Contraception

A study of high-dose progesterone as a mifepristone antagonist to reverse medical abortion has been stopped early because of safety concerns, but the authors say mifepristone antagonization should not be considered impossible.

In Obstetrics & Gynecology, Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and coauthors reported the outcomes of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral progesterone as a mifepristone antagonist. The study intended to enroll more women at 44–63 days of gestation who were planning surgical abortion, but stopped enrolling after 12 patients because of hemorrhage concerns.

Women were given a 200-mg dose of oral mifepristone, then randomized to either 200 mg oral progesterone or placebo 24 hours later, taken twice daily for 3 days then once daily until their planned surgical abortion 14-16 days after enrollment.

The approved method of medical abortion in the United States involves a combination of mifepristone followed by the prostaglandin analogue misoprostol 24-48 hours later, a combination designed to improve efficacy of the treatment.

There have been reports of some patients changing their minds in between taking the mifepristone and the misoprostol. The fact that mifepristone binds strongly to the progesterone receptor has led to the idea that its action could be reversed with high-dose progesterone as an antagonist.

In this study, three women – two in the placebo group and one in the progesterone group – experienced severe bleeding requiring ambulance transport to the emergency department 2-3 days after taking the mifepristone.

The study found that four of the six patients in the progesterone group, and two of the six patients in the placebo group had continuing pregnancies at 2 weeks.

There were two patients – one in each group – who did not complete the study. One in the placebo group left after taking the mifepristone because of anxiety about bleeding, and had a suction aspiration. The second women completed two of the four doses of progesterone, then requested a suction aspiration.

Dr. Creinin and coauthors wrote that while the study ended early, they found that there were no significant differences in the side effects experienced by patients treated with progesterone, compared with those on placebo – apart from a worsening of some pregnancy symptoms such as vomiting and tiredness.

However, patients should be told of the risk of using mifepristone for medical abortion without using misoprostol, they said, as this was associated with severe hemorrhage even with progesterone treatment.

“Because of the potential dangers for patients who opt not to use misoprostol after mifepristone ingestion, any mifepristone antagonization treatment must be considered experimental,” Dr. Creinin and associates wrote.

The Society of Family Planning Research Fund supported the study. One author declared a consultancy with a laboratory providing medical consultation for clinicians regarding mifepristone, and a second author was an employee of Planned Parenthood. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Creinin M et al. Obstet Gynecol 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003620.

A study of high-dose progesterone as a mifepristone antagonist to reverse medical abortion has been stopped early because of safety concerns, but the authors say mifepristone antagonization should not be considered impossible.

In Obstetrics & Gynecology, Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and coauthors reported the outcomes of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral progesterone as a mifepristone antagonist. The study intended to enroll more women at 44–63 days of gestation who were planning surgical abortion, but stopped enrolling after 12 patients because of hemorrhage concerns.

Women were given a 200-mg dose of oral mifepristone, then randomized to either 200 mg oral progesterone or placebo 24 hours later, taken twice daily for 3 days then once daily until their planned surgical abortion 14-16 days after enrollment.

The approved method of medical abortion in the United States involves a combination of mifepristone followed by the prostaglandin analogue misoprostol 24-48 hours later, a combination designed to improve efficacy of the treatment.

There have been reports of some patients changing their minds in between taking the mifepristone and the misoprostol. The fact that mifepristone binds strongly to the progesterone receptor has led to the idea that its action could be reversed with high-dose progesterone as an antagonist.

In this study, three women – two in the placebo group and one in the progesterone group – experienced severe bleeding requiring ambulance transport to the emergency department 2-3 days after taking the mifepristone.

The study found that four of the six patients in the progesterone group, and two of the six patients in the placebo group had continuing pregnancies at 2 weeks.

There were two patients – one in each group – who did not complete the study. One in the placebo group left after taking the mifepristone because of anxiety about bleeding, and had a suction aspiration. The second women completed two of the four doses of progesterone, then requested a suction aspiration.

Dr. Creinin and coauthors wrote that while the study ended early, they found that there were no significant differences in the side effects experienced by patients treated with progesterone, compared with those on placebo – apart from a worsening of some pregnancy symptoms such as vomiting and tiredness.

However, patients should be told of the risk of using mifepristone for medical abortion without using misoprostol, they said, as this was associated with severe hemorrhage even with progesterone treatment.

“Because of the potential dangers for patients who opt not to use misoprostol after mifepristone ingestion, any mifepristone antagonization treatment must be considered experimental,” Dr. Creinin and associates wrote.

The Society of Family Planning Research Fund supported the study. One author declared a consultancy with a laboratory providing medical consultation for clinicians regarding mifepristone, and a second author was an employee of Planned Parenthood. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Creinin M et al. Obstet Gynecol 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003620.

