Contraception

A Food and Drug Administration committee voted 14-1, with one abstaining vote, that the benefits of the investigational contraceptive patch AG200-15 (ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel; Twirla) sufficiently outweigh the risks to warrant recommendation of approval.

Most of the committee members based their decisions on the need for additional contraceptive options for patients. However, most also expressed concerns about its efficacy and offered suggestions for product labeling that called attention to high rates of unintended pregnancies and increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women.

The agency’s Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed safety and efficacy data for AG200-15, a combined hormonal contraceptive patch developed by Agile Therapeutics. The treatment regimen involves application of a patch to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso, and the patch is changed weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week without a patch.

Elizabeth Garner, MD, consultant and former chief medical officer of Agile, presented study data on safety and effectiveness of the patch. The key study (known as Study 23) considered by the FDA included 1,736 women aged 35 years and younger. The primary efficacy endpoint was the pregnancy rate in the women who used the patch. Women reported sexual activity and back-up contraception use in e-diaries.

A total of 68 pregnancies occurred in the study population after 15,165 evaluable cycles, yielding an overall Pearl Index of 5.83 across all weight and body mass index groups. Historically, a Pearl Index of 5 has been the standard measure for effectiveness in contraceptive products, with lower being better. The index is defined as the number of pregnancies per 100 woman-years of product use. For example, a Pearl Index of 0.1 means that 1 in 1,000 women who use the same contraceptive method for 1 year becomes pregnant.

A subgroup analysis showed reduced efficacy in women with a higher BMI. The Pearl Index for women with a BMI of less than 30 kg/m² (defined as nonobese) was 4.34, whereas in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m² and higher (defined as obese), the index was 8.64, nearly double that of nonobese women. No significant differences in the index were noted based on race/ethnicity.

The company described the patch as filling a niche and providing an additional alternative for women seeking a noninvasive method of contraception. It proposed a limitation of use (LOU) as part of the product label that would provide detailed information on efficacy based on the Pearl Index for the different categories of BMI and would suggest that the patch may be less effective for women with obesity. Most of the committee members favored use of a LOU statement on the label, but some noted that it might limit prescriptions to nonobese women.

The committee expressed concern over the Pearl data in the study. The FDA has never approved a contraceptive product with a Pearl Index of greater than 5, said Yun Tang, PhD, a statistical reviewer for the agency’s Office of Translational Sciences, who presented the evaluation of the effectiveness of AG200-15.

Key safety concerns raised in discussion included the risk of venous thromboembolism and the risk of unscheduled bleeding. Both of those issues were significantly more common among obese women, said Nneka McNeal-Jackson, MD, clinical reviewer for the FDA, who presented details on the safety profile and risk-benefit considerations for the patch.

Overall, in Study 23, the incidence rate of VTE was 28/10,000 women-years, with cases in five participants. Four of those were deemed related to the patch, and all occurred in obese women.

Virginia C. “Jennie” Leslie, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, voted no to recommending approval of the patch mainly because of efficacy concerns. “My goal is to do no harm, and I have concerns regarding efficacy and giving our patients a false sense of hope,” she said.

Even those members who voted yes expressed concerns about the efficacy data and VTE risk in obese women and recommended postmarketing studies and appropriate labeling to help clinicians in shared decision making with their patients.

Esther Eisenberg, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, noted that the patch fills a need, certainly for women with a BMI less than 30 kg/m², and suggested that use be limited to women in that lower BMI category.

Other committee members suggested that the product not be restricted based on BMI, but rather that the LOU provide clear explanations of how effectiveness decreases as BMI increases.

David J. Margolis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, opted to abstain from voting, in part based on concerns about the study design and a lack of additional data from the company.

A Food and Drug Administration committee voted 14-1, with one abstaining vote, that the benefits of the investigational contraceptive patch AG200-15 (ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel; Twirla) sufficiently outweigh the risks to warrant recommendation of approval.

Most of the committee members based their decisions on the need for additional contraceptive options for patients. However, most also expressed concerns about its efficacy and offered suggestions for product labeling that called attention to high rates of unintended pregnancies and increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women.

The agency’s Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed safety and efficacy data for AG200-15, a combined hormonal contraceptive patch developed by Agile Therapeutics. The treatment regimen involves application of a patch to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso, and the patch is changed weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week without a patch.

Elizabeth Garner, MD, consultant and former chief medical officer of Agile, presented study data on safety and effectiveness of the patch. The key study (known as Study 23) considered by the FDA included 1,736 women aged 35 years and younger. The primary efficacy endpoint was the pregnancy rate in the women who used the patch. Women reported sexual activity and back-up contraception use in e-diaries.

A total of 68 pregnancies occurred in the study population after 15,165 evaluable cycles, yielding an overall Pearl Index of 5.83 across all weight and body mass index groups. Historically, a Pearl Index of 5 has been the standard measure for effectiveness in contraceptive products, with lower being better. The index is defined as the number of pregnancies per 100 woman-years of product use. For example, a Pearl Index of 0.1 means that 1 in 1,000 women who use the same contraceptive method for 1 year becomes pregnant.

A subgroup analysis showed reduced efficacy in women with a higher BMI. The Pearl Index for women with a BMI of less than 30 kg/m² (defined as nonobese) was 4.34, whereas in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m² and higher (defined as obese), the index was 8.64, nearly double that of nonobese women. No significant differences in the index were noted based on race/ethnicity.

The company described the patch as filling a niche and providing an additional alternative for women seeking a noninvasive method of contraception. It proposed a limitation of use (LOU) as part of the product label that would provide detailed information on efficacy based on the Pearl Index for the different categories of BMI and would suggest that the patch may be less effective for women with obesity. Most of the committee members favored use of a LOU statement on the label, but some noted that it might limit prescriptions to nonobese women.

The committee expressed concern over the Pearl data in the study. The FDA has never approved a contraceptive product with a Pearl Index of greater than 5, said Yun Tang, PhD, a statistical reviewer for the agency’s Office of Translational Sciences, who presented the evaluation of the effectiveness of AG200-15.

Key safety concerns raised in discussion included the risk of venous thromboembolism and the risk of unscheduled bleeding. Both of those issues were significantly more common among obese women, said Nneka McNeal-Jackson, MD, clinical reviewer for the FDA, who presented details on the safety profile and risk-benefit considerations for the patch.

Overall, in Study 23, the incidence rate of VTE was 28/10,000 women-years, with cases in five participants. Four of those were deemed related to the patch, and all occurred in obese women.

Virginia C. “Jennie” Leslie, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, voted no to recommending approval of the patch mainly because of efficacy concerns. “My goal is to do no harm, and I have concerns regarding efficacy and giving our patients a false sense of hope,” she said.

Even those members who voted yes expressed concerns about the efficacy data and VTE risk in obese women and recommended postmarketing studies and appropriate labeling to help clinicians in shared decision making with their patients.

Esther Eisenberg, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, noted that the patch fills a need, certainly for women with a BMI less than 30 kg/m², and suggested that use be limited to women in that lower BMI category.

Other committee members suggested that the product not be restricted based on BMI, but rather that the LOU provide clear explanations of how effectiveness decreases as BMI increases.

David J. Margolis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, opted to abstain from voting, in part based on concerns about the study design and a lack of additional data from the company.

A Food and Drug Administration committee voted 14-1, with one abstaining vote, that the benefits of the investigational contraceptive patch AG200-15 (ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel; Twirla) sufficiently outweigh the risks to warrant recommendation of approval.

Most of the committee members based their decisions on the need for additional contraceptive options for patients. However, most also expressed concerns about its efficacy and offered suggestions for product labeling that called attention to high rates of unintended pregnancies and increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women.

The agency’s Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed safety and efficacy data for AG200-15, a combined hormonal contraceptive patch developed by Agile Therapeutics. The treatment regimen involves application of a patch to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso, and the patch is changed weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week without a patch.

Elizabeth Garner, MD, consultant and former chief medical officer of Agile, presented study data on safety and effectiveness of the patch. The key study (known as Study 23) considered by the FDA included 1,736 women aged 35 years and younger. The primary efficacy endpoint was the pregnancy rate in the women who used the patch. Women reported sexual activity and back-up contraception use in e-diaries.

A total of 68 pregnancies occurred in the study population after 15,165 evaluable cycles, yielding an overall Pearl Index of 5.83 across all weight and body mass index groups. Historically, a Pearl Index of 5 has been the standard measure for effectiveness in contraceptive products, with lower being better. The index is defined as the number of pregnancies per 100 woman-years of product use. For example, a Pearl Index of 0.1 means that 1 in 1,000 women who use the same contraceptive method for 1 year becomes pregnant.

A subgroup analysis showed reduced efficacy in women with a higher BMI. The Pearl Index for women with a BMI of less than 30 kg/m² (defined as nonobese) was 4.34, whereas in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m² and higher (defined as obese), the index was 8.64, nearly double that of nonobese women. No significant differences in the index were noted based on race/ethnicity.

The company described the patch as filling a niche and providing an additional alternative for women seeking a noninvasive method of contraception. It proposed a limitation of use (LOU) as part of the product label that would provide detailed information on efficacy based on the Pearl Index for the different categories of BMI and would suggest that the patch may be less effective for women with obesity. Most of the committee members favored use of a LOU statement on the label, but some noted that it might limit prescriptions to nonobese women.

The committee expressed concern over the Pearl data in the study. The FDA has never approved a contraceptive product with a Pearl Index of greater than 5, said Yun Tang, PhD, a statistical reviewer for the agency’s Office of Translational Sciences, who presented the evaluation of the effectiveness of AG200-15.

Key safety concerns raised in discussion included the risk of venous thromboembolism and the risk of unscheduled bleeding. Both of those issues were significantly more common among obese women, said Nneka McNeal-Jackson, MD, clinical reviewer for the FDA, who presented details on the safety profile and risk-benefit considerations for the patch.

Overall, in Study 23, the incidence rate of VTE was 28/10,000 women-years, with cases in five participants. Four of those were deemed related to the patch, and all occurred in obese women.

Virginia C. “Jennie” Leslie, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, voted no to recommending approval of the patch mainly because of efficacy concerns. “My goal is to do no harm, and I have concerns regarding efficacy and giving our patients a false sense of hope,” she said.

Even those members who voted yes expressed concerns about the efficacy data and VTE risk in obese women and recommended postmarketing studies and appropriate labeling to help clinicians in shared decision making with their patients.

Esther Eisenberg, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, noted that the patch fills a need, certainly for women with a BMI less than 30 kg/m², and suggested that use be limited to women in that lower BMI category.

Other committee members suggested that the product not be restricted based on BMI, but rather that the LOU provide clear explanations of how effectiveness decreases as BMI increases.

David J. Margolis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, opted to abstain from voting, in part based on concerns about the study design and a lack of additional data from the company.

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use continues to increase in the United States. According to the most recent estimates from 2014, 14% of women use either an intrauterine device (IUD) or the etonogestrel implant.¹ Forms of LARC currently available in the United States include:

• 4 hormone-releasing IUDs
• 1 nonhormonal copper IUD, and
• 1 hormonal subdermal implant.

The hormone-releasing IUDs all contain levonorgestrel (LNG). These include two 52-mg LNG products and a 19.5-mg LNG IUD, which are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for contraception for 5 continuous years of use. In addition, a 13.5-mg LNG IUD is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. The hormonal subdermal implant, which contains etonogestrel, is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. Although major complications with IUDs (perforation, expulsion, intrauterine infection)and implants (subfascial implantation, distant migration) are rare, adverse effects that can affect continuation—such as irregular bleeding—are more common.^2,3

Contraceptive discontinuation due to bleeding concerns occurs more frequently with the etonogestrel implant than with LNG IUDs (TABLE 1). In a large prospective study in the United States, 13% of women discontinued the implant during 3 years of follow-up due to bleeding pattern changes.⁴ In comparison, the 3-year discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints with the 52-mg LNG IUD is 1.5%.⁵ The 3-year discontinuation rate is higher with the 19.5-mg and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs (4.9% and 4.7%, respectively).⁶ The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints within 5 years of use remains higher for the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (5.2%) compared with the 52-mg LNG IUD (2.2%).^7,8

Notably, it is important to use standardized definitions to understand and compare bleeding concerns with LARC use. The Belsey criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO), a standard used for decades, describe bleeding patterns using 90-day reference periods or intervals (TABLE 2).⁹ Bleeding patterns that decrease flow (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding) often are considered favorable, and those that increase bleeding or irregularity often are considered unfavorable. These criteria are commonly used in package labeling to describe bleeding patterns with extended use.

In this Update, we examine recent data evaluating differences in bleeding patterns with the 3 doses of the LNG IUD, predictors of abnormal bleeding with the etonogestrel implant, and the impact of timing on postpartum etonogestrel implant placement.

Continue to: Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose...

Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose 

Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100:128-131. 

Counseling on IUDs' different hormonal doses requires an understanding of patients' desires for contraceptive efficacy and bleeding expectations. A recent study provides guidance on what patients typically can expect for their bleeding patterns over the first few years with the 3 different doses of LNG IUDs. 

Goldthwaite and Creinin used existing published or publicly available data to analyze differences in bleeding patterns associated with the 52-mg, 19.5-mg, and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs. Although two 52-mg LNG IUDs are available, published data using the WHO Belsey criteria are available only for one (Liletta; Allergan, Medicines360). The 2 products have been shown previously to have similar drug-release rates and LNG levels over 5 years.⁸ 

Comparing favorable bleeding patterns: Amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding 

Among favorable bleeding patterns, amenorrhea was uncommon in the first 90 days and increased over time for all 3 IUDs. However, starting as soon as the second 90-day reference period, amenorrhea rates were significantly higher with the 52-mg LNG IUD compared with both of the lower-LNG dose IUDs, and this difference increased through 3 years of use (FIGURE 1). 

Similarly, the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users had significantly higher rates of amenorrhea than the 13.5-mg LNG IUD users for all periods starting with the second 90-day reference period. At 3 years, 36% of women using the 52-mg LNG IUD had amenorrhea compared with 20% of those using the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001) and 12% of those using the 13.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001). 

Infrequent bleeding was similar for all 3 LNG IUDs in the first 90-day period, and it then increased most rapidly in the 52-mg LNG IUD users. At the end of year 1, 30% of the 52-mg LNG IUD users had infrequent bleeding compared with 26% of the 19.5-mg users (P = .01) and 20% of the 13.5-mg users (P<.0001). Although there was no difference in infrequent bleeding rates between the 52-mg and the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users at the end of year 1, those using a 52-mg LNG IUD had significantly higher rates of infrequent bleeding compared with the 13.5-mg LNG IUD at all time points. 

Comparing unfavorable bleeding patterns: Frequent, prolonged, and irregular bleeding 

Frequent and prolonged bleeding were uncommon with all LNG doses. Irregular bleeding rates declined for users of the 3 IUDs over time. However, significantly fewer users of the 52-mg LNG IUD reported irregular bleeding at 1 year (6%) compared with users of the 19.5-mg (16.5%, P<.0001) and 13.5-mg (23%, P<.0001) LNG IUD (FIGURE 2). 

Study limitations 

Comparing the data from different studies has limitations. For example, the data were collected from different populations, with the lower-dose LNG products tested in women who had a lower body mass index (BMI) and higher parity. However, prior analysis of the data on the 52-mg LNG IUD demonstrated that bleeding pattern changes did not vary based on these factors.¹⁰

Continue to: Predicting long-term bleeding patterns after etonogestrel implant insertion...

Mansour D, Fraser IS, Edelman A, et al. Can initial vaginal bleeding patterns in etonogestrel implant users predict subsequent bleeding in the first two years of use? Contraception. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.017. 

Data from 2014 indicate that the etonogestrel implant was used by nearly 1 million women in the United States and by 3% of women using contraception.¹ The primary reason women discontinue implant use is because of changes in bleeding patterns. Given the high prevalence of bleeding concerns with the etonogestrel implant, we need more data to help counsel our patients on how they can expect their bleeding to change with implant use. 

Etonogestral implant and bleeding pattern trends 

Mansour and colleagues completed a secondary analysis of 12 phase 3 studies to evaluate the correlation between bleeding patterns early after placement of the etonogestrel implant (days 29-118) compared with bleeding patterns through 90-day intervals during the rest of the first year of use. To account for differences in timing of etonogestrel implant placement relative to the menstrual cycle and discontinuation of other methods like oral contraceptives, bleeding outcomes on days 0-28 were excluded. They also sought to investigate the correlation between bleeding patterns in year 1 compared with those in year 2. 

Overall, these studies included 923 individuals across 11 countries; however, for the current analysis, the researchers excluded women from Asian countries who comprised more than 28% of the study population. These women report significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days with the etonogestrel implant and have a lower average body weight compared with European and American women.¹² 

A prior analysis of the same data set looked at the number of bleeding/spotting days in groups of users rather than trends in individual patients, and, as mentioned, it also included Asian women, which diluted the overall number of bleeding days.¹² In this new analysis, Mansour and colleagues used the Belsey criteria to analyze individual bleeding patterns as favorable (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding, normal bleeding) or unfavorable (prolonged and/or frequent bleeding) from a patient perspective. In this way, we can understand trends in bleeding patterns for each patient over time, rather than seeing a static (cross-sectional) report of bleeding patterns at one point in time. Data were analyzed from 537 women in year 1 and 428 women in year 2. During the first 90-day reference period (days 29-118 after implant insertion), 61% of women reported favorable bleeding, and 39% reported unfavorable bleeding. 

Favorable bleeding correlates with favorable patterns later 

A favorable bleeding pattern in this first reference period correlated with favorable bleeding patterns through year 1, with 85%, 80%, and 80% of these women having a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Overall, 61% of women with a favorable pattern in reference period 1 had favorable bleeding throughout the entire first year of use. Only 3.7% of women with favorable bleeding in the first reference period discontinued the implant for bleeding in year 1. Further, women with favorable bleeding at year 1 commonly continued to have favorable bleeding in year 2, with a low discontinuation rate (2.5%) in year 2. 

Initial unfavorable bleeding portends less favorable patterns later 

Women who had an unfavorable bleeding pattern initially, however, had a less predictable course over the first year. For those with an initial unfavorable pattern, only 37%, 47%, and 51% reported a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4. Despite these relatively low rates of favorable bleeding, only 13% of the women with an initial unfavorable bleeding pattern discontinued implant use for a bleeding complaint by the end of year 1; this rate was significantly higher than that for women with a favorable initial bleeding pattern (P<.0001). The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints also remained higher in year 2, at 16.5%. 

Limitations and strengths to consider 

Although the etonogestrel implant is FDA-approved for 3 years of use, the bleeding data from the combined trials included information for only up to 2 years after placement. The studies included also did not uniformly assess BMI, which makes it difficult to find correlations between bleeding patterns and BMI. Importantly, the studies did not include women who were more than 30% above their ideal body weight, so these assessments do not apply to obese users.¹² Exclusion of women from Southeast Asia in this analysis makes this study's findings more generalizable to populations in the United States and Europe. 
 

Continue to: Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion...

Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion: Similar impacts on 12-month bleeding patterns 

Vieira CS, de Nadai MN, de Melo Pereira do Carmo LS, et al. Timing of postpartum etonogestrel-releasing implant insertion and bleeding patterns, weight change, 12-month continuation and satisfaction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.007. 

Initiation of a desired LARC method shortly after delivery is associated with significant reductions in short interpregnancy intervals.¹⁴ With that goal in mind, Vieira and colleagues compared bleeding patterns in women who received an etonogestrel implant within 48 hours of delivery with those who received an implant at 6 weeks postdelivery. 

The study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of early versus delayed postpartum insertion of the etonogestrel implant conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That primary trial's goal was to examine the impact of early versus delayed implant insertion on infant growth (100 women were randomly assigned to the 2 implant groups); no difference in infant growth at 12 months was seen in the 2 groups.¹⁵ In the secondary analysis, bleeding patterns and BMI were evaluated every 90 days for 12 months. The mean BMI at enrollment postpartum was 29.4 kg/m² in the early-insertion group and 30.2 kg/m² for the delayed-insertion group. 

Bleeding patterns with early or delayed implant insertion were similar 

Vieira and colleagues found similar bleeding patterns between the groups over 12 months of follow-up. Amenorrhea was reported by 56% of the early-insertion group in the first 90 days and by 62% in the delayed-insertion group. During the last 90 days of the year, 52% of the early-insertion and 46% of the delayed-insertion group reported amenorrhea. Amenorrhea rates did not differ between women who were exclusively breastfeeding and those nonexclusively breastfeeding. 

Continuation rates were high at 1 year 

Prolonged bleeding episodes were uncommon in both groups, with only 2% of women reporting prolonged bleeding in any given reference period. Twelve-month implant continuation rates were high in both groups: 98% in the early- and 100% in the delayed-insertion group. Additionally, the investigators found that both groups experienced a BMI decrease, with no difference between groups (10.3% and 11% in the early- and delayed-insertion groups, respectively). 

Study limitations and strengths 

This study included a larger number of participants than prior randomized, controlled trials that evaluated bleeding patterns with postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion, and it had very low rates of loss to follow-up. The study's low rate of 12-month implant discontinuation (2%) is lower than that of other studies that reported rates of 6% to 14%.^16,17 Although the authors stated that this low rate may be due to thorough anticipatory counseling prior to placement, it is also possible that this study population does not reflect all populations. Regardless, the data clearly show that placing an etonogestrel implant prior to hospital discharge, compared with waiting for later placement, does not impact bleeding patterns over the ensuing year. 

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use continues to increase in the United States. According to the most recent estimates from 2014, 14% of women use either an intrauterine device (IUD) or the etonogestrel implant.¹ Forms of LARC currently available in the United States include:

• 4 hormone-releasing IUDs
• 1 nonhormonal copper IUD, and
• 1 hormonal subdermal implant.

