Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion.

BACKGROUND: Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to control pain; however, many people still experience pain with the procedure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, POPLINE, and Google Scholar to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials of pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using suction aspiration. We searched the reference lists of related reviews and articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected effectiveness and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials that studied local anaesthesia with common local anaesthetics and administration routes given for pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. Outcomes included intraoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We computed mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables reporting a mean. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of interventions, we could not pool more than two studies for any outcome. We used 13 mm improvement on a visual/verbal analogue scale to indicate a clinically meaningful difference in pain with surgical abortion (pain with dilation, aspiration, or during procedure). Based on type of pain control, we divided studies into three groups. Paracervical block (PCB) effectiveness trials A 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB reduced pain with dilation (MD -37.00, 95% CI -45.64 to -28.36), and aspiration (MD -26.00, 95% CI -33.48 to -18.52) compared to a sham PCB (1 RCT, 120 participants; high-certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL of 1% chloroprocaine resulted in a slight reduction in pain with aspiration compared to a PCB with normal saline injected at two or four sites (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.55; 1 RCT, 79 participants; high-certainty evidence). PCB comparative effectiveness trials An ultracaine PCB probably results in little to no clinically meaningful difference in pain during procedure compared to topical cervical lidocaine spray (median 1 point higher, interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A 1000 mg dose of intravenous paracetamol probably does not decrease pain as much as ultracaine PCB during procedure (median 2 points higher, IQR 1 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Various local anaesthetics in PCB comparative effectiveness trials A 10 mL buffered 2% lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.71; 1 RCT, 167 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A buffered lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, 291 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique effectiveness trials PCB: waiting versus no waiting Waiting three to five minutes between 1% lidocaine PCB injection and dilation probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to not waiting (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Topical cervical analgesia Topical 10 mL 2% lignocaine gel probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to KY Jelly (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.14; 1 RCT, 131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants who also received a PCB, 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain during the procedure compared to two pumps of normal saline spray (median -1 point, IQR -2 to -1; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 55 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intravenous paracetamol 1000 mg compared to two pumps of cervical lidocaine spray probably does not results in a clinically meaningful difference in pain procedure (median 1 point, IQR -2 to 2; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique comparative effectiveness trials Depth of PCB The evidence suggests that a 3-cm deep PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to a 1.5-cm deep PCB (MD -1.00, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.91; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). PCB: four sites versus two sites A two-site (4-8 o'clock) 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a four-site (2-4-8-10 o'clock) PCB (MD 8.60, 95% CI 0.69 to 16.51; 1 RCT, 163 participants; high-certainty evidence). Overall, participants reported moderately high satisfaction with pain control and studies reported few adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this updated review indicates that a 20 mL 1% plain lidocaine PCB decreases pain during an abortion procedure. Evidence supports forgoing buffering lidocaine and a wait time between PCB injection and cervical dilation. A 1.5-cm deep injection as opposed to a 3-cm deep injection is sufficient. A two-site PCB injection as opposed to a four-site injection has similar effectiveness. Topical cervical anaesthesia (10 mL 2% lignocaine gel or 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray) as compared to placebo did not decrease pain based on moderate-certainty evidence, but then when compared to PCB, pain control was similar. Due to this inconsistency in evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical anaesthesia, its routine use is presently not supported. This review did not include studies of pain management with conscious sedation but, based on the results of our prior Cochrane review and the 2022 WHO guidelines, we recommend that the option of combination of pain management using conscious sedation plus PCB and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be offered where conscious sedation is available as it further decreases pain.

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation: Jointly developed with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The objective of this Clinical Recommendation is to review relevant literature and provide evidence-based recommendations for medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation, with a focus on mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-only regimens. We systematically reviewed PubMed articles published between 2008 and 2022 and reviewed reference lists of included articles to identify additional publications. See Search Strategy for more details. Several randomized trials of medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation demonstrate that mifepristone 200 mg orally before misoprostol increases effectiveness (complete abortion at 24 or 48 hours) compared to misoprostol only. Studies continue to evaluate different doses, routes, and dosing intervals for misoprostol. If mifepristone is unavailable, several misoprostol regimens with individual doses of at least 200 mcg or more are effective. Adjunctive osmotic dilators are of limited benefit. It is important to individualize care, with consideration to reducing misoprostol dose in low-resource settings or at 24 0/7 weeks of gestation or later (or equivalent uterine size). Misoprostol in the setting of two or more previous cesarean sections is associated with increased risk of uterine rupture compared to one or none, but risk remains low. Most contraceptives can be started during or immediately following abortion. Appropriately trained and credentialed advanced practice clinicians can provide medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation with appropriate backup within the confines of local regulations and licensure.