A study of high-dose progesterone as a mifepristone antagonist to reverse medical abortion has been stopped early because of safety concerns, but the authors say mifepristone antagonization should not be considered impossible.

In Obstetrics & Gynecology, Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, of the University of California, Davis, and coauthors reported the outcomes of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral progesterone as a mifepristone antagonist. The study intended to enroll more women at 44–63 days of gestation who were planning surgical abortion, but stopped enrolling after 12 patients because of hemorrhage concerns.

Women were given a 200-mg dose of oral mifepristone, then randomized to either 200 mg oral progesterone or placebo 24 hours later, taken twice daily for 3 days then once daily until their planned surgical abortion 14-16 days after enrollment.

The approved method of medical abortion in the United States involves a combination of mifepristone followed by the prostaglandin analogue misoprostol 24-48 hours later, a combination designed to improve efficacy of the treatment.

There have been reports of some patients changing their minds in between taking the mifepristone and the misoprostol. The fact that mifepristone binds strongly to the progesterone receptor has led to the idea that its action could be reversed with high-dose progesterone as an antagonist.

In this study, three women – two in the placebo group and one in the progesterone group – experienced severe bleeding requiring ambulance transport to the emergency department 2-3 days after taking the mifepristone.

The study found that four of the six patients in the progesterone group, and two of the six patients in the placebo group had continuing pregnancies at 2 weeks.

There were two patients – one in each group – who did not complete the study. One in the placebo group left after taking the mifepristone because of anxiety about bleeding, and had a suction aspiration. The second women completed two of the four doses of progesterone, then requested a suction aspiration.

Dr. Creinin and coauthors wrote that while the study ended early, they found that there were no significant differences in the side effects experienced by patients treated with progesterone, compared with those on placebo – apart from a worsening of some pregnancy symptoms such as vomiting and tiredness.

However, patients should be told of the risk of using mifepristone for medical abortion without using misoprostol, they said, as this was associated with severe hemorrhage even with progesterone treatment.

“Because of the potential dangers for patients who opt not to use misoprostol after mifepristone ingestion, any mifepristone antagonization treatment must be considered experimental,” Dr. Creinin and associates wrote.

The Society of Family Planning Research Fund supported the study. One author declared a consultancy with a laboratory providing medical consultation for clinicians regarding mifepristone, and a second author was an employee of Planned Parenthood. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Creinin M et al. Obstet Gynecol 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003620.

Physicians treating transgender patients – in particular, transgender men who were born female – are faced with a confusing process when prescribing isotretinoin for severe acne.

A research letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology reports that half of dermatologists surveyed reported having encountered difficulties classifying a transgender patient in iPLEDGE, the risk-management registry established to prevent female patients from starting isotretinoin therapy while pregnant or from becoming pregnant while exposed to the teratogenic medication.

Nearly 90% of respondents favored changing the current gender-specific categories in iPLEDGE to gender-neutral ones, classifying patients only by whether or not they have the ability to become pregnant.

For their research, Courtney Ensslin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues, distributed an 18-point questionnaire to 385 members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology that included questions assessing clinicians’ knowledge about the reproductive potential of transgender men and women. The recipients were asked to distribute it to faculty members and residents. The survey also described three clinical scenarios in which the physician needed to decide how to register a patient in iPLEDGE. The clinicians largely opted to class transgender men as women with childbearing potential, even if the category conflicted with the patient’s self-identified and legally recognized male gender.

Of the 136 clinicians who responded, 60% were women, almost half were aged 25-34 years. About 12% of respondents said the complexities of prescribing isotretinoin to a transgender patient led them to choose alternative therapies. And the survey revealed some gaps on providers’ general literacy on transgender patients and their reproductive potential. For example, fewer than a third of respondents answered correctly as to whether testosterone treatment decreases the quality and development of an immature ovum.

The researchers wrote that the survey results, while limited by a small sample of respondents that skewed toward younger women providers, suggest that “continued education on fertility in transgender patients is needed because prescribers must fully understand each patient’s reproductive potential to safely prescribe teratogenic medications.” Additionally, they pointed out, the results support ongoing efforts to reform iPLEDGE, as the current categories “do not offer an inclusive approach to care for transgender patients.”

Earlier this year the American Academy of Dermatology issued a position statement that described a number of ongoing initiatives aimed at improving treatment for patients who are members of gender and sexual minorities. These included the “revision of the AAD position statement on isotretinoin to support a gender-neutral categorization model for [iPLEDGE] … based on child-bearing potential rather than on gender identity,” the statement said.

Dr. Ensslin and colleagues reported conflicts of interest related to their research. The study was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Ensslin C et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Dec;81(6):1426-9.

Physicians treating transgender patients – in particular, transgender men who were born female – are faced with a confusing process when prescribing isotretinoin for severe acne.