The hormone-releasing IUDs all contain levonorgestrel (LNG). These include two 52-mg LNG products and a 19.5-mg LNG IUD, which are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for contraception for 5 continuous years of use. In addition, a 13.5-mg LNG IUD is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. The hormonal subdermal implant, which contains etonogestrel, is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. Although major complications with IUDs (perforation, expulsion, intrauterine infection)and implants (subfascial implantation, distant migration) are rare, adverse effects that can affect continuation—such as irregular bleeding—are more common.^2,3

Contraceptive discontinuation due to bleeding concerns occurs more frequently with the etonogestrel implant than with LNG IUDs (TABLE 1). In a large prospective study in the United States, 13% of women discontinued the implant during 3 years of follow-up due to bleeding pattern changes.⁴ In comparison, the 3-year discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints with the 52-mg LNG IUD is 1.5%.⁵ The 3-year discontinuation rate is higher with the 19.5-mg and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs (4.9% and 4.7%, respectively).⁶ The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints within 5 years of use remains higher for the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (5.2%) compared with the 52-mg LNG IUD (2.2%).^7,8

Notably, it is important to use standardized definitions to understand and compare bleeding concerns with LARC use. The Belsey criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO), a standard used for decades, describe bleeding patterns using 90-day reference periods or intervals (TABLE 2).⁹ Bleeding patterns that decrease flow (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding) often are considered favorable, and those that increase bleeding or irregularity often are considered unfavorable. These criteria are commonly used in package labeling to describe bleeding patterns with extended use.

In this Update, we examine recent data evaluating differences in bleeding patterns with the 3 doses of the LNG IUD, predictors of abnormal bleeding with the etonogestrel implant, and the impact of timing on postpartum etonogestrel implant placement.

Continue to: Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose...

Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose 

Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100:128-131. 

Counseling on IUDs' different hormonal doses requires an understanding of patients' desires for contraceptive efficacy and bleeding expectations. A recent study provides guidance on what patients typically can expect for their bleeding patterns over the first few years with the 3 different doses of LNG IUDs. 

Goldthwaite and Creinin used existing published or publicly available data to analyze differences in bleeding patterns associated with the 52-mg, 19.5-mg, and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs. Although two 52-mg LNG IUDs are available, published data using the WHO Belsey criteria are available only for one (Liletta; Allergan, Medicines360). The 2 products have been shown previously to have similar drug-release rates and LNG levels over 5 years.⁸ 

Comparing favorable bleeding patterns: Amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding 

Among favorable bleeding patterns, amenorrhea was uncommon in the first 90 days and increased over time for all 3 IUDs. However, starting as soon as the second 90-day reference period, amenorrhea rates were significantly higher with the 52-mg LNG IUD compared with both of the lower-LNG dose IUDs, and this difference increased through 3 years of use (FIGURE 1). 

Similarly, the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users had significantly higher rates of amenorrhea than the 13.5-mg LNG IUD users for all periods starting with the second 90-day reference period. At 3 years, 36% of women using the 52-mg LNG IUD had amenorrhea compared with 20% of those using the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001) and 12% of those using the 13.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001). 

Infrequent bleeding was similar for all 3 LNG IUDs in the first 90-day period, and it then increased most rapidly in the 52-mg LNG IUD users. At the end of year 1, 30% of the 52-mg LNG IUD users had infrequent bleeding compared with 26% of the 19.5-mg users (P = .01) and 20% of the 13.5-mg users (P<.0001). Although there was no difference in infrequent bleeding rates between the 52-mg and the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users at the end of year 1, those using a 52-mg LNG IUD had significantly higher rates of infrequent bleeding compared with the 13.5-mg LNG IUD at all time points. 

Comparing unfavorable bleeding patterns: Frequent, prolonged, and irregular bleeding 

Frequent and prolonged bleeding were uncommon with all LNG doses. Irregular bleeding rates declined for users of the 3 IUDs over time. However, significantly fewer users of the 52-mg LNG IUD reported irregular bleeding at 1 year (6%) compared with users of the 19.5-mg (16.5%, P<.0001) and 13.5-mg (23%, P<.0001) LNG IUD (FIGURE 2). 

Study limitations 

Comparing the data from different studies has limitations. For example, the data were collected from different populations, with the lower-dose LNG products tested in women who had a lower body mass index (BMI) and higher parity. However, prior analysis of the data on the 52-mg LNG IUD demonstrated that bleeding pattern changes did not vary based on these factors.¹⁰

Continue to: Predicting long-term bleeding patterns after etonogestrel implant insertion...

Mansour D, Fraser IS, Edelman A, et al. Can initial vaginal bleeding patterns in etonogestrel implant users predict subsequent bleeding in the first two years of use? Contraception. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.017. 

Data from 2014 indicate that the etonogestrel implant was used by nearly 1 million women in the United States and by 3% of women using contraception.¹ The primary reason women discontinue implant use is because of changes in bleeding patterns. Given the high prevalence of bleeding concerns with the etonogestrel implant, we need more data to help counsel our patients on how they can expect their bleeding to change with implant use. 

Etonogestral implant and bleeding pattern trends 

Mansour and colleagues completed a secondary analysis of 12 phase 3 studies to evaluate the correlation between bleeding patterns early after placement of the etonogestrel implant (days 29-118) compared with bleeding patterns through 90-day intervals during the rest of the first year of use. To account for differences in timing of etonogestrel implant placement relative to the menstrual cycle and discontinuation of other methods like oral contraceptives, bleeding outcomes on days 0-28 were excluded. They also sought to investigate the correlation between bleeding patterns in year 1 compared with those in year 2. 

Overall, these studies included 923 individuals across 11 countries; however, for the current analysis, the researchers excluded women from Asian countries who comprised more than 28% of the study population. These women report significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days with the etonogestrel implant and have a lower average body weight compared with European and American women.¹² 

A prior analysis of the same data set looked at the number of bleeding/spotting days in groups of users rather than trends in individual patients, and, as mentioned, it also included Asian women, which diluted the overall number of bleeding days.¹² In this new analysis, Mansour and colleagues used the Belsey criteria to analyze individual bleeding patterns as favorable (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding, normal bleeding) or unfavorable (prolonged and/or frequent bleeding) from a patient perspective. In this way, we can understand trends in bleeding patterns for each patient over time, rather than seeing a static (cross-sectional) report of bleeding patterns at one point in time. Data were analyzed from 537 women in year 1 and 428 women in year 2. During the first 90-day reference period (days 29-118 after implant insertion), 61% of women reported favorable bleeding, and 39% reported unfavorable bleeding. 

Favorable bleeding correlates with favorable patterns later 

A favorable bleeding pattern in this first reference period correlated with favorable bleeding patterns through year 1, with 85%, 80%, and 80% of these women having a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Overall, 61% of women with a favorable pattern in reference period 1 had favorable bleeding throughout the entire first year of use. Only 3.7% of women with favorable bleeding in the first reference period discontinued the implant for bleeding in year 1. Further, women with favorable bleeding at year 1 commonly continued to have favorable bleeding in year 2, with a low discontinuation rate (2.5%) in year 2. 

Initial unfavorable bleeding portends less favorable patterns later 

Women who had an unfavorable bleeding pattern initially, however, had a less predictable course over the first year. For those with an initial unfavorable pattern, only 37%, 47%, and 51% reported a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4. Despite these relatively low rates of favorable bleeding, only 13% of the women with an initial unfavorable bleeding pattern discontinued implant use for a bleeding complaint by the end of year 1; this rate was significantly higher than that for women with a favorable initial bleeding pattern (P<.0001). The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints also remained higher in year 2, at 16.5%. 

Limitations and strengths to consider 

Although the etonogestrel implant is FDA-approved for 3 years of use, the bleeding data from the combined trials included information for only up to 2 years after placement. The studies included also did not uniformly assess BMI, which makes it difficult to find correlations between bleeding patterns and BMI. Importantly, the studies did not include women who were more than 30% above their ideal body weight, so these assessments do not apply to obese users.¹² Exclusion of women from Southeast Asia in this analysis makes this study's findings more generalizable to populations in the United States and Europe. 
 

Continue to: Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion...

Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion: Similar impacts on 12-month bleeding patterns 

Vieira CS, de Nadai MN, de Melo Pereira do Carmo LS, et al. Timing of postpartum etonogestrel-releasing implant insertion and bleeding patterns, weight change, 12-month continuation and satisfaction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.007. 

Initiation of a desired LARC method shortly after delivery is associated with significant reductions in short interpregnancy intervals.¹⁴ With that goal in mind, Vieira and colleagues compared bleeding patterns in women who received an etonogestrel implant within 48 hours of delivery with those who received an implant at 6 weeks postdelivery. 

The study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of early versus delayed postpartum insertion of the etonogestrel implant conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That primary trial's goal was to examine the impact of early versus delayed implant insertion on infant growth (100 women were randomly assigned to the 2 implant groups); no difference in infant growth at 12 months was seen in the 2 groups.¹⁵ In the secondary analysis, bleeding patterns and BMI were evaluated every 90 days for 12 months. The mean BMI at enrollment postpartum was 29.4 kg/m² in the early-insertion group and 30.2 kg/m² for the delayed-insertion group. 

Bleeding patterns with early or delayed implant insertion were similar 

Vieira and colleagues found similar bleeding patterns between the groups over 12 months of follow-up. Amenorrhea was reported by 56% of the early-insertion group in the first 90 days and by 62% in the delayed-insertion group. During the last 90 days of the year, 52% of the early-insertion and 46% of the delayed-insertion group reported amenorrhea. Amenorrhea rates did not differ between women who were exclusively breastfeeding and those nonexclusively breastfeeding. 

Continuation rates were high at 1 year 

Prolonged bleeding episodes were uncommon in both groups, with only 2% of women reporting prolonged bleeding in any given reference period. Twelve-month implant continuation rates were high in both groups: 98% in the early- and 100% in the delayed-insertion group. Additionally, the investigators found that both groups experienced a BMI decrease, with no difference between groups (10.3% and 11% in the early- and delayed-insertion groups, respectively). 

Study limitations and strengths 

This study included a larger number of participants than prior randomized, controlled trials that evaluated bleeding patterns with postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion, and it had very low rates of loss to follow-up. The study's low rate of 12-month implant discontinuation (2%) is lower than that of other studies that reported rates of 6% to 14%.^16,17 Although the authors stated that this low rate may be due to thorough anticipatory counseling prior to placement, it is also possible that this study population does not reflect all populations. Regardless, the data clearly show that placing an etonogestrel implant prior to hospital discharge, compared with waiting for later placement, does not impact bleeding patterns over the ensuing year. 

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use continues to increase in the United States. According to the most recent estimates from 2014, 14% of women use either an intrauterine device (IUD) or the etonogestrel implant.¹ Forms of LARC currently available in the United States include:

• 4 hormone-releasing IUDs
• 1 nonhormonal copper IUD, and
• 1 hormonal subdermal implant.

The hormone-releasing IUDs all contain levonorgestrel (LNG). These include two 52-mg LNG products and a 19.5-mg LNG IUD, which are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for contraception for 5 continuous years of use. In addition, a 13.5-mg LNG IUD is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. The hormonal subdermal implant, which contains etonogestrel, is FDA-approved for 3 years of use. Although major complications with IUDs (perforation, expulsion, intrauterine infection)and implants (subfascial implantation, distant migration) are rare, adverse effects that can affect continuation—such as irregular bleeding—are more common.^2,3

Contraceptive discontinuation due to bleeding concerns occurs more frequently with the etonogestrel implant than with LNG IUDs (TABLE 1). In a large prospective study in the United States, 13% of women discontinued the implant during 3 years of follow-up due to bleeding pattern changes.⁴ In comparison, the 3-year discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints with the 52-mg LNG IUD is 1.5%.⁵ The 3-year discontinuation rate is higher with the 19.5-mg and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs (4.9% and 4.7%, respectively).⁶ The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints within 5 years of use remains higher for the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (5.2%) compared with the 52-mg LNG IUD (2.2%).^7,8

Notably, it is important to use standardized definitions to understand and compare bleeding concerns with LARC use. The Belsey criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO), a standard used for decades, describe bleeding patterns using 90-day reference periods or intervals (TABLE 2).⁹ Bleeding patterns that decrease flow (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding) often are considered favorable, and those that increase bleeding or irregularity often are considered unfavorable. These criteria are commonly used in package labeling to describe bleeding patterns with extended use.

In this Update, we examine recent data evaluating differences in bleeding patterns with the 3 doses of the LNG IUD, predictors of abnormal bleeding with the etonogestrel implant, and the impact of timing on postpartum etonogestrel implant placement.

Continue to: Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose...

Bleeding patterns with progestin-containing IUDs vary according to the LNG dose 

Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100:128-131. 

Counseling on IUDs' different hormonal doses requires an understanding of patients' desires for contraceptive efficacy and bleeding expectations. A recent study provides guidance on what patients typically can expect for their bleeding patterns over the first few years with the 3 different doses of LNG IUDs. 

Goldthwaite and Creinin used existing published or publicly available data to analyze differences in bleeding patterns associated with the 52-mg, 19.5-mg, and 13.5-mg LNG IUDs. Although two 52-mg LNG IUDs are available, published data using the WHO Belsey criteria are available only for one (Liletta; Allergan, Medicines360). The 2 products have been shown previously to have similar drug-release rates and LNG levels over 5 years.⁸ 

Comparing favorable bleeding patterns: Amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding 

Among favorable bleeding patterns, amenorrhea was uncommon in the first 90 days and increased over time for all 3 IUDs. However, starting as soon as the second 90-day reference period, amenorrhea rates were significantly higher with the 52-mg LNG IUD compared with both of the lower-LNG dose IUDs, and this difference increased through 3 years of use (FIGURE 1). 

Similarly, the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users had significantly higher rates of amenorrhea than the 13.5-mg LNG IUD users for all periods starting with the second 90-day reference period. At 3 years, 36% of women using the 52-mg LNG IUD had amenorrhea compared with 20% of those using the 19.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001) and 12% of those using the 13.5-mg LNG IUD (P<.0001). 

Infrequent bleeding was similar for all 3 LNG IUDs in the first 90-day period, and it then increased most rapidly in the 52-mg LNG IUD users. At the end of year 1, 30% of the 52-mg LNG IUD users had infrequent bleeding compared with 26% of the 19.5-mg users (P = .01) and 20% of the 13.5-mg users (P<.0001). Although there was no difference in infrequent bleeding rates between the 52-mg and the 19.5-mg LNG IUD users at the end of year 1, those using a 52-mg LNG IUD had significantly higher rates of infrequent bleeding compared with the 13.5-mg LNG IUD at all time points. 

Comparing unfavorable bleeding patterns: Frequent, prolonged, and irregular bleeding 

Frequent and prolonged bleeding were uncommon with all LNG doses. Irregular bleeding rates declined for users of the 3 IUDs over time. However, significantly fewer users of the 52-mg LNG IUD reported irregular bleeding at 1 year (6%) compared with users of the 19.5-mg (16.5%, P<.0001) and 13.5-mg (23%, P<.0001) LNG IUD (FIGURE 2). 

Study limitations 

Comparing the data from different studies has limitations. For example, the data were collected from different populations, with the lower-dose LNG products tested in women who had a lower body mass index (BMI) and higher parity. However, prior analysis of the data on the 52-mg LNG IUD demonstrated that bleeding pattern changes did not vary based on these factors.¹⁰

Continue to: Predicting long-term bleeding patterns after etonogestrel implant insertion...

Mansour D, Fraser IS, Edelman A, et al. Can initial vaginal bleeding patterns in etonogestrel implant users predict subsequent bleeding in the first two years of use? Contraception. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.017. 

Data from 2014 indicate that the etonogestrel implant was used by nearly 1 million women in the United States and by 3% of women using contraception.¹ The primary reason women discontinue implant use is because of changes in bleeding patterns. Given the high prevalence of bleeding concerns with the etonogestrel implant, we need more data to help counsel our patients on how they can expect their bleeding to change with implant use. 

Etonogestral implant and bleeding pattern trends 

Mansour and colleagues completed a secondary analysis of 12 phase 3 studies to evaluate the correlation between bleeding patterns early after placement of the etonogestrel implant (days 29-118) compared with bleeding patterns through 90-day intervals during the rest of the first year of use. To account for differences in timing of etonogestrel implant placement relative to the menstrual cycle and discontinuation of other methods like oral contraceptives, bleeding outcomes on days 0-28 were excluded. They also sought to investigate the correlation between bleeding patterns in year 1 compared with those in year 2. 

Overall, these studies included 923 individuals across 11 countries; however, for the current analysis, the researchers excluded women from Asian countries who comprised more than 28% of the study population. These women report significantly fewer bleeding/spotting days with the etonogestrel implant and have a lower average body weight compared with European and American women.¹² 

A prior analysis of the same data set looked at the number of bleeding/spotting days in groups of users rather than trends in individual patients, and, as mentioned, it also included Asian women, which diluted the overall number of bleeding days.¹² In this new analysis, Mansour and colleagues used the Belsey criteria to analyze individual bleeding patterns as favorable (amenorrhea, infrequent bleeding, normal bleeding) or unfavorable (prolonged and/or frequent bleeding) from a patient perspective. In this way, we can understand trends in bleeding patterns for each patient over time, rather than seeing a static (cross-sectional) report of bleeding patterns at one point in time. Data were analyzed from 537 women in year 1 and 428 women in year 2. During the first 90-day reference period (days 29-118 after implant insertion), 61% of women reported favorable bleeding, and 39% reported unfavorable bleeding. 

Favorable bleeding correlates with favorable patterns later 

A favorable bleeding pattern in this first reference period correlated with favorable bleeding patterns through year 1, with 85%, 80%, and 80% of these women having a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Overall, 61% of women with a favorable pattern in reference period 1 had favorable bleeding throughout the entire first year of use. Only 3.7% of women with favorable bleeding in the first reference period discontinued the implant for bleeding in year 1. Further, women with favorable bleeding at year 1 commonly continued to have favorable bleeding in year 2, with a low discontinuation rate (2.5%) in year 2. 

Initial unfavorable bleeding portends less favorable patterns later 

Women who had an unfavorable bleeding pattern initially, however, had a less predictable course over the first year. For those with an initial unfavorable pattern, only 37%, 47%, and 51% reported a favorable pattern in reference periods 2, 3, and 4. Despite these relatively low rates of favorable bleeding, only 13% of the women with an initial unfavorable bleeding pattern discontinued implant use for a bleeding complaint by the end of year 1; this rate was significantly higher than that for women with a favorable initial bleeding pattern (P<.0001). The discontinuation rate for bleeding complaints also remained higher in year 2, at 16.5%. 

Limitations and strengths to consider 

Although the etonogestrel implant is FDA-approved for 3 years of use, the bleeding data from the combined trials included information for only up to 2 years after placement. The studies included also did not uniformly assess BMI, which makes it difficult to find correlations between bleeding patterns and BMI. Importantly, the studies did not include women who were more than 30% above their ideal body weight, so these assessments do not apply to obese users.¹² Exclusion of women from Southeast Asia in this analysis makes this study's findings more generalizable to populations in the United States and Europe. 
 

Continue to: Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion...

Early versus delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion: Similar impacts on 12-month bleeding patterns 

Vieira CS, de Nadai MN, de Melo Pereira do Carmo LS, et al. Timing of postpartum etonogestrel-releasing implant insertion and bleeding patterns, weight change, 12-month continuation and satisfaction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.007. 

Initiation of a desired LARC method shortly after delivery is associated with significant reductions in short interpregnancy intervals.¹⁴ With that goal in mind, Vieira and colleagues compared bleeding patterns in women who received an etonogestrel implant within 48 hours of delivery with those who received an implant at 6 weeks postdelivery. 

The study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of early versus delayed postpartum insertion of the etonogestrel implant conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That primary trial's goal was to examine the impact of early versus delayed implant insertion on infant growth (100 women were randomly assigned to the 2 implant groups); no difference in infant growth at 12 months was seen in the 2 groups.¹⁵ In the secondary analysis, bleeding patterns and BMI were evaluated every 90 days for 12 months. The mean BMI at enrollment postpartum was 29.4 kg/m² in the early-insertion group and 30.2 kg/m² for the delayed-insertion group. 

Bleeding patterns with early or delayed implant insertion were similar 

Vieira and colleagues found similar bleeding patterns between the groups over 12 months of follow-up. Amenorrhea was reported by 56% of the early-insertion group in the first 90 days and by 62% in the delayed-insertion group. During the last 90 days of the year, 52% of the early-insertion and 46% of the delayed-insertion group reported amenorrhea. Amenorrhea rates did not differ between women who were exclusively breastfeeding and those nonexclusively breastfeeding. 

Continuation rates were high at 1 year 

Prolonged bleeding episodes were uncommon in both groups, with only 2% of women reporting prolonged bleeding in any given reference period. Twelve-month implant continuation rates were high in both groups: 98% in the early- and 100% in the delayed-insertion group. Additionally, the investigators found that both groups experienced a BMI decrease, with no difference between groups (10.3% and 11% in the early- and delayed-insertion groups, respectively). 

Study limitations and strengths 

This study included a larger number of participants than prior randomized, controlled trials that evaluated bleeding patterns with postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion, and it had very low rates of loss to follow-up. The study's low rate of 12-month implant discontinuation (2%) is lower than that of other studies that reported rates of 6% to 14%.^16,17 Although the authors stated that this low rate may be due to thorough anticipatory counseling prior to placement, it is also possible that this study population does not reflect all populations. Regardless, the data clearly show that placing an etonogestrel implant prior to hospital discharge, compared with waiting for later placement, does not impact bleeding patterns over the ensuing year. 

Most physicians know that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke and that the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive further increases this risk.^1-3 Additional important and prevalent risk factors for ischemic stroke include cigarette smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease.¹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)² and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)³ recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives for women with migraine with aura because of the increased risk of ischemic stroke (Medical Eligibility Criteria [MEC] category 4—unacceptable health risk, method not to be used).