Treatment of unfavorable bleeding patterns in contraceptive implant users: a randomized clinical trial of curcumin.

BACKGROUND: Some users of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant experience bothersome bleeding, which can reduce contraceptive satisfaction and continuation. Few strategies exist to manage this bleeding. The exact mechanism of progestin-induced bleeding is unknown, but it is likely multifactorial (eg, impaired angiogenesis, "leaky" fragile vasculature, and inflammation). Curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric, has anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, and antiangiogenic properties, which may make it a useful agent for implant-associated bothersome bleeding. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether curcumin decreases frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting in contraceptive implant users. STUDY DESIGN: The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Here, etonogestrel implant users with frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting were enrolled and randomized to either 600-mg Theracurmin HP (Immunovites, Las Vegas, NV) or placebo daily for 30 days. The term "frequent" was defined as ≥2 independent bleeding or spotting episodes, and the term "prolonged" was defined as ≥7 consecutive days of bleeding or spotting in a 30-day interval. Implant use was confirmed by clinical examination and negative gonorrhea and chlamydia and pregnancy tests. Enrolled participants initiated study treatment after 3 consecutive days of bleeding or spotting; if no bleeding or spotting occurred within 30 days of enrollment, the participants were withdrawn from the study. Study treatments were encapsulated to maintain a similar appearance. Participants used text messages to record daily bleeding patterns and study drug compliance. Bleeding was defined as a day that required the use of protection with a pad, tampon, or liner, and spotting was defined as a day with minimal blood loss that did not require the use of any protection. Our primary outcome was the total number of days without bleeding or spotting during the 30 days of study drug or placebo exposure. The secondary outcomes included total number of bleeding-free days, bleeding episodes, and satisfaction. A sample size of 22 per group provided 80% power at an alpha level of .05 to demonstrate a 6-day difference between groups. RESULTS: From February 2021 to November 2022, 58 individuals enrolled in the study with 54 participants (93%) completing 30 days of treatment (26 in the curcumin group and 28 in the placebo group). Of note, 1 individual in the curcumin arm did not experience a qualifying bleeding event and, thus, never initiated treatment and, per protocol, was withdrawn from the study. Participant characteristics did not differ between groups, including length of implant use at study enrollment (placebo, 521±305 days; curcumin, 419±264 days). The study groups did not differ concerning any bleeding-related outcome (mean days without bleeding or spotting: curcumin, 16.7±6.9; placebo, 17.5±4.8; P=.62; mean bleeding-free days: curcumin, 23.4±4.9; placebo, 22.4±4.5; P=.44; bleeding episodes: curcumin, 2.0±0.8; placebo, 2.1±0.8; P=.63). In addition, satisfaction with the implant as contraception and acceptability of bleeding over the study period did not differ by study group (P=.54 and P=.30, respectively). CONCLUSION: Daily use of curcumin did not improve bleeding patterns in users of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant experiencing frequent or prolonged bleeding patterns.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on menstrual bleeding quantity: An observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination impacts menstrual bleeding quantity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Five global regions. POPULATION: Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with regular menstrual cycles using the digital fertility-awareness application Natural Cycles°. METHODS: We used prospectively collected menstrual cycle data, multivariable longitudinal Poisson generalised estimating equation (GEE) models and multivariable multinomial logistic regression models to calculate the adjusted difference between vaccination groups. All regression models were adjusted for confounding factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean number of heavy bleeding days (fewer, no change or more) and changes in bleeding quantity (less, no change or more) at three time points (first dose, second dose and post-exposure menses). RESULTS: We included 9555 individuals (7401 vaccinated and 2154 unvaccinated). About two-thirds of individuals reported no change in the number of heavy bleeding days, regardless of vaccination status. After adjusting for confounding factors, there were no significant differences in the number of heavy bleeding days by vaccination status. A larger proportion of vaccinated individuals experienced an increase in total bleeding quantity (34.5% unvaccinated, 38.4% vaccinated; adjusted difference 4.0%, 99.2% CI 0.7%-7.2%). This translates to an estimated 40 additional people per 1000 individuals with normal menstrual cycles who experience a greater total bleeding quantity following the first vaccine dose' suffice. Differences resolved in the cycle post-exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A small increase in the probability of greater total bleeding quantity occurred following the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, which resolved in the cycle after the post-vaccination cycle. The total number of heavy bleeding days did not differ by vaccination status. Our findings can reassure the public that any changes are small and transient.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We therefore conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Health, and Scopus from inception to search update in March 2022. For the living systematic review, we monitored the literature monthly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third author helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index (BMI) under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. At a minimum, we noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception.

