Effect of BMI and body weight on pregnancy rates with LNG as emergency contraception: analysis of four WHO HRP studies.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of increased body weight and body mass index (BMI) on pregnancy rates with levonorgestrel (LNG) 1.5mg used as emergency contraception (EC). METHODS: The study reviewed data from 6873 women in four WHO-HRP randomized trials on EC conducted between 1993 and 2010. Participants took either 1.5mg of LNG as a single dose or in two doses 12h apart, up to 120h of unprotected intercourse. Contraceptive efficacy (pregnancy rates) at different weight and BMI categories was evaluated. RESULTS: Overall pregnancy rate was low at 1.2%. Pregnancy rates were also low in women weighing over 80kg (0.7%) and who were obese (BMI over 30kg/m2) (2.0%). The pooled analyses for pregnancy demonstrated that BMI over 30kg/m2 decreased efficacy significantly (odds ratio 8.27, 95% confidence interval = 2.70-25.37) when compared to women in lower BMI categories, mainly influenced by pregnancies in obese women from one study site. Sensitivity analyses excluding that site showed that obesity was no longer a risk factor; however, the other studies included too few obese women in the sample to exclude a substantial decrease in efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy rates with use of LNG 1.5mg for EC were low at less than 3% across different weight and BMI categories. Pooled analyses showed an increase in pregnancy rates among obese women (BMI more than 30kg/m2) compared to women with normal BMI levels, influenced by pregnancies all coming from one study site. IMPLICATIONS: Access to LNG as EC should still be promoted to women who need them, and not be restricted in any weight or BMI category, with additional attention for counselling and advice for obese women.

Safety and efficacy in parous women of a 52-mg levonorgestrel-medicated intrauterine device: a 7-year randomized comparative study with the TCu380A.

OBJECTIVES: To compare rates of unintended pregnancy, method continuation and reasons for removal among women using the 52-mg levonorgestrel (daily release 20 microg) intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) or the copper T 380 A IUD (TCu380A). STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label 7-year randomized controlled trial in 20 centres, 11 of which in China. Data on 1884 women with interval insertion of the LNG-IUD and 1871 of the TCu380A were analysed using life tables with 30-day intervals and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The cumulative 7-year pregnancy rate of the LNG-IUD was 0.5 (standard error 0.2) per 100, significantly lower than 2.5 (0.4) per 100 of the TCu380A, cumulative method discontinuation rates at 7 years were 70.6 (1.2) and 40.8 (1.3) per 100, respectively. Dominant reasons for discontinuing the LNG-IUD were amenorrhea (26.1 [1.3] per 100) and reduced bleeding (12.5 [1.1] per 100), particularly in Chinese women and, for the TCu380A, increased bleeding (9.9 [0.9] per 100), especially among non-Chinese women. Removal rates for pain were similar for the two intrauterine devices (IUDs). Cumulative rates of removal for symptoms compatible with hormonal side effects were 5.7 (0.7) and 0.4 (0.2) per 100 for the LNG-IUD and TCu380A, respectively, and cumulative losses to follow-up at 7 years were 26.0 (1.4) and 36.9 (1.3) per 100, respectively. CONCLUSION: The LNG-IUD and the TCu380A have very high contraceptive efficacy, with the LNG-IUD significantly higher than the TCu380A. Overall rates of IUD removals were higher among LNG-IUD users than TCu380A users. Removals for amenorrhea appeared culturally associated. IMPLICATIONS: The 52-mg LNG-IUD and the TCu380A have very high contraceptive efficacy through 7 years. As an IUD, the unique side effects of the LNG-IUD are reduced bleeding, amenorrhea and symptoms compatible with hormonal contraceptives.

