue to: Expulsion...

IUD expulsion occurs in approximately 3% to 11% of patients.^10-13 The age of the patient influences the rate of expulsion. In a study of 2,748 patients with a Cu-IUD, the rate of expulsion by age for patients <20 years, 20–24 years, 25–29 years, 30–34 years, and ≥35 years was 8.2%, 3.2%, 3.0%, 2.3%, and 1.8%, respectively.¹⁰ In this study, age did not influence the rate of IUD removal for pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding, which was 4% to 5% across all age groups.¹⁰ In a study of 5,403 patients with an IUD, the rate of IUD expulsion by age for patients <20 years, 20–29 years, and 30–45 years was 14.6%, 7.3%, and 7.2%, respectively.¹² In this study, the 3-year cumulative rate of expulsion was 10.2%.¹² There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year cumulative rate of expulsion for the 52-mg LNG-IUD (10.1%) and Cu-IUD (10.7%).¹²

The majority of patients who have an IUD expulsion recognize the event and seek additional contraception care. A few patients first recognize the IUD expulsion when they become pregnant, and imaging studies detect no IUD in the uterus or the peritoneal cavity. In a study of more than 17,000 patients using an LNG-IUD, 108 pregnancies were reported. Seven pregnancies occurred in patients who did not realize their IUD was expelled.¹⁴ Patients who have had an IUD expulsion and receive a new IUD are at increased risk for re-expulsion. For these patients, reinsertion of an IUD could be performed under ultrasound guidance to ensure and document optimal initial IUD position within the uterus, or ultrasound can be obtained postinsertion to document appropriate IUD position.

Malposition—prevalence and management

Our understanding of the prevalence and management of a malpositioned IUD is evolving. For the purposes of this discussion a malpositioned IUD is defined as being in the uterus, but not properly positioned within the uterine cavity. Perforation into the peritoneal cavity and complete expulsion of an IUD are considered separate entities. However, a malpositioned IUD within the uterus may eventually perforate the uterus or be expelled from the body. For example, an IUD embedded in the uterine wall may eventually work its way through the wall and become perforated, residing in the peritoneal cavity. An IUD with the stem in the cervix below the internal os may eventually be expelled from the uterus and leave the body through the vagina.

High-quality ultrasonography, including 2-dimensional (2-D) ultrasound with videoclips or 3-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound with coronal views, has greatly advanced our understanding of the prevalence and characteristics of a malpositioned IUD.^15-18 Ultrasound features of an IUD correctly placed within the uterus include:

• the IUD is in the uterus
• the shaft is in the midline of the uterine cavity
• the shaft of the IUD is not in the endocervix
• the IUD arms are at a 90-degree angle from the shaft
• the top of the IUD is within 2 cm of the fundus
• the IUD is not rotated outside of the cornual plane, inverted or transverse.

Ultrasound imaging has identified multiple types of malpositioned IUDs, including:

• IUD embedded in the myometrium—a portion of the IUD is embedded in the uterine wall
• low-lying IUD—the IUD is low in the uterine cavity but not in the endocervix
• IUD in the endocervix—the stem is in the endocervical canal
• rotated—the IUD is rotated outside the cornual plane
• malpositioned arms—the arms are not at a 90-degree angle to the stem
• the IUD is inverted, transverse, or laterally displaced.

IUD malposition is highly prevalent and has been identified in 10% to 20% of convenience cohorts in which an ultrasound study was performed.^15-18

Benacerraf, Shipp, and Bromley were among the first experts to use ultrasound to detect the high prevalence of malpositioned IUDs among a convenience sample of 167 patients with an IUD undergoing ultrasound for a variety of indications. Using 3-D ultrasound, including reconstructed coronal views, they identified 28 patients (17%) with a malpositioned IUD based on the detection of the IUD “poking into the substance of the uterus or cervix.” Among the patients with a malpositioned IUD, the principal indication for the ultrasound study was pelvic pain (39%) or abnormal uterine bleeding (36%). Among women with a normally sited IUD, pelvic pain (19%) or abnormal uterine bleeding (15%) were less often the principal indication for the ultrasound.¹⁵ The malpositioned IUD was removed in 21 of the 28 cases and the symptoms of pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding resolved in 20 of the 21 patients.¹⁵

Other investigators have confirmed the observation that IUD malposition is common.^16-18 In a retrospective study of 1,748 pelvic ultrasounds performed for any indication where an IUD was present, after excluding 13 patients who were determined to have expelled their IUD (13) and 13 patients with a perforated IUD, 156 patients (8.9%) were diagnosed as having a malpositioned IUD.¹⁶ IUD malposition was diagnosed when the IUD was in the uterus but positioned in the lower uterine segment, cervix, rotated or embedded in the uterus. An IUD in the lower uterine segment or cervix was detected in 133 patients, representing 85% of cases. Among these cases, 29 IUDs were also embedded and/or rotated, indicating that some IUDs have multiple causes of the malposition. Twenty-one IUDs were near the fundus but embedded and/or rotated. Controls with a normally-sited IUD were selected for comparison to the case group. Among IUD users, the identification of suspected adenomyosis on the ultrasound was associated with an increased risk of IUD malposition (odds ratio [OR], 3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-8.52).¹⁶ In this study, removal of a malpositioned LNG-IUD, without initiating a highly reliable contraceptive was associated with an increased risk of pregnancy. It is important to initiate a highly reliable form of contraception if the plan is to remove a malpositioned IUD.^16,19

In a study of 1,253 pelvic ultrasounds performed for any indication where an IUD was identified in the uterus, 263 IUDs (19%) were determined to be malpositioned.¹⁷ In this study the location of the malpositioned IUDs included¹⁷:

• the lower uterine segment not extending into the cervix (38%)
• in the lower uterine segment extending into the cervix (22%)
• in the cervix (26%)
• rotated axis of the IUD (12%)
• other (2%).

Among the 236 malpositioned IUDs, 24% appeared to be embedded in the uterine wall.¹⁷ Compared with patients with a normally-sited IUD on ultrasound, patients with a malpositioned IUD more frequently reported vaginal bleeding (30% vs 19%; P<.005) and pelvic pain (43% vs 30%; P<.002), similar to the findings in the Benacerraf et al. study.¹⁴

Connolly and Fox¹⁸ designed an innovative study to determine the rate of malpositioned IUDs using 2-D ultrasound to ensure proper IUD placement at the time of insertion with a follow-up 3-D ultrasound 8 weeks after insertion to assess IUD position within the uterus. At the 8-week 3-D ultrasound, among 763 women, 16.6% of the IUDs were malpositioned.¹⁸ In this study, IUD position was determined to be correct if all the following features were identified:

• the IUD shaft was in the midline of the uterine cavity
• the IUD arms were at 90 degrees from the stem
• the top of the IUD was within 3 to 4 mm of the fundus
• the IUD was not rotated, inverted or transverse.

IUD malpositions were categorized as:

• embedded in the uterine wall
• low in the uterine cavity
• in the endocervical canal
• misaligned
• perforated
• expulsed.

At the 8-week follow-up, 636 patients (83.4%) had an IUD that was correctly positioned.¹⁸ In 127 patients (16.6%) IUD malposition was identified, with some patients having more than one type of malposition. The types of malposition identified were:

• embedded in the myometrium (54%)
• misaligned, including rotated, laterally displaced, inverted, transverse or arms not deployed (47%)
• low in the uterine cavity (39%)
• in the endocervical canal (14%)
• perforated (3%)
• expulsion (0%).

Recall that all of these patients had a 2-D ultrasound at the time of insertion that identified the IUD as correctly placed. This suggests that during the 8 weeks following IUD placement there were changes in the location of the IUD or that 2-D ultrasound has lower sensitivity than 3-D ultrasound to detect malposition. Of note, at the 8-week follow-up, bleeding or pain was reported by 36% of the patients with a malpositioned IUD and 20% of patients with a correctly positioned IUD.¹⁷ Sixty-seven of the 127 malpositioned IUDs “required” removal, but the precise reasons for the removals were not delineated. The investigators concluded that 3-D ultrasonography is useful for the detection of IUD malposition and could be considered as part of ongoing IUD care, if symptoms of pain or bleeding occur.¹⁸

Continue to: IUD malposition following postplacental insertion...

IUD malposition following postplacental insertion

IUD malposition is common in patients who have had a postplacental insertion. Ultrasound imaging plays an important role in detecting IUD expulsion and malposition in these cases. Postplacental IUD insertion is defined as the placement of an IUD within 10 minutes following delivery of the placenta. Postplacental IUD insertion can be performed following a vaginal or cesarean birth and with a Cu-IUD or LNG-IUD. The good news is that postplacental IUD insertion reduces the risk of unplanned pregnancy in the years following birth. However, postplacental IUD insertion is associated with a high rate of IUD malposition.

