Postpartum Family Planning: Methods to Decrease Unintended Pregnancies

Postpartum women are at high risk for unintended pregnancies and subsequent adverse perinatal outcomes often due to insufficient pregnancy intervals. There is a high burden of unmet family planning need caused by factors including inadequate education on postpartum contraception, limited access to healthcare professional in the immediate postpartum period, and lack of access to contraceptive options. This chapter will discuss the different contraceptive methods that can be utilized and their respective efficacies, venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and impact on lactation. Tubal ligation, lactation amenorrhea, barrier methods, the copper intrauterine device (IUD), and progestin-only pills (POP) have no clinically significant impact on VTE risk or lactation for the majority of women postpartum. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injection, implants, and levonorgestrel (LNG) IUDs are considered to have no impact on breastfeeding based on limited clinical evidence. Contraceptive methods that contain estrogens may increase a woman?s risk for VTE in the peri-partum period and should be deferred approximately 30 days postpartum. Sterilization and long acting reversible contraceptives (LARC), including IUDs and contraceptive arm implants, have been proven to be the most reliable and cost-effective methods, which also have high rates of patient satisfaction and continuation. Women have a range of safe contraceptive choices they can use to prevent pregnancy or to space their pregnancies. Health care systems should empower women to become educated about and gain access to postpartum contraception so as to address unintended pregnancy disparities among this group of women. Above all, counseling should be patient-centered when choosing the right method for the woman

Management of early pregnancy loss with mifepristone and misoprostol: clinical predictors of treatment success from a randomized trial.

BackgroundEarly pregnancy loss is a common event in the first trimester, occurring in 15%-20% of confirmed pregnancies. A common evidence-based medical regimen for early pregnancy loss uses misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analog, with a dosage of 800 μg, self-administered vaginally. The clinical utility of this regimen is limited by suboptimal effectiveness in patients with a closed cervical os, with 29% of patients experiencing early pregnancy loss requiring a second dose after 3 days and 16% of patients eventually requiring a uterine aspiration procedure.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate clinical predictors associated with treatment success in patients receiving medical management with mifepristone-misoprostol or misoprostol alone for early pregnancy loss.Study designWe performed a planned secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing mifepristone-misoprostol with misoprostol alone for management of early pregnancy loss. The published prediction model for treatment success of single-dose misoprostol administered vaginally included the following variables: active bleeding, type of early pregnancy loss (anembryonic pregnancy or embryonic and/or fetal demise), parity, gestational age, and treatment site; previous significant predictors were vaginal bleeding within the past 24 hours and parity of 0 or 1 vs >1. To determine if these characteristics predicted differential proportions of patients with treatment success or failure, we performed bivariate analyses; given the small proportion of treatment failures in the combined treatment arm, both arms were combined for analysis. Thereafter, we performed a logistic regression analysis to assess the effect of these predictors collectively in each of the 2 treatment groups separately as well as in the full cohort as a proxy for the combined treatment arm. Finally, by using receiver operating characteristic curves, we tested the ability of these predictors in association with misoprostol treatment success to discriminate between treatment success and treatment failure. To quantify the ability of the score to discriminate between treatment success and treatment failure in each treatment arm as well as in the entire cohort, we calculated the area under the curve. Using multivariable logistic regression, we then assessed our study population for other predictors of treatment success in both treatment groups, with and without mifepristone pretreatment.ResultsOverall, 297 evaluable participants were included in the primary study, with 148 in the mifepristone-misoprostol combined treatment group and 149 in the misoprostol-alone treatment group. Among patients who had vaginal bleeding at the time of treatment, 15 of 17 (88%) in the mifepristone-misoprostol combined treatment group and 12 of 17 (71%) in the misoprostol-alone treatment group experienced expulsion of pregnancy tissue. Among patients with a parity of 0 or 1, 94 of 108 (87%) in the mifepristone-misoprostol treatment group and 66 of 95 (69%) in the misoprostol-alone treatment group experienced expulsion of pregnancy tissue. These clinical characteristics did not predict treatment success in the combined cohort alone (area under the curve=0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.64). No other baseline clinical factors predicted treatment success in the misoprostol-alone treatment arm or mifepristone pretreatment arm. In the full cohort, the significant predictors of treatment success were pretreatment with mifepristone (adjusted odds ratio=2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-4.43) and smoking (adjusted odds ratio=2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-4.49).ConclusionNo baseline clinical factors predicted treatment success in women receiving medical management with misoprostol for early pregnancy loss. Adding mifepristone to the medical management regimen of early pregnancy loss improved treatment success; thus, mifepristone treatment should be considered for management of early pregnancy loss regardless of baseline clinical factors

