Continuation of Reversible Contraception Following Enrollment in the Zika Contraception Access Network (Z-CAN) in Puerto Rico, 2016-2020.

The Zika Contraception Access Network (Z-CAN) provided access to high-quality client-centered contraceptive services across Puerto Rico during the 2016-2017 Zika virus outbreak. We sent online surveys during May 2017-August 2020 to a subset of Z-CAN patients at 6, 24, and 36 months after program enrollment (response rates: 55-60 percent). We described contraceptive method continuation, method satisfaction, and method switching, and we identified characteristics associated with discontinuation using multivariable logistic regression. Across all contraceptive methods, continuation was 82.5 percent, 64.2 percent, and 49.9 percent at 6, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Among continuing users, method satisfaction was approximately ≥90 percent. Characteristics associated with decreased likelihood of discontinuation included: using an intrauterine device or implant compared with a nonlong-acting reversible contraceptive method (shot, pills, ring, patch, or condoms alone); wanting to prevent pregnancy at follow-up; and receiving as their baseline method the same method primarily used before Z-CAN. Other associated characteristics included: receiving the method they were most interested in postcounseling (6 and 24 months) and being very satisfied with Z-CAN services at the initial visit (6 months). Among those wanting to prevent pregnancy at follow-up, about half reported switching to another method. Ongoing access to contraceptive services is essential for promoting reproductive autonomy, including supporting patients with continued use, method switching, or discontinuation.

Changes in Commercial Insurance Claims for Contraceptive Services During the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic-United States, January 2019-September 2020.

OBJECTIVE: We describe changes in commercial insurance claims for contraceptive services during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed commercial insurance claims using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus data from more than 9 million U.S. females aged 15-49 years, enrolled during any month, January 2019 through September 2020. We calculated monthly rates of outpatient claims for intrauterine devices (IUDs), implants, and injectable contraception and monthly rates of pharmacy claims for contraceptive pills, patches, and rings. We used Joinpoint regression analysis to identify when statistically significant changes occurred in trends of monthly claims rates for each contraceptive method. We calculated monthly percentages of claims for contraceptive counseling via telehealth. RESULTS: Monthly claims rates decreased for IUDs (-50%) and implants (-43%) comparing February 2020 with April 2020 but rebounded by June 2020. Monthly claims rates for injectables decreased (-19%) comparing January 2019 with September 2020, and monthly claims rates for pills, patches, and rings decreased (-22%) comparing July 2019 with September 2020. The percentage of claims for contraceptive counseling occurring via telehealth was low (<1%) in 2019, increased to 34% in April 2020, and decreased to 9-12% in June-September 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial changes in commercial insurance claims for contraceptive services occurred during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, including transient decreases in IUD and implant claims and increases in telehealth contraceptive counseling claims. Contraceptive claims data can be used by decision makers to identify service gaps and evaluate use of interventions like telehealth to improve contraceptive access, including during public health emergencies.

Is the COVID-19 Pandemic Continuing to Impact Sexual and Reproductive Health Services for Adolescents? Findings From a 2021 Survey of US Physicians.

PURPOSE: We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Fall 2021 on sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services among physicians whose practice provided these services to adolescents just before the pandemic. METHODS: Data were from the DocStyles online panel survey administered September-November 2021 to US physicians who reported their practice provided SRH services to adolescent patients before the pandemic (n = 948). We calculated prevalence of service delivery challenges (e.g., limited long-acting reversible contraception services) and use of strategies to support access (e.g., telehealth) in the month prior to survey completion, compared these estimates with prevalence "at any point during the COVID-19 pandemic", and examined differences by physician specialty and adolescent patient volume. RESULTS: Fewer physicians reported their practice experienced service delivery challenges in the month prior to survey completion than at any point during the pandemic. About 10% indicated limited long-acting reversible contraception and sexually transmitted infection testing services in the prior month overall; prevalence varied by physician specialty (e.g., 26% and 17%, respectively by service, among internists). Overall, about 25% of physicians reported reductions in walk-in hours, weekend/evening hours, and adolescents seeking care in the prior month. While most practices that initiated strategies supporting access to services during the pandemic used such strategies in the prior month, some practices (22%-37% depending on the strategy) did not. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest some physicians who serve adolescents continued to experience challenges providing SRH services in the Fall 2021, and some discontinued strategies to support access that had been initiated during the pandemic.