However, those who have migraine with aura can use nonhormonal and progestin-only forms of contraception, including copper- and levonorgestrel-intrauterine devices, the etonogestrel subdermal implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and progestin-only pills (MEC category 1—no restriction).^2,3 ACOG and the CDC advise that estrogen-containing contraceptives can be used for those with migraine without aura who have no other risk factors for stroke (MEC category 2—advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks).^2,3 Given the high prevalence of migraine in reproductive-age women, accurate diagnosis of aura is of paramount importance in order to provide appropriate contraceptive counseling.

When is migraine with aura the right diagnosis?

In clinical practice, there is a high level of confusion about the migraine symptoms that warrant a diagnosis of migraine with aura. One approach to improving the accuracy of such a diagnosis is to refer every woman seeking contraceptive counseling who has migraine headaches to a neurologist for expert adjudication of the presence or absence of aura. But in the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, neurology consultation is not always readily available, and requiring consultation increases barriers to care. However, there are tools—such as the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS), which is discussed below—that may help non-neurologists identify migraine with aura.⁴ First, let us review the data that links migraine with aura with increased risk of ischemic stroke.

Migraine with aura is a risk factor for stroke

Multiple case-control studies report that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke.^1,5,6 Studies also report that women with migraine with aura who use estrogen-containing contraceptives have an even greater risk of ischemic stroke. For example, one recent case-control study used a commercial claims database of 1,884 cases of ischemic stroke among individuals who identify as women 15 to 49 years of age matched to 7,536 controls without ischemic stroke.¹ In this study, the risk of ischemic stroke was increased more than 2.5-fold by cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.59), hypertension (aOR, 2.73), diabetes (aOR, 2.78), migraine with aura (aOR, 2.89), and ischemic heart disease (aOR, 5.49). For those with migraine with aura who also used an estrogen-containing contraceptive, the aOR for ischemic stroke was 6.08. By contrast, the risk for stroke among those with migraine with aura who were not using an estrogen-containing contraceptive was 2.65. Furthermore, among those with migraine without aura, the risk of ischemic stroke was only 1.77 with the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive.

Continue to: Although women with migraine...

Although women with migraine with and without aura are at increased risk for stroke, the absolute risk is still very low. For example, one review reported that the incidence of ischemic stroke per 100,000 person-years among women 20 to 44 years of age was 2.5 for those without migraine not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, 5.9 for those with migraine with aura not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, and 14.5 among those with migraine with aura and taking estrogen-containing contraceptives.⁶ Another important observation is that the incidence of thrombotic stroke dramatically increases from adolescence (3.4 per 100,000 person-years) to 45-49 years of age (64.4 per 100,000 person-years).⁷ Therefore, older women with migraine are at greater risk for stroke than adolescents.

Diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura

In contraceptive counseling, if an estrogen-containing contraceptive is being considered, it is important to identify women with migraine headache, determine migraine subtype, assess the frequency of migraines and identify other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and cigarette smoking. The International Headache Society has evolved the diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura, and now endorses the criteria published in the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3; TABLES 1 and 2).⁸ For non-neurologists, these criteria may be difficult to remember and impractical to utilize in daily contraceptive counseling. Two simplified tools, the ID Migraine Questionnaire⁹ and the Visual Aura Rating Scale (TABLE 3)⁴ may help identify women who have migraine headaches and assess for the presence of aura.

The ID Migraine Questionnaire

In a study of 563 people seeking primary care who had headaches in the past 3 months, 3 questions were identified as being helpful in identifying women with migraine. This 3-question screening tool had reasonable sensitivity (81%), specificity (75%), and positive predictive value (93%) compared with expert diagnosis using the ICHD-3.⁹ The 3 questions in this screening tool, which are answered “Yes” or “No,” are:

During the last 3 months did you have the following symptoms with your headaches:

1. Feel nauseated or sick to your stomach?
2. Light bothered you?
3. Your headaches limited your ability to work, study or do what you needed to do for at least 1 day?

If two questions are answered “Yes” the patient may have migraine headaches.

Visual Aura Rating Scale for the diagnosis of migraine with aura

More than 90% of women with migraine with aura have visual auras, leaving only a minority with non–visual aura, such as tingling or numbness in a limb, speech or language problems, or muscle weakness. Hence for non-neurologists, it is reasonable to focus on the accurate diagnosis of visual aura to identify those with migraine with aura.

In the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS) is especially useful because it has good sensitivity and specificity, and it is easy to use in practice (TABLE 3).⁴ VARS assesses for 5 characteristics of a visual aura, and each characteristic is associated with a weighted risk score. The 5 symptoms assessed include:

1. duration of visual symptom between 5 and 60 minutes (3 points)
2. visual symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes (2 points)
3. scotoma (2 points)
4. zig-zag line (2 points)
5. unilateral (1 point).

Continue to: Of note, visual aura is usually...

Of note, visual aura is usually slow-spreading and persists for more than 5 minutes but less than 60 minutes. If a visual symptom has a sudden onset and persists for much longer than 60 minutes, concern is heightened for a more serious neurologic diagnosis such as transient ischemic attack or stroke. A summed score of 5 or more points supports the diagnosis of migraine with aura. In one study, VARS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96% for identifying women with migraine with aura diagnosed by the ICHD-3 criteria.⁴

Consider using VARS to identify migraine with aura

Epidemiologic studies report that about 17% of adults have migraine, and about 5% have migraine with aura.^10,11 Consequently, migraine with aura is one of the most common medical conditions encountered during contraceptive counseling. The CDC MEC recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives in women with migraine with aura (Category 4 rating). The VARS may help clinicians identify those who have migraine with aura who should not be offered estrogen-containing contraceptives. Equally important, the use of VARS could help reduce the number of women who are inappropriately diagnosed as having migraine with aura based on fleeting visual symptoms lasting far less than 5 minutes during a migraine headache.

Most physicians know that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke and that the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive further increases this risk.^1-3 Additional important and prevalent risk factors for ischemic stroke include cigarette smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease.¹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)² and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)³ recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives for women with migraine with aura because of the increased risk of ischemic stroke (Medical Eligibility Criteria [MEC] category 4—unacceptable health risk, method not to be used).

However, those who have migraine with aura can use nonhormonal and progestin-only forms of contraception, including copper- and levonorgestrel-intrauterine devices, the etonogestrel subdermal implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and progestin-only pills (MEC category 1—no restriction).^2,3 ACOG and the CDC advise that estrogen-containing contraceptives can be used for those with migraine without aura who have no other risk factors for stroke (MEC category 2—advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks).^2,3 Given the high prevalence of migraine in reproductive-age women, accurate diagnosis of aura is of paramount importance in order to provide appropriate contraceptive counseling.

When is migraine with aura the right diagnosis?

In clinical practice, there is a high level of confusion about the migraine symptoms that warrant a diagnosis of migraine with aura. One approach to improving the accuracy of such a diagnosis is to refer every woman seeking contraceptive counseling who has migraine headaches to a neurologist for expert adjudication of the presence or absence of aura. But in the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, neurology consultation is not always readily available, and requiring consultation increases barriers to care. However, there are tools—such as the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS), which is discussed below—that may help non-neurologists identify migraine with aura.⁴ First, let us review the data that links migraine with aura with increased risk of ischemic stroke.

Migraine with aura is a risk factor for stroke

Multiple case-control studies report that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke.^1,5,6 Studies also report that women with migraine with aura who use estrogen-containing contraceptives have an even greater risk of ischemic stroke. For example, one recent case-control study used a commercial claims database of 1,884 cases of ischemic stroke among individuals who identify as women 15 to 49 years of age matched to 7,536 controls without ischemic stroke.¹ In this study, the risk of ischemic stroke was increased more than 2.5-fold by cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.59), hypertension (aOR, 2.73), diabetes (aOR, 2.78), migraine with aura (aOR, 2.89), and ischemic heart disease (aOR, 5.49). For those with migraine with aura who also used an estrogen-containing contraceptive, the aOR for ischemic stroke was 6.08. By contrast, the risk for stroke among those with migraine with aura who were not using an estrogen-containing contraceptive was 2.65. Furthermore, among those with migraine without aura, the risk of ischemic stroke was only 1.77 with the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive.

Continue to: Although women with migraine...

Although women with migraine with and without aura are at increased risk for stroke, the absolute risk is still very low. For example, one review reported that the incidence of ischemic stroke per 100,000 person-years among women 20 to 44 years of age was 2.5 for those without migraine not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, 5.9 for those with migraine with aura not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, and 14.5 among those with migraine with aura and taking estrogen-containing contraceptives.⁶ Another important observation is that the incidence of thrombotic stroke dramatically increases from adolescence (3.4 per 100,000 person-years) to 45-49 years of age (64.4 per 100,000 person-years).⁷ Therefore, older women with migraine are at greater risk for stroke than adolescents.

Diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura

In contraceptive counseling, if an estrogen-containing contraceptive is being considered, it is important to identify women with migraine headache, determine migraine subtype, assess the frequency of migraines and identify other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and cigarette smoking. The International Headache Society has evolved the diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura, and now endorses the criteria published in the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3; TABLES 1 and 2).⁸ For non-neurologists, these criteria may be difficult to remember and impractical to utilize in daily contraceptive counseling. Two simplified tools, the ID Migraine Questionnaire⁹ and the Visual Aura Rating Scale (TABLE 3)⁴ may help identify women who have migraine headaches and assess for the presence of aura.

The ID Migraine Questionnaire

In a study of 563 people seeking primary care who had headaches in the past 3 months, 3 questions were identified as being helpful in identifying women with migraine. This 3-question screening tool had reasonable sensitivity (81%), specificity (75%), and positive predictive value (93%) compared with expert diagnosis using the ICHD-3.⁹ The 3 questions in this screening tool, which are answered “Yes” or “No,” are:

During the last 3 months did you have the following symptoms with your headaches:

1. Feel nauseated or sick to your stomach?
2. Light bothered you?
3. Your headaches limited your ability to work, study or do what you needed to do for at least 1 day?

If two questions are answered “Yes” the patient may have migraine headaches.

Visual Aura Rating Scale for the diagnosis of migraine with aura

More than 90% of women with migraine with aura have visual auras, leaving only a minority with non–visual aura, such as tingling or numbness in a limb, speech or language problems, or muscle weakness. Hence for non-neurologists, it is reasonable to focus on the accurate diagnosis of visual aura to identify those with migraine with aura.

In the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS) is especially useful because it has good sensitivity and specificity, and it is easy to use in practice (TABLE 3).⁴ VARS assesses for 5 characteristics of a visual aura, and each characteristic is associated with a weighted risk score. The 5 symptoms assessed include:

1. duration of visual symptom between 5 and 60 minutes (3 points)
2. visual symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes (2 points)
3. scotoma (2 points)
4. zig-zag line (2 points)
5. unilateral (1 point).

Continue to: Of note, visual aura is usually...

Of note, visual aura is usually slow-spreading and persists for more than 5 minutes but less than 60 minutes. If a visual symptom has a sudden onset and persists for much longer than 60 minutes, concern is heightened for a more serious neurologic diagnosis such as transient ischemic attack or stroke. A summed score of 5 or more points supports the diagnosis of migraine with aura. In one study, VARS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96% for identifying women with migraine with aura diagnosed by the ICHD-3 criteria.⁴

Consider using VARS to identify migraine with aura

Epidemiologic studies report that about 17% of adults have migraine, and about 5% have migraine with aura.^10,11 Consequently, migraine with aura is one of the most common medical conditions encountered during contraceptive counseling. The CDC MEC recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives in women with migraine with aura (Category 4 rating). The VARS may help clinicians identify those who have migraine with aura who should not be offered estrogen-containing contraceptives. Equally important, the use of VARS could help reduce the number of women who are inappropriately diagnosed as having migraine with aura based on fleeting visual symptoms lasting far less than 5 minutes during a migraine headache.

Most physicians know that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke and that the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive further increases this risk.^1-3 Additional important and prevalent risk factors for ischemic stroke include cigarette smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease.¹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)² and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)³ recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives for women with migraine with aura because of the increased risk of ischemic stroke (Medical Eligibility Criteria [MEC] category 4—unacceptable health risk, method not to be used).

However, those who have migraine with aura can use nonhormonal and progestin-only forms of contraception, including copper- and levonorgestrel-intrauterine devices, the etonogestrel subdermal implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and progestin-only pills (MEC category 1—no restriction).^2,3 ACOG and the CDC advise that estrogen-containing contraceptives can be used for those with migraine without aura who have no other risk factors for stroke (MEC category 2—advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks).^2,3 Given the high prevalence of migraine in reproductive-age women, accurate diagnosis of aura is of paramount importance in order to provide appropriate contraceptive counseling.

When is migraine with aura the right diagnosis?

In clinical practice, there is a high level of confusion about the migraine symptoms that warrant a diagnosis of migraine with aura. One approach to improving the accuracy of such a diagnosis is to refer every woman seeking contraceptive counseling who has migraine headaches to a neurologist for expert adjudication of the presence or absence of aura. But in the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, neurology consultation is not always readily available, and requiring consultation increases barriers to care. However, there are tools—such as the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS), which is discussed below—that may help non-neurologists identify migraine with aura.⁴ First, let us review the data that links migraine with aura with increased risk of ischemic stroke.

Migraine with aura is a risk factor for stroke

Multiple case-control studies report that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke.^1,5,6 Studies also report that women with migraine with aura who use estrogen-containing contraceptives have an even greater risk of ischemic stroke. For example, one recent case-control study used a commercial claims database of 1,884 cases of ischemic stroke among individuals who identify as women 15 to 49 years of age matched to 7,536 controls without ischemic stroke.¹ In this study, the risk of ischemic stroke was increased more than 2.5-fold by cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.59), hypertension (aOR, 2.73), diabetes (aOR, 2.78), migraine with aura (aOR, 2.89), and ischemic heart disease (aOR, 5.49). For those with migraine with aura who also used an estrogen-containing contraceptive, the aOR for ischemic stroke was 6.08. By contrast, the risk for stroke among those with migraine with aura who were not using an estrogen-containing contraceptive was 2.65. Furthermore, among those with migraine without aura, the risk of ischemic stroke was only 1.77 with the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive.

Continue to: Although women with migraine...

Although women with migraine with and without aura are at increased risk for stroke, the absolute risk is still very low. For example, one review reported that the incidence of ischemic stroke per 100,000 person-years among women 20 to 44 years of age was 2.5 for those without migraine not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, 5.9 for those with migraine with aura not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, and 14.5 among those with migraine with aura and taking estrogen-containing contraceptives.⁶ Another important observation is that the incidence of thrombotic stroke dramatically increases from adolescence (3.4 per 100,000 person-years) to 45-49 years of age (64.4 per 100,000 person-years).⁷ Therefore, older women with migraine are at greater risk for stroke than adolescents.

Diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura

In contraceptive counseling, if an estrogen-containing contraceptive is being considered, it is important to identify women with migraine headache, determine migraine subtype, assess the frequency of migraines and identify other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and cigarette smoking. The International Headache Society has evolved the diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura, and now endorses the criteria published in the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3; TABLES 1 and 2).⁸ For non-neurologists, these criteria may be difficult to remember and impractical to utilize in daily contraceptive counseling. Two simplified tools, the ID Migraine Questionnaire⁹ and the Visual Aura Rating Scale (TABLE 3)⁴ may help identify women who have migraine headaches and assess for the presence of aura.

The ID Migraine Questionnaire

In a study of 563 people seeking primary care who had headaches in the past 3 months, 3 questions were identified as being helpful in identifying women with migraine. This 3-question screening tool had reasonable sensitivity (81%), specificity (75%), and positive predictive value (93%) compared with expert diagnosis using the ICHD-3.⁹ The 3 questions in this screening tool, which are answered “Yes” or “No,” are:

During the last 3 months did you have the following symptoms with your headaches:

1. Feel nauseated or sick to your stomach?
2. Light bothered you?
3. Your headaches limited your ability to work, study or do what you needed to do for at least 1 day?

If two questions are answered “Yes” the patient may have migraine headaches.

Visual Aura Rating Scale for the diagnosis of migraine with aura

More than 90% of women with migraine with aura have visual auras, leaving only a minority with non–visual aura, such as tingling or numbness in a limb, speech or language problems, or muscle weakness. Hence for non-neurologists, it is reasonable to focus on the accurate diagnosis of visual aura to identify those with migraine with aura.

In the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS) is especially useful because it has good sensitivity and specificity, and it is easy to use in practice (TABLE 3).⁴ VARS assesses for 5 characteristics of a visual aura, and each characteristic is associated with a weighted risk score. The 5 symptoms assessed include:

1. duration of visual symptom between 5 and 60 minutes (3 points)
2. visual symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes (2 points)
3. scotoma (2 points)
4. zig-zag line (2 points)
5. unilateral (1 point).

Continue to: Of note, visual aura is usually...

Of note, visual aura is usually slow-spreading and persists for more than 5 minutes but less than 60 minutes. If a visual symptom has a sudden onset and persists for much longer than 60 minutes, concern is heightened for a more serious neurologic diagnosis such as transient ischemic attack or stroke. A summed score of 5 or more points supports the diagnosis of migraine with aura. In one study, VARS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96% for identifying women with migraine with aura diagnosed by the ICHD-3 criteria.⁴

Consider using VARS to identify migraine with aura

Epidemiologic studies report that about 17% of adults have migraine, and about 5% have migraine with aura.^10,11 Consequently, migraine with aura is one of the most common medical conditions encountered during contraceptive counseling. The CDC MEC recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives in women with migraine with aura (Category 4 rating). The VARS may help clinicians identify those who have migraine with aura who should not be offered estrogen-containing contraceptives. Equally important, the use of VARS could help reduce the number of women who are inappropriately diagnosed as having migraine with aura based on fleeting visual symptoms lasting far less than 5 minutes during a migraine headache.

In 2015, 1.2% of the US population was estimated to have active epilepsy.¹ For neurologists, key goals in the treatment of epilepsy include: controlling seizures, minimizing adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and optimizing quality of life. For obstetrician-gynecologists, women with epilepsy (WWE) have unique contraceptive, preconception, and obstetric needs that require highly specialized approaches to care. Here, I highlight 5 care points that are important to keep in mind when counseling WWE.  

1. Enzyme-inducing AEDs reduce the effectiveness of estrogen-progestin and some progestin contraceptives. 

AEDs can induce hepatic enzymes that accelerate steroid hormone metabolism, producing clinically important reductions in bioavailable steroid hormone concentration (TABLE 1). According to Lexicomp, AEDs that are inducers of hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones include: carbamazepine (Tegretol), eslicarbazepine (Aptiom), felbamate (Felbatol), oxcarbazepine (Trileptal), perampanel (Fycompa), phenobarbital, phenytoin (Dilantin), primidone (Mysoline), rufinamide (Banzel), and topiramate (Topamax) (at dosages >200 mg daily). According to Lexicomp, the following AEDs do not cause clinically significant changes in hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones: acetazolamide (Diamox), clonazepam (Klonopin), ethosuximide (Zarontin), gabapentin (Neurontin), lacosamide (Vimpat), levetiracetam (Keppra), pregabalin (Lyrica), tiagabine (Gabitril), vigabatrin (Vigadrone), and zonisamide (Zonegran).^2,3 In addition, lamotrigine (Lamictal) and valproate (Depakote) do not significantly influence the metabolism of contraceptive steroids,^4,5 but contraceptive steroids significantly influence their metabolism (TABLE 2). 

For WWE taking an AED that accelerates steroid hormone metabolism, estrogen-progestin contraceptive failure is common. In a survey of 111 WWE taking both an oral contraceptive and an AED, 27 reported becoming pregnant while taking the oral contraceptive.⁶ Carbamazepine, a strong inducer of hepatic enzymes, was the most frequently used AED in this sample.  

Many studies report that carbamazepine accelerates the metabolisms of estrogen and progestins and reduces contraceptive efficacy. For example, in one study 20 healthy women were administered an ethinyl estradiol (20 µg)-levonorgestrel (100 µg) contraceptive, and randomly assigned to either receive carbamazepine 600 mg daily or a placebo pill.⁷ In this study, based on serum progesterone measurements, 5 of 10 women in the carbamazepine group ovulated, compared with 1 of 10 women in the placebo group. Women taking carbamazepine had integrated serum ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel concentrations approximately 45% lower than women taking placebo.⁷ Other studies also report that carbamazepine accelerates steroid hormone metabolism and reduces the circulating concentration of ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone, and levonorgestrel by about 50%.^5,8  

WWE taking an AED that induces hepatic enzymes should be counseled to use a copper or levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception.⁹ WWE taking AEDs that do not induce hepatic enzymes can be offered the full array of contraceptive options, as outlined in Table 1.  Occasionally, a WWE taking an AED that is an inducer of hepatic enzymes may strongly prefer to use an estrogen-progestin contraceptive and decline the preferred option of using an IUD or DMPA. If an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is to be prescribed, safeguards to reduce the risk of pregnancy include:  

• prescribe a contraceptive with ≥35 µg of ethinyl estradiol  
• prescribe a contraceptive with the highest dose of progestin with a long half-life (drospirenone, desogestrel, levonorgestrel)  
• consider continuous hormonal contraception rather than 4 or 7 days off hormones and  
• recommend use of a barrier contraceptive in addition to the hormonal contraceptive. 

The effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception may also be reduced in WWE taking an enzyme-inducing AED. In these cases, some experts recommend a regimen of two doses of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, separated by 12 hours.¹⁰ The effectiveness of progestin subdermal contraceptives may be reduced in women taking phenytoin. In one study of 9 WWE using a progestin subdermal implant, phenytoin reduced the circulating levonorgestrel level by approximately 40%.¹¹  

Continue to: 2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives...

2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives. 