Medication Abortion: A Sample Protocol for Increasing Access During a Pandemic and Beyond

No abstrac

Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Early Pregnancy Loss

BACKGROUND Medical management of early pregnancy loss is an alternative to uterine aspira-tion, but standard medical treatment with misoprostol commonly results in treat-ment failure. We compared the efficacy and safety of pretreatment with mifepris-tone followed by treatment with misoprostol with the efficacy and safety of misoprostol use alone for the management of early pregnancy loss. METHODS We randomly assigned 300 women who had an anembryonic gestation or in whom embryonic or fetal death was confirmed to receive pretreatment with 200 mg of mifepristone, administered orally, followed by 800 µg of misoprostol, adminis-tered vaginally (mifepristone-pretreatment group), or 800 µg of misoprostol alone, administered vaginally (misoprostol-alone group). Participants returned 1 to 4 days after misoprostol use for evaluation, including ultrasound examination, by an in-vestigator who was unaware of the treatment-group assignments. Women in whom the gestational sac was not expelled were offered expectant management, a second dose of misoprostol, or uterine aspiration. We followed all participants for 30 days after randomization. Our primary outcome was gestational sac expulsion with one dose of misoprostol by the first follow-up visit and no additional intervention within 30 days after treatment. RESULTS Complete expulsion after one dose of misoprostol occurred in 124 of 148 women (83.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76.8 to 89.3) in the mifepristone-pretreat-ment group and in 100 of 149 women (67.1%; 95% CI, 59.0 to 74.6) in the miso-prostol-alone group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.43). Uterine aspiration was performed less frequently in the mifepristone-pretreatment group than in the misoprostol-alone group (8.8% vs. 23.5%; relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.68). Bleeding that resulted in blood transfusion occurred in 2.0% of the women in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 0.7% of the women in the misoprostol-alone group (P = 0.31); pelvic infection was diagnosed in 1.3% of the women in each group. CONCLUSIONS Pretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol resulted in a higher likelihood of successful management of first-trimester pregnancy loss than treatment with misoprostol alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; PreFaiR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02012491.

Does size matter? A randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of external diameter on adherence to 3 different intravaginal rings among 24 US couples

Background: Intravaginal rings (IVRs) are being developed as multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) for simultaneous HIV and pregnancy prevention. However, no empirical data exists to support the current 54-58mm size as ideal. Understanding the impact of IVR size on adherence is critical for developing a product that can be used correctly and consistently. Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, 3-way crossover trial comparing adherence, preference, and acceptability of 3 non-medicated silicone IVRs of differing external diameters: 46mm, 56mm and 66mm. 24 couples in Atlanta, GA and Bronx, NY were randomized to the sequence of IVR use, used each continuously for ~30 days. The primary objective was to compare ring adherence, defined as never having the IVR out of the vagina for \u3e 30 minutes in 24h. Women reported occurrence and duration of expulsions and removals via daily text. We summarized the proportion of days the IVR was removed, expelled, or out all day, and the proportion of women adherent to each IVR. We used mixed methods logistic regression models with random intercepts (per participant) to compare the probability of each event happening per day of IVR use, per IVR. Results: 23/24 couples completed the study. 78%, 75% and 59% of participants were adherent to the IVRs of diameter 46mm, 56mm and 66mm respectively (Table 1). The 46mm and 66mm IVR performed similarly, with more expulsions and 24h outages for the 66mm IVR. When adjusting for size and sequence, women had \u3e 15 times the odds of the 66mm IVR being out all day versus the 56mm IVR (15.7, 95% CI: 3.4, 72.6). Conclusions: External diameter of these non-medicated IVRs had a significant impact on frequency of removal and expulsion. Product developers should prioritize IVRs in the range of 46mm-56mm

Effect of Protease Inhibitors on Steady-State Pharmacokinetics of Oral Norethindrone Contraception in HIV-Infected Women