BACKGROUND: The copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) is a highly effective method of contraception that can also be used for emergency contraception (EC). It is the most effective form of EC, and is more effective than other existing oral regimens also used for EC. The Cu-IUD provides the unique benefit of providing ongoing contraception after it is inserted for EC; however, uptake of this intervention has been limited. Progestin IUDs are a popular method of long-acting, reversible contraception. If these devices were also found to be effective for EC, they would provide a critical additional option for women. These IUDs could not only provide EC and ongoing contraception, but additional non-contraceptive benefits, including a reduction in menstrual bleeding, cancer prevention, and pain management. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety and effectiveness of progestin-containing IUDs for emergency contraception, compared with copper-containing IUDs, or compared with dedicated oral hormonal methods. SEARCH METHODS: We considered all randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions that compared outcomes for individuals seeking a levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) for EC to a Cu-IUD or dedicated oral EC method. We considered full-text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data. We considered studies irrespective of their publication status and language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing progestin IUDs with copper-containing IUDs, or oral EC methods for emergency contraception. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We systematically searched nine medical databases, two trials registries, and one gray literature site. We downloaded all titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching to a reference management database, and removed duplicates. Three review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text reports to determine studies eligible for inclusion. We followed standard Cochrane methodology to assess risk of bias, and analyze and interpret the data. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included only one relevant study (711 women); a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing LNG-IUDs to Cu-IUDs for EC, with a one-month follow-up. With one study, the evidence was very uncertain for the difference in pregnancy rates, failed insertion rates, expulsion rates, removal rates and the difference in the acceptability of the IUDs. There was also uncertain evidence suggesting the Cu-IUD may slightly increase rates of cramping and the LNG-IUD may slightly increase bleeding and spotting days.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is limited in its ability to provide definitive evidence regarding the LNG-IUD's equivalence, superiority, or inferiority to the Cu-IUD for EC. Only one study was identified in the review, which had possible risks of bias related to randomization and rare outcomes. Additional studies are needed to provide definitive evidence related to the effectiveness of the LNG-IUD for EC.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Association of pharmacist prescription and 12-month contraceptive continuation rates.

BACKGROUND: States have passed legislation to expand the scope of pharmacists to directly prescribe contraception. It is thought that pharmacist prescription of contraception may promote correct and consistent use of contraception by reducing barriers to access. However, it is not known how this may impact ongoing contraceptive use. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether 12-month rates of continuation of an effective form of contraception or perfect use of contraception differ by prescribing provider (pharmacist or clinician). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a 1-year prospective cohort study of 388 women seeking contraception in 139 pharmacies across 4 states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Oregon). Our study was powered to detect a 10% difference in 12-month continuation of an effective form of contraception. We clarified women's pregnancy intention at baseline and subsequent follow-ups. Women received a prescription directly from a pharmacist (n=149) or were filling a prescription from a clinician, our comparison group (n=239). We used multivariable logistic regression to measure the association between pharmacist prescriber and use of any effective contraceptive method or perfect use at 12 months. Model covariates included age, race, education, side effects experienced, payor, and contraceptive supply dispensed at baseline. RESULTS: Of the study cohort, 88% (n=340) completed 12 months of follow-up. Among women not planning to become pregnant, 7 women in the clinic-prescribed group vs 1 woman in the pharmacy-prescribed group (3.4% vs 0.8%; P>.05) reported a positive pregnancy test during the study period. The majority of the cohort was continuing to use an effective method of contraception at 12 months (clinician 89.3% vs pharmacist 90.4%; P=.86). Among women receiving a prescription from a clinician, 53.9% reported perfect use (no missed days) at 12 months, compared with 47% of the pharmacist-prescribed group (P=.69). Pharmacist prescriber type was not associated with continuation of an effective contraceptive method at 12 months (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; confidence interval, 0.28-1.71) or with perfect use of contraception (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; confidence interval, 0.51-1.48), controlling for other woman-level characteristics. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in use of any effective contraception, perfect use, or switching at 12 months among those who received their baseline prescription from a pharmacist vs a clinician. This study is limited by not examining information on safety outcomes.

