Is the 52-mg LNG-IUD effective as emergency contraception?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 09/21/2021 - 13:46

 

 

Turok DK, Gero A, Simmons RG, et al. Levonorgestrel vs copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:335-344.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Emergency contraception refers to therapies used to prevent pregnancy after inadequately protected intercourse.1 Evidence-based forms of EC available in the United States include oral LNG, oral ulipristal acetate, and the copper IUD. The copper IUD provides not only EC but also highly effective contraception after placement.2 The LNG-IUD has a favorable side effect profile compared with the copper IUD and is theorized to act as EC through direct interference with sperm and oviduct transport.3 Recently, Turok and colleagues conducted a noninferiority trial designed to investigate the EC effectiveness of the LNG-IUD compared with the copper IUD.3

Details of the study

Turok and colleagues recruited participants aged 18 to 35 who requested EC from 6 family planning clinics in Utah from 2016 to 2019. Participants who reported unprotected intercourse within the past 120 hours and who desired an IUD to prevent pregnancy for at least 1 year were randomly assigned to receive either the LNG-IUD or the copper IUD. Individuals were excluded from the trial if they had contraindications to IUD placement, were breastfeeding, had abnormal uterine bleeding, had irregular menses, were currently using highly effective contraception, or had recent EC use. Researchers determined pregnancy status at 1 month through a pregnancy test or clinical records review.

Results. Of 711 participants randomly assigned, 317 who received the LNG-IUD and 321 who received the copper IUD provided 1-month outcome data. Pregnancy 1 month after IUD placement occurred in 1 participant (0.3%) in the LNG-IUD group and in no participants in the copper IUD group (0%). The between-group difference of 0.3 percentage points was within the margin of noninferiority and was not significant.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, multicenter randomized controlled trial contributes novel information about the effectiveness and noninferiority of the LNG-IUD as EC. Unlike prior studies of oral EC, which commonly limited participants to 1 episode of unprotected intercourse, this trial enrolled women at potentially higher risk of pregnancy with multiple episodes of intercourse and found fewer pregnancies than expected. Randomization ensured equivalence between groups, with the exception of the reason for needing EC.

Study limitations include a higher than expected rate of loss to follow-up, requiring clinical records and survey data to confirm pregnancy status. After randomization, clinicians were unable to place IUDs in more than 5% of participants in both groups; noninferiority was demonstrated nonetheless. This study did not include participants receiving oral EC, so direct comparison of effectiveness is not possible. Pregnancy rates among IUD users in this study were favorable to rates reported in previous studies of oral EC.4

When choosing an IUD for contraception, more women select the LNG-IUD for its favorable side effect profile and reduction in menstrual bleeding. In this randomized IUD study, only 7% of eligible participants enrolled, potentially introducing selection bias. The majority who declined enrollment did not want an IUD. Previous studies that allowed participants to choose their IUD had higher enrollment rates. ● 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

The study by Turok and colleagues is the largest randomized controlled trial to date of IUDs as EC. It demonstrated that LNG-IUDs are noninferior to copper IUDs in preventing pregnancy when placed within 5 days of unprotected intercourse. IUDs offer advantages over oral EC methods: only IUDs provide ongoing contraception after EC, and IUD efficacy does not vary by body mass index. It is reasonable for clinicians and patients to consider LNG-IUDs among EC options after shared decision making.

This study suggests that quick-start placement of the LNG-IUD at any time in the menstrual cycle is reasonable given its effectiveness as EC. Additionally, there were no pregnancies among 138 study participants who resumed intercourse within 7 days of LNG-IUD placement, most of whom did not use backup contraception.5 While current guidelines still recommend backup contraception after LNG-IUD placement, clinicians may reassure patients with unprotected intercourse following any type of IUD placement about the low risk of pregnancy.

LISA HOFLER, MD, MPH, MBA,
AND SMITA CARROLL, MD, MBA

References
  1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 152: emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e1-e11.
  2. Cleland K, Zhu H, Goldstuck N, et al. The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1994-2000.
  3. Turok DK, Gero A, Simmons RG, et al. Levonorgestrel vs copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:335-344.
  4. Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomized non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:555-562.
  5. Fay KE, Clement AC, Gero A, et al. Rates of pregnancy among levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine emergency contraception initiators: implications for backup contraception recommendations. Contraception. 2021;S0010-7824(21)00210-9.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, is Chief, Division of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Smita Carroll, MD, MBA, is Fellow in Complex Family Planning, Division of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

 

