Immediate versus delayed insertion of an etonogestrel releasing implant at medical abortion-a randomized controlled equivalence trial.

Does a progestin releasing subdermal contraceptive implant affect the efficacy of medical abortion if inserted at the same visit as the progesterone receptor modulator, mifepristone, at medical abortion? A etonogestrel releasing subdermal implant inserted on the day of mifepristone did not impair the efficacy of the medical abortion compared with routine insertion at 2-4 weeks after the abortion. The etonogestrel releasing subdermal implant is one of the most effective long acting reversible contraceptive methods. The effect of timing of placement on the efficacy of mifepristone and impact on prevention of subsequent unintended pregnancy is not known. This multicentre, randomized controlled, equivalence trial with recruitment between 13 October 2013 and 17 October 2015 included a total of 551 women with pregnancies below 64 days gestation opting for the etonogestrel releasing subdermal implant as postabortion contraception. Women were randomized to either insertion at 1 hour after mifepristone intake (immediate) or at follow-up 2-4 weeks later (delayed insertion). An equivalence design was used due to advantages for women such as fewer visits to the clinic with immediate insertion. The primary outcome was the percentage of women with complete abortion not requiring surgical intervention within 1 month. Secondary outcomes included insertion rates, pregnancy and repeat abortion rates during 6 months follow-up. Analysis was per protocol and by intention to treat. Women aged 18 years and older who had requested medical termination of a pregnancy up to 63 days of gestation and opted for an etonogestrel releasing contraceptive implant were recruited in outpatient family planning clinics in six hospitals in Sweden and Scotland. Efficacy of medical abortion was 259/275 (94.2%) in the immediate insertion group and 239/249 (96%) in the routine insertion group with a risk difference of 1.8% (95% CI -0.4 to 4.1%), which was within the ±5% margin of equivalence. The insertion rate was 275/277 (98.9%) in the immediate group compared to 187/261 (71.6%) women in the routine group (P < 0.001). At 6 months of follow-up significantly fewer women in the immediate group had become pregnant again (2/277, 0.8%) compared to the routine group (10/261, 3.8%) P = 0.018. For the main outcome loss to follow-up data was minimized through access to patient records. Efforts were made to reduce loss to follow-up also for secondary outcomes. The results of the sensitivity analysis did not differ from the intention to treat or per protocol analysis. Guidelines on postabortion contraception should be amended to include insertion of the etonogestrel releasing implant at the time of mifepristone intake for medical abortion up to and including a gestation of 63 days. This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council (2012-2844), Stockholm City County and Karolinska Institutet (ALF). The contraceptive implants were provided by Merck and supplied by MSD Sweden. HKK and KGD have received honorariums for giving lectures for MSD/Merck and have participated in the national (HKK and KGD) and international (KGD) medical advisory boards for MSD/Merck. The other authors have nothing to declare. ClinicalTrials number NCT01920022. 06 August 2013. 13 October 2013.

Hognert H ，Kopp Kallner H ，Cameron S ，Nyrelli C ，Jawad I ，Heller R ，Aronsson A ，Lindh I ，Benson L ，Gemzell-Danielsson K ... -  《-》

Intra-abortion contraception with etonogestrel subdermal implant.

Etonogestrel subdermal implant is a highly effective, reversible and safe form of contraception. Immediate placement during abortion visit could increase contraception use in women at high risk for unintended pregnancy. Our purpose was to evaluate patient acceptability, user continuation rate and efficacy of medical termination of pregnancy when the implant is inserted during medical termination of pregnancy. Prospective observational study comparing patients who chose the subdermal implant for post-abortion contraception, inserted at the time of administration of mifepristone, with patients who chose delayed placement after the termination was complete. After contraceptive counseling 119 women chose the implant as their post-abortion contraceptive method. In the intra-abortion implant insertion group the user continuation rate after 6 months was 73.7% (42/57). In the delayed placement group 59.7% (37/62) missed the follow-up after abortion visit, 24.2% (15/62) chose another method and only 16.1% (10/62) had the implant inserted. The efficacy of medical termination was 96.5% in the group of intra-abortion implant insertion and 98.4% in the delayed placement group. Intra-abortion subdermal implant insertion significantly increases the likelihood of effective long-acting contraception use following abortion. The efficacy of medical termination was not significantly changed by intra-abortion implant insertion.

