Levonorgestrel vs. Copper Intrauterine Devices for Emergency Contraception

被引:68
|
作者
Turok, David K. [1 ]
Gero, Alexandra [1 ]
Simmons, Rebecca G. [1 ]
Kaiser, Jennifer E. [1 ]
Stoddard, Gregory J. [2 ]
Sexsmith, Corinne D. [1 ]
Gawron, Lori M. [1 ]
Sanders, Jessica N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utah, Div Family Planning, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Salt Lake City, UT 84132 USA
[2] Univ Utah, Div Epidemiol, Dept Internal Med, Salt Lake City, UT 84132 USA
来源
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE | 2021年 / 384卷 / 04期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
ULIPRISTAL ACETATE; INSERTION; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1056/NEJMoa2022141
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND In the United States, more intrauterine device (IUD) users select levonorgestrel IUDs than copper IUDs for long-term contraception. Currently, clinicians offer only copper IUDs for emergency contraception because data are lacking on the efficacy of the levonorgestrel IUD for this purpose. METHODS This randomized noninferiority trial, in which participants were unaware of the group assignments, was conducted at six clinics in Utah and included women who sought emergency contraception after at least one episode of unprotected intercourse within 5 days before presentation and agreed to placement of an IUD. We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive a levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD or a copper T380A IUD. The primary outcome was a positive urine pregnancy test 1 month after IUD insertion. When a 1-month urine pregnancy test was unavailable, we used survey and health record data to determine pregnancy status. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 2.5 percentage points. RESULTS Among the 355 participants randomly assigned to receive levonorgestrel IUDs and 356 assigned to receive copper IUDs, 317 and 321, respectively, received the interventions and provided 1-month outcome data. Of these, 290 in the levonorgestrel group and 300 in the copper IUD group had a 1-month urine pregnancy test. In the modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, pregnancy rates were 1 in 317 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 1.7) in the levonorgestrel group and 0 in 321 (0%; 95% CI, 0 to 1.1) in the copper IUD group; the between-group absolute difference in both analyses was 0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -0.9 to 1.8), consistent with the noninferiority of the levonorgestrel IUD to the copper IUD. Adverse events resulting in participants seeking medical care in the first month after IUD placement occurred in 5.2% of participants in the levonorgestrel IUD group and 4.9% of those in the copper IUD group. CONCLUSIONS The levonorgestrel IUD was noninferior to the copper IUD for emergency contraception.
引用
收藏
页码:335 / 344
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] THE LEVONORGESTREL VS. COPPER INTRAUTERINE DEVICE FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: A NON-INFERIORITY RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
    Turok, D.
    Gero, A.
    Simmons, R.
    Kaiser, J.
    Stoddard, G.
    Sexsmith, C.
    Gawron, L.
    Sanders, J.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2020, 102 (04) : 274 - 274
  • [2] One-year continuation of copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine devices initiated at the time of emergency contraception
    Sanders, J. N.
    Turok, D. K.
    Royer, P. A.
    Thompson, I. S.
    Gawron, L. M.
    Storck, K. E.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2017, 96 (02) : 99 - 105
  • [3] Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception
    Ramanadhan, Shaalini
    Goldstuck, Norman
    Henderson, Jillian T.
    Che, Yan
    Cleland, Kelly
    Dodge, Laura E.
    Edelman, Alison
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (02):
  • [4] THE COPPER T380A IUD VS. ORAL LEVONORGESTREL FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: A PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
    Turok, D. K.
    Jacobson, J. C.
    Simonsen, S. E.
    Gurtcheff, S. E.
    Trauscht-Van Horn, J.
    Murphy, P. A.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2011, 84 (03) : 321 - 322
  • [5] Rates of pregnancy among levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine emergency contraception initiators: Implications for backup contraception recommendations
    Fay, Kathryn E.
    Clement, Amelia C.
    Gero, Alexandra
    Kaiser, Jennifer E.
    Sanders, Jessica N.
    BakenRa, Abena A.
    Turok, David K.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2021, 104 (05) : 561 - 566
  • [6] Copper Intrauterine Device vs. Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate for Contraception
    Guirguis-Blake, Janelle
    [J]. AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2011, 83 (01) : 35 - 36
  • [7] Bioavailability of the Yuzpe and levonorgestrel regimens of emergency contraception: vaginal vs. oral administration
    Kives, S
    Hahn, PM
    White, E
    Stanczyk, FZ
    Reid, RL
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2005, 71 (03) : 197 - 201
  • [8] INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTION WITH COPPER AND WITH LEVONORGESTREL - A RANDOMIZED STUDY OF THE TCU 380AG AND LEVONORGESTREL 20 MCG/DAY DEVICES
    SIVIN, I
    ALVAREZ, F
    DIAZ, J
    DIAZ, S
    ELMAHGOUB, S
    COUTINHO, E
    BRACHE, V
    DIAZ, MM
    FAUNDES, A
    PAVEZ, M
    MATTOS, CER
    STERN, J
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 1984, 30 (05) : 443 - 456
  • [9] One-year pregnancy and continuation rates after placement of levonorgestrel or copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a randomized controlled trial
    Kaiser, Jennifer E.
    Turok, David K.
    Gero, Alexandra
    Gawron, Lori M.
    Simmons, Rebecca G.
    Sanders, Jessica N.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 228 (04) : 438.e1 - 438.e10
  • [10] MICRODOSE INTRAUTERINE LEVONORGESTREL FOR CONTRACEPTION
    ROWE, PJ
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 1987, 35 (04) : 363 - 379