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Issue
OBG Management - 33(9)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
16, 18
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, is Chief, Division of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Smita Carroll, MD, MBA, is Fellow in Complex Family Planning, Division of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

 

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, is Chief, Division of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Smita Carroll, MD, MBA, is Fellow in Complex Family Planning, Division of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

 

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

 

 

Turok DK, Gero A, Simmons RG, et al. Levonorgestrel vs copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:335-344.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Emergency contraception refers to therapies used to prevent pregnancy after inadequately protected intercourse.1 Evidence-based forms of EC available in the United States include oral LNG, oral ulipristal acetate, and the copper IUD. The copper IUD provides not only EC but also highly effective contraception after placement.2 The LNG-IUD has a favorable side effect profile compared with the copper IUD and is theorized to act as EC through direct interference with sperm and oviduct transport.3 Recently, Turok and colleagues conducted a noninferiority trial designed to investigate the EC effectiveness of the LNG-IUD compared with the copper IUD.3

Details of the study

Turok and colleagues recruited participants aged 18 to 35 who requested EC from 6 family planning clinics in Utah from 2016 to 2019. Participants who reported unprotected intercourse within the past 120 hours and who desired an IUD to prevent pregnancy for at least 1 year were randomly assigned to receive either the LNG-IUD or the copper IUD. Individuals were excluded from the trial if they had contraindications to IUD placement, were breastfeeding, had abnormal uterine bleeding, had irregular menses, were currently using highly effective contraception, or had recent EC use. Researchers determined pregnancy status at 1 month through a pregnancy test or clinical records review.

Results. Of 711 participants randomly assigned, 317 who received the LNG-IUD and 321 who received the copper IUD provided 1-month outcome data. Pregnancy 1 month after IUD placement occurred in 1 participant (0.3%) in the LNG-IUD group and in no participants in the copper IUD group (0%). The between-group difference of 0.3 percentage points was within the margin of noninferiority and was not significant.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, multicenter randomized controlled trial contributes novel information about the effectiveness and noninferiority of the LNG-IUD as EC. Unlike prior studies of oral EC, which commonly limited participants to 1 episode of unprotected intercourse, this trial enrolled women at potentially higher risk of pregnancy with multiple episodes of intercourse and found fewer pregnancies than expected. Randomization ensured equivalence between groups, with the exception of the reason for needing EC.

Study limitations include a higher than expected rate of loss to follow-up, requiring clinical records and survey data to confirm pregnancy status. After randomization, clinicians were unable to place IUDs in more than 5% of participants in both groups; noninferiority was demonstrated nonetheless. This study did not include participants receiving oral EC, so direct comparison of effectiveness is not possible. Pregnancy rates among IUD users in this study were favorable to rates reported in previous studies of oral EC.4

When choosing an IUD for contraception, more women select the LNG-IUD for its favorable side effect profile and reduction in menstrual bleeding. In this randomized IUD study, only 7% of eligible participants enrolled, potentially introducing selection bias. The majority who declined enrollment did not want an IUD. Previous studies that allowed participants to choose their IUD had higher enrollment rates. ● 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

The study by Turok and colleagues is the largest randomized controlled trial to date of IUDs as EC. It demonstrated that LNG-IUDs are noninferior to copper IUDs in preventing pregnancy when placed within 5 days of unprotected intercourse. IUDs offer advantages over oral EC methods: only IUDs provide ongoing contraception after EC, and IUD efficacy does not vary by body mass index. It is reasonable for clinicians and patients to consider LNG-IUDs among EC options after shared decision making.

This study suggests that quick-start placement of the LNG-IUD at any time in the menstrual cycle is reasonable given its effectiveness as EC. Additionally, there were no pregnancies among 138 study participants who resumed intercourse within 7 days of LNG-IUD placement, most of whom did not use backup contraception.5 While current guidelines still recommend backup contraception after LNG-IUD placement, clinicians may reassure patients with unprotected intercourse following any type of IUD placement about the low risk of pregnancy.