Barros Pereira I ，Carvalho RM ，Graça LM 《-》

Extended use up to 5 years of the etonogestrel-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant: comparison to levonorgestrel-releasing subdermal implant.

Is it possible to extend the use of the 3-year one-rod etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant to 5 years? The extended use of the one-rod ENG-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant showed 100% efficacy in years 4 and 5. The initial regulated trials on the ENG-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant conducted in the 1990 s were designed to measure cumulative 3-year efficacy. The ENG-implant has both well established safety and efficacy for up to 3 years. Pharmacokinetic data on ENG show high levels at 3 years and some previous clinical research confirms efficacy beyond the current approved duration of 3 years. Today, many women, because the labeled duration has been reached, have the ENG implant removed at 3 years, increasing costs, inconvenience and risks. For the first 3 years, this study was an open-label, multi-centre randomized trial comparing the 3-year ENG implant to the 5-year levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing implant. After 3 years, a subset of 390 ENG participants, consented to extended use. We compared efficacy, side effects and removal procedures of both implants. We used Kaplan-Meier (K-M) analysis. We included an observational cohort of copper intrauterine device (IUD) users as non-users of hormonal contraceptive method for comparative purposes. The study took place in family planning clinics in seven countries worldwide. Women were enlisted after an eligibility check and informed consent, and 1328 women were enrolled: 390, 522 and 416 in the ENG-implant, LNG-implant and IUD groups, respectively. Over 200 women used the ENG implant for at least 5 years. No pregnancies occurred during the additional 2 years of follow up in the ENG or LNG implant group. The overall 5-year K-M cumulative pregnancy rates for ENG- and LNG- implants were 0.6 per 100 women-years (W-Y) [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2-1.8] and 0.8 per 100 W-Y [95% CI: 0.2-2.3], respectively. Complaints of bleeding changes were similar; however, ENG-users were more likely than LNG-users to experience heavy bleeding (p < 0.05). The median duration of the implant removal procedure was 64 seconds shorter for the one-rod ENG-implant (inter-quartile range (IQR) = 30.5, 117.5) compared to the two-rod LNG product (IQR = 77.0, 180.0). The 2-year rate for pregnancy in the IUD group compared with the two implant groups combined was 4.1 per 100 W-Y [95% CI: 2.5-6.5]. Few women were ≤19 years old or nulligravida. Although there was no weight limit for enrolment in the study, the number of women ≥70 kg were few. The results from this study corroborate previous evidence showing high contraceptive efficacy through 4 years for the ENG-implant. Data through 5 years are a novel contribution and further proof of the product's capability to provide safe and effective contraception that rivals the current 5-year LNG-subdermal implant. The findings provide valuable information for policy makers, family planning programmers and clinicians that the ENG-releasing subdermal implant is still highly effective up to 5 years after insertion. Compared to previous efforts, our study population was geographically diverse and our study had the highest number of participants completing at least 5 years of use. The trial was registered as ISRCTN33378571. The contraceptive devices and funds for conduct of the study were provided by the United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Population Fund/World Health Organization (WHO)/UNICEF/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), WHO. This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts, and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the WHO. All stated authors have no conflict of interest, except Dr Hubacher who reported grants from United States Agency for International Development, during the conduct of the study; other from Advisory Boards (Teva, Bayer, OCON), outside the submitted work.

Ali M ，Akin A ，Bahamondes L ，Brache V ，Habib N ，Landoulsi S ，Hubacher D ，WHO study group on subdermal contraceptive implants for women ... -  《-》

Effect of Immediate Compared With Delayed Insertion of Etonogestrel Implants on Medical Abortion Efficacy and Repeat Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Raymond EG ，Weaver MA ，Tan YL ，Louie KS ，Bousiéguez M ，Lugo-Hernández EM ，Aranguré-Peraza AG ，Sanhueza P ，Kaplan C ，Sonalkar S ，Goldberg AB ，Culwell KR ，Memmel L ，Jamshidi R ，Winikoff B ... -  《-》

A 3-year multicentre randomized controlled trial of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants, with non-randomized matched copper-intrauterine device controls.