Medical abortion offered in pharmacy versus clinic-based settings.

BACKGROUND: Medical abortion is usually offered in a clinic or hospital, but could potentially be offered in other settings such as pharmacies. In many countries, pharmacies are a common first point of access for women seeking reproductive health information and services. Offering medical abortion through pharmacies is a potential strategy to improve access to abortion. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of medical abortion offered in pharmacy settings with clinic-based medical abortion. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, two trials registries and grey literature websites in November 2020. We also handsearched key references and contacted authors to locate unpublished studies or studies not identified in the database searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified studies that compared women receiving the same regimen of medical abortion or post-abortion care in either a clinic or pharmacy setting. Studies published in any language employing the following designs were included: randomized trials and non-randomized studies including a comparative group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed both retrieved abstracts and full-text publications. A third author was consulted in case of disagreement. We intended to use the Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 2, for randomized studies and used the ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies. GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcomes were completion of abortion without additional intervention, need for blood transfusion, and presence of uterine or systemic infection within 30 days of medical abortion. MAIN RESULTS: Our search yielded 2030 records. We assessed a total of 89 full-text articles for eligibility. One prospective cohort study met our inclusion criteria. The included study collected data on outcomes from 605 women who obtained a medical abortion in Nepal from either a clinic or pharmacy setting. Both sites of care were staffed by the same auxiliary nurse midwives. Over all domains, the risk of bias was judged to be low for our primary outcome. During the pre-intervention period, the study's investigators identified a priori appropriate confounders, which were clearly measured and adjusted for in the final analysis. For women who received medical abortion in a pharmacy setting, compared to a clinic setting, there may be little or no difference in complete abortion rates (adjusted risk difference (RD)) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8 to 3.8; 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty evidence). The study reported no cases of blood transfusion, and a composite outcome, comprised mainly of infection complications, showed there may be little or no difference between settings (adjusted RD 0.8, 95% CI -1.0 to 2.8; 1 study, 600 participants; very low certainty evidence). The study reported no events for hospital admission for an abortion-related event or need for surgical intervention, and there may be no difference in women reporting being highly satisfied with the facility where they were seen (38% pharmacy versus 34% clinic, P = 0.87; 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of pharmacy provision of medical abortion are limited by the lack of comparative studies. One study, judged to provide low certainty evidence, suggests that the effectiveness of medical abortion may not be different between the pharmacy and clinic settings. However, evidence for safety is insufficient to draw any conclusions, and more research on factors contributing to potential differences in quality of care is needed. It is important to note that this study included a care model where a clinician provided services in a pharmacy, not direct provision of care by pharmacists or pharmacy staff. Three ongoing studies are potentially eligible for inclusion in review updates. More research is needed because pharmacy provision could expand timely access to medical abortion, especially in settings where clinic services may be more difficult to obtain. Evidence is particularly limited on the patient experience and how the care process and quality of services may differ across different types of settings.

Abortion Care Beyond 13 Weeks' Gestation: A Global Perspective.

The majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy, but later abortion accounts for a large proportion of abortion-related morbidity and mortality. People who need this care are often the most vulnerable-the poor, the young, those who experience violence, and those with significant health issues. In settings with access to safe care, studies demonstrate significant declines in abortion-related morbidity and mortality. This review focuses on evidence-based practices for induced abortion beyond 13 weeks' gestation and post-abortion care in both high- and low-resource settings. We also highlight key programmatic issues to consider when expanding the gestational age for abortion services.