Contraception claims by medication for opioid use disorder prescription status among insured women with opioid use disorder, United States, 2018.

OBJECTIVE(S): To understand how contraception method use differed between women prescribed and not prescribed medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women. STUDY DESIGN: IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Multi-State Medicaid database were used to calculate the (1) crude prevalence, and (2) adjusted odds ratios (adjusted for demographic characteristics) of using long-acting reversible or short-acting hormonal contraception methods or female sterilization compared with none of these methods (no method) in 2018 by MOUD status among women with OUD, aged 20 to 49 years, with continuous health insurance coverage through commercial insurance or Medicaid for ≥6 years. Claims data was used to define contraception use. Fisher exact test or χ2 test with a P-value ≤ 0.0001, based on the Holm-Bonferroni method, and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine statistically significant differences for prevalence estimates and adjusted odds ratios, respectively. RESULTS: Only 41% of commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women with OUD were prescribed MOUD. Medicaid-insured women with OUD prescribed MOUD had a significantly lower crude prevalence of using no method (71.1% vs 79.0%) and higher odds of using female sterilization (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06-1.67 vs no method) than those not prescribed MOUD. Among commercially-insured women there were no differences in contraceptive use by MOUD status and 66% used no method. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with ≥ 6 years of continuous insurance coverage, contraceptive use differed by MOUD status and insurance. Prescribing MOUD for women with OUD can be improved to ensure quality care. IMPLICATIONS: Only two in five women with OUD had evidence of being prescribed MOUD, and majority did not use prescription contraception or female sterilization. Our findings support opportunities to improve prescribing for MOUD and integrate contraception and MOUD services to improve clinical care among women with OUD.

Intrauterine Device Training, Attitudes, and Practices Among U.S. Health Care Providers: Findings from a Nationwide Survey.

BACKGROUND: Provider training in intrauterine device (IUD) procedures is a key strategy for improving evidence-based IUD care. We examined the influence of IUD training on IUD attitudes and practices among U.S. family planning providers. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of U.S. family planning providers. We performed logistic regression to examine associations between training in routine IUD placement and specific IUD safety attitudes, confidence performing IUD procedures, and specific IUD practices. RESULTS: Among 1,063 physicians and advanced practice clinicians, 85.1% reported training in routine IUD placement. Overall, IUD training was associated with accurately stating IUDs are safe for queried groups, including patients immediately postpartum (prevalence ratio [PR] 4.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-13.85). Trained providers reported higher confidence in routine IUD placement for parous (PR 7.71; 95% CI 1.31-45.3) and nulliparous (PR 7.12; 95% CI 1.17-43.5) women and in IUD removal (PR 2.06; 95% CI 1.12-3.81). Among providers with IUDs available onsite, IUD training was associated with frequent same-day IUD provision for adults (PR 7.32; 95% CI 2.16-24.79) and adolescents (PR 7.63; 95% CI 2.22-26.24). Trained providers were also less likely to routinely use misoprostol before IUD placement for nulliparous (PR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11-0.33) and parous women (PR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03-0.16). CONCLUSION: Training in routine IUD placement was associated with evidence-based IUD safety attitudes, confidence in performing IUD procedures, and clinical practices aligned with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contraception guidance. Expanding IUD training might increase evidence-based care and patient access to the full range of contraception, including IUDs.