The frameless copper IUD (GyneFix) and the TCu380A IUD: results of an 8-year multicenter randomized comparative trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical performance of the frameless copper IUD (GyneFix), designed to reduce side effects related to the frame of conventional IUDs, and TCu380A was compared. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized Multicenter randomized comparative trial. Parous women requesting and eligible to use IUD were admitted in 21 centers in eight countries in 1989-1993 and followed-up for up to 8 years. RESULTS: Two thousand twenty-seven women were randomized to the frameless IUD and 2036 to TCu380A; 43 insertions of the frameless IUD failed and none for TCu380A. First-year expulsion rate of the frameless IUD was 5.3 (95% CI: 4.4-6.4) per 100 and 2.5 (95% CI: 1.9-3.3) for the TCu380A; second- through eighth-year expulsion rates were not different. First-year pregnancy rates for the frameless IUD and TCu380A were 1.3 (95% CI: 0.9-2.0) and 0.5 (95% CI: 0.3-0.9), respectively; second- through eighth-year cumulative pregnancy rates were 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9) and 2.5 (95% CI: 1.8-3.4), respectively. The 8-year cumulative rates of ectopic pregnancy and IUD removal for pain were lower for the frameless IUD than for TCu380A. Removals for other reasons were not different. CONCLUSIONS: The frameless IUD had more insertion failures, expulsions and pregnancies in the first year than TCu380A, but fewer pregnancies from the second through the eighth year, and by 8 years had fewer ectopic pregnancies and removals for pain.

Comparison of vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for second trimester abortion: randomized controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: To identify an effective misoprostol-only regimen for the termination of second trimester pregnancy, we compared sublingual and vaginal administration of multiple doses of misoprostol in a randomized, placebo-controlled equivalence trial. METHODS: Six hundred and eighty-one healthy pregnant women requesting medical abortion at 13-20 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned within 11 gynaecological centres in seven countries into two treatment groups: 400 microg of misoprostol administered either sublingually or vaginally every 3 h up to five doses, followed by sublingual administration of 400 microg misoprostol every 3 h up to five doses if abortion had not occurred at 24 h after the start of treatment. We chose 10% as the margin of equivalence. The primary end-point was the efficacy of the treatments to terminate pregnancy in 24 h. Successful abortion within 48 h was also considered as an outcome along with the induction-to-abortion-interval, side effects and women's perceptions on these treatments. RESULTS: At 24 h, the success (complete or incomplete abortion) rate was 85.9% in the vaginal administration group and 79.8% in the sublingual group (difference: 6.1%, 95% CI: 0.5 to 11.8). Thus, equivalence could not be concluded overall; the difference, however, was driven by the nulliparous women, among whom vaginal administration was clearly superior to sublingual administration (87.3% versus 68.5%), whereas no significant difference was observed between vaginal and sublingual treatments among parous women (84.7% versus 88.5%). The rates of side effects were similar in both groups except for fever, which was more common in the vaginal group. About 70% of women in both groups preferred sublingual administration. CONCLUSIONS: Equivalence between vaginal and sublingual administration could not be demonstrated overall. Vaginal administration showed a higher effectiveness than sublingual administration in terminating second trimester pregnancies, but this result was mainly driven by nulliparous women. Fever was more prevalent with vaginal administration. Registered with International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial number ISRCTN72965671.