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacokinetic interactions exist between combined oral contraceptives and protease inhibitors (PI). However, such information is lacking for progestin-only oral contraception. We sought to define the steady-state pharmacokinetic interaction between norethindrone (NET) and PI in HIV-infected women. METHODS AND DESIGN: We conducted an open-label, prospective, nonrandomized trial to characterize the steady-state pharmacokinetics of serum NET in HIV-infected women receiving PI compared with a control group of HIV-infected women receiving other noninteracting drugs. After 21 days of 0.35 mg of NET ingestion once daily, serial serum samples were obtained at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours. The area under the curve between 0 and 72 hours after ingestion was calculated by trapezoidal approximation. RESULTS: Thirty-five women were enrolled, 2 withdrew. Sixteen women in the PI group and 17 controls completed the study. NET half-life and maximum concentration were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Minimum concentration of NET was significantly higher in the PI group (P = 0.01). The ratio of the geometric mean NET area under the curve in the PI group compared with controls was 1.5 (90% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.86). NET serum concentrations were significantly higher in HIV-infected women taking a PI compared with controls (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of PI inhibits NET metabolism as shown by higher serum NET area under the curve levels, a surrogate marker for therapeutic contraceptive efficacy. This study supports the increased utilization of progestin-only pills in HIV-infected women receiving certain PI regimens.Keywords: norethindrone, HIV, efficacy, hormonal contraception, drug interactions, pharmacokinetics, progestin only pills, protease inhibitor, contraceptio

Clinical research in women's reproductive health and the human immunodeficiency virus

Objective: Pharmacokinetic interactions exist between combined oral contraceptives and protease inhibitors (PI). However, such information is lacking for progestin-only oral contraception. We sought to define the steady-state pharmacokinetic interaction between norethindrone (NET) and PI in HIV infected women. Methods and design: I conducted an open-label, prospective, non-randomized trial to characterize the steady-state pharmacokinetics of serum NET in HIV infected women receiving PI compared to a control group of HIV infected women receiving other types of antiretroviral therapy that does not alter NET levels. Following 21 days of NET 0.35 mg ingestion once daily, serial serum samples were obtained at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48 and 72 hours. The area under the curve between 0 and 72 hours after ingestion was calculated by trapezoidal approximation. Results: Thirty-five women were enrolled, two withdrew. Sixteen women in the PI group and 17 controls completed the study. NET half life, and maximum concentration were not significantly different between the two groups. Minimum concentration of NET was significantly higher in the PI group (p=0.01). The ratio of the geometric mean NET area under the curve in the PI group compared to controls was 1.5 (90% confidence interval 1.21-1.86). NET serum concentrations are significantly higher in HIV infected women taking a PI compared to controls (p=0.004). Conclusions: Co-administration of PI inhibits NET metabolism as shown by higher serum NET area under the curve levels, a surrogate marker for therapeutic contraceptive efficacy. This study supports increased utilization of progestin only pills in HIV infected women receiving PI

Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Early Pregnancy Loss.

BackgroundMedical management of early pregnancy loss is an alternative to uterine aspiration, but standard medical treatment with misoprostol commonly results in treatment failure. We compared the efficacy and safety of pretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol with the efficacy and safety of misoprostol use alone for the management of early pregnancy loss.MethodsWe randomly assigned 300 women who had an anembryonic gestation or in whom embryonic or fetal death was confirmed to receive pretreatment with 200 mg of mifepristone, administered orally, followed by 800 μg of misoprostol, administered vaginally (mifepristone-pretreatment group), or 800 μg of misoprostol alone, administered vaginally (misoprostol-alone group). Participants returned 1 to 4 days after misoprostol use for evaluation, including ultrasound examination, by an investigator who was unaware of the treatment-group assignments. Women in whom the gestational sac was not expelled were offered expectant management, a second dose of misoprostol, or uterine aspiration. We followed all participants for 30 days after randomization. Our primary outcome was gestational sac expulsion with one dose of misoprostol by the first follow-up visit and no additional intervention within 30 days after treatment.ResultsComplete expulsion after one dose of misoprostol occurred in 124 of 148 women (83.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76.8 to 89.3) in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 100 of 149 women (67.1%; 95% CI, 59.0 to 74.6) in the misoprostol-alone group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.43). Uterine aspiration was performed less frequently in the mifepristone-pretreatment group than in the misoprostol-alone group (8.8% vs. 23.5%; relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.68). Bleeding that resulted in blood transfusion occurred in 2.0% of the women in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 0.7% of the women in the misoprostol-alone group (P=0.31); pelvic infection was diagnosed in 1.3% of the women in each group.ConclusionsPretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol resulted in a higher likelihood of successful management of first-trimester pregnancy loss than treatment with misoprostol alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; PreFaiR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02012491 .)