Changes in U.S. Healthcare Provider Practices Related to Emergency Contraception.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency contraception (EC), including EC pills (ECPs) and the copper intrauterine device, can prevent pregnancy after sexual encounters in which contraception was not used or used incorrectly. The U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR), initially released in 2013, provides evidence-based clinical recommendations on the provision of EC. The objective of this analysis was to assess the percentage of health care providers reporting frequent provision of select EC practices around the time of and after the release of the U.S. SPR. METHODS: We conducted two cross-sectional mailed surveys using different nationwide samples of office-based physicians and public-sector providers in 2013 and 2014 (n = 2,060) and 2019 (n = 1,420). We compared the percentage of providers reporting frequent provision of select EC practices by time period, overall, and by provider type. RESULTS: In 2019, few providers frequently provided an advance prescription for ECPs (16%), an advance supply of ECPs (7%), or the copper intrauterine device as EC (8%), although 41% frequently provided or prescribed regular contraception at the same time as providing ECPs. Providers in 2019 were more likely than providers in 2013 and 2014 to provide or prescribe contraception at the same time as providing ECPs (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.001-1.59) and to provide a copper intrauterine device as EC (adjusted prevalence ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval 2.10-7.15); there were no other significant differences by time period. CONCLUSIONS: Few providers report frequent implementation of recommended EC practices. Understanding the barriers faced by providers and clinics in implementing these practices may improve access to EC.

COVID-19 and Sexual and Reproductive Health Care: Findings From Primary Care Providers Who Serve Adolescents.

PURPOSE: Among U.S. primary care physicians who delivered sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to adolescents before the COVID-19 pandemic, we examine (1) changes in availability of in-person SRH services; (2) changes in accessibility and utilization of SRH services; and (3) use of strategies to support provision of SRH services during the pandemic. METHODS: Data were from the DocStyles provider survey administered September-October 2020. Descriptive analyses were restricted to family practitioners, internists, and pediatricians whose main work setting was outpatient and whose practice provided family planning or sexually transmitted infection services to ≥ one patient aged 15-19 years per week just before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 791). RESULTS: Among physicians whose practices provided intrauterine device/implant placement/removal or clinic-based sexually transmitted infection testing before the COVID-19 pandemic, 51% and 36% indicated disruption of these services during the pandemic, respectively. Some physicians also reported reductions in walk-in hours (38%), evening/weekend hours (31%), and adolescents seeking care (43%) in the past month. At any point during the pandemic, 61% provided contraception initiation/continuation and 44% provided sexually transmitted infection services via telehealth. Among these physicians, about one-quarter reported confidentiality concerns with telehealth in the past month. There were small increases or no changes in other strategies to support contraceptive care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest disruption of certain SRH services and issues with access because of the pandemic among primary care providers who serve adolescents. There are opportunities to enhance implementation of confidential telehealth services and other service delivery strategies that could help promote adolescent SRH in the United States.

COVID-19 and family planning service delivery: Findings from a survey of U.S. physicians.

Equitable access to contraception is critical for reproductive autonomy. Using cross-sectional data from the DocStyles survey administered September-October 2020 (68% response rate), we compared changes in family planning-related clinical services and healthcare delivery strategies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed service provision issues among 1063 U.S. physicians whose practice provided family planning services just before the pandemic. About one-fifth of those whose practices provided the following services or strategies just before the pandemic discontinued these services during the pandemic: long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) placement (16%); LARC removal (17%); providing or prescribing emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) in advance (18%); and reminding patients about contraception injections or LARC removal or replacement (20%). Many practices not providing the following services or strategies just before the pandemic initiated these services during the pandemic: telehealth for contraception initiation (43%); telehealth for contraception continuation (48%); and renewing contraception prescriptions without requiring an office visit (36%). While a smaller proportion of physicians reported service provision issues in the month before survey completion than at any point during the pandemic, about one-third still reported fewer adult females seeking care (37%) and technical challenges with telehealth (32%). Discontinuation of key family planning services during the COVID-19 pandemic may limit contraception access and impede reproductive autonomy. Implementing healthcare service delivery strategies that reduce the need for in-person visits (e.g., telehealth for contraception, providing or prescribing ECPs in advance) may decrease disruptions in care. Resources exist for public health and clinical efforts to ensure contraception access during the pandemic.