LISA HOFLER, MD, MPH, MBA,
AND SMITA CARROLL, MD, MBA

 

 

Turok DK, Gero A, Simmons RG, et al. Levonorgestrel vs copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:335-344.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Emergency contraception refers to therapies used to prevent pregnancy after inadequately protected intercourse.1 Evidence-based forms of EC available in the United States include oral LNG, oral ulipristal acetate, and the copper IUD. The copper IUD provides not only EC but also highly effective contraception after placement.2 The LNG-IUD has a favorable side effect profile compared with the copper IUD and is theorized to act as EC through direct interference with sperm and oviduct transport.3 Recently, Turok and colleagues conducted a noninferiority trial designed to investigate the EC effectiveness of the LNG-IUD compared with the copper IUD.3

Details of the study

Turok and colleagues recruited participants aged 18 to 35 who requested EC from 6 family planning clinics in Utah from 2016 to 2019. Participants who reported unprotected intercourse within the past 120 hours and who desired an IUD to prevent pregnancy for at least 1 year were randomly assigned to receive either the LNG-IUD or the copper IUD. Individuals were excluded from the trial if they had contraindications to IUD placement, were breastfeeding, had abnormal uterine bleeding, had irregular menses, were currently using highly effective contraception, or had recent EC use. Researchers determined pregnancy status at 1 month through a pregnancy test or clinical records review.

Results. Of 711 participants randomly assigned, 317 who received the LNG-IUD and 321 who received the copper IUD provided 1-month outcome data. Pregnancy 1 month after IUD placement occurred in 1 participant (0.3%) in the LNG-IUD group and in no participants in the copper IUD group (0%). The between-group difference of 0.3 percentage points was within the margin of noninferiority and was not significant.

Study strengths and limitations

This large, multicenter randomized controlled trial contributes novel information about the effectiveness and noninferiority of the LNG-IUD as EC. Unlike prior studies of oral EC, which commonly limited participants to 1 episode of unprotected intercourse, this trial enrolled women at potentially higher risk of pregnancy with multiple episodes of intercourse and found fewer pregnancies than expected. Randomization ensured equivalence between groups, with the exception of the reason for needing EC.

Study limitations include a higher than expected rate of loss to follow-up, requiring clinical records and survey data to confirm pregnancy status. After randomization, clinicians were unable to place IUDs in more than 5% of participants in both groups; noninferiority was demonstrated nonetheless. This study did not include participants receiving oral EC, so direct comparison of effectiveness is not possible. Pregnancy rates among IUD users in this study were favorable to rates reported in previous studies of oral EC.4

When choosing an IUD for contraception, more women select the LNG-IUD for its favorable side effect profile and reduction in menstrual bleeding. In this randomized IUD study, only 7% of eligible participants enrolled, potentially introducing selection bias. The majority who declined enrollment did not want an IUD. Previous studies that allowed participants to choose their IUD had higher enrollment rates. ● 

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

The study by Turok and colleagues is the largest randomized controlled trial to date of IUDs as EC. It demonstrated that LNG-IUDs are noninferior to copper IUDs in preventing pregnancy when placed within 5 days of unprotected intercourse. IUDs offer advantages over oral EC methods: only IUDs provide ongoing contraception after EC, and IUD efficacy does not vary by body mass index. It is reasonable for clinicians and patients to consider LNG-IUDs among EC options after shared decision making.

This study suggests that quick-start placement of the LNG-IUD at any time in the menstrual cycle is reasonable given its effectiveness as EC. Additionally, there were no pregnancies among 138 study participants who resumed intercourse within 7 days of LNG-IUD placement, most of whom did not use backup contraception.5 While current guidelines still recommend backup contraception after LNG-IUD placement, clinicians may reassure patients with unprotected intercourse following any type of IUD placement about the low risk of pregnancy.

LISA HOFLER, MD, MPH, MBA,
AND SMITA CARROLL, MD, MBA

References
  1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 152: emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e1-e11.
  2. Cleland K, Zhu H, Goldstuck N, et al. The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1994-2000.
  3. Turok DK, Gero A, Simmons RG, et al. Levonorgestrel vs copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:335-344.
  4. Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomized non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:555-562.
  5. Fay KE, Clement AC, Gero A, et al. Rates of pregnancy among levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine emergency contraception initiators: implications for backup contraception recommendations. Contraception. 2021;S0010-7824(21)00210-9.
References
  1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 152: emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e1-e11.
  2. Cleland K, Zhu H, Goldstuck N, et al. The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1994-2000.
  3. Turok DK, Gero A, Simmons RG, et al. Levonorgestrel vs copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:335-344.
  4. Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomized non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:555-562.
  5. Fay KE, Clement AC, Gero A, et al. Rates of pregnancy among levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine emergency contraception initiators: implications for backup contraception recommendations. Contraception. 2021;S0010-7824(21)00210-9.
Issue
OBG Management - 33(9)
Issue
OBG Management - 33(9)
Page Number
16, 18
Page Number
16, 18
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Does last contraceptive method used impact the return of normal fertility?