Is there any difference in the clinical performance of the 3-year one-rod etonogestrel (ENG)- and the 5-year two-rod levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing contraceptive implants during 3 years of insertion, and between implant and intrauterine device (IUD) contraception, in particular complaints possibly related to hormonal contraceptives? The cumulative contraceptive effectiveness after 3 years and method continuation through 2.5 years were not significantly different between ENG and LNG implants, but both outcomes were significantly worse in the non-randomized age-matched group of IUD users than in the combined implant group. ENG- and LNG-releasing implants are safe and highly efficacious contraceptives with pregnancy rates reported to be 0.0-0.5 per 100 women-years (W-Y). No head-to-head comparative study of the two implants has been undertaken, and little information is available on comparisons of complaints of side effects of implant and copper IUD users. This was an open parallel group RCT with 1:1 allocation ratio of the ENG and the LNG implants with non-randomized control group of women choosing TCu380A IUD to address lack of reliable data on common side effects typically attributed to the use of progestogen-only contraceptives. After device(s) placement, follow-ups were at 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and semi-annually thereafter for 3 years or until pregnancy, removal or expulsion of the implant/IUD occurred. The study took place in family planning clinics in Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Thailand, Turkey and Zimbabwe. Women seeking long-term contraception were enlisted after an eligibility check and informed consent, and 2982 women were enrolled: 1003, 1005 and 974 in the ENG-implant, LNG-implant and IUD groups, respectively; 995, 997 and 971, respectively, were included in the per protocol analysis reported here. ENG and LNG implants each had the same 3-year cumulative pregnancy rate of 0.4 per 100 W-Y [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-1.4]. A weight of ≥70 kg at admission was unrelated to pregnancy. Method continuation rates for ENG and LNG implants at 2.5 years were 69.8 (95% CI 66.8-72.6) and 71.8 per 100 W-Y (68.8-74.5), and at 3 years 12.1 (95% CI 5.2-22.0) and 52.0 per 100 W-Y (95% CI 41.8-61.2), respectively. Bleeding disturbances, the most frequent reason for method discontinuation, were significantly more common in the ENG group [16.7 (95% CI 14.4-19.3)] than in the LNG group [12.5 (95% CI 10.5-14.9)] (P 0.019). The 3-year cumulative loss to follow-up was lower in the ENG- than in the LNG-implant group, 8.1 (95% CI 6.4-10.2) and 14.4 per 100 W-Y (95% CI 12.1-17.1), respectively. The median duration of implant removal was 50 s shorter among women with ENG than among women with LNG implant (P < 0.0001). In the observational comparison between IUD and implant users, the 3-year relative risk for pregnancy in IUD group compared with the combined implant group was 5.7 per 100 W-Y (95% CI 4.4-7.3) (P = 0.0003). The 3-year expulsion rate of the IUD was 17.8 per 100 W-Y (95% CI 14.5-21.9), while the discontinuation rate for bleeding disturbances was 8.5 (95% CI 6.7-10.9). Frequency of complaints of headache and dizziness was not significantly different between implant and IUD users (P = 0.16 and 0.77, respectively), acne and bleeding irregularities were more frequent among implant users (P < 0.0001), while heavy bleeding and lower abdominal pain occurred more often among IUD than implant users (P < 0.0001). Few women were ≤19 years old or nulligravida, the proportion of implant users ≥70 kg was <20% and <8% were obese. Findings of the study can inform policy makers and clinicians about choice of implant, but also about TCu380A IUD in relation to implants. UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/UNICEF/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization (WHO). This report contains the views of an international expert group and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the WHO. ISRCTN33378571 registered on 22 March 2004. The first participant was enrolled on 12 May 2003.

Bahamondes L ，Brache V ，Meirik O ，Ali M ，Habib N ，Landoulsi S ，WHO Study Group on Contraceptive Implants for Women ... -  《-》