Need for Contraceptive Services Among Women of Reproductive Age - 45 Jurisdictions, United States, 2017-2019.

Ensuring access to contraceptive services is an important strategy for preventing unintended pregnancies, which account for nearly one half of all U.S. pregnancies (1) and are associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes (2). Equitable, person-centered contraceptive access is also important to ensure reproductive autonomy (3). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data collected during 2017-2019 were used to estimate the proportion of women aged 18-49 years who were at risk for unintended pregnancy* and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services.† During 2017-2019, in the 45 jurisdictions§ from which data were collected, 76.2% of women aged 18-49 years were considered to be at risk for unintended pregnancy, ranging from 67.0% (Alaska) to 84.6% (Georgia); 60.7% of women had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, ranging from 45.3% (Puerto Rico) to 73.7% (New York). For all jurisdictions combined, the proportion of women who were at risk for unintended pregnancy and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services varied significantly by age group, race/ethnicity, and urban-rural status. Among women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, 15.2% used a long-acting reversible method (intrauterine device or contraceptive implant), 25.0% used a short-acting reversible method (injectable, pill, transdermal patch, or vaginal ring), and 29.5% used a barrier or other reversible method (diaphragm, condom, withdrawal, cervical cap, sponge, spermicide, fertility-awareness-based method, or emergency contraception). In addition, 30.3% of women with ongoing or potential need were not using any method of contraception. Data in this report can be used to help guide jurisdictional planning to deliver contraceptive services, reduce unintended pregnancies, ensure that the contraceptive needs of women and their partners are met, and evaluate efforts to increase access to contraception.

Update to U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use: Self-Administration of Subcutaneous Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate.

U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR), adapted by CDC from global guidance developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), provides evidence-based guidance on contraceptive use for U.S. health care providers (1). During January-February, 2021, CDC evaluated the 2019 WHO recommendation on self-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) (2). CDC adopted the WHO recommendation on the basis of moderate-certainty evidence that self-administered DMPA-SC is safe and effective, and has higher continuation rates compared with provider-administered DMPA. The new U.S. SPR recommendation states that self-administered DMPA-SC should be made available as an additional approach to deliver injectable contraception. Provider-administered DMPA should remain available. Self-administered DMPA-SC is a user-controlled method that has the potential to improve contraceptive access and increase reproductive autonomy. Self-administered DMPA-SC should be offered in a noncoercive manner through a shared decision-making process between patients and their health care providers, with a focus on patient preferences and equitable access to the full range of contraceptive methods.

Required examinations and tests before initiating contraception: Provider practices from a national cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE(S): We estimated the prevalence of requiring specific examinations or tests before providing contraception in a nationwide survey of family planning providers. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of public-sector health centers and office-based physicians providing family planning services across the United States in 2019 (n = 1395). We estimated the weighted proportion of providers (or their health center or practice) who required blood pressure measurement, pelvic examination (bimanual examination and cervical inspection), Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, clinical breast examination (CBE), and chlamydia and gonorrhea (CT/GC) screening before initiating hormonal or intrauterine contraception (IUC) for healthy women. We performed multivariable regression to identify factors associated with pelvic examination practices aligned with clinical recommendations; these recommendations classify examinations and tests as recommended or unnecessary before initiation of specific contraceptive methods. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 51%. Most providers required blood pressure measurement before initiating each method. Unnecessary CBE, Pap smears, and CT/GC screening were required by 14% to 33% of providers across methods. Fifty-two to 62% of providers required recommended pelvic examination before IUC placement; however, 16% to 23% of providers required unnecessary pelvic examinations before non-intrauterine hormonal method initiation. Factors associated with recommendation-aligned pelvic examination practices included having a higher proportion of patients using public funding (Medicaid or other assistance) and more recently completing formal clinical training. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half (47%) of providers did not require necessary pelvic examination before placing IUC. Conversely, many providers required unnecessary examinations and tests before contraception initiation for patients. IMPLICATIONS: Most providers required the few recommended examinations and tests for safe contraceptive provision. Reduction of unnecessary examinations and tests may reduce barriers to contraceptive access. There are also opportunities to increase use of recommended examinations, as up to 48% of providers did not require recommended pelvic examination before IUC.

