RESUMO
Nowadays there are multiple types of contraceptive methods, from reversible to permanent, for those choosing to delay pregnancy. Misconceptions about contraception and infertility are a key factor for discontinuation or the uptake of family planning methods. Regaining fertility (the ability to conceive) after contraceptive discontinuation is therefore pivotal. Technical studies to date have evaluated return to fertility by assessing pregnancy as an outcome, with variable results, or return to ovulation as a surrogate measure by assessing hormone levels (such as progesterone, LH, FSH) with or without transvaginal ultrasound. In general, relying on time to pregnancy as an indicator of return to fertility following contraceptive method discontinuation can be problematic due to variable factors independent of contraceptive effects on fertility, hormone clearance, and fertility recovery. Since the ability to conceive after contraceptive method discontinuation is a critical factor influencing product uptake, it is important to have robust biomarkers that easily and accurately predict the timing of fertility return following contraception and isolate that recovery from extrinsic and circumstantial factors. The main aim of this review is to summarize the current approaches, existing knowledge, and gaps in methods of evaluating return-to-fertility as well as to provide insights into the potential of new biomarkers to more accurately predict fertility restoration after contraceptive discontinuation. Biomarker candidates proposed in this document include those associated with folliculogenesis, cumulus cell expansion, follicular rupture and ovulation, and endometrial transport and receptivity which have been selected and scored on predefined criteria meant to evaluate their probable viability for advancement. The review also describes limitations, regulatory requirements, and a potential path to clinically testing these selected biomarkers. It is important to understand fertility restoration after contraceptive method discontinuation to provide users and health providers with accurate evidence-based information. Predictive biomarkers, if easy and low-cost, have the potential to enable robust evaluation of RTF, and provide potential users the information they desire when selecting a contraceptive method. This could lead to expanded uptake and continuation of modern contraception and inform the development of new contraceptive methods to widen user's family planning choices.
RESUMO
Background: Contraceptive-induced menstrual changes (CIMCs) can affect family planning (FP) users' lives in both positive and negative ways, resulting in both opportunities and consequences. Despite this, and despite the important links between FP and menstrual health (MH), neither field adequately addresses CIMCs, including in research, product development, policies, and programs globally. Methods: In November 2020, a convening of both MH and FP experts reviewed the existing evidence on CIMCs and identified significant gaps in key areas. Results: These gaps led to the establishment of a CIMC Task Force in April 2021 and the development of the Global Research and Learning Agenda: Building Evidence on Contraceptive-Induced Menstrual Changes in Research, Product Development, Policies, and Programs Globally (the CIMC RLA) , which includes four research agendas for (1) measurement, (2) contraceptive research and development (R&D) and biomedical research, (3) social-behavioral and user preferences research, and (4) programmatic research. Conclusions: Guided by the CIMC RLA, researchers, product developers, health care providers, program implementers, advocates, policymakers, and funders are urged to conduct research and implement strategies to address the beneficial and negative effects of CIMCs and support the integration of FP and MH. CIMCs need to be addressed to improve the health and well-being of women, girls, and other people who menstruate and use contraceptives globally. Disclaimer : The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. Publication in Gates Open Research does not imply endorsement by the Gates Foundation.