In a study of 162 patients who had postplacental insertion of a Cu-IUD following a vaginal birth, ultrasound and physical examination at 6 months demonstrated complete IUD expulsion in 8%, partial expulsion in 16%, and malposition in 15%.²⁰ The IUD was correctly sited in 56% of patients. Seven patients (4%) had the IUD removed, and 1 patient had a perforated IUD. Among the 25 malpositioned IUDs, 14 were not within 1 cm of the fundus, and 11 were rotated outside of the axis of the cornuas. In this study partial expulsion was defined as an IUD protruding from the external cervical os on physical exam or demonstration of the distal tip of the IUD below the internal os of the cervix on ultrasound. Malposition was defined as an IUD that was >1 cm from the fundus or in an abnormal location or axis, but not partially expelled.

In a study of 69 patients who had postplacental insertion of a Cu-IUD following a cesarean birth, ultrasound and physical examination at 6 months demonstrated complete IUD expulsion in 3%, partial expulsion (stem in the cervix below the internal os) in 4% and malposition in 30%.²⁰ The IUD was correctly positioned in 59% of the patients.²¹ The IUD had been electively removed in 3%. Among the 21 patients with a malpositioned IUD, 10 were rotated within the uterine cavity, 6 were inverted (upside down), 3 were low-lying, and 2 were transverse.²¹ Given the relatively high rate of IUD malposition following postplacental insertion, it may be useful to perform a pelvic ultrasound at a postpartum visit to assess the location of the IUD, if ultrasonography is available.

Management of the malpositioned IUD

There are no consensus guidelines on how to care for a patient with a malpositioned IUD. Clinicians need to use their best judgment and engage the patient in joint decision making when managing a malpositioned IUD. When an IUD is malpositioned and the patient has bothersome symptoms of pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding that have not responded to standard interventions, consideration may be given to a remove and replace strategy. When the stem of the IUD is below the level of the internal os on ultrasound or visible at the external os on physical examination, consideration should be given to removing and replacing the IUD. However, if the IUD is removed without replacement or the initiation of a highly reliable contraceptive, the risk of unplanned pregnancy is considerable.^16,19

IUD totally or partially within the cervix or low-lying. When an IUD is in the cervix, the contraceptive efficacy of the IUD may be diminished, especially with a Cu-IUD.²² In these cases, removing and replacing the IUD is an option. In a survey of 20 expert clinicians, >80% recommended replacing an IUD that was totally or partially in the cervical canal.²³ But most of the experts would not replace an IUD that was incidentally noted on ultrasound to be low-lying, being positioned more than 2 cm below the fundus, with no portion of the IUD in the cervical canal. In the same survey, for patients with a low-lying IUD and pelvic pain or bleeding, the majority of experts reported that they would explore other causes of bleeding and pelvic pain not related to the IUD itself and not replace the IUD, but 30% of the experts reported that they would remove and replace the device.²³

IUD embedded in the myometrium with pelvic pain. Based on my clinical experience, when a patient has persistent pelvic pain following the insertion of an IUD and the pain does not resolve with standard measures including medication, an ultrasound study is warranted to assess the position of the IUD. If the ultrasound demonstrates that an arm of the IUD is embedded in the myometrium, removal of the IUD may be associated with resolution of the pain. Reinsertion of an IUD under ultrasound guidance may result in a correctly-sited IUD with no recurrence of pelvic pain.

IUD rotated within the uterus with no pain or abnormal bleeding. For an IUD that is near the fundus and rotated on its axis within the uterus, if the patient has no symptoms of pain or abnormal bleeding, my recommendation to the patient would be to leave the device in situ.

Without available guidelines, engage in clinician-patient discussion

It is clear that IUD malposition is common, occurring in 10% to 20% of patients with an IUD. High-quality ultrasound imaging is helpful in detecting IUD malposition, including 2-D ultrasound with videoclips and/or 3-D ultrasound with coronal reconstruction. More data are needed to identify the best options for managing various types of malpositioned IUDs in patients with and without bothersome symptoms such as pain and bleeding. Until consensus guidelines are developed, clinicians need to engage the patient in a discussion of how to best manage the malpositioned IUD. Medicated IUDs and progestin subdermal implants are our two most effective reversible contraceptives. They are among the most important advances in health care over the past half-century. ●

The medicated intrauterine devices (IUDs), including the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD (LNG-IUD) (Mirena, Kyleena, Skyla, and Liletta) and the copper IUD (Cu-IUD; Paragard), are remarkably effective contraceptives. For the 52-mg LNG-IUD (Mirena, Liletta) the pregnancy rate over 6 years of use averaged less than 0.2% per year.^1,2 For the Cu-IUD, the pregnancy rate over 10 years of use averaged 0.5% per year for the first 3 years of use and 0.2% per year over the following 7 years of use.³ IUD perforation of the uterus, expulsion, and malposition are recognized complications of IUD use. Our understanding of the prevalence and management of malpositioned IUDs is evolving and the main focus of this editorial.

Complete and partial uterus perforation

A complete uterine perforation occurs when the entire IUD is outside the walls of the uterus. A partial uterine perforation occurs when the IUD is outside the uterine cavity, but a portion of the IUD remains in the myometrium. When uterine perforation is suspected, ultrasound can determine if the IUD is properly sited within the uterus. If ultrasonography does not detect the IUD within the uterus, an x-ray of the pelvis and abdomen should be obtained to determine if the IUD is in the peritoneal cavity. If both an ultrasound and a pelvic-abdominal x-ray do not detect the IUD, the IUD was probably expelled from the patient.

Uterine perforation is uncommon and occurs once in every 500 to 1,000 insertions in non-breastfeeding women.^4-8 The most common symptoms reported by patients with a perforated IUD are pain and/or bleeding.⁸ Investigators in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices (EURAS) enrolled more than 60,000 patients who had an IUD insertion and followed them for 12 months with more than 39,000 followed for up to 60 months.^7,8 The uterine perforation rate per 1,000 IUD insertions in non-breastfeeding women with 60 months of follow-up was 1.6 for the LNG-IUD and 0.8 for the Cu-IUD.⁸ The rate of uterine perforation was much higher in women who are breastfeeding or recently postpartum. In the EURAS study after 60 months of follow-up, the perforation rate per 1,000 insertions among breastfeeding women was 7.9 for the LNG-IUS and 4.7 for the Cu-IUD.⁸

Remarkably very few IUD perforations were detected at the time of insertion, including only 2% of the LNG-IUD insertions and 17% of the Cu-IUD insertions.⁸ Many perforations were not detected until more than 12 months following insertion, including 32% of the LNG-IUD insertions and 22% of the Cu-IUD insertions.⁸ Obviously, an IUD that has completely perforated the uterus and resides in the peritoneal cavity is not an effective contraceptive. For some patients, the IUD perforation was initially diagnosed after they became pregnant, and imaging studies to locate the IUD and assess the pregnancy were initiated. Complete perforation is usually treated with laparoscopy to remove the IUD and reduce the risk of injury to intra-abdominal organs.

Patients with an IUD partial perforation may present with pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding.⁹ An ultrasound study to explore the cause of the presenting symptom may detect the partial perforation. It is estimated that approximately 20% of cases of IUD perforation are partial perforation.⁹ Over time, a partial perforation may progress to a complete perforation. In some cases of partial perforation, the IUD string may still be visible in the cervix, and the IUD may be removed by pulling on the strings.⁸ Hysteroscopy and/or laparoscopy may be needed to remove a partially perforated IUD. Following a partial or complete IUD perforation, if the patient desires to continue with IUD contraception, it would be wise to insert a new IUD under ultrasound guidance or assess proper placement with a postplacement ultrasound.

Continue to: Expulsion...

IUD expulsion occurs in approximately 3% to 11% of patients.^10-13 The age of the patient influences the rate of expulsion. In a study of 2,748 patients with a Cu-IUD, the rate of expulsion by age for patients <20 years, 20–24 years, 25–29 years, 30–34 years, and ≥35 years was 8.2%, 3.2%, 3.0%, 2.3%, and 1.8%, respectively.¹⁰ In this study, age did not influence the rate of IUD removal for pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding, which was 4% to 5% across all age groups.¹⁰ In a study of 5,403 patients with an IUD, the rate of IUD expulsion by age for patients <20 years, 20–29 years, and 30–45 years was 14.6%, 7.3%, and 7.2%, respectively.¹² In this study, the 3-year cumulative rate of expulsion was 10.2%.¹² There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year cumulative rate of expulsion for the 52-mg LNG-IUD (10.1%) and Cu-IUD (10.7%).¹²

The majority of patients who have an IUD expulsion recognize the event and seek additional contraception care. A few patients first recognize the IUD expulsion when they become pregnant, and imaging studies detect no IUD in the uterus or the peritoneal cavity. In a study of more than 17,000 patients using an LNG-IUD, 108 pregnancies were reported. Seven pregnancies occurred in patients who did not realize their IUD was expelled.¹⁴ Patients who have had an IUD expulsion and receive a new IUD are at increased risk for re-expulsion. For these patients, reinsertion of an IUD could be performed under ultrasound guidance to ensure and document optimal initial IUD position within the uterus, or ultrasound can be obtained postinsertion to document appropriate IUD position.