Estrogens, but not progestins, are known to reduce the serum concentration of lamotrigine by about 50%.^12,13 This is a clinically significant pharmacologic interaction. Consequently, when a cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptive is prescribed to a woman taking lamotrigine, oscillation in lamotrigine serum concentration can occur. When the woman is taking estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels decrease, which increases the risk of seizure. When the woman is not taking the estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels increase, possibly causing such adverse effects as nausea and vomiting. If a woman taking lamotrigine insists on using an estrogen-progestin contraceptive, the medication should be prescribed in a continuous regimen and the neurologist alerted so that they can increase the dose of lamotrigine and intensify their monitoring of lamotrigine levels. Lamotrigine does not change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and has minimal impact on the metabolism of levonorgestrel.⁴  

3. Estrogen-progestin contraceptives require valproate dosage adjustment. 

A few studies report that estrogen-progestin contraceptives accelerate the metabolism of valproate and reduce circulating valproate concentration,^14,15 as noted in Table 2.In one study, estrogen-progestin contraceptive was associated with 18% and 29% decreases in total and unbound valproate concentrations, respectively.¹⁴ Valproate may induce polycystic ovary syndrome in women.¹⁶ Therefore, it is common that valproate and an estrogen-progestin contraceptive are co-prescribed. In these situations, the neurologist should be alerted prior to prescribing an estrogen-progestin contraceptive to WWE taking valproate so that dosage adjustment may occur, if indicated. Valproate does not appear to change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol or levonorgestrel.⁵  

4. Preconception counseling: Before conception consider using an AED with low teratogenicity. 

Valproate is a potent teratogen, and consideration should be given to discontinuing valproate prior to conception. In a study of 1,788 pregnancies exposed to valproate, the risk of a major congenital malformation was 10% for valproate monotherapy, 11.3% for valproate combined with lamotrigine, and 11.7% for valproate combined with another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ At a valproate dose of ≥1,500 mg daily, the risk of major malformation was 24% for valproate monotherapy, 31% for valproate plus lamotrigine, and 19% for valproate plus another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ Valproate is reported to be associated with the following major congenital malformations: spina bifida, ventricular and atrial septal defects, pulmonary valve atresia, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, cleft palate, anorectal atresia, and hypospadias.¹⁸  

In a study of 7,555 pregnancies in women using a single AED, the risk of major congenital anomalies varied greatly among the AEDs, including: valproate (10.3%), phenobarbital (6.5%), phenytoin (6.4%), carbamazepine (5.5%), topiramate (3.9%), oxcarbazepine (3.0%), lamotrigine (2.9%), and levetiracetam (2.8%).¹⁹ For WWE considering pregnancy, many experts recommend use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine to minimize the risk of fetal anomalies.  

Continue to: 5. Folic acid...

5. Folic acid: Although the optimal dose for WWE taking an AED and planning to become pregnant is unknown, a high dose is reasonable. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that women planning pregnancy take 0.4 mg of folic acid daily, starting at least 1 month before pregnancy and continuing through at least the 12th week of gestation.²⁰ ACOG also recommends that women at high risk of a neural tube defect should take 4 mg of folic acid daily. WWE taking a teratogenic AED are known to be at increased risk for fetal malformations, including neural tube defects. Should these women take 4 mg of folic acid daily? ACOG notes that, for women taking valproate, the benefit of high-dose folic acid (4 mg daily) has not been definitively proven,²¹ and guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology do not recommend high-dose folic acid for women receiving AEDs.22 Hence, ACOG does not recommend that WWE taking an AED take high-dose folic acid.  

By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) recommends that all WWE planning a pregnancy take folic acid 5 mg daily, initiated 3 months before conception and continued through the first trimester of pregnancy.²³ The RCOG notes that among WWE taking an AED, intelligence quotient is greater in children whose mothers took folic acid during pregnancy.²⁴ Given the potential benefit of folic acid on long-term outcomes and the known safety of folic acid, it is reasonable to recommend high-dose folic acid for WWE. 

Final takeaways 

Surveys consistently report that WWE have a low-level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives and the teratogenicity of AEDs. For example, in a survey of 2,000 WWE, 45% who were taking an enzyme-inducing AED and an estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive reported that they had not been warned about the potential interaction between the medications.²⁵ Surprisingly, surveys of neurologists and obstetrician-gynecologists also report that there is a low level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives.²⁶ When providing contraceptive counseling for WWE, prioritize the use of a copper or levonorgestrel IUD. When providing preconception counseling for WWE, educate the patient about the high teratogenicity of valproate and the lower risk of malformations associated with the use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine.  
 

In 2015, 1.2% of the US population was estimated to have active epilepsy.¹ For neurologists, key goals in the treatment of epilepsy include: controlling seizures, minimizing adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and optimizing quality of life. For obstetrician-gynecologists, women with epilepsy (WWE) have unique contraceptive, preconception, and obstetric needs that require highly specialized approaches to care. Here, I highlight 5 care points that are important to keep in mind when counseling WWE.  

1. Enzyme-inducing AEDs reduce the effectiveness of estrogen-progestin and some progestin contraceptives. 

AEDs can induce hepatic enzymes that accelerate steroid hormone metabolism, producing clinically important reductions in bioavailable steroid hormone concentration (TABLE 1). According to Lexicomp, AEDs that are inducers of hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones include: carbamazepine (Tegretol), eslicarbazepine (Aptiom), felbamate (Felbatol), oxcarbazepine (Trileptal), perampanel (Fycompa), phenobarbital, phenytoin (Dilantin), primidone (Mysoline), rufinamide (Banzel), and topiramate (Topamax) (at dosages >200 mg daily). According to Lexicomp, the following AEDs do not cause clinically significant changes in hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones: acetazolamide (Diamox), clonazepam (Klonopin), ethosuximide (Zarontin), gabapentin (Neurontin), lacosamide (Vimpat), levetiracetam (Keppra), pregabalin (Lyrica), tiagabine (Gabitril), vigabatrin (Vigadrone), and zonisamide (Zonegran).^2,3 In addition, lamotrigine (Lamictal) and valproate (Depakote) do not significantly influence the metabolism of contraceptive steroids,^4,5 but contraceptive steroids significantly influence their metabolism (TABLE 2). 

For WWE taking an AED that accelerates steroid hormone metabolism, estrogen-progestin contraceptive failure is common. In a survey of 111 WWE taking both an oral contraceptive and an AED, 27 reported becoming pregnant while taking the oral contraceptive.⁶ Carbamazepine, a strong inducer of hepatic enzymes, was the most frequently used AED in this sample.  

Many studies report that carbamazepine accelerates the metabolisms of estrogen and progestins and reduces contraceptive efficacy. For example, in one study 20 healthy women were administered an ethinyl estradiol (20 µg)-levonorgestrel (100 µg) contraceptive, and randomly assigned to either receive carbamazepine 600 mg daily or a placebo pill.⁷ In this study, based on serum progesterone measurements, 5 of 10 women in the carbamazepine group ovulated, compared with 1 of 10 women in the placebo group. Women taking carbamazepine had integrated serum ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel concentrations approximately 45% lower than women taking placebo.⁷ Other studies also report that carbamazepine accelerates steroid hormone metabolism and reduces the circulating concentration of ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone, and levonorgestrel by about 50%.^5,8  

WWE taking an AED that induces hepatic enzymes should be counseled to use a copper or levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception.⁹ WWE taking AEDs that do not induce hepatic enzymes can be offered the full array of contraceptive options, as outlined in Table 1.  Occasionally, a WWE taking an AED that is an inducer of hepatic enzymes may strongly prefer to use an estrogen-progestin contraceptive and decline the preferred option of using an IUD or DMPA. If an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is to be prescribed, safeguards to reduce the risk of pregnancy include:  

• prescribe a contraceptive with ≥35 µg of ethinyl estradiol  
• prescribe a contraceptive with the highest dose of progestin with a long half-life (drospirenone, desogestrel, levonorgestrel)  
• consider continuous hormonal contraception rather than 4 or 7 days off hormones and  
• recommend use of a barrier contraceptive in addition to the hormonal contraceptive. 

The effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception may also be reduced in WWE taking an enzyme-inducing AED. In these cases, some experts recommend a regimen of two doses of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, separated by 12 hours.¹⁰ The effectiveness of progestin subdermal contraceptives may be reduced in women taking phenytoin. In one study of 9 WWE using a progestin subdermal implant, phenytoin reduced the circulating levonorgestrel level by approximately 40%.¹¹  

Continue to: 2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives...

2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives. 

Estrogens, but not progestins, are known to reduce the serum concentration of lamotrigine by about 50%.^12,13 This is a clinically significant pharmacologic interaction. Consequently, when a cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptive is prescribed to a woman taking lamotrigine, oscillation in lamotrigine serum concentration can occur. When the woman is taking estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels decrease, which increases the risk of seizure. When the woman is not taking the estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels increase, possibly causing such adverse effects as nausea and vomiting. If a woman taking lamotrigine insists on using an estrogen-progestin contraceptive, the medication should be prescribed in a continuous regimen and the neurologist alerted so that they can increase the dose of lamotrigine and intensify their monitoring of lamotrigine levels. Lamotrigine does not change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and has minimal impact on the metabolism of levonorgestrel.⁴  

3. Estrogen-progestin contraceptives require valproate dosage adjustment. 

A few studies report that estrogen-progestin contraceptives accelerate the metabolism of valproate and reduce circulating valproate concentration,^14,15 as noted in Table 2.In one study, estrogen-progestin contraceptive was associated with 18% and 29% decreases in total and unbound valproate concentrations, respectively.¹⁴ Valproate may induce polycystic ovary syndrome in women.¹⁶ Therefore, it is common that valproate and an estrogen-progestin contraceptive are co-prescribed. In these situations, the neurologist should be alerted prior to prescribing an estrogen-progestin contraceptive to WWE taking valproate so that dosage adjustment may occur, if indicated. Valproate does not appear to change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol or levonorgestrel.⁵  

4. Preconception counseling: Before conception consider using an AED with low teratogenicity. 

Valproate is a potent teratogen, and consideration should be given to discontinuing valproate prior to conception. In a study of 1,788 pregnancies exposed to valproate, the risk of a major congenital malformation was 10% for valproate monotherapy, 11.3% for valproate combined with lamotrigine, and 11.7% for valproate combined with another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ At a valproate dose of ≥1,500 mg daily, the risk of major malformation was 24% for valproate monotherapy, 31% for valproate plus lamotrigine, and 19% for valproate plus another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ Valproate is reported to be associated with the following major congenital malformations: spina bifida, ventricular and atrial septal defects, pulmonary valve atresia, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, cleft palate, anorectal atresia, and hypospadias.¹⁸  

In a study of 7,555 pregnancies in women using a single AED, the risk of major congenital anomalies varied greatly among the AEDs, including: valproate (10.3%), phenobarbital (6.5%), phenytoin (6.4%), carbamazepine (5.5%), topiramate (3.9%), oxcarbazepine (3.0%), lamotrigine (2.9%), and levetiracetam (2.8%).¹⁹ For WWE considering pregnancy, many experts recommend use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine to minimize the risk of fetal anomalies.  

Continue to: 5. Folic acid...

5. Folic acid: Although the optimal dose for WWE taking an AED and planning to become pregnant is unknown, a high dose is reasonable. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that women planning pregnancy take 0.4 mg of folic acid daily, starting at least 1 month before pregnancy and continuing through at least the 12th week of gestation.²⁰ ACOG also recommends that women at high risk of a neural tube defect should take 4 mg of folic acid daily. WWE taking a teratogenic AED are known to be at increased risk for fetal malformations, including neural tube defects. Should these women take 4 mg of folic acid daily? ACOG notes that, for women taking valproate, the benefit of high-dose folic acid (4 mg daily) has not been definitively proven,²¹ and guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology do not recommend high-dose folic acid for women receiving AEDs.22 Hence, ACOG does not recommend that WWE taking an AED take high-dose folic acid.  

By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) recommends that all WWE planning a pregnancy take folic acid 5 mg daily, initiated 3 months before conception and continued through the first trimester of pregnancy.²³ The RCOG notes that among WWE taking an AED, intelligence quotient is greater in children whose mothers took folic acid during pregnancy.²⁴ Given the potential benefit of folic acid on long-term outcomes and the known safety of folic acid, it is reasonable to recommend high-dose folic acid for WWE. 

Final takeaways 

Surveys consistently report that WWE have a low-level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives and the teratogenicity of AEDs. For example, in a survey of 2,000 WWE, 45% who were taking an enzyme-inducing AED and an estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive reported that they had not been warned about the potential interaction between the medications.²⁵ Surprisingly, surveys of neurologists and obstetrician-gynecologists also report that there is a low level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives.²⁶ When providing contraceptive counseling for WWE, prioritize the use of a copper or levonorgestrel IUD. When providing preconception counseling for WWE, educate the patient about the high teratogenicity of valproate and the lower risk of malformations associated with the use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine.  
 

In 2015, 1.2% of the US population was estimated to have active epilepsy.¹ For neurologists, key goals in the treatment of epilepsy include: controlling seizures, minimizing adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and optimizing quality of life. For obstetrician-gynecologists, women with epilepsy (WWE) have unique contraceptive, preconception, and obstetric needs that require highly specialized approaches to care. Here, I highlight 5 care points that are important to keep in mind when counseling WWE.  

1. Enzyme-inducing AEDs reduce the effectiveness of estrogen-progestin and some progestin contraceptives. 

AEDs can induce hepatic enzymes that accelerate steroid hormone metabolism, producing clinically important reductions in bioavailable steroid hormone concentration (TABLE 1). According to Lexicomp, AEDs that are inducers of hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones include: carbamazepine (Tegretol), eslicarbazepine (Aptiom), felbamate (Felbatol), oxcarbazepine (Trileptal), perampanel (Fycompa), phenobarbital, phenytoin (Dilantin), primidone (Mysoline), rufinamide (Banzel), and topiramate (Topamax) (at dosages >200 mg daily). According to Lexicomp, the following AEDs do not cause clinically significant changes in hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones: acetazolamide (Diamox), clonazepam (Klonopin), ethosuximide (Zarontin), gabapentin (Neurontin), lacosamide (Vimpat), levetiracetam (Keppra), pregabalin (Lyrica), tiagabine (Gabitril), vigabatrin (Vigadrone), and zonisamide (Zonegran).^2,3 In addition, lamotrigine (Lamictal) and valproate (Depakote) do not significantly influence the metabolism of contraceptive steroids,^4,5 but contraceptive steroids significantly influence their metabolism (TABLE 2). 

For WWE taking an AED that accelerates steroid hormone metabolism, estrogen-progestin contraceptive failure is common. In a survey of 111 WWE taking both an oral contraceptive and an AED, 27 reported becoming pregnant while taking the oral contraceptive.⁶ Carbamazepine, a strong inducer of hepatic enzymes, was the most frequently used AED in this sample.  

Many studies report that carbamazepine accelerates the metabolisms of estrogen and progestins and reduces contraceptive efficacy. For example, in one study 20 healthy women were administered an ethinyl estradiol (20 µg)-levonorgestrel (100 µg) contraceptive, and randomly assigned to either receive carbamazepine 600 mg daily or a placebo pill.⁷ In this study, based on serum progesterone measurements, 5 of 10 women in the carbamazepine group ovulated, compared with 1 of 10 women in the placebo group. Women taking carbamazepine had integrated serum ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel concentrations approximately 45% lower than women taking placebo.⁷ Other studies also report that carbamazepine accelerates steroid hormone metabolism and reduces the circulating concentration of ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone, and levonorgestrel by about 50%.^5,8  

WWE taking an AED that induces hepatic enzymes should be counseled to use a copper or levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception.⁹ WWE taking AEDs that do not induce hepatic enzymes can be offered the full array of contraceptive options, as outlined in Table 1.  Occasionally, a WWE taking an AED that is an inducer of hepatic enzymes may strongly prefer to use an estrogen-progestin contraceptive and decline the preferred option of using an IUD or DMPA. If an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is to be prescribed, safeguards to reduce the risk of pregnancy include:  

• prescribe a contraceptive with ≥35 µg of ethinyl estradiol  
• prescribe a contraceptive with the highest dose of progestin with a long half-life (drospirenone, desogestrel, levonorgestrel)  
• consider continuous hormonal contraception rather than 4 or 7 days off hormones and  
• recommend use of a barrier contraceptive in addition to the hormonal contraceptive. 

The effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception may also be reduced in WWE taking an enzyme-inducing AED. In these cases, some experts recommend a regimen of two doses of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, separated by 12 hours.¹⁰ The effectiveness of progestin subdermal contraceptives may be reduced in women taking phenytoin. In one study of 9 WWE using a progestin subdermal implant, phenytoin reduced the circulating levonorgestrel level by approximately 40%.¹¹  

Continue to: 2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives...

2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives. 

Estrogens, but not progestins, are known to reduce the serum concentration of lamotrigine by about 50%.^12,13 This is a clinically significant pharmacologic interaction. Consequently, when a cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptive is prescribed to a woman taking lamotrigine, oscillation in lamotrigine serum concentration can occur. When the woman is taking estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels decrease, which increases the risk of seizure. When the woman is not taking the estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels increase, possibly causing such adverse effects as nausea and vomiting. If a woman taking lamotrigine insists on using an estrogen-progestin contraceptive, the medication should be prescribed in a continuous regimen and the neurologist alerted so that they can increase the dose of lamotrigine and intensify their monitoring of lamotrigine levels. Lamotrigine does not change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and has minimal impact on the metabolism of levonorgestrel.⁴  

3. Estrogen-progestin contraceptives require valproate dosage adjustment. 

A few studies report that estrogen-progestin contraceptives accelerate the metabolism of valproate and reduce circulating valproate concentration,^14,15 as noted in Table 2.In one study, estrogen-progestin contraceptive was associated with 18% and 29% decreases in total and unbound valproate concentrations, respectively.¹⁴ Valproate may induce polycystic ovary syndrome in women.¹⁶ Therefore, it is common that valproate and an estrogen-progestin contraceptive are co-prescribed. In these situations, the neurologist should be alerted prior to prescribing an estrogen-progestin contraceptive to WWE taking valproate so that dosage adjustment may occur, if indicated. Valproate does not appear to change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol or levonorgestrel.⁵  

4. Preconception counseling: Before conception consider using an AED with low teratogenicity. 

Valproate is a potent teratogen, and consideration should be given to discontinuing valproate prior to conception. In a study of 1,788 pregnancies exposed to valproate, the risk of a major congenital malformation was 10% for valproate monotherapy, 11.3% for valproate combined with lamotrigine, and 11.7% for valproate combined with another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ At a valproate dose of ≥1,500 mg daily, the risk of major malformation was 24% for valproate monotherapy, 31% for valproate plus lamotrigine, and 19% for valproate plus another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ Valproate is reported to be associated with the following major congenital malformations: spina bifida, ventricular and atrial septal defects, pulmonary valve atresia, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, cleft palate, anorectal atresia, and hypospadias.¹⁸  

In a study of 7,555 pregnancies in women using a single AED, the risk of major congenital anomalies varied greatly among the AEDs, including: valproate (10.3%), phenobarbital (6.5%), phenytoin (6.4%), carbamazepine (5.5%), topiramate (3.9%), oxcarbazepine (3.0%), lamotrigine (2.9%), and levetiracetam (2.8%).¹⁹ For WWE considering pregnancy, many experts recommend use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine to minimize the risk of fetal anomalies.  

Continue to: 5. Folic acid...

5. Folic acid: Although the optimal dose for WWE taking an AED and planning to become pregnant is unknown, a high dose is reasonable. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that women planning pregnancy take 0.4 mg of folic acid daily, starting at least 1 month before pregnancy and continuing through at least the 12th week of gestation.²⁰ ACOG also recommends that women at high risk of a neural tube defect should take 4 mg of folic acid daily. WWE taking a teratogenic AED are known to be at increased risk for fetal malformations, including neural tube defects. Should these women take 4 mg of folic acid daily? ACOG notes that, for women taking valproate, the benefit of high-dose folic acid (4 mg daily) has not been definitively proven,²¹ and guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology do not recommend high-dose folic acid for women receiving AEDs.22 Hence, ACOG does not recommend that WWE taking an AED take high-dose folic acid.  

By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) recommends that all WWE planning a pregnancy take folic acid 5 mg daily, initiated 3 months before conception and continued through the first trimester of pregnancy.²³ The RCOG notes that among WWE taking an AED, intelligence quotient is greater in children whose mothers took folic acid during pregnancy.²⁴ Given the potential benefit of folic acid on long-term outcomes and the known safety of folic acid, it is reasonable to recommend high-dose folic acid for WWE. 

Final takeaways 

Surveys consistently report that WWE have a low-level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives and the teratogenicity of AEDs. For example, in a survey of 2,000 WWE, 45% who were taking an enzyme-inducing AED and an estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive reported that they had not been warned about the potential interaction between the medications.²⁵ Surprisingly, surveys of neurologists and obstetrician-gynecologists also report that there is a low level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives.²⁶ When providing contraceptive counseling for WWE, prioritize the use of a copper or levonorgestrel IUD. When providing preconception counseling for WWE, educate the patient about the high teratogenicity of valproate and the lower risk of malformations associated with the use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine.  
 

Sexually active adolescent girls face reproductive coercion (RC) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA), but there seems to be no statistically significant demographic factors, so education should be universally provided, wrote Amber L. Hill, MSPH, and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Juanmonino/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Ms. Hill of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional baseline survey that had been used in a cluster-randomized trial. The SHARP (School Health Center Healthy Adolescent Relationship Program) trial, investigated an educational intervention regarding healthy relationships. Their analysis included survey data for 550 sexually active girls aged 14-19 years who’d received services from any of eight student health centers across Northern California during the 2012-2013 school year.