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/08/2021 - 15:17

 

 

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

EXPERT COMMENTARY

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

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

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

Details of the study

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

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

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

 

 

Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return

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

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

Study strengths and limitations

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

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

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

This is the largest study to date to evaluate fecundability after stopping different contraceptive methods among women planning pregnancies. The study confirms previous research that associated injectable contraceptives with delayed return of normal fertility. It provides reassurance for counseling users of IUDs, implants, oral contraception, ring, and patch: those methods were not associated with reduced fecundability compared with barrier methods. The study also suggests long-term contraceptive use does not decrease fecundability.

Women may ask when to stop their contraceptive method to optimally time a pregnancy. In this study, measurements of return to normal fertility were imprecise. Individualized counseling, accounting for personal circumstances, is still best when advising when to stop contraception for couples planning pregnancy.

LISA HOFLER, MD, MPH, MBA, AND LINDSAY DALE, MD

 

References
  1. Daniels K, Abma JC. Current contraceptive status among women aged 15–49: United States, 2017–2019. NCHS Data Brief, no. 388. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2020.
  2. Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.
  3. Hassan MA, Killick SR. Is previous use of hormonal contraception associated with a detrimental effect on subsequent fecundity? Hum Reprod. 2004;19:344-351.
  4.  Mansour D, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Inki P, et al. Fertility after discontinuation of contraception: a comprehensive review of the literature. Contraception. 2011;84:465-477.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, is Chief, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Lindsay Dale, MD, is Fellow in Complex Family Planning, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Issue
OBG Management - 33(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
10, 13
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, is Chief, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Lindsay Dale, MD, is Fellow in Complex Family Planning, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, is Chief, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Lindsay Dale, MD, is Fellow in Complex Family Planning, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

 

 

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

EXPERT COMMENTARY

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

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

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

Details of the study

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

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

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

 

 

Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return

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

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

Study strengths and limitations

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

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

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

This is the largest study to date to evaluate fecundability after stopping different contraceptive methods among women planning pregnancies. The study confirms previous research that associated injectable contraceptives with delayed return of normal fertility. It provides reassurance for counseling users of IUDs, implants, oral contraception, ring, and patch: those methods were not associated with reduced fecundability compared with barrier methods. The study also suggests long-term contraceptive use does not decrease fecundability.

Women may ask when to stop their contraceptive method to optimally time a pregnancy. In this study, measurements of return to normal fertility were imprecise. Individualized counseling, accounting for personal circumstances, is still best when advising when to stop contraception for couples planning pregnancy.

LISA HOFLER, MD, MPH, MBA, AND LINDSAY DALE, MD

 

 

 

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

EXPERT COMMENTARY

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

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

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

Details of the study

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

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

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

 

 

Injectable contraceptives associated with longest delayed fertility return

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

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

Study strengths and limitations

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

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

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

This is the largest study to date to evaluate fecundability after stopping different contraceptive methods among women planning pregnancies. The study confirms previous research that associated injectable contraceptives with delayed return of normal fertility. It provides reassurance for counseling users of IUDs, implants, oral contraception, ring, and patch: those methods were not associated with reduced fecundability compared with barrier methods. The study also suggests long-term contraceptive use does not decrease fecundability.

Women may ask when to stop their contraceptive method to optimally time a pregnancy. In this study, measurements of return to normal fertility were imprecise. Individualized counseling, accounting for personal circumstances, is still best when advising when to stop contraception for couples planning pregnancy.

LISA HOFLER, MD, MPH, MBA, AND LINDSAY DALE, MD

 

References
  1. Daniels K, Abma JC. Current contraceptive status among women aged 15–49: United States, 2017–2019. NCHS Data Brief, no. 388. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2020.
  2. Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.
  3. Hassan MA, Killick SR. Is previous use of hormonal contraception associated with a detrimental effect on subsequent fecundity? Hum Reprod. 2004;19:344-351.
  4.  Mansour D, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Inki P, et al. Fertility after discontinuation of contraception: a comprehensive review of the literature. Contraception. 2011;84:465-477.
References
  1. Daniels K, Abma JC. Current contraceptive status among women aged 15–49: United States, 2017–2019. NCHS Data Brief, no. 388. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2020.
  2. Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, et al. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3966.
  3. Hassan MA, Killick SR. Is previous use of hormonal contraception associated with a detrimental effect on subsequent fecundity? Hum Reprod. 2004;19:344-351.
  4.  Mansour D, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Inki P, et al. Fertility after discontinuation of contraception: a comprehensive review of the literature. Contraception. 2011;84:465-477.
Issue
OBG Management - 33(1)
Issue
OBG Management - 33(1)
Page Number
10, 13
Page Number
10, 13
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Article PDF Media