Malposition—prevalence and management

Our understanding of the prevalence and management of a malpositioned IUD is evolving. For the purposes of this discussion a malpositioned IUD is defined as being in the uterus, but not properly positioned within the uterine cavity. Perforation into the peritoneal cavity and complete expulsion of an IUD are considered separate entities. However, a malpositioned IUD within the uterus may eventually perforate the uterus or be expelled from the body. For example, an IUD embedded in the uterine wall may eventually work its way through the wall and become perforated, residing in the peritoneal cavity. An IUD with the stem in the cervix below the internal os may eventually be expelled from the uterus and leave the body through the vagina.

High-quality ultrasonography, including 2-dimensional (2-D) ultrasound with videoclips or 3-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound with coronal views, has greatly advanced our understanding of the prevalence and characteristics of a malpositioned IUD.^15-18 Ultrasound features of an IUD correctly placed within the uterus include:

• the IUD is in the uterus
• the shaft is in the midline of the uterine cavity
• the shaft of the IUD is not in the endocervix
• the IUD arms are at a 90-degree angle from the shaft
• the top of the IUD is within 2 cm of the fundus
• the IUD is not rotated outside of the cornual plane, inverted or transverse.

Ultrasound imaging has identified multiple types of malpositioned IUDs, including:

• IUD embedded in the myometrium—a portion of the IUD is embedded in the uterine wall
• low-lying IUD—the IUD is low in the uterine cavity but not in the endocervix
• IUD in the endocervix—the stem is in the endocervical canal
• rotated—the IUD is rotated outside the cornual plane
• malpositioned arms—the arms are not at a 90-degree angle to the stem
• the IUD is inverted, transverse, or laterally displaced.

IUD malposition is highly prevalent and has been identified in 10% to 20% of convenience cohorts in which an ultrasound study was performed.^15-18

Benacerraf, Shipp, and Bromley were among the first experts to use ultrasound to detect the high prevalence of malpositioned IUDs among a convenience sample of 167 patients with an IUD undergoing ultrasound for a variety of indications. Using 3-D ultrasound, including reconstructed coronal views, they identified 28 patients (17%) with a malpositioned IUD based on the detection of the IUD “poking into the substance of the uterus or cervix.” Among the patients with a malpositioned IUD, the principal indication for the ultrasound study was pelvic pain (39%) or abnormal uterine bleeding (36%). Among women with a normally sited IUD, pelvic pain (19%) or abnormal uterine bleeding (15%) were less often the principal indication for the ultrasound.¹⁵ The malpositioned IUD was removed in 21 of the 28 cases and the symptoms of pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding resolved in 20 of the 21 patients.¹⁵

Other investigators have confirmed the observation that IUD malposition is common.^16-18 In a retrospective study of 1,748 pelvic ultrasounds performed for any indication where an IUD was present, after excluding 13 patients who were determined to have expelled their IUD (13) and 13 patients with a perforated IUD, 156 patients (8.9%) were diagnosed as having a malpositioned IUD.¹⁶ IUD malposition was diagnosed when the IUD was in the uterus but positioned in the lower uterine segment, cervix, rotated or embedded in the uterus. An IUD in the lower uterine segment or cervix was detected in 133 patients, representing 85% of cases. Among these cases, 29 IUDs were also embedded and/or rotated, indicating that some IUDs have multiple causes of the malposition. Twenty-one IUDs were near the fundus but embedded and/or rotated. Controls with a normally-sited IUD were selected for comparison to the case group. Among IUD users, the identification of suspected adenomyosis on the ultrasound was associated with an increased risk of IUD malposition (odds ratio [OR], 3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-8.52).¹⁶ In this study, removal of a malpositioned LNG-IUD, without initiating a highly reliable contraceptive was associated with an increased risk of pregnancy. It is important to initiate a highly reliable form of contraception if the plan is to remove a malpositioned IUD.^16,19

In a study of 1,253 pelvic ultrasounds performed for any indication where an IUD was identified in the uterus, 263 IUDs (19%) were determined to be malpositioned.¹⁷ In this study the location of the malpositioned IUDs included¹⁷:

• the lower uterine segment not extending into the cervix (38%)
• in the lower uterine segment extending into the cervix (22%)
• in the cervix (26%)
• rotated axis of the IUD (12%)
• other (2%).

Among the 236 malpositioned IUDs, 24% appeared to be embedded in the uterine wall.¹⁷ Compared with patients with a normally-sited IUD on ultrasound, patients with a malpositioned IUD more frequently reported vaginal bleeding (30% vs 19%; P<.005) and pelvic pain (43% vs 30%; P<.002), similar to the findings in the Benacerraf et al. study.¹⁴

Connolly and Fox¹⁸ designed an innovative study to determine the rate of malpositioned IUDs using 2-D ultrasound to ensure proper IUD placement at the time of insertion with a follow-up 3-D ultrasound 8 weeks after insertion to assess IUD position within the uterus. At the 8-week 3-D ultrasound, among 763 women, 16.6% of the IUDs were malpositioned.¹⁸ In this study, IUD position was determined to be correct if all the following features were identified:

• the IUD shaft was in the midline of the uterine cavity
• the IUD arms were at 90 degrees from the stem
• the top of the IUD was within 3 to 4 mm of the fundus
• the IUD was not rotated, inverted or transverse.

IUD malpositions were categorized as:

• embedded in the uterine wall
• low in the uterine cavity
• in the endocervical canal
• misaligned
• perforated
• expulsed.

At the 8-week follow-up, 636 patients (83.4%) had an IUD that was correctly positioned.¹⁸ In 127 patients (16.6%) IUD malposition was identified, with some patients having more than one type of malposition. The types of malposition identified were:

• embedded in the myometrium (54%)
• misaligned, including rotated, laterally displaced, inverted, transverse or arms not deployed (47%)
• low in the uterine cavity (39%)
• in the endocervical canal (14%)
• perforated (3%)
• expulsion (0%).

Recall that all of these patients had a 2-D ultrasound at the time of insertion that identified the IUD as correctly placed. This suggests that during the 8 weeks following IUD placement there were changes in the location of the IUD or that 2-D ultrasound has lower sensitivity than 3-D ultrasound to detect malposition. Of note, at the 8-week follow-up, bleeding or pain was reported by 36% of the patients with a malpositioned IUD and 20% of patients with a correctly positioned IUD.¹⁷ Sixty-seven of the 127 malpositioned IUDs “required” removal, but the precise reasons for the removals were not delineated. The investigators concluded that 3-D ultrasonography is useful for the detection of IUD malposition and could be considered as part of ongoing IUD care, if symptoms of pain or bleeding occur.¹⁸

Continue to: IUD malposition following postplacental insertion...

IUD malposition following postplacental insertion

IUD malposition is common in patients who have had a postplacental insertion. Ultrasound imaging plays an important role in detecting IUD expulsion and malposition in these cases. Postplacental IUD insertion is defined as the placement of an IUD within 10 minutes following delivery of the placenta. Postplacental IUD insertion can be performed following a vaginal or cesarean birth and with a Cu-IUD or LNG-IUD. The good news is that postplacental IUD insertion reduces the risk of unplanned pregnancy in the years following birth. However, postplacental IUD insertion is associated with a high rate of IUD malposition.

In a study of 162 patients who had postplacental insertion of a Cu-IUD following a vaginal birth, ultrasound and physical examination at 6 months demonstrated complete IUD expulsion in 8%, partial expulsion in 16%, and malposition in 15%.²⁰ The IUD was correctly sited in 56% of patients. Seven patients (4%) had the IUD removed, and 1 patient had a perforated IUD. Among the 25 malpositioned IUDs, 14 were not within 1 cm of the fundus, and 11 were rotated outside of the axis of the cornuas. In this study partial expulsion was defined as an IUD protruding from the external cervical os on physical exam or demonstration of the distal tip of the IUD below the internal os of the cervix on ultrasound. Malposition was defined as an IUD that was >1 cm from the fundus or in an abnormal location or axis, but not partially expelled.

In a study of 69 patients who had postplacental insertion of a Cu-IUD following a cesarean birth, ultrasound and physical examination at 6 months demonstrated complete IUD expulsion in 3%, partial expulsion (stem in the cervix below the internal os) in 4% and malposition in 30%.²⁰ The IUD was correctly positioned in 59% of the patients.²¹ The IUD had been electively removed in 3%. Among the 21 patients with a malpositioned IUD, 10 were rotated within the uterine cavity, 6 were inverted (upside down), 3 were low-lying, and 2 were transverse.²¹ Given the relatively high rate of IUD malposition following postplacental insertion, it may be useful to perform a pelvic ultrasound at a postpartum visit to assess the location of the IUD, if ultrasonography is available.