The investigators explained that ARA includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse among adolescents in a romantic relationship; they further described RC as a form of ARA that increases risks of unintended pregnancy, such as contraceptive sabotage, condom manipulation, and pregnancy coercion. RC was defined as a positive response on a 10-item validated measure, and ARA was defined by positive response to at least one of three items that had been derived from Conflict Tactics Scale 2 and the Sexual Experiences Survey.

Among all females in the analysis, 12% reported reproductive coercion, and 17% reported relationship abuse . Black and Hispanic girls were the most likely to report RC, each at 15%; white girls were the most likely to report ARA at 22%. However, none of the demographic differences evaluated in this analysis, including these, were statistically significant, the authors cautioned.

One of the limitations of this study is that its sample was limited to school health centers in Northern California so it may not be generalizable. Furthermore, its cross-sectional design limits causal inference.

“By highlighting the relevance of reproductive coercion in adolescence, this study substantiates the urgent need for developmentally appropriate interventions,” Ms. Hill and associates concluded.

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Grants from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health supported the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hill AL et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(2):351-9.

Sexually active adolescent girls face reproductive coercion (RC) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA), but there seems to be no statistically significant demographic factors, so education should be universally provided, wrote Amber L. Hill, MSPH, and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Juanmonino/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Ms. Hill of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional baseline survey that had been used in a cluster-randomized trial. The SHARP (School Health Center Healthy Adolescent Relationship Program) trial, investigated an educational intervention regarding healthy relationships. Their analysis included survey data for 550 sexually active girls aged 14-19 years who’d received services from any of eight student health centers across Northern California during the 2012-2013 school year.

The investigators explained that ARA includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse among adolescents in a romantic relationship; they further described RC as a form of ARA that increases risks of unintended pregnancy, such as contraceptive sabotage, condom manipulation, and pregnancy coercion. RC was defined as a positive response on a 10-item validated measure, and ARA was defined by positive response to at least one of three items that had been derived from Conflict Tactics Scale 2 and the Sexual Experiences Survey.

Among all females in the analysis, 12% reported reproductive coercion, and 17% reported relationship abuse . Black and Hispanic girls were the most likely to report RC, each at 15%; white girls were the most likely to report ARA at 22%. However, none of the demographic differences evaluated in this analysis, including these, were statistically significant, the authors cautioned.

One of the limitations of this study is that its sample was limited to school health centers in Northern California so it may not be generalizable. Furthermore, its cross-sectional design limits causal inference.

“By highlighting the relevance of reproductive coercion in adolescence, this study substantiates the urgent need for developmentally appropriate interventions,” Ms. Hill and associates concluded.

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Grants from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health supported the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hill AL et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(2):351-9.

Sexually active adolescent girls face reproductive coercion (RC) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA), but there seems to be no statistically significant demographic factors, so education should be universally provided, wrote Amber L. Hill, MSPH, and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Juanmonino/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Ms. Hill of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional baseline survey that had been used in a cluster-randomized trial. The SHARP (School Health Center Healthy Adolescent Relationship Program) trial, investigated an educational intervention regarding healthy relationships. Their analysis included survey data for 550 sexually active girls aged 14-19 years who’d received services from any of eight student health centers across Northern California during the 2012-2013 school year.

The investigators explained that ARA includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse among adolescents in a romantic relationship; they further described RC as a form of ARA that increases risks of unintended pregnancy, such as contraceptive sabotage, condom manipulation, and pregnancy coercion. RC was defined as a positive response on a 10-item validated measure, and ARA was defined by positive response to at least one of three items that had been derived from Conflict Tactics Scale 2 and the Sexual Experiences Survey.

Among all females in the analysis, 12% reported reproductive coercion, and 17% reported relationship abuse . Black and Hispanic girls were the most likely to report RC, each at 15%; white girls were the most likely to report ARA at 22%. However, none of the demographic differences evaluated in this analysis, including these, were statistically significant, the authors cautioned.

One of the limitations of this study is that its sample was limited to school health centers in Northern California so it may not be generalizable. Furthermore, its cross-sectional design limits causal inference.

“By highlighting the relevance of reproductive coercion in adolescence, this study substantiates the urgent need for developmentally appropriate interventions,” Ms. Hill and associates concluded.

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Grants from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health supported the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hill AL et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(2):351-9.

Evidence-based education about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for women in the postpartum period can result in the increased continuation of and satisfaction with LARC.¹ However, nearly 40% of women do not attend a postpartum visit.² And up to 57% of women report having unprotected intercourse before the 6-week postpartum visit, which increases the risk of unplanned pregnancy.³ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) supports immediate postpartum LARC insertion as best practice,³ and clinicians providing care for women during the peripartum period can counsel women regarding informed contraceptive decisions and provide guidance regarding both short-acting contraception and LARC.¹ 

Immediate postpartum LARC, using intrauterine devices (IUDs) in particular, has been used around the world for a long time, says Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief in the Division of Family Planning at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “Much of our initial data came from other countries, but eventually people in the United States said, ‘This is a great option, why aren't we doing this?’" In addition, although women considering immediate postpartum LARC should be counseled about the theoretical risk of reduced duration of breastfeeding, the evidence overwhelmingly has not shown a negative effect on actual breastfeeding outcomes according to ACOG.³ OBG MANAGEMENT recently met up with Dr. Hofler to ask her which patients are ideal for postpartum LARC, how to troubleshoot common pitfalls, and how to implement the practice within one’s own institution. 

OBG Management: Who do you consider to be the ideal patient for immediate postpartum LARC? 

Lisa Hofler, MD: The great thing about immediate postpartum LARC (including IUDs and implants) is that any woman is an ideal candidate. We are simply talking about the timing of when a woman chooses to get an IUD or an implant after the birth of her child. There is no one perfect woman; it is the person who chooses the method and wants to use that method immediately after birth. When a woman chooses a LARC, she can be assured that after the birth of her child she will be protected against pregnancy. If she chooses an IUD as her LARC method, she will be comfortable at insertion because the cervix is already dilated when it is inserted.

For the implant, the contraindications are the same as in the outpatient setting. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use covers many medical conditions and whether or not a person might be a candidate for different birth control methods.⁴ Those same considerations apply for the implant postpartum (TABLE).³

For the IUD, similarly, anyone who would not be a candidate for the IUD in the outpatient setting is not a candidate for immediate postpartum IUD. For instance, if the person has an intrauterine infection, you should not place an IUD. Also, if a patient is hemorrhaging and you are managing the hemorrhage (say she has retained placenta or membranes or she has uterine atony), you are not going to put an IUD in, as you need to attend to her bleeding.

OBG Management: What is your approach to counseling a patient for immediate postpartum LARC?

Dr. Hofler: The ideal time to counsel about postbirth contraception is in the prenatal period, when the patient is making decisions about what method she wants to use after the birth. Once she chooses her preferred method, address timing if appropriate. It is less ideal to talk to a woman about the option of immediate postpartum LARC when she comes to labor and delivery, especially if that is the first time she has heard about it. Certainly, the time to talk about postpartum LARC options is not immediately after the baby is born. Approaching your patient with, "What do you want for birth control? Do you want this IUD? I can put it in right now," can feel coercive. This approach does not put the woman in a position in which she has enough decision-making time or time to ask questions. 

OBG Management: What problems do clinicians run into when placing an immediate postpartum IUD, and can you offer solutions?

Dr. Hofler: When placing an immediate postpartum IUD, people might run into a few problems. The first relates to preplacement counseling. Perhaps when making the plan for the postpartum IUD the clinician did not counsel the woman that there are certain conditions that could preclude IUD placement—such as intrauterine infection or postpartum hemorrhage. When dealing with those types of issues, a patient is not eligible for an IUD, and she should be mentally prepared for this type of situation. Let her know during the counseling before the birth that immediately postpartum is a great time and opportunity for effective contraception placement. Tell her that hopefully IUD placement will be possible but that occasionally it is not, and make a back-up plan in case the IUD cannot be placed immediately postpartum. 

The second unique area for counseling with immediate postpartum IUDs is a slightly increased risk of expulsion of an IUD placed immediately postpartum compared with in the office. The risk of expulsion varies by type of delivery. For instance, cesarean delivery births have a lower expulsion rate than vaginal births. The expulsion rate seems to vary by type of IUD as well. Copper IUDs seem to have a slightly lower expulsion rate than hormonal IUDs. (See “Levonorgestrel vs copper IUD expulsion rates after immediate postpartum insertion.”) This consideration should be talked about ahead of time, too. Provider training in IUD placement does impact the likelihood of expulsion, and if you place the IUD at the fundus, it is less likely to expel. (See “Inserting the immediate postpartum IUD after vaginal and cesarean birth step by step.”)

A third issue that clinicians run into is actually the systems of care—making sure that the IUD or implant is available when you need it, making sure that documentation happens the way it should, and ensuring that the follow-up billing and revenue cycle happens so that the woman gets the device that she wants and the providers get paid for having provided it. These issues require a multidisciplinary team to work through in order to ensure that postpartum LARC placement is a sustainable process in the long run. 

Often, when people think of immediate postpartum LARC they think of postplacental IUDs. However, an implant also is an option, and that too is immediate postpartum LARC. Placing an implant is often a lot easier to do after the birth than placing an IUD. As clinicians work toward bringing an immediate postpartum LARC program to their hospital system, starting with implants is a smart thing to do because clinicians do not have to learn or teach new clinical skills. Because of that, immediate postpartum implants are a good troubleshooting mechanism for opening up the conversation about immediate postpartum LARC at your institution.

OBG MANAGEMENT: What advice do you have for administrators or physicians looking to implement an immediate postpartum LARC program into a hospital setting?

Dr. Hofler: Probably the best single resource is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Postpartum Contraception Access Initiative (PCAI). They have a dedicated website and offer a lot of support and resources that include site-specific training at the hospital or the institution; clinician training on implants and IUDs; and administrator training on some of the systems of care, the billing process, the stocking process, and pharmacy education. They also provide information on all the things that should be included beyond the clinical aspects. I strongly recommend looking at what they offer. 

Also, because many hospitals say, "We love this idea. We would support immediate postpartum LARC, we just want to make sure we get paid," the ACOG LARC Program website includes state-specific guidance for how Medicaid pays for LARC devices. There is state-specific guidance about how the device payment can be separated from the global payment for delivery—specific things for each institution to do to get reimbursed. 

Evidence-based education about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for women in the postpartum period can result in the increased continuation of and satisfaction with LARC.¹ However, nearly 40% of women do not attend a postpartum visit.² And up to 57% of women report having unprotected intercourse before the 6-week postpartum visit, which increases the risk of unplanned pregnancy.³ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) supports immediate postpartum LARC insertion as best practice,³ and clinicians providing care for women during the peripartum period can counsel women regarding informed contraceptive decisions and provide guidance regarding both short-acting contraception and LARC.¹ 

Immediate postpartum LARC, using intrauterine devices (IUDs) in particular, has been used around the world for a long time, says Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief in the Division of Family Planning at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “Much of our initial data came from other countries, but eventually people in the United States said, ‘This is a great option, why aren't we doing this?’" In addition, although women considering immediate postpartum LARC should be counseled about the theoretical risk of reduced duration of breastfeeding, the evidence overwhelmingly has not shown a negative effect on actual breastfeeding outcomes according to ACOG.³ OBG MANAGEMENT recently met up with Dr. Hofler to ask her which patients are ideal for postpartum LARC, how to troubleshoot common pitfalls, and how to implement the practice within one’s own institution. 

OBG Management: Who do you consider to be the ideal patient for immediate postpartum LARC? 

Lisa Hofler, MD: The great thing about immediate postpartum LARC (including IUDs and implants) is that any woman is an ideal candidate. We are simply talking about the timing of when a woman chooses to get an IUD or an implant after the birth of her child. There is no one perfect woman; it is the person who chooses the method and wants to use that method immediately after birth. When a woman chooses a LARC, she can be assured that after the birth of her child she will be protected against pregnancy. If she chooses an IUD as her LARC method, she will be comfortable at insertion because the cervix is already dilated when it is inserted.

For the implant, the contraindications are the same as in the outpatient setting. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use covers many medical conditions and whether or not a person might be a candidate for different birth control methods.⁴ Those same considerations apply for the implant postpartum (TABLE).³

For the IUD, similarly, anyone who would not be a candidate for the IUD in the outpatient setting is not a candidate for immediate postpartum IUD. For instance, if the person has an intrauterine infection, you should not place an IUD. Also, if a patient is hemorrhaging and you are managing the hemorrhage (say she has retained placenta or membranes or she has uterine atony), you are not going to put an IUD in, as you need to attend to her bleeding.

OBG Management: What is your approach to counseling a patient for immediate postpartum LARC?

Dr. Hofler: The ideal time to counsel about postbirth contraception is in the prenatal period, when the patient is making decisions about what method she wants to use after the birth. Once she chooses her preferred method, address timing if appropriate. It is less ideal to talk to a woman about the option of immediate postpartum LARC when she comes to labor and delivery, especially if that is the first time she has heard about it. Certainly, the time to talk about postpartum LARC options is not immediately after the baby is born. Approaching your patient with, "What do you want for birth control? Do you want this IUD? I can put it in right now," can feel coercive. This approach does not put the woman in a position in which she has enough decision-making time or time to ask questions. 

OBG Management: What problems do clinicians run into when placing an immediate postpartum IUD, and can you offer solutions?

Dr. Hofler: When placing an immediate postpartum IUD, people might run into a few problems. The first relates to preplacement counseling. Perhaps when making the plan for the postpartum IUD the clinician did not counsel the woman that there are certain conditions that could preclude IUD placement—such as intrauterine infection or postpartum hemorrhage. When dealing with those types of issues, a patient is not eligible for an IUD, and she should be mentally prepared for this type of situation. Let her know during the counseling before the birth that immediately postpartum is a great time and opportunity for effective contraception placement. Tell her that hopefully IUD placement will be possible but that occasionally it is not, and make a back-up plan in case the IUD cannot be placed immediately postpartum. 

The second unique area for counseling with immediate postpartum IUDs is a slightly increased risk of expulsion of an IUD placed immediately postpartum compared with in the office. The risk of expulsion varies by type of delivery. For instance, cesarean delivery births have a lower expulsion rate than vaginal births. The expulsion rate seems to vary by type of IUD as well. Copper IUDs seem to have a slightly lower expulsion rate than hormonal IUDs. (See “Levonorgestrel vs copper IUD expulsion rates after immediate postpartum insertion.”) This consideration should be talked about ahead of time, too. Provider training in IUD placement does impact the likelihood of expulsion, and if you place the IUD at the fundus, it is less likely to expel. (See “Inserting the immediate postpartum IUD after vaginal and cesarean birth step by step.”)

A third issue that clinicians run into is actually the systems of care—making sure that the IUD or implant is available when you need it, making sure that documentation happens the way it should, and ensuring that the follow-up billing and revenue cycle happens so that the woman gets the device that she wants and the providers get paid for having provided it. These issues require a multidisciplinary team to work through in order to ensure that postpartum LARC placement is a sustainable process in the long run. 

Often, when people think of immediate postpartum LARC they think of postplacental IUDs. However, an implant also is an option, and that too is immediate postpartum LARC. Placing an implant is often a lot easier to do after the birth than placing an IUD. As clinicians work toward bringing an immediate postpartum LARC program to their hospital system, starting with implants is a smart thing to do because clinicians do not have to learn or teach new clinical skills. Because of that, immediate postpartum implants are a good troubleshooting mechanism for opening up the conversation about immediate postpartum LARC at your institution.

OBG MANAGEMENT: What advice do you have for administrators or physicians looking to implement an immediate postpartum LARC program into a hospital setting?

Dr. Hofler: Probably the best single resource is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Postpartum Contraception Access Initiative (PCAI). They have a dedicated website and offer a lot of support and resources that include site-specific training at the hospital or the institution; clinician training on implants and IUDs; and administrator training on some of the systems of care, the billing process, the stocking process, and pharmacy education. They also provide information on all the things that should be included beyond the clinical aspects. I strongly recommend looking at what they offer. 

Also, because many hospitals say, "We love this idea. We would support immediate postpartum LARC, we just want to make sure we get paid," the ACOG LARC Program website includes state-specific guidance for how Medicaid pays for LARC devices. There is state-specific guidance about how the device payment can be separated from the global payment for delivery—specific things for each institution to do to get reimbursed. 

Evidence-based education about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for women in the postpartum period can result in the increased continuation of and satisfaction with LARC.¹ However, nearly 40% of women do not attend a postpartum visit.² And up to 57% of women report having unprotected intercourse before the 6-week postpartum visit, which increases the risk of unplanned pregnancy.³ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) supports immediate postpartum LARC insertion as best practice,³ and clinicians providing care for women during the peripartum period can counsel women regarding informed contraceptive decisions and provide guidance regarding both short-acting contraception and LARC.¹ 

Immediate postpartum LARC, using intrauterine devices (IUDs) in particular, has been used around the world for a long time, says Lisa Hofler, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief in the Division of Family Planning at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “Much of our initial data came from other countries, but eventually people in the United States said, ‘This is a great option, why aren't we doing this?’" In addition, although women considering immediate postpartum LARC should be counseled about the theoretical risk of reduced duration of breastfeeding, the evidence overwhelmingly has not shown a negative effect on actual breastfeeding outcomes according to ACOG.³ OBG MANAGEMENT recently met up with Dr. Hofler to ask her which patients are ideal for postpartum LARC, how to troubleshoot common pitfalls, and how to implement the practice within one’s own institution. 

OBG Management: Who do you consider to be the ideal patient for immediate postpartum LARC? 

Lisa Hofler, MD: The great thing about immediate postpartum LARC (including IUDs and implants) is that any woman is an ideal candidate. We are simply talking about the timing of when a woman chooses to get an IUD or an implant after the birth of her child. There is no one perfect woman; it is the person who chooses the method and wants to use that method immediately after birth. When a woman chooses a LARC, she can be assured that after the birth of her child she will be protected against pregnancy. If she chooses an IUD as her LARC method, she will be comfortable at insertion because the cervix is already dilated when it is inserted.

For the implant, the contraindications are the same as in the outpatient setting. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use covers many medical conditions and whether or not a person might be a candidate for different birth control methods.⁴ Those same considerations apply for the implant postpartum (TABLE).³

For the IUD, similarly, anyone who would not be a candidate for the IUD in the outpatient setting is not a candidate for immediate postpartum IUD. For instance, if the person has an intrauterine infection, you should not place an IUD. Also, if a patient is hemorrhaging and you are managing the hemorrhage (say she has retained placenta or membranes or she has uterine atony), you are not going to put an IUD in, as you need to attend to her bleeding.

OBG Management: What is your approach to counseling a patient for immediate postpartum LARC?

Dr. Hofler: The ideal time to counsel about postbirth contraception is in the prenatal period, when the patient is making decisions about what method she wants to use after the birth. Once she chooses her preferred method, address timing if appropriate. It is less ideal to talk to a woman about the option of immediate postpartum LARC when she comes to labor and delivery, especially if that is the first time she has heard about it. Certainly, the time to talk about postpartum LARC options is not immediately after the baby is born. Approaching your patient with, "What do you want for birth control? Do you want this IUD? I can put it in right now," can feel coercive. This approach does not put the woman in a position in which she has enough decision-making time or time to ask questions. 

OBG Management: What problems do clinicians run into when placing an immediate postpartum IUD, and can you offer solutions?

Dr. Hofler: When placing an immediate postpartum IUD, people might run into a few problems. The first relates to preplacement counseling. Perhaps when making the plan for the postpartum IUD the clinician did not counsel the woman that there are certain conditions that could preclude IUD placement—such as intrauterine infection or postpartum hemorrhage. When dealing with those types of issues, a patient is not eligible for an IUD, and she should be mentally prepared for this type of situation. Let her know during the counseling before the birth that immediately postpartum is a great time and opportunity for effective contraception placement. Tell her that hopefully IUD placement will be possible but that occasionally it is not, and make a back-up plan in case the IUD cannot be placed immediately postpartum. 

The second unique area for counseling with immediate postpartum IUDs is a slightly increased risk of expulsion of an IUD placed immediately postpartum compared with in the office. The risk of expulsion varies by type of delivery. For instance, cesarean delivery births have a lower expulsion rate than vaginal births. The expulsion rate seems to vary by type of IUD as well. Copper IUDs seem to have a slightly lower expulsion rate than hormonal IUDs. (See “Levonorgestrel vs copper IUD expulsion rates after immediate postpartum insertion.”) This consideration should be talked about ahead of time, too. Provider training in IUD placement does impact the likelihood of expulsion, and if you place the IUD at the fundus, it is less likely to expel. (See “Inserting the immediate postpartum IUD after vaginal and cesarean birth step by step.”)

A third issue that clinicians run into is actually the systems of care—making sure that the IUD or implant is available when you need it, making sure that documentation happens the way it should, and ensuring that the follow-up billing and revenue cycle happens so that the woman gets the device that she wants and the providers get paid for having provided it. These issues require a multidisciplinary team to work through in order to ensure that postpartum LARC placement is a sustainable process in the long run. 

Often, when people think of immediate postpartum LARC they think of postplacental IUDs. However, an implant also is an option, and that too is immediate postpartum LARC. Placing an implant is often a lot easier to do after the birth than placing an IUD. As clinicians work toward bringing an immediate postpartum LARC program to their hospital system, starting with implants is a smart thing to do because clinicians do not have to learn or teach new clinical skills. Because of that, immediate postpartum implants are a good troubleshooting mechanism for opening up the conversation about immediate postpartum LARC at your institution.

OBG MANAGEMENT: What advice do you have for administrators or physicians looking to implement an immediate postpartum LARC program into a hospital setting?

Dr. Hofler: Probably the best single resource is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Postpartum Contraception Access Initiative (PCAI). They have a dedicated website and offer a lot of support and resources that include site-specific training at the hospital or the institution; clinician training on implants and IUDs; and administrator training on some of the systems of care, the billing process, the stocking process, and pharmacy education. They also provide information on all the things that should be included beyond the clinical aspects. I strongly recommend looking at what they offer. 