Removing Unnecessary Medical Barriers to Contraception: Celebrating a Decade of the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use.

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, providing recommendations for health care providers on safe use of contraception for people with certain characteristics or medical conditions. Adapted from World Health Organization guidance, the goal of the recommendations is to remove unnecessary medical barriers to contraception. Over the past decade, CDC has updated recommendations based on new evidence, collaborated with national partners to disseminate and implement the guidelines, and conducted provider surveys to assess changes in attitudes and practices around contraception safety and provision. CDC remains committed to supporting evidence-based guidelines for safe use of contraception, as the basis for improving access to contraception and high-quality family planning services, reducing unintended pregnancy, and improving reproductive health in the United States.

Physician and clinic staff attitudes and practices during implementation of the Zika Contraception Access Network.

OBJECTIVE: The Zika Contraception Access Network (Z-CAN) provided women in Puerto Rico access to contraceptive counseling and the full range of reversible contraceptive methods, on the same day and at no cost, during the Zika virus outbreak. Because trained physicians and clinic staff were crucial to the program, we aimed to assess the implementation of and satisfaction with Z-CAN from their perspectives. STUDY DESIGN: Physicians and clinic staff in the Z-CAN program participated in an online survey on program implementation (e.g., on-site and same-day contraceptive provision), program satisfaction, and knowledge consistent with program training (e.g., contraceptive initiation and safety, client-centered contraceptive counseling, intrauterine device [IUD] and implant insertion and removal). RESULTS: Survey respondents included 63 physicians and 53 clinic staff members. A high proportion of physicians (>93%) reported providing IUDs, implants, pills, rings, condoms, and injections and most were very often or always able to provide same-day access to most methods. Over 90% of physicians were satisfied with the Z-CAN program, training, and ongoing support. Staff satisfaction with these program elements was similar but slightly lower. Knowledge about exams and tests needed for initiation and safety of methods varied but was generally consistent with guidelines on which physicians received training. Most physicians (>90%) reported confidence in skills on which they received training as part of the program. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspectives of participating physicians and clinic staff, the program was generally implemented as intended and providers were largely satisfied with program strategies including training and on-going support. IMPLICATIONS: Certain key components of the Z-CAN program, such as training, proctoring, and involvement of clinic staff were likely critical to Z-CAN's implementation and provider satisfaction. Results from this provider survey can inform implementation of similar efforts to increase access to contraception in both emergency and non-emergency settings.

Update to U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016: Updated Recommendations for the Use of Contraception Among Women at High Risk for HIV Infection.

"U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use" (U.S. MEC) 2016 provides evidence-based guidance for the safe use of contraceptive methods among U.S. women with certain characteristics or medical conditions (1). The U.S. MEC is adapted from global guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and kept up to date through continual review of published literature (1). CDC recently evaluated the evidence and the updated WHO guidance on the risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition among women using hormonal contraception and intrauterine devices (IUDs) (2). After careful review, CDC adopted WHO's 2019 updated guidance for inclusion in the U.S. MEC guidance; CDC's updated guidance states that progestin-only injectable contraception (including depot medroxyprogesterone acetate [DMPA]) and IUDs (including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-bearing) are safe for use without restriction among women at high risk for HIV infection (U.S. MEC category 1 [previously U.S. MEC category 2, advantages outweigh risks]) (Box). CDC's guidance also adds an accompanying clarification for women who wish to use IUDs, which states "Many women at a high risk for HIV infection are also at risk for other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). For these women, refer to the recommendations in the 'U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use' for women with other factors related to STDs, and the 'U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use' on STD screening before IUD insertion" (1,3). Recommendations for other hormonal contraceptive methods (including combined hormonal methods, implants, and progestin-only pills) remain the same; there is also no restriction for their use among women at high risk for HIV infection (U.S. MEC category 1). Finally, CDC clarified that the U.S. MEC recommendations for concurrent use of hormonal contraceptives or IUDs and antiretroviral use for treatment of HIV infection also apply to use of antiretrovirals for prevention of HIV acquisition (preexposure prophylaxis [PrEP]).