Management of the malpositioned IUD

There are no consensus guidelines on how to care for a patient with a malpositioned IUD. Clinicians need to use their best judgment and engage the patient in joint decision making when managing a malpositioned IUD. When an IUD is malpositioned and the patient has bothersome symptoms of pelvic pain or abnormal bleeding that have not responded to standard interventions, consideration may be given to a remove and replace strategy. When the stem of the IUD is below the level of the internal os on ultrasound or visible at the external os on physical examination, consideration should be given to removing and replacing the IUD. However, if the IUD is removed without replacement or the initiation of a highly reliable contraceptive, the risk of unplanned pregnancy is considerable.^16,19

IUD totally or partially within the cervix or low-lying. When an IUD is in the cervix, the contraceptive efficacy of the IUD may be diminished, especially with a Cu-IUD.²² In these cases, removing and replacing the IUD is an option. In a survey of 20 expert clinicians, >80% recommended replacing an IUD that was totally or partially in the cervical canal.²³ But most of the experts would not replace an IUD that was incidentally noted on ultrasound to be low-lying, being positioned more than 2 cm below the fundus, with no portion of the IUD in the cervical canal. In the same survey, for patients with a low-lying IUD and pelvic pain or bleeding, the majority of experts reported that they would explore other causes of bleeding and pelvic pain not related to the IUD itself and not replace the IUD, but 30% of the experts reported that they would remove and replace the device.²³

IUD embedded in the myometrium with pelvic pain. Based on my clinical experience, when a patient has persistent pelvic pain following the insertion of an IUD and the pain does not resolve with standard measures including medication, an ultrasound study is warranted to assess the position of the IUD. If the ultrasound demonstrates that an arm of the IUD is embedded in the myometrium, removal of the IUD may be associated with resolution of the pain. Reinsertion of an IUD under ultrasound guidance may result in a correctly-sited IUD with no recurrence of pelvic pain.

IUD rotated within the uterus with no pain or abnormal bleeding. For an IUD that is near the fundus and rotated on its axis within the uterus, if the patient has no symptoms of pain or abnormal bleeding, my recommendation to the patient would be to leave the device in situ.

Without available guidelines, engage in clinician-patient discussion

It is clear that IUD malposition is common, occurring in 10% to 20% of patients with an IUD. High-quality ultrasound imaging is helpful in detecting IUD malposition, including 2-D ultrasound with videoclips and/or 3-D ultrasound with coronal reconstruction. More data are needed to identify the best options for managing various types of malpositioned IUDs in patients with and without bothersome symptoms such as pain and bleeding. Until consensus guidelines are developed, clinicians need to engage the patient in a discussion of how to best manage the malpositioned IUD. Medicated IUDs and progestin subdermal implants are our two most effective reversible contraceptives. They are among the most important advances in health care over the past half-century. ●

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Expulsion of intrauterine devices was significantly more likely when the devices were inserted within the first 3 days after delivery compared with later insertions, based on data from more than 300,000 women.

Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and current guidelines support immediate postpartum IUD insertion as a safe, effective, and convenient option, Mary Anne Armstrong, MA, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues wrote. Although IUD expulsion rates are low overall, data from previous studies suggest that timing of insertion may affect expulsion rates, and that breastfeeding may play a role.

In the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the electronic health records at four sites; the study population included women aged 50 years and younger who underwent IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018.

The women were grouped by postpartum status and timing of IUD placement: 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 weeks, 6-14 weeks, 14-52 weeks, and nonpostpartum (defined as more than 52 weeks or no evidence of delivery).

The researchers also compared expulsion rates in postpartum women who were and were not breastfeeding at the time of IUD insertion based on clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires at well-baby visits.

The total study population included 326,658 women with a mean age of 32.0 years; 42% were non-Hispanic White, 17.2% were Hispanic other, 13.0% were Hispanic White, 11.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.7% were non-Hispanic Black, and 0.2% were Hispanic Black. Approximately 80% of the IUDs were levonorgestrel releasing.

A total of 8,943 expulsions were reported, for an overall expulsion rate of 13.94 per 1,000 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratios for IUD expulsion were 5.34, 1.22, 1.06, and 1.43 for women with insertion times, respectively, of 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, 6-14 weeks, and 14-52 weeks. Women with nonpostpartum IUD insertion served as the referent.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest with placement between 0 and 3 days post partum and lowest with placement at 6-14 weeks postpartum (10.73% and 3.18%, respectively).

“Within the group with IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum, the highest expulsion rates were discovered within 12 weeks of insertion, with the highest incidence rate occurring at week 6 (844 per 1,000 person-years), a time women are commonly seen post delivery,” the researchers noted.

In a subcohort of 94,817 women with known breastfeeding status, the 5-year cumulative incidence of expulsion was 3.49% for breastfeeding women and 4.57% for nonbreastfeeding women, with an adjusted HR of 0.71 for breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding.

“While women who accept immediate postpartum IUD placement report high satisfaction rates, information on women’s preferences and satisfaction associated with different timing of postpartum placement would also be helpful to understand the benefit-risk profile,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “The fact that most expulsions in the immediate postpartum group occurred early presents an opportunity to mitigate risk of unrecognized expulsion and unintended pregnancy via counseling on signs of expulsion and follow-up examination.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of exposures and the primary outcome of expulsion, especially since some postpartum women may be lactating whether or not they are breastfeeding, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the combination of complete and partial expulsions, and the dating of IUD expulsion based on when it came to medical attention, which was not necessarily when it occurred. More data are needed on the potential association between lactational amenorrhea and lower expulsion risk among postpartum women who are breastfeeding.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, the use of linked mother-infant records to identify exposures, and the use electronic health records to identify outcomes, and the data can inform patient counseling for postpartum IUDs, the researchers concluded.
 

Study reflects findings from Europe

“The FDA mandated this study in response to a European study, EURAS-IUD1, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Armstrong said in an interview. In the European study “women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at 36 weeks’ postpartum or less had higher risk of uterine perforation. The FDA wanted to know if the risks were similar in the United States population”

The APEX-IUD study was designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. “The aims of APEX-IUD are to evaluate risk of IUD-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who are breastfeeding or within 12 months postpartum at insertion. The perforation outcome is addressed in a separate paper,” Ms. Armstrong noted.

“We were not surprised by the findings; they aligned with previous findings and confirm the overall safety of intrauterine devices,” said Ms. Armstrong. “Data from this study provides IUD expulsion risk estimates that can be used to inform clinical practice and preinsertion counseling. IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum might decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy and provide more convenience and efficiency for new mothers. This has proven to be especially important during the pandemic. The higher risk of expulsion at 0-3 days post partum must be balanced with the low IUD-related uterine perforation risk to provide a comprehensive picture that aids in clinical decision-making.

“Potential barriers to postpartum IUD placement include lack of provision of education on the range of contraceptive options available during prenatal care and failure or inability of hospital inpatient units to stock the intrauterine devices for use when needed,” said Ms. Armstrong.

Looking ahead, “future research could evaluate risk factors for partial versus complete expulsions, the association of preinsertion counseling with recognition of potential expulsions and corresponding IUD failure rates, and whether ultrasound verification of IUD position in the uterus after insertion is associated with expulsion risk,” she said.
 

Identifying risk factors informs patient counseling

“The current study examines breastfeeding at time of IUD insertion as a risk factor for expulsion,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “There is biologic plausibility that breastfeeding may be a risk factor of IUD expulsion. Breastfeeding stimulates secretion of oxytocin, a hormone which plays a key role in the contraction of the uterus during labor and uterine involution postpartum. It also plays a key role in the contraction of milk ducts to allow for milk letdown. Because of its dual role some mothers may occasionally report uterine cramping with breastfeeding. Prior studies have suggested that breastfeeding may be associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation with postpartum IUD placement, but how breastfeeding may contribute to risk of IUD expulsion has not been studied extensively.”

The current data are consistent with previous studies suggesting the highest risk of IUD expulsion is with placement in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days). “In a subcohort analysis by breastfeeding status, the risk of IUD expulsion was lower for women who were breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding;” however, “these findings may be due to amenorrhea that can also be seen with breastfeeding,” Dr. Krishna said. “Menstrual bleeding is an independent risk factor for IUD expulsion and not having menstrual bleeding while breastfeeding may lower risk of expulsion.

“Patients should be counseled on the benefits of immediate postpartum IUD placement, the risk of IUD expulsion, and alternative contraception options to be able to make an informed decision about the right contraception for them,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Clinicians can reassure patients that the uterine cramping they may feel while breastfeeding does not appear to increase the risk of IUD expulsion and that the amenorrhea that may result from breastfeeding also may lower the risk of IUD expulsion.”

The study was supported by Bayer through support to RTI Health Solutions, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the Regenstrief Institute. Ms. Armstrong and several coauthors disclosed support from Bayer during the study. Dr. Krishna had no relevant disclosures.

Expulsion of intrauterine devices was significantly more likely when the devices were inserted within the first 3 days after delivery compared with later insertions, based on data from more than 300,000 women.

Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and current guidelines support immediate postpartum IUD insertion as a safe, effective, and convenient option, Mary Anne Armstrong, MA, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues wrote. Although IUD expulsion rates are low overall, data from previous studies suggest that timing of insertion may affect expulsion rates, and that breastfeeding may play a role.

In the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the electronic health records at four sites; the study population included women aged 50 years and younger who underwent IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018.