Also, because many hospitals say, "We love this idea. We would support immediate postpartum LARC, we just want to make sure we get paid," the ACOG LARC Program website includes state-specific guidance for how Medicaid pays for LARC devices. There is state-specific guidance about how the device payment can be separated from the global payment for delivery—specific things for each institution to do to get reimbursed. 

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy is gaining favor as an approach to sterilization, including in the vaginal delivery setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“[It is] probably the newest thing on the block ... this is becoming super widespread,” Eve Espey, MD, said of the procedure during a contraceptive update at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Although evidence directly supporting bilateral salpingectomy for sterilization is lacking, there are good reasons to consider it, she said.

For example, the procedure is likely more effective than tubal ligation with no increased risk for complications, and is probably more likely to cut ovarian cancer risk than is tubal ligation, explained Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“So we don’t actually have good [randomized controlled trials] on effectiveness for [bilateral] salpingectomy, but it is most like a partial salpingectomy, which is highly effective, so there is reason to believe that it might be more effective,” she added. The downsides are that the procedure may take longer, it may impair ovarian blood supply, and long-term population-level data on outcomes are lacking.

ACOG said in a 2015 committee opinion that when counseling women, bilateral salpingectomy can be discussed and considered “a method that provides effective contraception,” but also stressed the need for randomized controlled trials to support any related reduction in ovarian cancer risk. That opinion (#620) was replaced in April 2019 by Committee Opinion #774, which addresses opportunistic salpingectomy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention, and which states that “the risks and benefits of salpingectomy should be discussed with patients who desire permanent sterilization.”

“[The Society of Gynecologic Oncology] is much, much more emphatic,” Dr. Espey said, citing a 2013 Clinical Practice Statement calling for discussion and consideration of risk-reducing salpingectomy in lieu of tubal ligation for women at average risk of ovarian cancer (after childbearing).

Dr. Espey also noted that during a recent grand rounds on sterilization, about 90% of participants said they were doing bilateral salpingectomy in the setting of vaginal delivery. “So I think we’re going to see this coming not just with C-section, but also with vaginal delivery.”

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy is gaining favor as an approach to sterilization, including in the vaginal delivery setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“[It is] probably the newest thing on the block ... this is becoming super widespread,” Eve Espey, MD, said of the procedure during a contraceptive update at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Although evidence directly supporting bilateral salpingectomy for sterilization is lacking, there are good reasons to consider it, she said.

For example, the procedure is likely more effective than tubal ligation with no increased risk for complications, and is probably more likely to cut ovarian cancer risk than is tubal ligation, explained Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“So we don’t actually have good [randomized controlled trials] on effectiveness for [bilateral] salpingectomy, but it is most like a partial salpingectomy, which is highly effective, so there is reason to believe that it might be more effective,” she added. The downsides are that the procedure may take longer, it may impair ovarian blood supply, and long-term population-level data on outcomes are lacking.

ACOG said in a 2015 committee opinion that when counseling women, bilateral salpingectomy can be discussed and considered “a method that provides effective contraception,” but also stressed the need for randomized controlled trials to support any related reduction in ovarian cancer risk. That opinion (#620) was replaced in April 2019 by Committee Opinion #774, which addresses opportunistic salpingectomy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention, and which states that “the risks and benefits of salpingectomy should be discussed with patients who desire permanent sterilization.”

“[The Society of Gynecologic Oncology] is much, much more emphatic,” Dr. Espey said, citing a 2013 Clinical Practice Statement calling for discussion and consideration of risk-reducing salpingectomy in lieu of tubal ligation for women at average risk of ovarian cancer (after childbearing).

Dr. Espey also noted that during a recent grand rounds on sterilization, about 90% of participants said they were doing bilateral salpingectomy in the setting of vaginal delivery. “So I think we’re going to see this coming not just with C-section, but also with vaginal delivery.”

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy is gaining favor as an approach to sterilization, including in the vaginal delivery setting.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“[It is] probably the newest thing on the block ... this is becoming super widespread,” Eve Espey, MD, said of the procedure during a contraceptive update at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Although evidence directly supporting bilateral salpingectomy for sterilization is lacking, there are good reasons to consider it, she said.

For example, the procedure is likely more effective than tubal ligation with no increased risk for complications, and is probably more likely to cut ovarian cancer risk than is tubal ligation, explained Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“So we don’t actually have good [randomized controlled trials] on effectiveness for [bilateral] salpingectomy, but it is most like a partial salpingectomy, which is highly effective, so there is reason to believe that it might be more effective,” she added. The downsides are that the procedure may take longer, it may impair ovarian blood supply, and long-term population-level data on outcomes are lacking.

ACOG said in a 2015 committee opinion that when counseling women, bilateral salpingectomy can be discussed and considered “a method that provides effective contraception,” but also stressed the need for randomized controlled trials to support any related reduction in ovarian cancer risk. That opinion (#620) was replaced in April 2019 by Committee Opinion #774, which addresses opportunistic salpingectomy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention, and which states that “the risks and benefits of salpingectomy should be discussed with patients who desire permanent sterilization.”

“[The Society of Gynecologic Oncology] is much, much more emphatic,” Dr. Espey said, citing a 2013 Clinical Practice Statement calling for discussion and consideration of risk-reducing salpingectomy in lieu of tubal ligation for women at average risk of ovarian cancer (after childbearing).

Dr. Espey also noted that during a recent grand rounds on sterilization, about 90% of participants said they were doing bilateral salpingectomy in the setting of vaginal delivery. “So I think we’re going to see this coming not just with C-section, but also with vaginal delivery.”

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Postpartum teenage mothers who use long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) reported using condoms half as often as their peers using non-LARC methods such as the birth control pill, vaginal ring, contraceptive patch, or injection, according to research in JAMA Pediatrics.

This highlights a need for education to lower the risk of sexually transmitted infections in this population.

©Florea Marius Catalin/iStockphoto.com

SOURCE: Kortsmit K et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1136; Hoopes AJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1133.

Postpartum teenage mothers who use long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) reported using condoms half as often as their peers using non-LARC methods such as the birth control pill, vaginal ring, contraceptive patch, or injection, according to research in JAMA Pediatrics.

This highlights a need for education to lower the risk of sexually transmitted infections in this population.

©Florea Marius Catalin/iStockphoto.com

SOURCE: Kortsmit K et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1136; Hoopes AJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1133.

Postpartum teenage mothers who use long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) reported using condoms half as often as their peers using non-LARC methods such as the birth control pill, vaginal ring, contraceptive patch, or injection, according to research in JAMA Pediatrics.

This highlights a need for education to lower the risk of sexually transmitted infections in this population.

©Florea Marius Catalin/iStockphoto.com

SOURCE: Kortsmit K et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1136; Hoopes AJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1133.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted on March 23, 2010. Controversies, complaints, and detractors have and continue to abound. But the ACA’s landmark women’s health gains are unmistakable. Contraceptive coverage, maternity coverage, Medicaid coverage of low-income women, coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, and gender-neutral premiums are now a part of the fabric of our society. For most.

Many physicians and patients—many lawmakers, too—do not remember the serious problems people had with their insurance companies before the ACA. Maternity coverage was usually a free-standing rider to an insurance policy, making it very expensive. Insurance plans did not have to, and often did not, cover contraceptives, and none did without copays or deductibles. Women were routinely denied coverage if they had ever had a cesarean delivery, had once been the victim of domestic violence, or had any one of many common conditions, like diabetes. The many exclusionary conditions are so common, in fact, that one study estimated that around 52 million adults in the United States (27% of those younger than age 65 years) have preexisting conditions that would potentially make them uninsurable without the ACA’s protections.¹

Before the ACA, it also was common for women with insurance policies to find their coverage rescinded, often with no explanation, even though they paid their premiums every month. And women with serious medical conditions often saw their coverage ended midway through their course of treatment. That placed their ObGyns in a terrible situation, too.

The insurance industry as a whole was running rough-shod over its customers, and making a lot of money by creatively and routinely denying coverage and payment for care. People were often insured, but not covered. The ACA halted many of these practices, and required insurers to meet high medical loss ratios, guaranteeing that 80% of the premiums’ for individual and small market insurers (and 85% for large insurers) are returned to patients in care payments or even in checks. In fact, nearly $4 billion in premiums have been rebated to insured individuals over the last 7 years under the ACA.²

The commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to women’s health and to our members’ ability to provide the best care has centered on preserving the critical gains of the ACA for women, improving them when we can, and making sure politicians don’t turn back the clock on women’s health. We have been busy.

In this article, we will look at what has happened to these landmark gains and promises of improved women’s health, specifically preexisting condition protections and contraceptive coverage, under a new Administration. What happens when good health care policy and political enmity collide?

Preexisting coverage protections

The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) defines a preexisting condition exclusionas a “limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for the coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before that date.” HIPPA prohibited employer-sponsored health plans from discriminating against individuals through denying them coverage or charging them more based on their or their family members’ health problems. The ACA expanded protections to prohibit the insurance practice of denying coverage altogether to an individual with a preexisting condition.³

Continue to: Under Congress...

Under Congress

Republicans held the majority in both chambers of the 115th Congress (2017–2018), and hoped to use their majority status to get an ACA repeal bill to the Republican President’s desk for speedy enactment. It was not easy, and they were not successful. Four major bills—the American Health Care Act, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Health Care Freedom Act, and the Graham-Cassidy Amendment—never made it over the finish line, with some not even making it to a vote. The Health Care Freedom Act was voted down in the Senate 51-49 when Senator John McCain came back from brain surgery to cast his famous thumbs-down vote.⁴ These bills all would have repealed or hobbled guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits of the ACA. Of all the legislative attempts to undermine the ACA, only the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law, repealing the ACA individual mandate.

Handling by the courts

The TCJA gave ACA opponents their opening in court. Twenty Republican state attorneys general and governors brought suit in February 2018 (Texas v Azar), arguing that because the ACA relies on the mandate, and the mandate has been repealed, the rest of the ACA also should be struck down. A federal district judge agreed, on December 15, 2018, declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional.⁵

That decision has been limited in its practical effect so far, and maybe it was not altogether unexpected. What was unexpected was that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to defend a federal law, in this case, the ACA. In June 2018, the DOJ declined to defend the individual mandate, as well as guaranteed issue, community rating, the ban on preexisting condition exclusions, and discrimination based on health status in the ACA. The DOJ at that time, however, did not agree with the plaintiffs that without the mandate the entire ACA should be struck down. It said, “There is no reason why the ACA’s particular expansion of Medicaid hinges on the individual mandate.” Later, after the December 15 ruling, the DOJ changed its position and agreed with the judge, in a two-sentence letter to the court, that the ACA should be stricken altogether—shortly after which 3 career DOJ attorneys resigned.⁶

A legal expert observed: “The DOJ’s decision not to defend the ACA breaks with the Department’s long-standing bipartisan commitment to defend federal laws if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. Decisions not to defend federal law are exceedingly rare. It seems even rarer to change the government’s position mid-appeal in such a high-profile lawsuit that risks disrupting the entire health care system and health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.”⁷

Regulatory tactics

What a policy maker cannot do by law, he or she can try to accomplish by regulation. The Administration is using 3 regulatory routes to undercut the ACA preexisting coverage protections and market stability.

Route 1: Short-Term Limited Duration (STLD) plans. These plans were created in the ACA to provide bridge coverage for up to 3 months for individuals in between health insurance plans. These plans do not have to comply with ACA patient protections, can deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and do not cover maternity care. In 2018, the Administration moved to allow these plans to be marketed broadly and renewed for up to 3 years. Because these plans provide less coverage and often come with high deductibles, they can be marketed with lower premiums, skimming off healthier younger people who do not expect to need much care, as well as lower-income families. This destabilizes the market and leaves people insured but not covered, exactly the situation before the ACA. Seven public health and medical groups sued to challenge the Administration’s STLD regulation; the lawsuit is presently pending.

Continue to: Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs)...

Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs). The Administration also has allowed the sale of AHPs, marketed to small employers and self-employed individuals. These plans also do not have to comply with ACA consumer protections. They often do not cover maternity care or other essential benefits, and can charge women higher premiums for the same insurance. This regulation, too, resulted in litigation and a federal judge enjoined the rule, but the case is now on appeal.

Route 3: ACA Section 1332 waivers. These waivers were created in the ACA to encourage state innovation to increase access to health coverage, under certain guardrails: states must ensure coverage is at least as comprehensive as the Essential Health Benefits; cost sharing protections must be at least as affordable as under the ACA; the plan must cover at least a comparable number of its residents; and the plan must not increase the federal deficit.

The Adminstration has come under fire for approving 1332 waiver plans that do not meet these guardrails, and allow insurers to exclude coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, as well as skirt other important ACA patient protections. In response, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, promised as recently as April 23, that the Administration will not allow any weakening of the ACA preexisting coverage guarantee.⁸ So far, however, we do not know what action this means, and not surprisingly, House Democrats, now in the majority, are waiting to see those assurances come true. Consistent polling shows that a large majority of Americans, across political parties, think preexisting coverage protections are very important.⁹

Already, the House passed HR986, to repeal the Administration’s changes to the 1332 waiver rules. The bill won only 4 Republican votes in the House and now waits a Senate vote.

The House is ready to vote on HR1010, which returns the STLD rules to the original ACA version. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will reduce the federal deficit by $8.9 billion over 10 years, in part by reestablishing a large risk pool. Lower ACA premiums would mean lower federal subsidies and small federal outlays.

Contraceptive coverage

Since 2012, the ACA has required non-grandfathered individual and group health plans to cover, with no copays or deductibles, women’s preventive services, as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HRSA asked the National Academy of Medicine (the Institute of Medicine [IOM] at the time) to develop these coverage guidelines based on clinical and scientific relevance. The IOM relied heavily on ACOG’s testimony and women’s health guidelines. The guidelines are updated every 5 years, based on extensive review by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, led by ACOG. By law and regulation, covered services include:

• well-woman visits
• contraceptive methods and counseling, including all methods approved for women by the FDA
• breast and cervical cancer screening
• counseling for sexually transmitted infections
• counseling and screening for HIV
• screening for gestational diabetes
• breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
• screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.

Continue to: The previous administration offered a narrow exemption...

The previous administration offered a narrow exemption—an accommodation—for churches, religious orders, and integrated auxiliaries (organizations with financial support primarily from churches). That accommodation was expanded in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, for closely held for-profit organizations that had religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. Under the accommodation, the entity’s insurer or third-party administrator was responsible for providing contraceptive services to the entity’s plan participants and beneficiaries.

In October 2017, the Trump administration acted to greatly expand the ability of any employer, college or university, individual, or insurer to opt out of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. You will read more about this later.

ACOG’s business case for contraception

Early in the Trump Administration, the White House released a statement saying, “Ensuring affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare is critical to improving women’s health and ensuring that it fits their priorities at any stage of life.”¹⁰ ACOG could not agree more, and we encouraged the President to accomplish this important goal by protecting the landmark women’s health gains of the ACA. Our call to the President and the US Congress was: “Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health.”

We made a business case for continued contraceptive coverage:

Contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and saves federal dollars.

• Approximately 45% of US pregnancies are unintended.¹¹
• No-copay coverage of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, now at a 30-year low.¹²
• When cost is not a barrier, women choose more effective forms of contraception, such as intrauterine devices and implants.¹³
• Unintended pregnancies cost approximately $12.5 billion in government expenditures in 2008.¹⁴
• Private health plans spend as much as $4.6 billion annually in costs related to unintended pregnancies.¹⁵

Contraception means healthier women and healthier families.

• Under the ACA, the uninsured rate among women ages 18 to 64 almost halved, decreasing from 19.3% to 10.8%.¹⁶
• More than 55 million women gained access to preventive services, including contraception, without a copay or a deductible.¹⁶
• Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care. Infants are at greater risk of birth defects, low birth weight, and poor mental and physical functioning in early childhood.¹⁷

Increased access to contraception helps families and improves economic security.

• Women saved $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs for contraception in 1 year.¹⁸
• Before the ACA, women were spending between 30% and 44% of their total out-of-pocket health costs just on birth control.¹⁹
• The ability to plan a pregnancy increases engagement of women in the workforce and improves economic stability for women and their families.²⁰

Administration expands religious exemptions to contraception coverage

Still, on October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration moved to curtail women’s access to and coverage of contraception with the Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act and Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act. In November 2018, the Administration published a revised rule, to take effect in January 2019.²¹ The rule immediately was taken to court by more than a dozen states and, 1 month later, was subject to an injunction by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, blocking the rules from going into effect in those states.

Continue to: The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation...

The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation to include “nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals that have nonreligious moral convictions opposing services covered by the contraceptive mandate.” The covered entities include²¹:

• churches, integrated auxiliaries, and religious orders with religious objections
• nonprofit organizations with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are not publicly traded, with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are publicly traded, with religious objections
• other nongovernmental employers with religious objections
• nongovernmental institutions of higher education with religious or moral objections
• individuals with religious or moral objections, with employer sponsored or individual market coverage, where the plan sponsor and/or issuer (as applicable) are willing to offer them a plan omitting contraceptive coverage to which they object
• issuers with religious or moral objections, to the extent they provide coverage to a plan sponsor or individual that is also exempt.

The Administration says women losing coverage can get contraceptives through Title X clinics or other government programs. Of course, many women losing coverage are employed, and earn above the low income (100% of the federal poverty level) eligibility requirement for Title X assistance. To address that, the Administration, through its proposed Title X regulations, broadens the definition of “low income” in that program to include women who lose their contraceptive coverage through the employer-base health insurance plan. This move further limits the ability of the Title X program to adequately care for already-qualified individuals.

The Administration’s rule also relied on major inaccuracies, which ACOG corrected.²² First, ACOG pointed out that, in fact, FDA-approved contraceptive methods are not abortifacients, countering the Administration’s contention that contraception is an abortifacient, and that contraceptives cause abortions or miscarriages. Every FDA-approved contraceptive acts before implantation, does not interfere with a pregnancy, and is not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus.²³ No credible research supports the false statement that birth control causes miscarriages.²⁴

Second, ACOG offered data proving that increased access to contraception is not associated with increased unsafe sexual behavior or increased sexual activity.^25,26 The facts are that:

• The percentage of teens who are having sex has declined significantly, by 14% for female and 22% for male teenagers, over the past 25 years.²⁷
• More women are using contraception the first time they have sex. Young women who do not use birth control at first sexual intercourse are twice as likely to become teen mothers.²⁸
• Increased access to and use of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in rates of adolescent pregnancy.²⁹
• School-based health centers that provide access to contraceptives are proven to increase use of contraceptives by already sexually active students, not to increase onset of sexual activity.^30,31

Third, ACOG made clear the benefits to women’s health from contraception. ACOG asserted: As with any medication, certain types of contraception may be contraindicated for patients with certain medical conditions, including high blood pressure, lupus, or a history of breast cancer.^32,33 For these and many other reasons, access to the full range of FDA-approved contraception, with no cost sharing or other barriers, is critical to women’s health. Regarding VTE, the risk among oral contraceptive users is very low. In fact, it is much lower than the risk of VTE during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period.³⁴

Continue to: Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk...

Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk of breast cancer among contraceptive users, particularly among those younger than age 40. For women older than 40, health care providers must consider both the risks of becoming pregnant at advanced reproductive age and the risks of continuing contraception use until menopause.³⁵

ACOG has 2 clear messages for politicians

ACOG has remained steadfast in its opposition to the Administration’s proposals to block access to contraception. ACOG expressed its strong opposition to political interference in medical care, saying “Every woman, regardless of her insurer, employer, state of residence, or income, should have affordable, seamless access to the right form of contraception for her, free from interference from her employer or politicians.”²²

ACOG’s voice has been joined by 5 other major medical associations—American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Osteopathic Association—together representing more than 560,000 physicians and medical students, in urging the Administration to immediately withdraw its proposals. This broad coalition unequivocally stated³⁶:

Contraception is an integral part of preventive care and a medical necessity for women during approximately 30 years of their lives. Access to no-copay contraception leads to healthier women and families. Changes to our healthcare system come with very high stakes – impacting tens of millions of our patients. Access to contraception allows women to achieve, lead and reach their full potentials, becoming key drivers of our Nation’s economic success. These rules would create a new standard whereby employers can deny their employees coverage, based on their own moral objections. This interferes in the personal health care decisions of our patients, and inappropriately inserts a patient’s employer into the physician-patient relationship. In addition, these rules open the door to moral exemptions for other essential health care, including vaccinations.

These are challenging days for women’s health policy and legislation federally, and in many states. ACOG has two clear messages for politicians: Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health, and stay out of our exam rooms.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted on March 23, 2010. Controversies, complaints, and detractors have and continue to abound. But the ACA’s landmark women’s health gains are unmistakable. Contraceptive coverage, maternity coverage, Medicaid coverage of low-income women, coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, and gender-neutral premiums are now a part of the fabric of our society. For most.

Many physicians and patients—many lawmakers, too—do not remember the serious problems people had with their insurance companies before the ACA. Maternity coverage was usually a free-standing rider to an insurance policy, making it very expensive. Insurance plans did not have to, and often did not, cover contraceptives, and none did without copays or deductibles. Women were routinely denied coverage if they had ever had a cesarean delivery, had once been the victim of domestic violence, or had any one of many common conditions, like diabetes. The many exclusionary conditions are so common, in fact, that one study estimated that around 52 million adults in the United States (27% of those younger than age 65 years) have preexisting conditions that would potentially make them uninsurable without the ACA’s protections.¹

Before the ACA, it also was common for women with insurance policies to find their coverage rescinded, often with no explanation, even though they paid their premiums every month. And women with serious medical conditions often saw their coverage ended midway through their course of treatment. That placed their ObGyns in a terrible situation, too.

