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

STUDY QUESTION 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? SUMMARY ANSWER 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. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY 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. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION 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. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS 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. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE 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). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Few women were ≤19 years old or nulligravida, the proportion of implant users ≥70 kg was <20% and <8% were obese. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Findings of the study can inform policy makers and clinicians about choice of implant, but also about TCu380A IUD in relation to implants. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN33378571 registered on 22 March 2004. The first participant was enrolled on 12 May 200

The Stata Journal

Estimating adjusted associations between random effects from multilevel models : the reffadjust package. Stata Journal, Volume 14 (Number 1). pp. 119-140. Permanent WRAP url: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/60030 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-forprofit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher&apos;s statement: http://www.stata-journal.com. A note on versions: The version presented in WRAP is the published version or, version of record, and may be cited as it appears here. The Stata Journal publishes reviewed papers together with shorter notes or comments, regular columns, book reviews, and other material of interest to Stata users. Examples of the types of papers include 1) expository papers that link the use of Stata commands or programs to associated principles, such as those that will serve as tutorials for users first encountering a new field of statistics or a major new technique; 2) papers that go &quot;beyond the Stata manual&quot; in explaining key features or uses of Stata that are of interest to intermediate or advanced users of Stata; 3) papers that discuss new commands or Stata programs of interest either to a wide spectrum of users (e.g., in data management or graphics) or to some large segment of Stata users (e.g., in survey statistics, survival analysis, panel analysis, or limited dependent variable modeling); 4) papers analyzing the statistical properties of new or existing estimators and tests in Stata; 5) papers that could be of interest or usefulness to researchers, especially in fields that are of practical importance but are not often included in texts or other journals, such as the use of Stata in managing datasets, especially large datasets, with advice from hard-won experience; and 6) papers of interest to those who teach, including Stata with topics such as extended examples of techniques and interpretation of results, simulations of statistical concepts, and overviews of subject areas. Copyright c 2014 by StataCorp LP Copyright Statement: The Stata Journal and the contents of the supporting files (programs, datasets, and help files) are copyright c by StataCorp LP. The contents of the supporting files (programs, datasets, and help files) may be copied or reproduced by any means whatsoever, in whole or in part, as long as any copy or reproduction includes attribution to both (1) the author and (2) the Stata Journal. The articles appearing in the Stata Journal may be copied or reproduced as printed copies, in whole or in part, as long as any copy or reproduction includes attribution to both (1) the author and (2) the Stata Journal. Written permission must be obtained from StataCorp if you wish to make electronic copies of the insertions. This precludes placing electronic copies of the Stata Journal, in whole or in part, on publicly accessible websites, fileservers, or other locations where the copy may be accessed by anyone other than the subscriber. Users of any of the software, ideas, data, or other materials published in the Stata Journal or the supporting files understand that such use is made without warranty of any kind, by either the Stata Journal, the author, or StataCorp. In particular, there is no warranty of fitness of purpose or merchantability, nor for special, incidental, or consequential damages such as loss of profits. Abstract. We describe a method to estimate associations between random effects from multilevel models. We provide two new postestimation commands, reffadjustsim and reffadjust4nlcom, which are distributed as the reffadjust package. These commands produce the estimates and their associated confidence intervals. The commands are used after official Stata multilevel model estimation commands mixed, meqrlogit, and meqrpoisson (formerly named xtmixed, xtmelogit, and xtmepoisson, respectively, before Stata 13) and with models fit in the MLwiN statistical software package via the runmlwin command. We demonstrate our commands with several simulated datasets and for a bivariate outcome model investigating the relationship between weight and mean arterial pressure in pregnant women using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Our method and commands help to improve the interpretability of estimated random-effects variance components from multilevel models