Contraception Selection, Effectiveness, and Adverse Effects: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Many women spend a substantial proportion of their lives preventing or planning for pregnancy, and approximately 87% of US women use contraception during their lifetime. OBSERVATIONS: Contraceptive effectiveness is determined by a combination of drug or device efficacy, individual fecundability, coital frequency, and user adherence and continuation. In the US, oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used reversible method of contraception and comprise 21.9% of all contraception in current use. Pregnancy rates of women using oral contraceptives are 4% to 7% per year. Use of long-acting methods, such as intrauterine devices and subdermal implants, has increased substantially, from 6% of all contraceptive users in 2008 to 17.8% in 2016; these methods have failure rates of less than 1% per year. Estrogen-containing methods, such as combined oral contraceptive pills, increase the risk of venous thrombosis from 2 to 10 venous thrombotic events per 10 000 women-years to 7 to 10 venous thrombotic events per 10 000 women-years, whereas progestin-only and nonhormonal methods, such as implants and condoms, are associated with rare serious risks. Hormonal contraceptives can improve medical conditions associated with hormonal changes related to the menstrual cycle, such as acne, endometriosis, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Optimal contraceptive selection requires patient and clinician discussion of the patient's tolerance for risk of pregnancy, menstrual bleeding changes, other risks, and personal values and preferences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used reversible contraceptives, intrauterine devices and subdermal implants have the highest effectiveness, and progestin-only and nonhormonal methods have the lowest risks. Optimal contraceptive selection incorporates patient values and preferences.

Pharmacists expand access to reproductive heaLthcare: PEARL study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, Oregon became the first of eight states to allow pharmacists to directly prescribe hormonal contraception (HC), including the pill, patch, or ring, without a clinic visit. In the two years following this policy change, the majority of ZIP codes across the state of Oregon had a pharmacist certified to prescribe HC. METHODS: We will utilize complementary methodologies to evaluate the effect of this policy change on convenient access to contraception (cost, supply dispensed), safety, contraceptive continuation and unintended pregnancy rates. We will conduct a prospective clinical cohort study to directly measure the impact of provider type on contraceptive continuation and to understand who is accessing hormonal contraception directly from pharmacists. We will concurrently conduct a retrospective analysis using medical claims data to evaluate the state-level effect of the policy. We will examine contraceptive continuation rates, incident pregnancy, and safety measures. The combination of these methodologies allows us to examine key woman-level factors, such as pregnancy intention and usual place of care, while also estimating the impact of the pharmacist prescription policy at the state level. DISCUSSION: Pharmacist prescription of HC is emerging nationally as a strategy to reduce unintended pregnancy. This study will provide data on the effect of this practice on convenient access to care, contraceptive safety and continuation rates.

Do menstrual cups increase risk of IUD expulsion? A survey of self-reported IUD and menstrual hygiene product use in the United States.

Purpose: To gather preliminary data about menstrual hygiene product use and associated risk of intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion. Materials and methods: We conducted an Internet-based survey using the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform and Researchmatch.org. Eligible participants were women at least 18 years old and self-identified as current or previous IUD users. Results: Of 902 survey responses, 71% reported current or previous IUD use and 19.7% reported menstrual cup use. IUD users were significantly more likely than non-IUD users to use a menstrual cup or tampons. Among all IUD users, 56 individuals reported experiencing at least one expulsion (8.8%). We found a positive association between concurrent menstrual cup use and IUD expulsion (OR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.40-5.42, p = .002), but no association with concurrent tampon or pad use. Of concurrent IUD and cup users who experienced an expulsion, one reported it occurring 'while using a menstrual cup', with others reporting the expulsion during other events. Conclusions: Menstrual cup use may be higher than previously reported, particularly in IUD users. Concurrent menstrual cup use may increase the risk of IUD expulsion. Prospective research is necessary to fully explore the relationship between menstrual hygiene product use and IUD expulsions.