The insurance industry as a whole was running rough-shod over its customers, and making a lot of money by creatively and routinely denying coverage and payment for care. People were often insured, but not covered. The ACA halted many of these practices, and required insurers to meet high medical loss ratios, guaranteeing that 80% of the premiums’ for individual and small market insurers (and 85% for large insurers) are returned to patients in care payments or even in checks. In fact, nearly $4 billion in premiums have been rebated to insured individuals over the last 7 years under the ACA.²

The commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to women’s health and to our members’ ability to provide the best care has centered on preserving the critical gains of the ACA for women, improving them when we can, and making sure politicians don’t turn back the clock on women’s health. We have been busy.

In this article, we will look at what has happened to these landmark gains and promises of improved women’s health, specifically preexisting condition protections and contraceptive coverage, under a new Administration. What happens when good health care policy and political enmity collide?

Preexisting coverage protections

The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) defines a preexisting condition exclusionas a “limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for the coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before that date.” HIPPA prohibited employer-sponsored health plans from discriminating against individuals through denying them coverage or charging them more based on their or their family members’ health problems. The ACA expanded protections to prohibit the insurance practice of denying coverage altogether to an individual with a preexisting condition.³

Continue to: Under Congress...

Under Congress

Republicans held the majority in both chambers of the 115th Congress (2017–2018), and hoped to use their majority status to get an ACA repeal bill to the Republican President’s desk for speedy enactment. It was not easy, and they were not successful. Four major bills—the American Health Care Act, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Health Care Freedom Act, and the Graham-Cassidy Amendment—never made it over the finish line, with some not even making it to a vote. The Health Care Freedom Act was voted down in the Senate 51-49 when Senator John McCain came back from brain surgery to cast his famous thumbs-down vote.⁴ These bills all would have repealed or hobbled guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits of the ACA. Of all the legislative attempts to undermine the ACA, only the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law, repealing the ACA individual mandate.

Handling by the courts

The TCJA gave ACA opponents their opening in court. Twenty Republican state attorneys general and governors brought suit in February 2018 (Texas v Azar), arguing that because the ACA relies on the mandate, and the mandate has been repealed, the rest of the ACA also should be struck down. A federal district judge agreed, on December 15, 2018, declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional.⁵

That decision has been limited in its practical effect so far, and maybe it was not altogether unexpected. What was unexpected was that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to defend a federal law, in this case, the ACA. In June 2018, the DOJ declined to defend the individual mandate, as well as guaranteed issue, community rating, the ban on preexisting condition exclusions, and discrimination based on health status in the ACA. The DOJ at that time, however, did not agree with the plaintiffs that without the mandate the entire ACA should be struck down. It said, “There is no reason why the ACA’s particular expansion of Medicaid hinges on the individual mandate.” Later, after the December 15 ruling, the DOJ changed its position and agreed with the judge, in a two-sentence letter to the court, that the ACA should be stricken altogether—shortly after which 3 career DOJ attorneys resigned.⁶

A legal expert observed: “The DOJ’s decision not to defend the ACA breaks with the Department’s long-standing bipartisan commitment to defend federal laws if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. Decisions not to defend federal law are exceedingly rare. It seems even rarer to change the government’s position mid-appeal in such a high-profile lawsuit that risks disrupting the entire health care system and health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.”⁷

Regulatory tactics

What a policy maker cannot do by law, he or she can try to accomplish by regulation. The Administration is using 3 regulatory routes to undercut the ACA preexisting coverage protections and market stability.

Route 1: Short-Term Limited Duration (STLD) plans. These plans were created in the ACA to provide bridge coverage for up to 3 months for individuals in between health insurance plans. These plans do not have to comply with ACA patient protections, can deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and do not cover maternity care. In 2018, the Administration moved to allow these plans to be marketed broadly and renewed for up to 3 years. Because these plans provide less coverage and often come with high deductibles, they can be marketed with lower premiums, skimming off healthier younger people who do not expect to need much care, as well as lower-income families. This destabilizes the market and leaves people insured but not covered, exactly the situation before the ACA. Seven public health and medical groups sued to challenge the Administration’s STLD regulation; the lawsuit is presently pending.

Continue to: Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs)...

Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs). The Administration also has allowed the sale of AHPs, marketed to small employers and self-employed individuals. These plans also do not have to comply with ACA consumer protections. They often do not cover maternity care or other essential benefits, and can charge women higher premiums for the same insurance. This regulation, too, resulted in litigation and a federal judge enjoined the rule, but the case is now on appeal.

Route 3: ACA Section 1332 waivers. These waivers were created in the ACA to encourage state innovation to increase access to health coverage, under certain guardrails: states must ensure coverage is at least as comprehensive as the Essential Health Benefits; cost sharing protections must be at least as affordable as under the ACA; the plan must cover at least a comparable number of its residents; and the plan must not increase the federal deficit.

The Adminstration has come under fire for approving 1332 waiver plans that do not meet these guardrails, and allow insurers to exclude coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, as well as skirt other important ACA patient protections. In response, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, promised as recently as April 23, that the Administration will not allow any weakening of the ACA preexisting coverage guarantee.⁸ So far, however, we do not know what action this means, and not surprisingly, House Democrats, now in the majority, are waiting to see those assurances come true. Consistent polling shows that a large majority of Americans, across political parties, think preexisting coverage protections are very important.⁹

Already, the House passed HR986, to repeal the Administration’s changes to the 1332 waiver rules. The bill won only 4 Republican votes in the House and now waits a Senate vote.

The House is ready to vote on HR1010, which returns the STLD rules to the original ACA version. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will reduce the federal deficit by $8.9 billion over 10 years, in part by reestablishing a large risk pool. Lower ACA premiums would mean lower federal subsidies and small federal outlays.

Contraceptive coverage

Since 2012, the ACA has required non-grandfathered individual and group health plans to cover, with no copays or deductibles, women’s preventive services, as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HRSA asked the National Academy of Medicine (the Institute of Medicine [IOM] at the time) to develop these coverage guidelines based on clinical and scientific relevance. The IOM relied heavily on ACOG’s testimony and women’s health guidelines. The guidelines are updated every 5 years, based on extensive review by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, led by ACOG. By law and regulation, covered services include:

• well-woman visits
• contraceptive methods and counseling, including all methods approved for women by the FDA
• breast and cervical cancer screening
• counseling for sexually transmitted infections
• counseling and screening for HIV
• screening for gestational diabetes
• breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
• screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.

Continue to: The previous administration offered a narrow exemption...

The previous administration offered a narrow exemption—an accommodation—for churches, religious orders, and integrated auxiliaries (organizations with financial support primarily from churches). That accommodation was expanded in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, for closely held for-profit organizations that had religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. Under the accommodation, the entity’s insurer or third-party administrator was responsible for providing contraceptive services to the entity’s plan participants and beneficiaries.

In October 2017, the Trump administration acted to greatly expand the ability of any employer, college or university, individual, or insurer to opt out of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. You will read more about this later.

ACOG’s business case for contraception

Early in the Trump Administration, the White House released a statement saying, “Ensuring affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare is critical to improving women’s health and ensuring that it fits their priorities at any stage of life.”¹⁰ ACOG could not agree more, and we encouraged the President to accomplish this important goal by protecting the landmark women’s health gains of the ACA. Our call to the President and the US Congress was: “Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health.”

We made a business case for continued contraceptive coverage:

Contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and saves federal dollars.

• Approximately 45% of US pregnancies are unintended.¹¹
• No-copay coverage of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, now at a 30-year low.¹²
• When cost is not a barrier, women choose more effective forms of contraception, such as intrauterine devices and implants.¹³
• Unintended pregnancies cost approximately $12.5 billion in government expenditures in 2008.¹⁴
• Private health plans spend as much as $4.6 billion annually in costs related to unintended pregnancies.¹⁵

Contraception means healthier women and healthier families.

• Under the ACA, the uninsured rate among women ages 18 to 64 almost halved, decreasing from 19.3% to 10.8%.¹⁶
• More than 55 million women gained access to preventive services, including contraception, without a copay or a deductible.¹⁶
• Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care. Infants are at greater risk of birth defects, low birth weight, and poor mental and physical functioning in early childhood.¹⁷

Increased access to contraception helps families and improves economic security.

• Women saved $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs for contraception in 1 year.¹⁸
• Before the ACA, women were spending between 30% and 44% of their total out-of-pocket health costs just on birth control.¹⁹
• The ability to plan a pregnancy increases engagement of women in the workforce and improves economic stability for women and their families.²⁰

Administration expands religious exemptions to contraception coverage

Still, on October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration moved to curtail women’s access to and coverage of contraception with the Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act and Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act. In November 2018, the Administration published a revised rule, to take effect in January 2019.²¹ The rule immediately was taken to court by more than a dozen states and, 1 month later, was subject to an injunction by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, blocking the rules from going into effect in those states.

Continue to: The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation...

The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation to include “nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals that have nonreligious moral convictions opposing services covered by the contraceptive mandate.” The covered entities include²¹:

• churches, integrated auxiliaries, and religious orders with religious objections
• nonprofit organizations with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are not publicly traded, with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are publicly traded, with religious objections
• other nongovernmental employers with religious objections
• nongovernmental institutions of higher education with religious or moral objections
• individuals with religious or moral objections, with employer sponsored or individual market coverage, where the plan sponsor and/or issuer (as applicable) are willing to offer them a plan omitting contraceptive coverage to which they object
• issuers with religious or moral objections, to the extent they provide coverage to a plan sponsor or individual that is also exempt.

The Administration says women losing coverage can get contraceptives through Title X clinics or other government programs. Of course, many women losing coverage are employed, and earn above the low income (100% of the federal poverty level) eligibility requirement for Title X assistance. To address that, the Administration, through its proposed Title X regulations, broadens the definition of “low income” in that program to include women who lose their contraceptive coverage through the employer-base health insurance plan. This move further limits the ability of the Title X program to adequately care for already-qualified individuals.

The Administration’s rule also relied on major inaccuracies, which ACOG corrected.²² First, ACOG pointed out that, in fact, FDA-approved contraceptive methods are not abortifacients, countering the Administration’s contention that contraception is an abortifacient, and that contraceptives cause abortions or miscarriages. Every FDA-approved contraceptive acts before implantation, does not interfere with a pregnancy, and is not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus.²³ No credible research supports the false statement that birth control causes miscarriages.²⁴

Second, ACOG offered data proving that increased access to contraception is not associated with increased unsafe sexual behavior or increased sexual activity.^25,26 The facts are that:

• The percentage of teens who are having sex has declined significantly, by 14% for female and 22% for male teenagers, over the past 25 years.²⁷
• More women are using contraception the first time they have sex. Young women who do not use birth control at first sexual intercourse are twice as likely to become teen mothers.²⁸
• Increased access to and use of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in rates of adolescent pregnancy.²⁹
• School-based health centers that provide access to contraceptives are proven to increase use of contraceptives by already sexually active students, not to increase onset of sexual activity.^30,31

Third, ACOG made clear the benefits to women’s health from contraception. ACOG asserted: As with any medication, certain types of contraception may be contraindicated for patients with certain medical conditions, including high blood pressure, lupus, or a history of breast cancer.^32,33 For these and many other reasons, access to the full range of FDA-approved contraception, with no cost sharing or other barriers, is critical to women’s health. Regarding VTE, the risk among oral contraceptive users is very low. In fact, it is much lower than the risk of VTE during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period.³⁴

Continue to: Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk...

Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk of breast cancer among contraceptive users, particularly among those younger than age 40. For women older than 40, health care providers must consider both the risks of becoming pregnant at advanced reproductive age and the risks of continuing contraception use until menopause.³⁵

ACOG has 2 clear messages for politicians

ACOG has remained steadfast in its opposition to the Administration’s proposals to block access to contraception. ACOG expressed its strong opposition to political interference in medical care, saying “Every woman, regardless of her insurer, employer, state of residence, or income, should have affordable, seamless access to the right form of contraception for her, free from interference from her employer or politicians.”²²

ACOG’s voice has been joined by 5 other major medical associations—American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Osteopathic Association—together representing more than 560,000 physicians and medical students, in urging the Administration to immediately withdraw its proposals. This broad coalition unequivocally stated³⁶:

Contraception is an integral part of preventive care and a medical necessity for women during approximately 30 years of their lives. Access to no-copay contraception leads to healthier women and families. Changes to our healthcare system come with very high stakes – impacting tens of millions of our patients. Access to contraception allows women to achieve, lead and reach their full potentials, becoming key drivers of our Nation’s economic success. These rules would create a new standard whereby employers can deny their employees coverage, based on their own moral objections. This interferes in the personal health care decisions of our patients, and inappropriately inserts a patient’s employer into the physician-patient relationship. In addition, these rules open the door to moral exemptions for other essential health care, including vaccinations.

These are challenging days for women’s health policy and legislation federally, and in many states. ACOG has two clear messages for politicians: Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health, and stay out of our exam rooms.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted on March 23, 2010. Controversies, complaints, and detractors have and continue to abound. But the ACA’s landmark women’s health gains are unmistakable. Contraceptive coverage, maternity coverage, Medicaid coverage of low-income women, coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, and gender-neutral premiums are now a part of the fabric of our society. For most.

Many physicians and patients—many lawmakers, too—do not remember the serious problems people had with their insurance companies before the ACA. Maternity coverage was usually a free-standing rider to an insurance policy, making it very expensive. Insurance plans did not have to, and often did not, cover contraceptives, and none did without copays or deductibles. Women were routinely denied coverage if they had ever had a cesarean delivery, had once been the victim of domestic violence, or had any one of many common conditions, like diabetes. The many exclusionary conditions are so common, in fact, that one study estimated that around 52 million adults in the United States (27% of those younger than age 65 years) have preexisting conditions that would potentially make them uninsurable without the ACA’s protections.¹

Before the ACA, it also was common for women with insurance policies to find their coverage rescinded, often with no explanation, even though they paid their premiums every month. And women with serious medical conditions often saw their coverage ended midway through their course of treatment. That placed their ObGyns in a terrible situation, too.

The insurance industry as a whole was running rough-shod over its customers, and making a lot of money by creatively and routinely denying coverage and payment for care. People were often insured, but not covered. The ACA halted many of these practices, and required insurers to meet high medical loss ratios, guaranteeing that 80% of the premiums’ for individual and small market insurers (and 85% for large insurers) are returned to patients in care payments or even in checks. In fact, nearly $4 billion in premiums have been rebated to insured individuals over the last 7 years under the ACA.²

The commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to women’s health and to our members’ ability to provide the best care has centered on preserving the critical gains of the ACA for women, improving them when we can, and making sure politicians don’t turn back the clock on women’s health. We have been busy.

In this article, we will look at what has happened to these landmark gains and promises of improved women’s health, specifically preexisting condition protections and contraceptive coverage, under a new Administration. What happens when good health care policy and political enmity collide?

Preexisting coverage protections

The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) defines a preexisting condition exclusionas a “limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for the coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before that date.” HIPPA prohibited employer-sponsored health plans from discriminating against individuals through denying them coverage or charging them more based on their or their family members’ health problems. The ACA expanded protections to prohibit the insurance practice of denying coverage altogether to an individual with a preexisting condition.³

Continue to: Under Congress...

Under Congress

Republicans held the majority in both chambers of the 115th Congress (2017–2018), and hoped to use their majority status to get an ACA repeal bill to the Republican President’s desk for speedy enactment. It was not easy, and they were not successful. Four major bills—the American Health Care Act, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Health Care Freedom Act, and the Graham-Cassidy Amendment—never made it over the finish line, with some not even making it to a vote. The Health Care Freedom Act was voted down in the Senate 51-49 when Senator John McCain came back from brain surgery to cast his famous thumbs-down vote.⁴ These bills all would have repealed or hobbled guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits of the ACA. Of all the legislative attempts to undermine the ACA, only the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law, repealing the ACA individual mandate.

Handling by the courts

The TCJA gave ACA opponents their opening in court. Twenty Republican state attorneys general and governors brought suit in February 2018 (Texas v Azar), arguing that because the ACA relies on the mandate, and the mandate has been repealed, the rest of the ACA also should be struck down. A federal district judge agreed, on December 15, 2018, declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional.⁵

That decision has been limited in its practical effect so far, and maybe it was not altogether unexpected. What was unexpected was that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to defend a federal law, in this case, the ACA. In June 2018, the DOJ declined to defend the individual mandate, as well as guaranteed issue, community rating, the ban on preexisting condition exclusions, and discrimination based on health status in the ACA. The DOJ at that time, however, did not agree with the plaintiffs that without the mandate the entire ACA should be struck down. It said, “There is no reason why the ACA’s particular expansion of Medicaid hinges on the individual mandate.” Later, after the December 15 ruling, the DOJ changed its position and agreed with the judge, in a two-sentence letter to the court, that the ACA should be stricken altogether—shortly after which 3 career DOJ attorneys resigned.⁶

A legal expert observed: “The DOJ’s decision not to defend the ACA breaks with the Department’s long-standing bipartisan commitment to defend federal laws if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. Decisions not to defend federal law are exceedingly rare. It seems even rarer to change the government’s position mid-appeal in such a high-profile lawsuit that risks disrupting the entire health care system and health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.”⁷

Regulatory tactics

What a policy maker cannot do by law, he or she can try to accomplish by regulation. The Administration is using 3 regulatory routes to undercut the ACA preexisting coverage protections and market stability.

Route 1: Short-Term Limited Duration (STLD) plans. These plans were created in the ACA to provide bridge coverage for up to 3 months for individuals in between health insurance plans. These plans do not have to comply with ACA patient protections, can deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and do not cover maternity care. In 2018, the Administration moved to allow these plans to be marketed broadly and renewed for up to 3 years. Because these plans provide less coverage and often come with high deductibles, they can be marketed with lower premiums, skimming off healthier younger people who do not expect to need much care, as well as lower-income families. This destabilizes the market and leaves people insured but not covered, exactly the situation before the ACA. Seven public health and medical groups sued to challenge the Administration’s STLD regulation; the lawsuit is presently pending.

Continue to: Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs)...

Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs). The Administration also has allowed the sale of AHPs, marketed to small employers and self-employed individuals. These plans also do not have to comply with ACA consumer protections. They often do not cover maternity care or other essential benefits, and can charge women higher premiums for the same insurance. This regulation, too, resulted in litigation and a federal judge enjoined the rule, but the case is now on appeal.

Route 3: ACA Section 1332 waivers. These waivers were created in the ACA to encourage state innovation to increase access to health coverage, under certain guardrails: states must ensure coverage is at least as comprehensive as the Essential Health Benefits; cost sharing protections must be at least as affordable as under the ACA; the plan must cover at least a comparable number of its residents; and the plan must not increase the federal deficit.

The Adminstration has come under fire for approving 1332 waiver plans that do not meet these guardrails, and allow insurers to exclude coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, as well as skirt other important ACA patient protections. In response, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, promised as recently as April 23, that the Administration will not allow any weakening of the ACA preexisting coverage guarantee.⁸ So far, however, we do not know what action this means, and not surprisingly, House Democrats, now in the majority, are waiting to see those assurances come true. Consistent polling shows that a large majority of Americans, across political parties, think preexisting coverage protections are very important.⁹

Already, the House passed HR986, to repeal the Administration’s changes to the 1332 waiver rules. The bill won only 4 Republican votes in the House and now waits a Senate vote.

The House is ready to vote on HR1010, which returns the STLD rules to the original ACA version. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will reduce the federal deficit by $8.9 billion over 10 years, in part by reestablishing a large risk pool. Lower ACA premiums would mean lower federal subsidies and small federal outlays.

Contraceptive coverage

Since 2012, the ACA has required non-grandfathered individual and group health plans to cover, with no copays or deductibles, women’s preventive services, as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HRSA asked the National Academy of Medicine (the Institute of Medicine [IOM] at the time) to develop these coverage guidelines based on clinical and scientific relevance. The IOM relied heavily on ACOG’s testimony and women’s health guidelines. The guidelines are updated every 5 years, based on extensive review by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, led by ACOG. By law and regulation, covered services include:

• well-woman visits
• contraceptive methods and counseling, including all methods approved for women by the FDA
• breast and cervical cancer screening
• counseling for sexually transmitted infections
• counseling and screening for HIV
• screening for gestational diabetes
• breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
• screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.

Continue to: The previous administration offered a narrow exemption...

The previous administration offered a narrow exemption—an accommodation—for churches, religious orders, and integrated auxiliaries (organizations with financial support primarily from churches). That accommodation was expanded in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, for closely held for-profit organizations that had religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. Under the accommodation, the entity’s insurer or third-party administrator was responsible for providing contraceptive services to the entity’s plan participants and beneficiaries.

In October 2017, the Trump administration acted to greatly expand the ability of any employer, college or university, individual, or insurer to opt out of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. You will read more about this later.

ACOG’s business case for contraception

Early in the Trump Administration, the White House released a statement saying, “Ensuring affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare is critical to improving women’s health and ensuring that it fits their priorities at any stage of life.”¹⁰ ACOG could not agree more, and we encouraged the President to accomplish this important goal by protecting the landmark women’s health gains of the ACA. Our call to the President and the US Congress was: “Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health.”

We made a business case for continued contraceptive coverage:

Contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and saves federal dollars.

• Approximately 45% of US pregnancies are unintended.¹¹
• No-copay coverage of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, now at a 30-year low.¹²
• When cost is not a barrier, women choose more effective forms of contraception, such as intrauterine devices and implants.¹³
• Unintended pregnancies cost approximately $12.5 billion in government expenditures in 2008.¹⁴
• Private health plans spend as much as $4.6 billion annually in costs related to unintended pregnancies.¹⁵

Contraception means healthier women and healthier families.

• Under the ACA, the uninsured rate among women ages 18 to 64 almost halved, decreasing from 19.3% to 10.8%.¹⁶
• More than 55 million women gained access to preventive services, including contraception, without a copay or a deductible.¹⁶
• Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care. Infants are at greater risk of birth defects, low birth weight, and poor mental and physical functioning in early childhood.¹⁷

Increased access to contraception helps families and improves economic security.