Expulsion of intrauterine devices after postpartum placement by timing of placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by timing of insertion, delivery type, and intrauterine device type to inform current intrauterine device insertion practices in the United States. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all studies, of any study design, that examined postpartum placement of Copper T380A (copper) or levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices that reported counts of expulsion. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to <72 hours), "early outpatient" (72 hours to <4 weeks), and interval (≥4 weeks) time periods after delivery. We assessed study quality using the US Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of partial and complete intrauterine device expulsion separately and estimated adjusted relative risks by the timing of postpartum placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type using log-binomial multivariable regression. RESULTS: We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality that reported a total of 7661 intrauterine device placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates varied by timing of placement as follows: 10.2% (range, 0.0-26.7) for immediate; 13.2% (3.5-46.7) for early inpatient; 0% for early outpatient; and 1.8% (0.0-4.8) for interval placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates also varied by delivery type: 14.8% (range, 4.8-43.1) for vaginal and 3.8% (0.0-21.1) for cesarean deliveries. Among immediate postpartum vaginal placements, the expulsion rate for levonorgetrel intrauterine devices was 27.4% (range, 18.8-45.2) and 12.4% (4.8-43.1) for copper intrauterine devices. Compared with interval placement, immediate and early postpartum placements (inpatient and outpatient combined) were associated with greater risk of complete expulsion (adjusted risk ratio, 8.33; 95% confidence interval, 4.32-16.08, and adjusted risk ratio, 5.27; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-10.85, respectively). Among immediate postpartum placements, risk of expulsion was greater for placement after vaginal compared with cesarean deliveries (adjusted risk ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 3.49-5.99). Among immediate placements at the time of vaginal delivery, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices were associated with a greater risk of expulsion compared with copper intrauterine devices (adjusted risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.65). CONCLUSION: Although intrauterine device expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, type, and mode of delivery, intrauterine device insertion can take place at any time. Understanding the risk of intrauterine device expulsion at each time period will enable women to make an informed choice about when to initiate use of an intrauterine device in the postpartum period based on their own goals and preferences.

Hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition among women: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To update a 2016 systematic review on hormonal contraception use and HIV acquisition. METHODS: We searched Pubmed and Embase between 15 January 2016 and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using a hormonal contraceptive method and either non-users or users of another specific hormonal contraceptive method. We extracted information from newly identified studies, assessed study quality, and updated forest plots and meta-analyses. RESULTS: In addition to 31 previously included studies, five more were identified; three provided higher quality evidence. A randomised clinical trial (RCT) found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among users of intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), levonorgestrel implant (LNG implant) or the copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD). An observational study found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among women using DMPA, norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN), implants (type not specified) or Cu-IUD. Updated results from a previously included observational study continued to find a statistically significant increased HIV risk with oral contraceptives and DMPA compared with no contraceptive use, and found no association between LNG implant and HIV risk. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality RCT data comparing use of DMPA, LNG implant and Cu-IUD does not support previous concerns from observational studies that DMPA-IM use increases the risk of HIV acquisition. Use of other hormonal contraceptive methods (oral contraceptives, NET-EN and implants) is not associated with an increased risk of HIV acquisition.