The women were grouped by postpartum status and timing of IUD placement: 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 weeks, 6-14 weeks, 14-52 weeks, and nonpostpartum (defined as more than 52 weeks or no evidence of delivery).

The researchers also compared expulsion rates in postpartum women who were and were not breastfeeding at the time of IUD insertion based on clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires at well-baby visits.

The total study population included 326,658 women with a mean age of 32.0 years; 42% were non-Hispanic White, 17.2% were Hispanic other, 13.0% were Hispanic White, 11.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.7% were non-Hispanic Black, and 0.2% were Hispanic Black. Approximately 80% of the IUDs were levonorgestrel releasing.

A total of 8,943 expulsions were reported, for an overall expulsion rate of 13.94 per 1,000 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratios for IUD expulsion were 5.34, 1.22, 1.06, and 1.43 for women with insertion times, respectively, of 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, 6-14 weeks, and 14-52 weeks. Women with nonpostpartum IUD insertion served as the referent.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest with placement between 0 and 3 days post partum and lowest with placement at 6-14 weeks postpartum (10.73% and 3.18%, respectively).

“Within the group with IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum, the highest expulsion rates were discovered within 12 weeks of insertion, with the highest incidence rate occurring at week 6 (844 per 1,000 person-years), a time women are commonly seen post delivery,” the researchers noted.

In a subcohort of 94,817 women with known breastfeeding status, the 5-year cumulative incidence of expulsion was 3.49% for breastfeeding women and 4.57% for nonbreastfeeding women, with an adjusted HR of 0.71 for breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding.

“While women who accept immediate postpartum IUD placement report high satisfaction rates, information on women’s preferences and satisfaction associated with different timing of postpartum placement would also be helpful to understand the benefit-risk profile,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “The fact that most expulsions in the immediate postpartum group occurred early presents an opportunity to mitigate risk of unrecognized expulsion and unintended pregnancy via counseling on signs of expulsion and follow-up examination.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of exposures and the primary outcome of expulsion, especially since some postpartum women may be lactating whether or not they are breastfeeding, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the combination of complete and partial expulsions, and the dating of IUD expulsion based on when it came to medical attention, which was not necessarily when it occurred. More data are needed on the potential association between lactational amenorrhea and lower expulsion risk among postpartum women who are breastfeeding.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, the use of linked mother-infant records to identify exposures, and the use electronic health records to identify outcomes, and the data can inform patient counseling for postpartum IUDs, the researchers concluded.
 

Study reflects findings from Europe

“The FDA mandated this study in response to a European study, EURAS-IUD1, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Armstrong said in an interview. In the European study “women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at 36 weeks’ postpartum or less had higher risk of uterine perforation. The FDA wanted to know if the risks were similar in the United States population”

The APEX-IUD study was designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. “The aims of APEX-IUD are to evaluate risk of IUD-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who are breastfeeding or within 12 months postpartum at insertion. The perforation outcome is addressed in a separate paper,” Ms. Armstrong noted.

“We were not surprised by the findings; they aligned with previous findings and confirm the overall safety of intrauterine devices,” said Ms. Armstrong. “Data from this study provides IUD expulsion risk estimates that can be used to inform clinical practice and preinsertion counseling. IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum might decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy and provide more convenience and efficiency for new mothers. This has proven to be especially important during the pandemic. The higher risk of expulsion at 0-3 days post partum must be balanced with the low IUD-related uterine perforation risk to provide a comprehensive picture that aids in clinical decision-making.

“Potential barriers to postpartum IUD placement include lack of provision of education on the range of contraceptive options available during prenatal care and failure or inability of hospital inpatient units to stock the intrauterine devices for use when needed,” said Ms. Armstrong.

Looking ahead, “future research could evaluate risk factors for partial versus complete expulsions, the association of preinsertion counseling with recognition of potential expulsions and corresponding IUD failure rates, and whether ultrasound verification of IUD position in the uterus after insertion is associated with expulsion risk,” she said.
 

Identifying risk factors informs patient counseling

“The current study examines breastfeeding at time of IUD insertion as a risk factor for expulsion,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “There is biologic plausibility that breastfeeding may be a risk factor of IUD expulsion. Breastfeeding stimulates secretion of oxytocin, a hormone which plays a key role in the contraction of the uterus during labor and uterine involution postpartum. It also plays a key role in the contraction of milk ducts to allow for milk letdown. Because of its dual role some mothers may occasionally report uterine cramping with breastfeeding. Prior studies have suggested that breastfeeding may be associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation with postpartum IUD placement, but how breastfeeding may contribute to risk of IUD expulsion has not been studied extensively.”

The current data are consistent with previous studies suggesting the highest risk of IUD expulsion is with placement in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days). “In a subcohort analysis by breastfeeding status, the risk of IUD expulsion was lower for women who were breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding;” however, “these findings may be due to amenorrhea that can also be seen with breastfeeding,” Dr. Krishna said. “Menstrual bleeding is an independent risk factor for IUD expulsion and not having menstrual bleeding while breastfeeding may lower risk of expulsion.

“Patients should be counseled on the benefits of immediate postpartum IUD placement, the risk of IUD expulsion, and alternative contraception options to be able to make an informed decision about the right contraception for them,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Clinicians can reassure patients that the uterine cramping they may feel while breastfeeding does not appear to increase the risk of IUD expulsion and that the amenorrhea that may result from breastfeeding also may lower the risk of IUD expulsion.”

The study was supported by Bayer through support to RTI Health Solutions, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the Regenstrief Institute. Ms. Armstrong and several coauthors disclosed support from Bayer during the study. Dr. Krishna had no relevant disclosures.

Expulsion of intrauterine devices was significantly more likely when the devices were inserted within the first 3 days after delivery compared with later insertions, based on data from more than 300,000 women.

Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and current guidelines support immediate postpartum IUD insertion as a safe, effective, and convenient option, Mary Anne Armstrong, MA, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues wrote. Although IUD expulsion rates are low overall, data from previous studies suggest that timing of insertion may affect expulsion rates, and that breastfeeding may play a role.

In the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the electronic health records at four sites; the study population included women aged 50 years and younger who underwent IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018.

The women were grouped by postpartum status and timing of IUD placement: 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 weeks, 6-14 weeks, 14-52 weeks, and nonpostpartum (defined as more than 52 weeks or no evidence of delivery).

The researchers also compared expulsion rates in postpartum women who were and were not breastfeeding at the time of IUD insertion based on clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires at well-baby visits.

The total study population included 326,658 women with a mean age of 32.0 years; 42% were non-Hispanic White, 17.2% were Hispanic other, 13.0% were Hispanic White, 11.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.7% were non-Hispanic Black, and 0.2% were Hispanic Black. Approximately 80% of the IUDs were levonorgestrel releasing.

A total of 8,943 expulsions were reported, for an overall expulsion rate of 13.94 per 1,000 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratios for IUD expulsion were 5.34, 1.22, 1.06, and 1.43 for women with insertion times, respectively, of 0-3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, 6-14 weeks, and 14-52 weeks. Women with nonpostpartum IUD insertion served as the referent.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest with placement between 0 and 3 days post partum and lowest with placement at 6-14 weeks postpartum (10.73% and 3.18%, respectively).

“Within the group with IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum, the highest expulsion rates were discovered within 12 weeks of insertion, with the highest incidence rate occurring at week 6 (844 per 1,000 person-years), a time women are commonly seen post delivery,” the researchers noted.

In a subcohort of 94,817 women with known breastfeeding status, the 5-year cumulative incidence of expulsion was 3.49% for breastfeeding women and 4.57% for nonbreastfeeding women, with an adjusted HR of 0.71 for breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding.

“While women who accept immediate postpartum IUD placement report high satisfaction rates, information on women’s preferences and satisfaction associated with different timing of postpartum placement would also be helpful to understand the benefit-risk profile,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “The fact that most expulsions in the immediate postpartum group occurred early presents an opportunity to mitigate risk of unrecognized expulsion and unintended pregnancy via counseling on signs of expulsion and follow-up examination.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of exposures and the primary outcome of expulsion, especially since some postpartum women may be lactating whether or not they are breastfeeding, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the combination of complete and partial expulsions, and the dating of IUD expulsion based on when it came to medical attention, which was not necessarily when it occurred. More data are needed on the potential association between lactational amenorrhea and lower expulsion risk among postpartum women who are breastfeeding.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, the use of linked mother-infant records to identify exposures, and the use electronic health records to identify outcomes, and the data can inform patient counseling for postpartum IUDs, the researchers concluded.
 

Study reflects findings from Europe

“The FDA mandated this study in response to a European study, EURAS-IUD1, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Armstrong said in an interview. In the European study “women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at 36 weeks’ postpartum or less had higher risk of uterine perforation. The FDA wanted to know if the risks were similar in the United States population”

The APEX-IUD study was designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. “The aims of APEX-IUD are to evaluate risk of IUD-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who are breastfeeding or within 12 months postpartum at insertion. The perforation outcome is addressed in a separate paper,” Ms. Armstrong noted.