• Women saved $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs for contraception in 1 year.¹⁸
• Before the ACA, women were spending between 30% and 44% of their total out-of-pocket health costs just on birth control.¹⁹
• The ability to plan a pregnancy increases engagement of women in the workforce and improves economic stability for women and their families.²⁰

Administration expands religious exemptions to contraception coverage

Still, on October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration moved to curtail women’s access to and coverage of contraception with the Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act and Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act. In November 2018, the Administration published a revised rule, to take effect in January 2019.²¹ The rule immediately was taken to court by more than a dozen states and, 1 month later, was subject to an injunction by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, blocking the rules from going into effect in those states.

Continue to: The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation...

The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation to include “nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals that have nonreligious moral convictions opposing services covered by the contraceptive mandate.” The covered entities include²¹:

• churches, integrated auxiliaries, and religious orders with religious objections
• nonprofit organizations with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are not publicly traded, with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are publicly traded, with religious objections
• other nongovernmental employers with religious objections
• nongovernmental institutions of higher education with religious or moral objections
• individuals with religious or moral objections, with employer sponsored or individual market coverage, where the plan sponsor and/or issuer (as applicable) are willing to offer them a plan omitting contraceptive coverage to which they object
• issuers with religious or moral objections, to the extent they provide coverage to a plan sponsor or individual that is also exempt.

The Administration says women losing coverage can get contraceptives through Title X clinics or other government programs. Of course, many women losing coverage are employed, and earn above the low income (100% of the federal poverty level) eligibility requirement for Title X assistance. To address that, the Administration, through its proposed Title X regulations, broadens the definition of “low income” in that program to include women who lose their contraceptive coverage through the employer-base health insurance plan. This move further limits the ability of the Title X program to adequately care for already-qualified individuals.

The Administration’s rule also relied on major inaccuracies, which ACOG corrected.²² First, ACOG pointed out that, in fact, FDA-approved contraceptive methods are not abortifacients, countering the Administration’s contention that contraception is an abortifacient, and that contraceptives cause abortions or miscarriages. Every FDA-approved contraceptive acts before implantation, does not interfere with a pregnancy, and is not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus.²³ No credible research supports the false statement that birth control causes miscarriages.²⁴

Second, ACOG offered data proving that increased access to contraception is not associated with increased unsafe sexual behavior or increased sexual activity.^25,26 The facts are that:

• The percentage of teens who are having sex has declined significantly, by 14% for female and 22% for male teenagers, over the past 25 years.²⁷
• More women are using contraception the first time they have sex. Young women who do not use birth control at first sexual intercourse are twice as likely to become teen mothers.²⁸
• Increased access to and use of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in rates of adolescent pregnancy.²⁹
• School-based health centers that provide access to contraceptives are proven to increase use of contraceptives by already sexually active students, not to increase onset of sexual activity.^30,31

Third, ACOG made clear the benefits to women’s health from contraception. ACOG asserted: As with any medication, certain types of contraception may be contraindicated for patients with certain medical conditions, including high blood pressure, lupus, or a history of breast cancer.^32,33 For these and many other reasons, access to the full range of FDA-approved contraception, with no cost sharing or other barriers, is critical to women’s health. Regarding VTE, the risk among oral contraceptive users is very low. In fact, it is much lower than the risk of VTE during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period.³⁴

Continue to: Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk...

Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk of breast cancer among contraceptive users, particularly among those younger than age 40. For women older than 40, health care providers must consider both the risks of becoming pregnant at advanced reproductive age and the risks of continuing contraception use until menopause.³⁵

ACOG has 2 clear messages for politicians

ACOG has remained steadfast in its opposition to the Administration’s proposals to block access to contraception. ACOG expressed its strong opposition to political interference in medical care, saying “Every woman, regardless of her insurer, employer, state of residence, or income, should have affordable, seamless access to the right form of contraception for her, free from interference from her employer or politicians.”²²

ACOG’s voice has been joined by 5 other major medical associations—American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Osteopathic Association—together representing more than 560,000 physicians and medical students, in urging the Administration to immediately withdraw its proposals. This broad coalition unequivocally stated³⁶:

Contraception is an integral part of preventive care and a medical necessity for women during approximately 30 years of their lives. Access to no-copay contraception leads to healthier women and families. Changes to our healthcare system come with very high stakes – impacting tens of millions of our patients. Access to contraception allows women to achieve, lead and reach their full potentials, becoming key drivers of our Nation’s economic success. These rules would create a new standard whereby employers can deny their employees coverage, based on their own moral objections. This interferes in the personal health care decisions of our patients, and inappropriately inserts a patient’s employer into the physician-patient relationship. In addition, these rules open the door to moral exemptions for other essential health care, including vaccinations.

These are challenging days for women’s health policy and legislation federally, and in many states. ACOG has two clear messages for politicians: Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health, and stay out of our exam rooms.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There’s some good news on the contraception and reproductive health front, according to a recent update from Eve Espey, MD.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, including among adolescents and young women, is declining, and the U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest level since Roe v. Wade, she said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A 2016 article based on 2008-2011 data showed that after hovering around 50% for nearly 3 decades, the unintended pregnancy rate dropped “for the first time in a very long period of time,” said Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics & gynecology, division of family planning at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (N Engl J Med. 2016; 374[9]:843-52).

“It doesn’t look that impressive – it basically went down to 45%, but considering the scope and the number of women who are affected by unplanned pregnancy, this is actually a huge public health achievement,” she said. “And I think ... in the next cycles of the [Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s] National Survey of Family Growth ... we’ll hopefully continue to see this and potentially more [decline].”

As for abortion rates, an increase occurred following Roe v. Wade, but rates are now down to pre-Roe levels.

“One of the things that we know about the abortion rate is that the most important determinant ... is access to contraceptives,” Dr. Espey said, noting that both the abortion and unintended pregnancy rate declines are attributable to better and more consistent use of contraceptives, increased abstinence as teens are waiting longer to have sex, and the “meteoric rise in long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use.”

Importantly, while improvements in public health have traditionally only impacted upper-class white women, a reduction is finally occurring in disparities with women of color, but those disparities still remain,” she added. “Just like we’re focusing so much on this relative to maternal mortality, the same kinds of disparities occur in access to reproductive health.”

Dr. Espey also provided updates on other aspects of contraception.
 

IUDs and other LARC methods

The use of LARCs increased from 2% of contraceptive types used by reproductive-aged women in 2002 to 12% in 2012. The majority of that change was in IUD use, with a small increase in implant use, she said, noting that the latest data from the 2015-2017 cycle of the National Survey of Family Growth shows that the rate is now up to 16%.

“The rise has been nothing that I ever imagined that I would see, certainly in my professional career,” she said.

The huge impact of LARCs on the unintended pregnancy rate is attributable to consistent effectiveness over time, compared with an increasing failure rate over time with short-acting contraceptive methods, she said, explaining that while the failure rate with oral contraceptives is about 8%-9% over the first 3 years, it increases to 53% at 8 years.

It’s a matter of looking at both “typical use” effectiveness and continuation rates: LARCs have continuation rates of about 75%-85%; Depot-Provera, for example, has a 25%-30% continuation rate at 1 year, she noted.

Dr. Espey also attributed the gains to improved access via the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which has been shown in numerous studies to have improved access and consistency of contraceptive use, but which is “currently being chipped away,” and to the federal Title X program that covers family planning care for low income women, including undocumented women.

“These two programs have made a huge impact for us, and I hope that we as ob.gyns. will continue to support them,” she said.
 

Reproductive justice

Despite their effectiveness, it is important to remember that LARC methods are not right for everyone, Dr. Espey said.

“It’s not all about effectiveness. Women have many reasons for accessing contraception, and our job is not to reduce unintended pregnancy. ... The idea really is that we empower women. ... We should really give choices and trust women to make the best choices for them,” she explained.

Barriers to IUD removal also should be eliminated, she noted, explaining that a woman who wants her IUD removed a month after insertion should have that option.

She said she has “changed her language,” from asking why a woman wants an $800 IUD removed after a month to asking whether she would like to hear about ways to make it better or if she is “just ready to have it removed.”

For those not interested in a discussion about birth control, she suggested providing information about the bedsider.org site.

“This is a great resource for patients,” she said, noting that it is available in both English and Spanish.
 

U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria and Selected Practice Recommendations on contraceptive use

The MEC contraceptive guidance, a regularly updated, evidence-based project of the CDC, provides “best practices” information on candidate selection, or the “who” of contraceptive selection (who is a candidate for a particular method), Dr. Espy said, noting that it’s a “handy resource” for in-office use.

The SPR is more of a “how-to” guide that provides specifics on contraceptive use, such as when a woman can rely on the pill for contraception after she starts taking it, or how a woman should be followed after IUD placement, she said.

A free CDC app provides access to both.
 

Emergency contraception

The best overall emergency contraceptive method is the copper IUD, but often it is less accessible than oral methods, of which ulipristal acetate (ella), is the best choice, Dr. Espy said.

“Ulipristal is kind of a best-kept secret. It’s a selective estrogen-receptor modulator – it actually works better and longer than Plan B (levonorgestrel). What’s great about Plan B is that you can get it over the counter, but ulipristal delays ovulation longer,” she explained.
 

Contraceptives and obesity

Oral contraceptive efficacy is “so much more about adherence,” than about weight, she said.

With respect to the contraceptive patch, limited evidence suggests that obesity may reduce effectiveness, but “it’s still way better than barrier methods,” and for the contraceptive ring, no evidence suggests that obesity affects efficacy, she said.

For emergency contraception, evidence suggests that ulipristal is more effective than Plan B in women with high body mass index.
 

OTC contraceptive access

Pharmacy and OTC access are a good idea, Dr. Espy said.

“ACOG now supports both, which is great, and there are now a number of states where women can access contraception through the pharmacy. There are a lot of barriers there as well, and really the answer is OTC access,” she said. “There is a pill right now that is seeking [Food and Drug Administration] approval; it will be a progestin-only pill – the first one to be available over the counter, so I think this is something that we’ll see in the next 5-10 years.”
 

Additional future directions

One technology in development is a longer-acting injectable, such as a 6- or 9-month Depot-type shot.

Biodegradable implants also are in development. “What a cool idea – it just disappears in your arm, no need to remove it,” Dr. Espey said, adding that nonsurgical permanent sterilization is another possible advance, which would be “a holy grail.”

As for male contraception?

“I’ve been saying for about 25 years that in 5 years we’ll have a male contraceptive, so I’m not going to say it anymore with any kind of time frame, but it’s possible,” she said.

Dr. Espey reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There’s some good news on the contraception and reproductive health front, according to a recent update from Eve Espey, MD.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, including among adolescents and young women, is declining, and the U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest level since Roe v. Wade, she said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A 2016 article based on 2008-2011 data showed that after hovering around 50% for nearly 3 decades, the unintended pregnancy rate dropped “for the first time in a very long period of time,” said Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics & gynecology, division of family planning at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (N Engl J Med. 2016; 374[9]:843-52).

“It doesn’t look that impressive – it basically went down to 45%, but considering the scope and the number of women who are affected by unplanned pregnancy, this is actually a huge public health achievement,” she said. “And I think ... in the next cycles of the [Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s] National Survey of Family Growth ... we’ll hopefully continue to see this and potentially more [decline].”

As for abortion rates, an increase occurred following Roe v. Wade, but rates are now down to pre-Roe levels.

“One of the things that we know about the abortion rate is that the most important determinant ... is access to contraceptives,” Dr. Espey said, noting that both the abortion and unintended pregnancy rate declines are attributable to better and more consistent use of contraceptives, increased abstinence as teens are waiting longer to have sex, and the “meteoric rise in long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use.”

Importantly, while improvements in public health have traditionally only impacted upper-class white women, a reduction is finally occurring in disparities with women of color, but those disparities still remain,” she added. “Just like we’re focusing so much on this relative to maternal mortality, the same kinds of disparities occur in access to reproductive health.”

Dr. Espey also provided updates on other aspects of contraception.
 

IUDs and other LARC methods

The use of LARCs increased from 2% of contraceptive types used by reproductive-aged women in 2002 to 12% in 2012. The majority of that change was in IUD use, with a small increase in implant use, she said, noting that the latest data from the 2015-2017 cycle of the National Survey of Family Growth shows that the rate is now up to 16%.

“The rise has been nothing that I ever imagined that I would see, certainly in my professional career,” she said.

The huge impact of LARCs on the unintended pregnancy rate is attributable to consistent effectiveness over time, compared with an increasing failure rate over time with short-acting contraceptive methods, she said, explaining that while the failure rate with oral contraceptives is about 8%-9% over the first 3 years, it increases to 53% at 8 years.

It’s a matter of looking at both “typical use” effectiveness and continuation rates: LARCs have continuation rates of about 75%-85%; Depot-Provera, for example, has a 25%-30% continuation rate at 1 year, she noted.

Dr. Espey also attributed the gains to improved access via the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which has been shown in numerous studies to have improved access and consistency of contraceptive use, but which is “currently being chipped away,” and to the federal Title X program that covers family planning care for low income women, including undocumented women.

“These two programs have made a huge impact for us, and I hope that we as ob.gyns. will continue to support them,” she said.
 

Reproductive justice

Despite their effectiveness, it is important to remember that LARC methods are not right for everyone, Dr. Espey said.

“It’s not all about effectiveness. Women have many reasons for accessing contraception, and our job is not to reduce unintended pregnancy. ... The idea really is that we empower women. ... We should really give choices and trust women to make the best choices for them,” she explained.

Barriers to IUD removal also should be eliminated, she noted, explaining that a woman who wants her IUD removed a month after insertion should have that option.

She said she has “changed her language,” from asking why a woman wants an $800 IUD removed after a month to asking whether she would like to hear about ways to make it better or if she is “just ready to have it removed.”

For those not interested in a discussion about birth control, she suggested providing information about the bedsider.org site.

“This is a great resource for patients,” she said, noting that it is available in both English and Spanish.
 

U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria and Selected Practice Recommendations on contraceptive use

The MEC contraceptive guidance, a regularly updated, evidence-based project of the CDC, provides “best practices” information on candidate selection, or the “who” of contraceptive selection (who is a candidate for a particular method), Dr. Espy said, noting that it’s a “handy resource” for in-office use.

The SPR is more of a “how-to” guide that provides specifics on contraceptive use, such as when a woman can rely on the pill for contraception after she starts taking it, or how a woman should be followed after IUD placement, she said.

A free CDC app provides access to both.
 

Emergency contraception

The best overall emergency contraceptive method is the copper IUD, but often it is less accessible than oral methods, of which ulipristal acetate (ella), is the best choice, Dr. Espy said.

“Ulipristal is kind of a best-kept secret. It’s a selective estrogen-receptor modulator – it actually works better and longer than Plan B (levonorgestrel). What’s great about Plan B is that you can get it over the counter, but ulipristal delays ovulation longer,” she explained.
 

Contraceptives and obesity

Oral contraceptive efficacy is “so much more about adherence,” than about weight, she said.

With respect to the contraceptive patch, limited evidence suggests that obesity may reduce effectiveness, but “it’s still way better than barrier methods,” and for the contraceptive ring, no evidence suggests that obesity affects efficacy, she said.

For emergency contraception, evidence suggests that ulipristal is more effective than Plan B in women with high body mass index.
 

OTC contraceptive access

Pharmacy and OTC access are a good idea, Dr. Espy said.

“ACOG now supports both, which is great, and there are now a number of states where women can access contraception through the pharmacy. There are a lot of barriers there as well, and really the answer is OTC access,” she said. “There is a pill right now that is seeking [Food and Drug Administration] approval; it will be a progestin-only pill – the first one to be available over the counter, so I think this is something that we’ll see in the next 5-10 years.”
 

Additional future directions

One technology in development is a longer-acting injectable, such as a 6- or 9-month Depot-type shot.

Biodegradable implants also are in development. “What a cool idea – it just disappears in your arm, no need to remove it,” Dr. Espey said, adding that nonsurgical permanent sterilization is another possible advance, which would be “a holy grail.”

As for male contraception?

“I’ve been saying for about 25 years that in 5 years we’ll have a male contraceptive, so I’m not going to say it anymore with any kind of time frame, but it’s possible,” she said.

Dr. Espey reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There’s some good news on the contraception and reproductive health front, according to a recent update from Eve Espey, MD.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, including among adolescents and young women, is declining, and the U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest level since Roe v. Wade, she said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A 2016 article based on 2008-2011 data showed that after hovering around 50% for nearly 3 decades, the unintended pregnancy rate dropped “for the first time in a very long period of time,” said Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics & gynecology, division of family planning at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (N Engl J Med. 2016; 374[9]:843-52).

“It doesn’t look that impressive – it basically went down to 45%, but considering the scope and the number of women who are affected by unplanned pregnancy, this is actually a huge public health achievement,” she said. “And I think ... in the next cycles of the [Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s] National Survey of Family Growth ... we’ll hopefully continue to see this and potentially more [decline].”

As for abortion rates, an increase occurred following Roe v. Wade, but rates are now down to pre-Roe levels.

“One of the things that we know about the abortion rate is that the most important determinant ... is access to contraceptives,” Dr. Espey said, noting that both the abortion and unintended pregnancy rate declines are attributable to better and more consistent use of contraceptives, increased abstinence as teens are waiting longer to have sex, and the “meteoric rise in long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use.”

Importantly, while improvements in public health have traditionally only impacted upper-class white women, a reduction is finally occurring in disparities with women of color, but those disparities still remain,” she added. “Just like we’re focusing so much on this relative to maternal mortality, the same kinds of disparities occur in access to reproductive health.”

Dr. Espey also provided updates on other aspects of contraception.
 

IUDs and other LARC methods

The use of LARCs increased from 2% of contraceptive types used by reproductive-aged women in 2002 to 12% in 2012. The majority of that change was in IUD use, with a small increase in implant use, she said, noting that the latest data from the 2015-2017 cycle of the National Survey of Family Growth shows that the rate is now up to 16%.

“The rise has been nothing that I ever imagined that I would see, certainly in my professional career,” she said.

The huge impact of LARCs on the unintended pregnancy rate is attributable to consistent effectiveness over time, compared with an increasing failure rate over time with short-acting contraceptive methods, she said, explaining that while the failure rate with oral contraceptives is about 8%-9% over the first 3 years, it increases to 53% at 8 years.

It’s a matter of looking at both “typical use” effectiveness and continuation rates: LARCs have continuation rates of about 75%-85%; Depot-Provera, for example, has a 25%-30% continuation rate at 1 year, she noted.

Dr. Espey also attributed the gains to improved access via the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which has been shown in numerous studies to have improved access and consistency of contraceptive use, but which is “currently being chipped away,” and to the federal Title X program that covers family planning care for low income women, including undocumented women.

“These two programs have made a huge impact for us, and I hope that we as ob.gyns. will continue to support them,” she said.
 

Reproductive justice

Despite their effectiveness, it is important to remember that LARC methods are not right for everyone, Dr. Espey said.

“It’s not all about effectiveness. Women have many reasons for accessing contraception, and our job is not to reduce unintended pregnancy. ... The idea really is that we empower women. ... We should really give choices and trust women to make the best choices for them,” she explained.

Barriers to IUD removal also should be eliminated, she noted, explaining that a woman who wants her IUD removed a month after insertion should have that option.

She said she has “changed her language,” from asking why a woman wants an $800 IUD removed after a month to asking whether she would like to hear about ways to make it better or if she is “just ready to have it removed.”

For those not interested in a discussion about birth control, she suggested providing information about the bedsider.org site.

“This is a great resource for patients,” she said, noting that it is available in both English and Spanish.
 

U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria and Selected Practice Recommendations on contraceptive use

The MEC contraceptive guidance, a regularly updated, evidence-based project of the CDC, provides “best practices” information on candidate selection, or the “who” of contraceptive selection (who is a candidate for a particular method), Dr. Espy said, noting that it’s a “handy resource” for in-office use.

The SPR is more of a “how-to” guide that provides specifics on contraceptive use, such as when a woman can rely on the pill for contraception after she starts taking it, or how a woman should be followed after IUD placement, she said.

A free CDC app provides access to both.
 

Emergency contraception

The best overall emergency contraceptive method is the copper IUD, but often it is less accessible than oral methods, of which ulipristal acetate (ella), is the best choice, Dr. Espy said.

“Ulipristal is kind of a best-kept secret. It’s a selective estrogen-receptor modulator – it actually works better and longer than Plan B (levonorgestrel). What’s great about Plan B is that you can get it over the counter, but ulipristal delays ovulation longer,” she explained.
 

Contraceptives and obesity

Oral contraceptive efficacy is “so much more about adherence,” than about weight, she said.

With respect to the contraceptive patch, limited evidence suggests that obesity may reduce effectiveness, but “it’s still way better than barrier methods,” and for the contraceptive ring, no evidence suggests that obesity affects efficacy, she said.

For emergency contraception, evidence suggests that ulipristal is more effective than Plan B in women with high body mass index.
 

OTC contraceptive access

Pharmacy and OTC access are a good idea, Dr. Espy said.

“ACOG now supports both, which is great, and there are now a number of states where women can access contraception through the pharmacy. There are a lot of barriers there as well, and really the answer is OTC access,” she said. “There is a pill right now that is seeking [Food and Drug Administration] approval; it will be a progestin-only pill – the first one to be available over the counter, so I think this is something that we’ll see in the next 5-10 years.”
 

Additional future directions

One technology in development is a longer-acting injectable, such as a 6- or 9-month Depot-type shot.

Biodegradable implants also are in development. “What a cool idea – it just disappears in your arm, no need to remove it,” Dr. Espey said, adding that nonsurgical permanent sterilization is another possible advance, which would be “a holy grail.”

As for male contraception?

“I’ve been saying for about 25 years that in 5 years we’ll have a male contraceptive, so I’m not going to say it anymore with any kind of time frame, but it’s possible,” she said.

Dr. Espey reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]