Efficacy of two intervals and two routes of administration of misoprostol for termination of early pregnancy: a randomised controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: The most effective route and best interval between several doses of misoprostol to induce abortion have not been defined. Our aim was to assess the effects of the interval between multiple doses of misoprostol and the route of administration to terminate pregnancy. METHODS: 2066 healthy pregnant women requesting medical abortion with 63 days or less of gestation were randomly assigned within 11 gynaecological centres in six countries to the four treatment groups (three doses of 0.8 mg misoprostol given sublingually at 3-h intervals, vaginally 3 h, sublingually 12 h, and vaginally 12 h), stratifying by gestational age. This was an equivalence trial with a 5% margin of equivalence. The primary endpoints were efficacy of treatment to achieve complete abortion and to terminate pregnancy. The main efficacy analysis excluded women lost to follow-up. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN10531821. FINDINGS: Efficacy outcomes were analysed for 2046 women (99%), excluding 20 lost to follow-up. Complete abortion rates at 2-week follow-up were recorded for 431 (84%) in the sublingual and for 434 (85%) women in the vaginal group when misoprostol was given at 3-h intervals (difference 0.4%, 95% CI -4.0 to 4.9, p=0.85 equivalence shown), and for 399 (78%) in the sublingual and for 425 (83%) in the vaginal 12-h groups (4.6%, -0.2 to 9.5, p=0.06, equivalence not shown). In the 3-h groups, pregnancy continued in 29 (6%) women after sublingual and in 20 (4%) women after vaginal administration (difference 1.8%, 95% CI -0.8 to 4.4, p=0.19, equivalence shown); in the 12-h groups it continued in 47 (9%) after sublingual and in 25 (5%) after vaginal administration (4.4%, 1.2-7.5, p=0.01, vaginal better than sublingual). Differences for complete abortion between intervals for sublingual and vaginal routes were 6% (95% CI 1.0-10.6, p=0.02, 3 h better than 12 h) and 2% (-2.9 to 6.1, p=0.49, equivalence not shown), respectively; for continuing pregnancies they were 4% (0.4-6.8, p=0.03, 3 h better than 12 h) and 1% (-1.5 to 3.5, p=0.44, equivalence shown), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Administration interval can be chosen between 3 h and 12 h when misoprostol is given vaginally. If administration is sublingual, the intervals between misoprostol doses need to be short, but side-effects are then increased. With 12-h intervals, vaginal route should be used, whereas with 3-h intervals either route could be chosen.

WHO multinational study of three misoprostol regimens after mifepristone for early medical abortion.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the side effect profiles of regimens of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol after a single oral dose of 200 mg of mifepristone and to investigate patients' perceptions of medical abortion. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Fifteen gynaecological clinics in 11 countries. POPULATION: A total of 2219 healthy pregnant women requesting medical abortion with < or =63 days of amenorrhoea. Two thousand women were asked about their perceptions of the method. METHODS: Mifepristone 200 mg orally on day one, followed by 0.8 mg misoprostol either orally or vaginally on day three. The oral group (O/O group) and one of the vaginal groups (V/O group) continued with 0.4 mg of oral misoprostol, and the vaginal-only group (V-only group) with oral placebo, twice daily for seven days. Side effects were recorded daily by women and reported at each visit. After misoprostol administration at the clinic, side effects were recorded at 1-hour interval up to 3 hours. Patients' perceptions were asked at the second follow up visit, six weeks after treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were the following: pregnancy-related symptoms (nausea, vomiting, breast tenderness, fatigue, dizziness, headache), drug-related side effects (diarrhoea, fever, rash and blood pressure change), side effects related to the abortion process (lower abdominal pain) and women's perceptions of the method. RESULTS: The pregnancy-related symptoms decreased in all groups after misoprostol, and breast tenderness decreased already after mifepristone. Oral administration of misoprostol was associated with a higher frequency of nausea and vomiting than vaginal administration at 1 hour after administration. With oral misoprostol, diarrhoea was more frequent at 1, 2 and at 3 hours after administration than with vaginal administration. Misoprostol induced fever during at least 3 hours after administration in up to 6% of the women, this peak being slightly higher and taking place later with the vaginal route. Lower abdominal pain peaked at 1 and 2 hours after oral misoprostol, while it did so at 2 and 3 hours after vaginal misoprostol. In the two groups that continued misoprostol, 27% of women had diarrhoea between the misoprostol visit and the two-week follow up visit, compared with 9% in the placebo group. Among the women studied, 84% would choose medical abortion again, 9% would choose surgical abortion and 7% did not know. Twenty-three percent of the women would choose to have a possible future abortion at home, 70% at a health facility and 7% did not know. CONCLUSIONS: The pregnancy-related symptoms decrease significantly with time during medical abortion. Nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea were more frequent after oral administration of misoprostol. Pain related to the abortion process occurs earlier after oral misoprostol. Should a need arise, a majority of women would choose medical abortion again and would prefer to have it at a health facility rather than at home.

