J N Sanders1, D K Turok2, P A Royer2, I S Thompson2, L M Gawron2, K E Storck2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Room 2B200, Salt Lake City, UT 84132-2209, USA. Electronic address: Jessica.sanders@utah.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Room 2B200, Salt Lake City, UT 84132-2209, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): This study compares 1-year intrauterine device (IUD) continuation among women presenting for emergency contraception (EC) and initiating the copper (Cu T380A) IUD or the levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg IUD plus 1.5 mg oral LNG. STUDY DESIGN: This cohort study enrolled 188 women who presented at a single family planning clinic in Utah between June 2013 and September 2014 and selected either the Cu T380A IUD or LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG for EC. Trained personnel followed participants by phone, text or e-mail for 12 months or until discontinuation occurred. We assessed reasons for discontinuation and used Cox proportional hazard models, Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to assess differences in continuation rates between IUDs. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six women received IUDs; 66 (37%) chose the Cu T380A IUD and 110 (63%) chose the LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG. At 1 year, we accounted for 147 (84%) participants, 33 (22%) had requested removals, 13 (9%) had an expulsion and declined reinsertion, 3 (2%) had a pregnancy with their IUD in place and 98 (67%) were still using their device. Continuation rates did not differ by IUD type; 60% of Cu T380A IUD users and 70% of LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG users were still using their device at 12 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.3). CONCLUSION(S): Two-thirds of women who chose IUD placement at the EC clinical encounter continued use at 1 year. Women initiating Cu T380A IUD and LNG 52 mg IUD had similar 1-year continuation rates. These findings support same-day insertion of IUDs for women who are seeking EC and would like to use a highly effective reversible method going forward. IMPLICATIONS: Providing IUD options for EC users presents an opportunity to increase availability of highly effective contraception.
OBJECTIVE(S): This study compares 1-year intrauterine device (IUD) continuation among women presenting for emergency contraception (EC) and initiating the copper (CuT380A) IUD or the levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg IUD plus 1.5 mg oral LNG. STUDY DESIGN: This cohort study enrolled 188 women who presented at a single family planning clinic in Utah between June 2013 and September 2014 and selected either the CuT380A IUD or LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG for EC. Trained personnel followed participants by phone, text or e-mail for 12 months or until discontinuation occurred. We assessed reasons for discontinuation and used Cox proportional hazard models, Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to assess differences in continuation rates between IUDs. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six women received IUDs; 66 (37%) chose the CuT380A IUD and 110 (63%) chose the LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG. At 1 year, we accounted for 147 (84%) participants, 33 (22%) had requested removals, 13 (9%) had an expulsion and declined reinsertion, 3 (2%) had a pregnancy with their IUD in place and 98 (67%) were still using their device. Continuation rates did not differ by IUD type; 60% of CuT380A IUD users and 70% of LNG 52 mg IUD plus oral LNG users were still using their device at 12 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.3). CONCLUSION(S): Two-thirds of women who chose IUD placement at the EC clinical encounter continued use at 1 year. Women initiating CuT380A IUD and LNG 52 mg IUD had similar 1-year continuation rates. These findings support same-day insertion of IUDs for women who are seeking EC and would like to use a highly effective reversible method going forward. IMPLICATIONS: Providing IUD options for EC users presents an opportunity to increase availability of highly effective contraception.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Paula H Bednarek; Mitchell D Creinin; Matthew F Reeves; Carrie Cwiak; Eve Espey; Jeffrey T Jensen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jennifer L Mullersman; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Chelsea B Polis; Kate Schaffer; Kelly Blanchard; Anna Glasier; Cynthia C Harper; David A Grimes Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Suzan R Goodman; Alison M El Ayadi; Corinne H Rocca; Julia E Kohn; Courtney E Benedict; Jessica R Dieseldorff; Cynthia C Harper Journal: Contraception Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 3.375