“We were not surprised by the findings; they aligned with previous findings and confirm the overall safety of intrauterine devices,” said Ms. Armstrong. “Data from this study provides IUD expulsion risk estimates that can be used to inform clinical practice and preinsertion counseling. IUD insertions 0-3 days postpartum might decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy and provide more convenience and efficiency for new mothers. This has proven to be especially important during the pandemic. The higher risk of expulsion at 0-3 days post partum must be balanced with the low IUD-related uterine perforation risk to provide a comprehensive picture that aids in clinical decision-making.

“Potential barriers to postpartum IUD placement include lack of provision of education on the range of contraceptive options available during prenatal care and failure or inability of hospital inpatient units to stock the intrauterine devices for use when needed,” said Ms. Armstrong.

Looking ahead, “future research could evaluate risk factors for partial versus complete expulsions, the association of preinsertion counseling with recognition of potential expulsions and corresponding IUD failure rates, and whether ultrasound verification of IUD position in the uterus after insertion is associated with expulsion risk,” she said.
 

Identifying risk factors informs patient counseling

“The current study examines breastfeeding at time of IUD insertion as a risk factor for expulsion,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “There is biologic plausibility that breastfeeding may be a risk factor of IUD expulsion. Breastfeeding stimulates secretion of oxytocin, a hormone which plays a key role in the contraction of the uterus during labor and uterine involution postpartum. It also plays a key role in the contraction of milk ducts to allow for milk letdown. Because of its dual role some mothers may occasionally report uterine cramping with breastfeeding. Prior studies have suggested that breastfeeding may be associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation with postpartum IUD placement, but how breastfeeding may contribute to risk of IUD expulsion has not been studied extensively.”

The current data are consistent with previous studies suggesting the highest risk of IUD expulsion is with placement in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days). “In a subcohort analysis by breastfeeding status, the risk of IUD expulsion was lower for women who were breastfeeding versus not breastfeeding;” however, “these findings may be due to amenorrhea that can also be seen with breastfeeding,” Dr. Krishna said. “Menstrual bleeding is an independent risk factor for IUD expulsion and not having menstrual bleeding while breastfeeding may lower risk of expulsion.

“Patients should be counseled on the benefits of immediate postpartum IUD placement, the risk of IUD expulsion, and alternative contraception options to be able to make an informed decision about the right contraception for them,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Clinicians can reassure patients that the uterine cramping they may feel while breastfeeding does not appear to increase the risk of IUD expulsion and that the amenorrhea that may result from breastfeeding also may lower the risk of IUD expulsion.”

The study was supported by Bayer through support to RTI Health Solutions, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and the Regenstrief Institute. Ms. Armstrong and several coauthors disclosed support from Bayer during the study. Dr. Krishna had no relevant disclosures.

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

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

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

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

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

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

The birth rate for U.S. teenagers dropped 3% in counties where a federally funded sex education program was introduced, a recently published paper says.

Researchers concentrated on the effects of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP), which was introduced during the Obama administration and administered on the county level. TPP programs provide more information on sex, contraception, and reproductive health than abstinence-only programs, the paper said.

“Sex education in the United States has been hotly debated among researchers, policy makers, and the public,” Nicholas Mark, a doctoral candidate in New York University’s department of sociology and the lead author of the paper, said in a news release. “Our analysis provides evidence that funding for more comprehensive sex education led to an overall reduction in the teen birth rate at the county level of more than 3%.”

Researchers examined teen birth rates in 55 counties from 1996 to 2009, before TTP, and from 2010 to 2016, after TTP. Next, they compared teen birth rates in the 55 counties with teen birth rates in 2,800 counties that didn’t have the funding in the years before and after TPP was introduced.

In the 55 counties, teen birth rates fell 1.5% in the first year of TTP funding and fell about 7% by the fifth year of funding, for an average drop of 3%, the news release said.

“We’ve known for some time that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at reducing teen birth rates,” said Lawrence Wu, a professor in NYU’s department of sociology and the paper’s senior author. “This work shows that more wide-reaching sex education programs – those not limited to abstinence – are successful in lowering rates of teen births.”

The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The paper said the findings probably understate the true effect of more comprehensive sex education at the individual level.

The authors said the findings are important because U.S. women are more likely to become mothers in their teens than women in other developed nations, with many teen pregnancies reported as unintended, the authors said.

As of 2020, teen birth rates and the number of births to teen mothers had dropped steadily since 1990. Teen birth rates fell by 70% over 3 decades.

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

The birth rate for U.S. teenagers dropped 3% in counties where a federally funded sex education program was introduced, a recently published paper says.

Researchers concentrated on the effects of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP), which was introduced during the Obama administration and administered on the county level. TPP programs provide more information on sex, contraception, and reproductive health than abstinence-only programs, the paper said.

“Sex education in the United States has been hotly debated among researchers, policy makers, and the public,” Nicholas Mark, a doctoral candidate in New York University’s department of sociology and the lead author of the paper, said in a news release. “Our analysis provides evidence that funding for more comprehensive sex education led to an overall reduction in the teen birth rate at the county level of more than 3%.”

Researchers examined teen birth rates in 55 counties from 1996 to 2009, before TTP, and from 2010 to 2016, after TTP. Next, they compared teen birth rates in the 55 counties with teen birth rates in 2,800 counties that didn’t have the funding in the years before and after TPP was introduced.

In the 55 counties, teen birth rates fell 1.5% in the first year of TTP funding and fell about 7% by the fifth year of funding, for an average drop of 3%, the news release said.

“We’ve known for some time that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at reducing teen birth rates,” said Lawrence Wu, a professor in NYU’s department of sociology and the paper’s senior author. “This work shows that more wide-reaching sex education programs – those not limited to abstinence – are successful in lowering rates of teen births.”

The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The paper said the findings probably understate the true effect of more comprehensive sex education at the individual level.

The authors said the findings are important because U.S. women are more likely to become mothers in their teens than women in other developed nations, with many teen pregnancies reported as unintended, the authors said.

As of 2020, teen birth rates and the number of births to teen mothers had dropped steadily since 1990. Teen birth rates fell by 70% over 3 decades.

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

The birth rate for U.S. teenagers dropped 3% in counties where a federally funded sex education program was introduced, a recently published paper says.

Researchers concentrated on the effects of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP), which was introduced during the Obama administration and administered on the county level. TPP programs provide more information on sex, contraception, and reproductive health than abstinence-only programs, the paper said.

“Sex education in the United States has been hotly debated among researchers, policy makers, and the public,” Nicholas Mark, a doctoral candidate in New York University’s department of sociology and the lead author of the paper, said in a news release. “Our analysis provides evidence that funding for more comprehensive sex education led to an overall reduction in the teen birth rate at the county level of more than 3%.”

Researchers examined teen birth rates in 55 counties from 1996 to 2009, before TTP, and from 2010 to 2016, after TTP. Next, they compared teen birth rates in the 55 counties with teen birth rates in 2,800 counties that didn’t have the funding in the years before and after TPP was introduced.

In the 55 counties, teen birth rates fell 1.5% in the first year of TTP funding and fell about 7% by the fifth year of funding, for an average drop of 3%, the news release said.

“We’ve known for some time that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at reducing teen birth rates,” said Lawrence Wu, a professor in NYU’s department of sociology and the paper’s senior author. “This work shows that more wide-reaching sex education programs – those not limited to abstinence – are successful in lowering rates of teen births.”

The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The paper said the findings probably understate the true effect of more comprehensive sex education at the individual level.

The authors said the findings are important because U.S. women are more likely to become mothers in their teens than women in other developed nations, with many teen pregnancies reported as unintended, the authors said.

As of 2020, teen birth rates and the number of births to teen mothers had dropped steadily since 1990. Teen birth rates fell by 70% over 3 decades.

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

Contraception and family planning have improved the health of all people by reducing maternal mortality, improving maternal and child health through birth spacing, supporting full education attainment, and advancing workforce participation.¹ Contraception is cost-effective and should be supported by all health insurers. One economic study reported that depending on the contraceptive method utilized, up to $7 of health care costs were saved for each dollar spent on contraceptive services and supplies.²

Progestin-only pills (POPs) are an important contraceptive option for people in the following situations who³:

• have a contraindication to estrogen-containing contraceptives
• are actively breastfeeding
• are less than 21 days since birth
• have a preference to avoid estrogen.

POPs are contraindicated for women who have breast cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, or active liver disease and for women who are pregnant. A history of bariatric surgery with a malabsorption procedure (Roux-en-Y and biliopancreatic diversion) and the use of antiepileptic medications that are strong enzyme inducers are additional situations where the risk of POP may outweigh the benefit.³ Alternative progestin-only options include the subdermal etonogestrel implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. These 3 options provide superior contraceptive efficacy to POP.

As a contraceptive, norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily has two major flaws:

• it does not reliably inhibit ovulation
• it has a short half-life.