Comparing cervical mucus changes in response to an oral progestin or oestrogen withdrawal in ovarian-suppressed women: a clinical pilot.

Purpose: Prior studies evaluating the effect of administered progestogens on peak cervical mucus have not controlled for the influence of endogenous hormones. To address this, we treated women with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to suppress the hypothalamus-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis and used transdermal oestradiol replacement to stimulate peak cervical mucus and then evaluated the effects of an oral progestin or oestradiol withdrawal. Materials and methods: We used a crossover design to examine cervical mucus changes in women receiving transdermal oestradiol replacement following intramuscular administration of leuprolide acetate. After increasing oestradiol patches to mid-cycle levels, subjects were assigned to either 0.35 mg oral norethindrone with continuation of the patches (NET) or oestradiol withdrawal by patch removal (E2WD). We collected serum and cervical mucus samples at 0, 2, 4, 6, 22 and 24 h following the intervention. Results: We analysed 12 cycles (6 NET, 6 E2WD) from three subjects. Baseline cervical mucus scores were favourable to sperm penetration [NET median 11, interquartile range (9-12), E2WD 13 (12-13)]. Two hours after removal of oestradiol patch or administration of norethindrone, cervical mucus scores declined [NET 8.5 (4-9), E2WD 10.5 (10-12)]. Low cervical mucus scores persisted at 24 h with NET [8.0 (7-8)] but not E2WD [10.5 (8-11)]. Conclusions: We observed a rapid decline in cervical mucus Insler scores following administration of a single dose of oral norethindrone, and scores remained lower and unfavourable through 24 h. Oestradiol withdrawal did not result in similar unfavourable changes.

Pharmacists' experience with prescribing hormonal contraception in Oregon.

OBJECTIVES: To describe Oregon pharmacy practices in provision of hormonal contraception (HC) and evaluate if pharmacists' motivation to prescribe changed after 6 and 12 months of experience. METHODS: Pharmacists practicing in Oregon who underwent the mandatory HC training were eligible to take this survey. The survey was launched 6 months after policy implementation; pharmacists who responded to the initial survey were eligible to be queried again at 12 months. Survey responses were anonymous, but pharmacists received a unique identifier so that responses could be linked between the 2 surveys. The survey consisted of pharmacy and pharmacist demographics and questions exploring attitudes toward prescribing HC and prescribing practices (e.g., cost, time needed for visit) and volume estimates. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses as well as the differences in key outcomes between 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 732 pharmacists were eligible to take the survey; 121 pharmacists responded to the 6-month survey (16.5% response rate), and 62 completed the 12-month survey (52% response rate). A large increase in the distribution of pharmacists prescribing HC by zip code occurred between 6 and 12 months: 19% and 63%, respectively. At both 6 and 12 months, almost one-half of all pharmacists were billing insurance for the visit, and the average visit took less than 30 minutes. The top 3 motivators for providing HC did not change over time and included increasing access, reducing unintended pregnancy, and increasing pharmacist scope of practice. CONCLUSION: One year after program implementation, pharmacist prescribing of HC continues to increase and is distributed widely across the state. A geographically diverse sample of Oregon pharmacists began prescribing of hormonal contraception within 12 months of Oregon's implementation of the new pharmacist provision policy. Their experience and the success of the program provide a roadmap for pharmacist participation to increase access to hormonal contraception.

Appraising cervical mucus: a new approach to evaluating contraceptives.

PURPOSE: Timing of sample collection represents a major source of variability in studies evaluating the effects of administered agents on cervical mucus in naturally-cycling women. We sought to create and validate an artificial model of the cervical mucus cycle using exogenous E2 and P4 replacement in ovarian suppressed women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective experiment (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02969590) examining cervical mucus changes in six women during natural and artificial menstrual cycles [leuprolide acetate, estradiol transdermal patch (0.05-0.3 mg/day) and progesterone 200 mg/day]. We collected serum and mucus samples at each visit corresponding to early, mid and late follicular, ovulation and mid-luteal time points in the natural and artificial cycles. We evaluated mucus according to the modified Insler score described in the WHO laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. RESULTS: We enrolled healthy women between 27 and 40 years of age. All of the subjects achieved a mucus score of ≥10 both in the natural cycle and during peak estradiol replacement levels (0.3 mg/day) in the artificial cycle. During the simulated luteal phase, all mucus scores were ≤5 (median 3.5; range 1-5), similar to scores seen in the luteal phase of natural cycles (median 1; range 1-3). CONCLUSIONS: Our artificial cycle model (leuprolide acetate suppression) and dose escalation with estradiol patches produced favourable cervical mucus with mucus scores similar to those in the periovulatory phase of natural menstrual cycles. Additional studies are needed to validate the model for evaluation of mucus effects of contraceptive agents.

