Dextromethorphan as a novel nonopioid adjunctive agent for pain control with medication abortion: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and satisfaction of dextromethorphan as a non-narcotic adjuvant to current analgesic regimens for medication abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. We randomized eligible participants (N = 156) 1:1 to adjunctively take dextromethorphan (loading dose 60 mg and two subsequent 30 mg doses at 2 and 5 hours after misoprostol administration) or placebo combined with usual-care nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications ± opioids for pain. Participants reported pain scores and satisfaction using a secure texting application at 2, 5, 8, and 24 hours after misoprostol administration. Our primary outcome was worst pain score and total analgesic use. RESULTS: Baseline demographics of enrolled participants were similar between randomization arms. Worst pain scores for participants receiving dextromethorphan versus placebo (8.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.06) did not differ. Total milligram usage of ibuprofen (800 mg vs 610 mg, p =.62), acetaminophen (1000 mg vs 1300 mg, p = 0.62), and opioids (10 mg vs 15 mg, p = 0.51) did not differ between the randomization groups. Participants randomized to placebo were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their pain control (91% vs 75%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Dextromethorphan used adjunctively with standard analgesics did not reduce pain associated with medication abortion. Participants who received dextromethorphan reported decreased satisfaction with their pain control. IMPLICATIONS: Dextromethorphan used adjunctively with commonly used analgesic regimens did not reduce medication abortion associated pain. Many participants did not use analgesics as counseled, and nearly 25% used no analgesia during medication abortion.

Patient Opinions About Foreign Body Contraceptives.

Background: Prior studies have noted patient reluctance to use contraceptive devices that require insertion into their bodies. We sought to better understand this "foreign body" concern, as well as to clarify how women perceive long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices compared with other implanted medical devices. Materials and Methods: We performed semistructured qualitative individual interviews with female obstetric/gynecologic patients and probed their opinions regarding LARC devices. Trained coders analyzed interview content using an inductive iterative approach and identified key themes. Results: We found three major themes in our analysis. First, women frequently expressed uncertainty about where in the body intrauterine devices reside and the impact of a foreign body in that space. Second, women expressed discomfort with the invisibility of the device itself and the "set and forget" feature of LARCs. Finally, when asked to consider contraceptive devices in the context of other implantable medical devices, patients highlighted that contraceptive devices are elective and have alternative options. Conclusions: When women express concerns about contraceptive devices "up in them," they are expressing concerns about how these devices interact with their anatomy and the possibilities of harm and failure. These perceived risks of LARCs may not compare favorably with other contraceptive methods that are not foreign bodies. Understanding this perspective improves our ability to participate in shared decision-making.