In clinical studies, norethindrone inhibits ovulation in approximately 50% of cycles.^4,5 Because norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg does not reliably inhibit ovulation it relies on additional mechanisms for contraceptive efficacy, including thickening of the cervical mucus to block sperm entry into the upper reproductive tract, reduced fallopian tube motility, and thinning of the endometrium.⁶

Norethindrone POP is formulated in packs of 28 pills containing 0.35 mg intended for daily continuous administration and no medication-free intervals. One rationale for the low dose of 0.35 mg in norethindrone POP is that it approximates the lowest dose with contraceptive efficacy for breastfeeding women, which has the benefit of minimizing exposure of the baby to the medication. Estrogen-progestin birth control pills containing norethindrone as the progestin reliably inhibit ovulation and have a minimum of 1 mg of norethindrone in each hormone pill. A POP with 1 mg of norethindrone per pill would likely have greater contraceptive efficacy. When taken daily, norethindrone acetate 5 mg (Aygestin) suppresses ovarian estrogen production, ovulation, and often causes cessation of uterine bleeding.⁷ The short half-life of norethindrone (7.7 hours) further exacerbates the problem of an insufficient daily dose.⁶ The standard guidance is that norethindrone must be taken at the same time every day, a goal that is nearly impossible to achieve. If a dose of norethindrone is taken >3 hours late, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.⁶

Drospirenone is a chemical analogue of spironolactone. Drospirenone is a progestin that suppresses LH and FSH and has anti-androgenic and partial anti-mineralocorticoid effects.⁸ Drospirenone POP contains 4 mg of a nonmicronized formulation that is believed to provide a pharmacologically similar area under the curve in drug metabolism studies to the 3 mg of micronized drospirenone, present in drospirenone-containing estrogen-progestin contraceptives.⁸ It is provided in a pack of 28 pills with 24 drospirenone pills and 4 pills without hormone. Drospirenone has a long half-life of 30 to 34 hours.⁸ If ≥2 drospirenone pills are missed, backup contraception is recommended for 7 days.⁹ The contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone POP is thought to be similar to estrogen-progestin pills.⁸ Theoretically, drospirenone, acting as an anti-mineralocorticoid, can cause hyperkalemia. People with renal and adrenal insufficiency are most vulnerable to this adverse effect and should not be prescribed drospirenone. Women taking drospirenone and a medication that strongly inhibits CYP3A4, an enzyme involved in drospirenone degradation—including ketoconazole, indinavir, boceprevir, and clarithromycin—may have increased circulating levels of drospirenone and be at an increased risk of hyperkalemia. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that clinicians consider monitoring potassium concentration in women taking drospirenone who are also prescribed a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor.⁹ In people with normal renal and adrenal function, drospirenone-induced hyperkalemia is not commonly observed.⁹

Drospirenone 4 mg has been reported to not affect the natural balance of pro- and anti-coagulation factors in women.¹⁰ Drospirenone 4 mg daily has been reported to cause a modest decrease in systolic (-8 mm Hg) and diastolic (-5 mm Hg) blood pressure for women with a baseline blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg. Drospirenone 4 mg daily did not change blood pressure measurement in women with a baseline systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg.¹¹ For women using drospirenone POP, circulating estradiol concentration is usually >30 pg/mL, with a mean concentration of 51 pg/mL.^12,13 Drospirenone POP does not result in a significant change in body weight.¹⁴ Preliminary studies suggest that drospirenone is an effective contraceptive in women with a BMI >30 kg/m².^14,15 Drospirenone enters breast milk and the relative infant dose is reported to be 1.5%.⁹ In general, breastfeeding is considered reasonably safe when the relative infant dose of a medication is <10%.¹⁶

The most common adverse effect reported with both norethindrone and drospirenone POP is unscheduled uterine bleeding. With norethindrone POP about 50% of users have a relatively preserved monthly bleeding pattern and approximately 50% have bleeding between periods, spotting and/or prolonged bleeding.^17,18 A similar frequency of unscheduled uterine bleeding has been reported with drospirenone POP.^14,19 Unscheduled and bothersome uterine bleeding is a common reason people discontinue POP. For drospirenone POP, the FDA reports a Pearl Index of 4.⁹ Other studies report a Pearl Index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 1.43) for drospirenone POP.¹⁴ For norethindrone POP, the FDA reports that in typical use about 5% of people using the contraceptive method would become pregnant.⁶ The TABLE provides a comparison of the key features of the two available POP contraceptives. My assessment is that drospirenone has superior contraceptive properties over norethindrone POP. However, a head-to-head clinical trial would be necessary to determine the relative contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone versus norethindrone POP.

Maintaining contraception access

Access to contraception without a copayment is an important component of a comprehensive and equitable insurance program.²⁰ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advocates that all people “should have unhindered and affordable access to all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.”²¹ ACOG also calls for the “full implementation of the Affordable Care Act requirement that new and revised private health insurance plans cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives without cost sharing, including nonequivalent options within one method category.” The National Women’s Law Center²² provides helpful resources to ensure access to legislated contraceptive benefits, including a phone script for speaking with an insurance benefits agent²³ and a toolkit for advocating for your contraceptive choice.²⁴ We need to ensure that people have unfettered access to all FDA-approved contraceptives because access to contraception is an important component of public health. Although drospirenone is more costly than norethindrone POP, drospirenone contraception should be available to all patients seeking POP contraception. ●

Contraception and family planning have improved the health of all people by reducing maternal mortality, improving maternal and child health through birth spacing, supporting full education attainment, and advancing workforce participation.¹ Contraception is cost-effective and should be supported by all health insurers. One economic study reported that depending on the contraceptive method utilized, up to $7 of health care costs were saved for each dollar spent on contraceptive services and supplies.²

Progestin-only pills (POPs) are an important contraceptive option for people in the following situations who³:

• have a contraindication to estrogen-containing contraceptives
• are actively breastfeeding
• are less than 21 days since birth
• have a preference to avoid estrogen.

POPs are contraindicated for women who have breast cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, or active liver disease and for women who are pregnant. A history of bariatric surgery with a malabsorption procedure (Roux-en-Y and biliopancreatic diversion) and the use of antiepileptic medications that are strong enzyme inducers are additional situations where the risk of POP may outweigh the benefit.³ Alternative progestin-only options include the subdermal etonogestrel implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. These 3 options provide superior contraceptive efficacy to POP.

As a contraceptive, norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily has two major flaws:

• it does not reliably inhibit ovulation
• it has a short half-life.

In clinical studies, norethindrone inhibits ovulation in approximately 50% of cycles.^4,5 Because norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg does not reliably inhibit ovulation it relies on additional mechanisms for contraceptive efficacy, including thickening of the cervical mucus to block sperm entry into the upper reproductive tract, reduced fallopian tube motility, and thinning of the endometrium.⁶

Norethindrone POP is formulated in packs of 28 pills containing 0.35 mg intended for daily continuous administration and no medication-free intervals. One rationale for the low dose of 0.35 mg in norethindrone POP is that it approximates the lowest dose with contraceptive efficacy for breastfeeding women, which has the benefit of minimizing exposure of the baby to the medication. Estrogen-progestin birth control pills containing norethindrone as the progestin reliably inhibit ovulation and have a minimum of 1 mg of norethindrone in each hormone pill. A POP with 1 mg of norethindrone per pill would likely have greater contraceptive efficacy. When taken daily, norethindrone acetate 5 mg (Aygestin) suppresses ovarian estrogen production, ovulation, and often causes cessation of uterine bleeding.⁷ The short half-life of norethindrone (7.7 hours) further exacerbates the problem of an insufficient daily dose.⁶ The standard guidance is that norethindrone must be taken at the same time every day, a goal that is nearly impossible to achieve. If a dose of norethindrone is taken >3 hours late, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.⁶

Drospirenone is a chemical analogue of spironolactone. Drospirenone is a progestin that suppresses LH and FSH and has anti-androgenic and partial anti-mineralocorticoid effects.⁸ Drospirenone POP contains 4 mg of a nonmicronized formulation that is believed to provide a pharmacologically similar area under the curve in drug metabolism studies to the 3 mg of micronized drospirenone, present in drospirenone-containing estrogen-progestin contraceptives.⁸ It is provided in a pack of 28 pills with 24 drospirenone pills and 4 pills without hormone. Drospirenone has a long half-life of 30 to 34 hours.⁸ If ≥2 drospirenone pills are missed, backup contraception is recommended for 7 days.⁹ The contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone POP is thought to be similar to estrogen-progestin pills.⁸ Theoretically, drospirenone, acting as an anti-mineralocorticoid, can cause hyperkalemia. People with renal and adrenal insufficiency are most vulnerable to this adverse effect and should not be prescribed drospirenone. Women taking drospirenone and a medication that strongly inhibits CYP3A4, an enzyme involved in drospirenone degradation—including ketoconazole, indinavir, boceprevir, and clarithromycin—may have increased circulating levels of drospirenone and be at an increased risk of hyperkalemia. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that clinicians consider monitoring potassium concentration in women taking drospirenone who are also prescribed a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor.⁹ In people with normal renal and adrenal function, drospirenone-induced hyperkalemia is not commonly observed.⁹