Copper intrauterine device use and HIV acquisition in women: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review systematically copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and HIV acquisition in women. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library between database inception and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using an unspecified IUD or Cu-IUD compared with non-hormonal or no contraceptive users, or hormonal contraceptive users. We extracted information from included studies, assessed study quality, and summarised study findings. RESULTS: From 2494 publications identified, seven met our inclusion criteria. One randomised controlled trial (RCT), judged "informative with few limitations", found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk between users of the Cu-IUD and either intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM) or levonorgestrel implant. One observational study, deemed "informative but with important limitations", found no statistically significant difference in HIV incidence among IUD users compared with women who had tubal ligation or who were not using any contraception. Another "informative but with important limitations" observational study found no difference in HIV incidence between Cu-IUD users and DMPA or norethisterone enanthate injectable, or implant users. An RCT considered "unlikely to inform the primary question" also found no difference in HIV risk between Cu-IUD and progestogen-only injectable users. Findings from the other three "unlikely to inform the primary question" cohort studies were consistent with the more robust studies suggesting no increased risk of HIV acquisition among Cu-IUD users. CONCLUSION: The collective evidence, including that from a large high-quality RCT, does not indicate an increased risk of HIV acquisition among users of Cu-IUDs.

Effectiveness and safety of extending intrauterine device duration: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature to determine if extended use of intrauterine devices, including the copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine device, beyond approved durations is effective and safe for preventing pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Global Index Medicus from inception through June 2019. We considered primary studies of women using the T380A copper or currently available levonorgestrel intrauterine devices past their approved duration (extended use). The primary outcome was pregnancy. Safety outcomes included adverse events and side effects that led to discontinuation. We abstracted study data into evidence tables and assessed study quality as related to the risk of bias, precision, and external validity. For each intrauterine device type, we calculated a pooled pregnancy rate during the first 2 years of extended use using the Poisson inverse variance method. RESULTS: Of 4068 studies identified by our search, 4 good-to-poor-quality studies of the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine device (approved for 5 years), with a total of 2098 women starting extended use, and 2 good-to-fair-quality studies of the T380A copper intrauterine device (approved for 10 years), with 245 women starting extended use, met inclusion criteria. For the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, the pooled pregnancy rate was 0.02 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.45) in year 6, 0.03 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.71) in year 7, and 0.02 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.29) in years 6 and 7 combined. During this same time, annual rates of adverse events or discontinuation owing to side effects ranged from 0 to 3.7 per 100 participants. For the copper intrauterine device, the pooled pregnancy rate for years 11 and 12 was 0.0 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.8), and annual rates of adverse events and discontinuation owing to side effects during extended use ranged from 0 to 4.6 per 100 participants. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that rates of pregnancy, adverse events, and discontinuation owing to side effects during the first 2 years of extended use of the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine device and the T380A copper intrauterine device are low and comparable to rates during approved duration of use. Data were limited in quantity and quality, and may not be generalizable to all intrauterine device users.

Safety and effectiveness of hormonal contraception for women who use opioids: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature around the safety and effectiveness of hormonal contraception for women who use opioids. Our specific research questions are: 1) Among women who use opioids, do those who use hormonal contraception have increased adverse health events compared with those who do not use hormonal contraception? 2) Are there drug interactions between hormonal contraception and opioids that cause decreased effectiveness or increased toxicity from either drug? METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov through August 2018. We considered randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies. We planned to use standard frameworks to assess risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS: The search identified 1852 articles. The full text of 66 articles was reviewed, and none met inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Because we found no direct evidence on the safety and effectiveness of hormonal contraception for women who use opioids, we considered theoretical concerns. While women with OUD have a high prevalence of co-morbidities, such as viral hepatitis, generally women with medical conditions can safely use most contraceptive methods. When considering the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of hormonal contraception and opioids, there is little theoretical concern for interactions. Therefore, future research efforts could focus on improving access to the full range of contraceptive methods for women who use opioids, reducing unnecessary barriers to initiating and using contraception, while ensuring voluntary choice related to contraceptive use.