A novel tamponade agent for management of post partum hemorrhage: adaptation of the Xstat mini-sponge applicator for obstetric use.

BACKGROUND: Although uterine tamponade is an effective treatment for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), current methods have key limitations in their use, particularly in low resource settings. The XStat™ Mini Sponge Dressing (MSD) is approved for the management of non-compressible wounds in the battlefield/trauma setting. The MSD applies highly compressed medical sponges capable of stopping high-flow arterial bleeding within seconds. The objective of our study was to adopt the MSD for use in managing PPH. METHODS: We performed desktop testing using a uterine model with pressure sensors to compare key design elements of the obstetrical prototype MSD (fundal pressure achieved, reduction in fluid loss, time to deploy, and time to remove) with alternativetechniques (uterine packing, balloon tamponade). To evaluate safety, we delivered the fetus of pregnant ewes by cesarean section and used the prototype to deliver the MSD into one uterine horn, and closed the hysterotomy. We followed the clinical recovery of animals (n = 3) over 24 h, and then removed the reproductive tract for histologic evaluation. To evaluate late effects, we surgically removed the MSDs after 24 h, and followed the clinical recovery of animals (n = 6) for an additional seven days before tissue removal. RESULTS: The obstetrical prototype has a long tapered delivery system designed to be deployed during vaginal examination, and administers three times the volume of the approved MSD trauma bandage. The MSD are deployed within a mesh bag to facilitate removal by vaginaltraction. On desktop testing, the MSD resulted in the highest average fundal pressure (113 mmHg), followed by the MSD bag device (85.8 mmHg), gauze packing (15.5 mmHg), and the uterine balloon (8.2 mmHg). The MSD bag test group achieved the largest fluid flow reduction of -74%, followed by gauze packing (-55%), MSD (-35%), and uterine balloon (-19%). Animal testing demonstrated good uterine fill with no evidence of adverse clinical recovery, uterine trauma or infection at 24 h, or up to 7 days following device removal. CONCLUSION: We adapted a highly effective trauma dressing and applicator for use in the treatment of severe PPH. Preliminary desktop and animal testing provide a basis for initial clinical trials in women.

Emergency Contraception in Mexico: Trends in Knowledge and Ever-Use 2006-2014.

Objectives A package of interventions to introduce emergency contraception (EC) to Mexico was implemented, resulting in the addition of EC to the national family planning guidelines in 2004. We describe EC knowledge and use among women in Mexico over time. Methods We used the 2006, 2009, and 2014 of waves of a nationally representative demographic survey (ENADID). We assessed EC knowledge and usage in women ages 15-29 who are not using permanent methods and tested whether EC knowledge and use is changing over time after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics using logistic regression. Results Our sample included n = 99,223 (population N = 40,234,355) women ages 15-29. Overall, knowledge of EC increased over time: 62% in 2006 to 79% in 2009 to 83% in 2014 (p < 0.001). Among young women who have used contraception (n = 42,883; N = 16,816,701), the proportion that reported EC use increased from 3 to 11% to 29% (p < 0.001). Compared to non-users, women who had ever used EC were more likely to be using no method of contraception (44 vs. 35%) or barrier method (22 vs. 17%). Demographic factors including lower wealth, lower education, indigenous status and rural living are significantly associated with less EC knowledge and use. Stratified multivariate analysis found that demographic disadvantages magnify lower EC use among rural residents compared to non-rural residents. Conclusions for Practice Knowledge and use of EC are growing rapidly in Mexico, but disparities persist in demographically disadvantaged women, particularly those living in rural areas. Women who use EC appear to be at higher risk of unintended pregnancy based on current contraceptive use.