Drospirenone 4 mg has been reported to not affect the natural balance of pro- and anti-coagulation factors in women.¹⁰ Drospirenone 4 mg daily has been reported to cause a modest decrease in systolic (-8 mm Hg) and diastolic (-5 mm Hg) blood pressure for women with a baseline blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg. Drospirenone 4 mg daily did not change blood pressure measurement in women with a baseline systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg.¹¹ For women using drospirenone POP, circulating estradiol concentration is usually >30 pg/mL, with a mean concentration of 51 pg/mL.^12,13 Drospirenone POP does not result in a significant change in body weight.¹⁴ Preliminary studies suggest that drospirenone is an effective contraceptive in women with a BMI >30 kg/m².^14,15 Drospirenone enters breast milk and the relative infant dose is reported to be 1.5%.⁹ In general, breastfeeding is considered reasonably safe when the relative infant dose of a medication is <10%.¹⁶

The most common adverse effect reported with both norethindrone and drospirenone POP is unscheduled uterine bleeding. With norethindrone POP about 50% of users have a relatively preserved monthly bleeding pattern and approximately 50% have bleeding between periods, spotting and/or prolonged bleeding.^17,18 A similar frequency of unscheduled uterine bleeding has been reported with drospirenone POP.^14,19 Unscheduled and bothersome uterine bleeding is a common reason people discontinue POP. For drospirenone POP, the FDA reports a Pearl Index of 4.⁹ Other studies report a Pearl Index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 1.43) for drospirenone POP.¹⁴ For norethindrone POP, the FDA reports that in typical use about 5% of people using the contraceptive method would become pregnant.⁶ The TABLE provides a comparison of the key features of the two available POP contraceptives. My assessment is that drospirenone has superior contraceptive properties over norethindrone POP. However, a head-to-head clinical trial would be necessary to determine the relative contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone versus norethindrone POP.

Maintaining contraception access

Access to contraception without a copayment is an important component of a comprehensive and equitable insurance program.²⁰ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advocates that all people “should have unhindered and affordable access to all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.”²¹ ACOG also calls for the “full implementation of the Affordable Care Act requirement that new and revised private health insurance plans cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives without cost sharing, including nonequivalent options within one method category.” The National Women’s Law Center²² provides helpful resources to ensure access to legislated contraceptive benefits, including a phone script for speaking with an insurance benefits agent²³ and a toolkit for advocating for your contraceptive choice.²⁴ We need to ensure that people have unfettered access to all FDA-approved contraceptives because access to contraception is an important component of public health. Although drospirenone is more costly than norethindrone POP, drospirenone contraception should be available to all patients seeking POP contraception. ●

Contraception and family planning have improved the health of all people by reducing maternal mortality, improving maternal and child health through birth spacing, supporting full education attainment, and advancing workforce participation.¹ Contraception is cost-effective and should be supported by all health insurers. One economic study reported that depending on the contraceptive method utilized, up to $7 of health care costs were saved for each dollar spent on contraceptive services and supplies.²

Progestin-only pills (POPs) are an important contraceptive option for people in the following situations who³:

• have a contraindication to estrogen-containing contraceptives
• are actively breastfeeding
• are less than 21 days since birth
• have a preference to avoid estrogen.

POPs are contraindicated for women who have breast cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, or active liver disease and for women who are pregnant. A history of bariatric surgery with a malabsorption procedure (Roux-en-Y and biliopancreatic diversion) and the use of antiepileptic medications that are strong enzyme inducers are additional situations where the risk of POP may outweigh the benefit.³ Alternative progestin-only options include the subdermal etonogestrel implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. These 3 options provide superior contraceptive efficacy to POP.

As a contraceptive, norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily has two major flaws:

• it does not reliably inhibit ovulation
• it has a short half-life.

In clinical studies, norethindrone inhibits ovulation in approximately 50% of cycles.^4,5 Because norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg does not reliably inhibit ovulation it relies on additional mechanisms for contraceptive efficacy, including thickening of the cervical mucus to block sperm entry into the upper reproductive tract, reduced fallopian tube motility, and thinning of the endometrium.⁶

Norethindrone POP is formulated in packs of 28 pills containing 0.35 mg intended for daily continuous administration and no medication-free intervals. One rationale for the low dose of 0.35 mg in norethindrone POP is that it approximates the lowest dose with contraceptive efficacy for breastfeeding women, which has the benefit of minimizing exposure of the baby to the medication. Estrogen-progestin birth control pills containing norethindrone as the progestin reliably inhibit ovulation and have a minimum of 1 mg of norethindrone in each hormone pill. A POP with 1 mg of norethindrone per pill would likely have greater contraceptive efficacy. When taken daily, norethindrone acetate 5 mg (Aygestin) suppresses ovarian estrogen production, ovulation, and often causes cessation of uterine bleeding.⁷ The short half-life of norethindrone (7.7 hours) further exacerbates the problem of an insufficient daily dose.⁶ The standard guidance is that norethindrone must be taken at the same time every day, a goal that is nearly impossible to achieve. If a dose of norethindrone is taken >3 hours late, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.⁶

Drospirenone is a chemical analogue of spironolactone. Drospirenone is a progestin that suppresses LH and FSH and has anti-androgenic and partial anti-mineralocorticoid effects.⁸ Drospirenone POP contains 4 mg of a nonmicronized formulation that is believed to provide a pharmacologically similar area under the curve in drug metabolism studies to the 3 mg of micronized drospirenone, present in drospirenone-containing estrogen-progestin contraceptives.⁸ It is provided in a pack of 28 pills with 24 drospirenone pills and 4 pills without hormone. Drospirenone has a long half-life of 30 to 34 hours.⁸ If ≥2 drospirenone pills are missed, backup contraception is recommended for 7 days.⁹ The contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone POP is thought to be similar to estrogen-progestin pills.⁸ Theoretically, drospirenone, acting as an anti-mineralocorticoid, can cause hyperkalemia. People with renal and adrenal insufficiency are most vulnerable to this adverse effect and should not be prescribed drospirenone. Women taking drospirenone and a medication that strongly inhibits CYP3A4, an enzyme involved in drospirenone degradation—including ketoconazole, indinavir, boceprevir, and clarithromycin—may have increased circulating levels of drospirenone and be at an increased risk of hyperkalemia. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that clinicians consider monitoring potassium concentration in women taking drospirenone who are also prescribed a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor.⁹ In people with normal renal and adrenal function, drospirenone-induced hyperkalemia is not commonly observed.⁹

Drospirenone 4 mg has been reported to not affect the natural balance of pro- and anti-coagulation factors in women.¹⁰ Drospirenone 4 mg daily has been reported to cause a modest decrease in systolic (-8 mm Hg) and diastolic (-5 mm Hg) blood pressure for women with a baseline blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg. Drospirenone 4 mg daily did not change blood pressure measurement in women with a baseline systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg.¹¹ For women using drospirenone POP, circulating estradiol concentration is usually >30 pg/mL, with a mean concentration of 51 pg/mL.^12,13 Drospirenone POP does not result in a significant change in body weight.¹⁴ Preliminary studies suggest that drospirenone is an effective contraceptive in women with a BMI >30 kg/m².^14,15 Drospirenone enters breast milk and the relative infant dose is reported to be 1.5%.⁹ In general, breastfeeding is considered reasonably safe when the relative infant dose of a medication is <10%.¹⁶

The most common adverse effect reported with both norethindrone and drospirenone POP is unscheduled uterine bleeding. With norethindrone POP about 50% of users have a relatively preserved monthly bleeding pattern and approximately 50% have bleeding between periods, spotting and/or prolonged bleeding.^17,18 A similar frequency of unscheduled uterine bleeding has been reported with drospirenone POP.^14,19 Unscheduled and bothersome uterine bleeding is a common reason people discontinue POP. For drospirenone POP, the FDA reports a Pearl Index of 4.⁹ Other studies report a Pearl Index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 1.43) for drospirenone POP.¹⁴ For norethindrone POP, the FDA reports that in typical use about 5% of people using the contraceptive method would become pregnant.⁶ The TABLE provides a comparison of the key features of the two available POP contraceptives. My assessment is that drospirenone has superior contraceptive properties over norethindrone POP. However, a head-to-head clinical trial would be necessary to determine the relative contraceptive effectiveness of drospirenone versus norethindrone POP.

Maintaining contraception access

Access to contraception without a copayment is an important component of a comprehensive and equitable insurance program.²⁰ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advocates that all people “should have unhindered and affordable access to all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.”²¹ ACOG also calls for the “full implementation of the Affordable Care Act requirement that new and revised private health insurance plans cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives without cost sharing, including nonequivalent options within one method category.” The National Women’s Law Center²² provides helpful resources to ensure access to legislated contraceptive benefits, including a phone script for speaking with an insurance benefits agent²³ and a toolkit for advocating for your contraceptive choice.²⁴ We need to ensure that people have unfettered access to all FDA-approved contraceptives because access to contraception is an important component of public health. Although drospirenone is more costly than norethindrone POP, drospirenone contraception should be available to all patients seeking POP contraception. ●

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.