WHO multinational study of three misoprostol regimens after mifepristone for early medical abortion. I: Efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol after a single oral dose of 200 mg of mifepristone and to investigate whether the efficacy can be improved and the duration of bleeding shortened by continuing oral misoprostol for one week. DESIGN: Double blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Fifteen gynaecological clinics in 11 countries. POPULATION: A total of 2219 healthy pregnant women requesting medical abortion with < or =63 days of amenorrhoea. METHODS: Mifepristone 200 mg administered orally on day one, followed by 0.8 mg misoprostol either orally or vaginally on day three. The oral group and one of the vaginal groups continued with 0.4 mg of oral misoprostol twice daily for seven days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complete abortion was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes were side effects, timing of expulsion and duration of bleeding. RESULTS: The crude complete abortion rate was 92.3% in the oral plus continued oral misoprostol group, in the vaginal-only group it was 93.5%, and it was 94.7% in the vaginal group that continued with oral misoprostol, when considering undetermined cases as failures. Among women with amenorrhoea length > or =57 days, the risk of failure of complete abortion was almost three times higher in the oral plus continued oral misoprostol group (RR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.8), and over two times higher in the vaginal-only group (RR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 4.7), when compared with the vaginal plus continued oral misoprostol group. Among women with amenorrhoea length < 57 days, the differences were not significant. Timing of expulsions and duration of bleeding were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: For amenorrhoea length > or =57 days, vaginal misoprostol is more effective than oral when continued with 0.4 mg oral misoprostol twice daily for seven days. Misoprostol continuation improved the efficacy in this amenorrhoea group compared with a single dose of vaginal misoprostol on day three, but it did not shorten the duration of bleeding. No differences in efficacy were observed when amenorrhoea length was < 57 days.

Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a WHO multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A single 10 mg dose of mifepristone, and two 0.75 mg doses of levonorgestrel 12 h apart, are effective for emergency contraception. Because no studies had compared the efficacies of both compounds, or investigated a single dose of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel, we undertook this three-arm trial. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind trial in 15 family-planning clinics in 10 countries. We randomly assigned 4136 healthy women with regular menstrual cycles, who requested emergency contraception within 120 h of one unprotected coitus, to one of three regimens: 10 mg single-dose mifepristone; 1.5 mg single-dose levonorgestrel; or two doses of 0.75 mg levonorgestrel given 12 h apart. The primary outcome was unintended pregnancy; other outcomes were side-effects and timing of next menstruation. Analysis was by intention to treat, but we did exclude some patients from the final analyses. FINDINGS: Of 4071 women with known outcome, pregnancy rates were 1.5% (21/1359) in those given mifepristone, 1.5% (20/1356) in those assigned single-dose levonorgestrel, and 1.8% (24/1356) in women assigned two-dose levonorgestrel. These proportions did not differ significantly (p=0.83). The relative risk of pregnancy for single-dose levonorgestrel compared with two-dose levonorgestrel was 0.83 (95% CI 0.46-1.50), and that for levonorgestrel (the two regimens combined) compared with mifepristone, 1.05 (0.63-1.76). Side-effects were mild and did not differ greatly between groups, and most women menstruated within 2 days of the expected date. Women who took levonorgestrel had earlier menses than did those who took mifepristone. INTERPRETATION: The three regimens studied are very efficacious for emergency contraception and prevent a high proportion of pregnancies if taken within 5 days of unprotected coitus. Mifepristone and levonorgestrel do not differ in efficacy. A 1.5 mg single levonorgestrel dose can substitute two 0.75 mg doses 12 h apart.