A research letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology reports that half of dermatologists surveyed reported having encountered difficulties classifying a transgender patient in iPLEDGE, the risk-management registry established to prevent female patients from starting isotretinoin therapy while pregnant or from becoming pregnant while exposed to the teratogenic medication.

Nearly 90% of respondents favored changing the current gender-specific categories in iPLEDGE to gender-neutral ones, classifying patients only by whether or not they have the ability to become pregnant.

For their research, Courtney Ensslin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues, distributed an 18-point questionnaire to 385 members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology that included questions assessing clinicians’ knowledge about the reproductive potential of transgender men and women. The recipients were asked to distribute it to faculty members and residents. The survey also described three clinical scenarios in which the physician needed to decide how to register a patient in iPLEDGE. The clinicians largely opted to class transgender men as women with childbearing potential, even if the category conflicted with the patient’s self-identified and legally recognized male gender.

Of the 136 clinicians who responded, 60% were women, almost half were aged 25-34 years. About 12% of respondents said the complexities of prescribing isotretinoin to a transgender patient led them to choose alternative therapies. And the survey revealed some gaps on providers’ general literacy on transgender patients and their reproductive potential. For example, fewer than a third of respondents answered correctly as to whether testosterone treatment decreases the quality and development of an immature ovum.

The researchers wrote that the survey results, while limited by a small sample of respondents that skewed toward younger women providers, suggest that “continued education on fertility in transgender patients is needed because prescribers must fully understand each patient’s reproductive potential to safely prescribe teratogenic medications.” Additionally, they pointed out, the results support ongoing efforts to reform iPLEDGE, as the current categories “do not offer an inclusive approach to care for transgender patients.”

Earlier this year the American Academy of Dermatology issued a position statement that described a number of ongoing initiatives aimed at improving treatment for patients who are members of gender and sexual minorities. These included the “revision of the AAD position statement on isotretinoin to support a gender-neutral categorization model for [iPLEDGE] … based on child-bearing potential rather than on gender identity,” the statement said.

Dr. Ensslin and colleagues reported conflicts of interest related to their research. The study was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Ensslin C et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Dec;81(6):1426-9.

Physicians treating transgender patients – in particular, transgender men who were born female – are faced with a confusing process when prescribing isotretinoin for severe acne.

A research letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology reports that half of dermatologists surveyed reported having encountered difficulties classifying a transgender patient in iPLEDGE, the risk-management registry established to prevent female patients from starting isotretinoin therapy while pregnant or from becoming pregnant while exposed to the teratogenic medication.

Nearly 90% of respondents favored changing the current gender-specific categories in iPLEDGE to gender-neutral ones, classifying patients only by whether or not they have the ability to become pregnant.

For their research, Courtney Ensslin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues, distributed an 18-point questionnaire to 385 members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology that included questions assessing clinicians’ knowledge about the reproductive potential of transgender men and women. The recipients were asked to distribute it to faculty members and residents. The survey also described three clinical scenarios in which the physician needed to decide how to register a patient in iPLEDGE. The clinicians largely opted to class transgender men as women with childbearing potential, even if the category conflicted with the patient’s self-identified and legally recognized male gender.

Of the 136 clinicians who responded, 60% were women, almost half were aged 25-34 years. About 12% of respondents said the complexities of prescribing isotretinoin to a transgender patient led them to choose alternative therapies. And the survey revealed some gaps on providers’ general literacy on transgender patients and their reproductive potential. For example, fewer than a third of respondents answered correctly as to whether testosterone treatment decreases the quality and development of an immature ovum.

The researchers wrote that the survey results, while limited by a small sample of respondents that skewed toward younger women providers, suggest that “continued education on fertility in transgender patients is needed because prescribers must fully understand each patient’s reproductive potential to safely prescribe teratogenic medications.” Additionally, they pointed out, the results support ongoing efforts to reform iPLEDGE, as the current categories “do not offer an inclusive approach to care for transgender patients.”

Earlier this year the American Academy of Dermatology issued a position statement that described a number of ongoing initiatives aimed at improving treatment for patients who are members of gender and sexual minorities. These included the “revision of the AAD position statement on isotretinoin to support a gender-neutral categorization model for [iPLEDGE] … based on child-bearing potential rather than on gender identity,” the statement said.

Dr. Ensslin and colleagues reported conflicts of interest related to their research. The study was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Ensslin C et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Dec;81(6):1426-9.

[polldaddy:10476065]

[polldaddy:10476065]

[polldaddy:10476065]

CHICAGO – Women taking oral contraceptives had, on average, a hypothalamus that was 6% smaller than those who didn’t, in a small study that used magnetic resonance imaging. Pituitary volume was also smaller.

Courtesy RSNA

Though the sample size was relatively small, 50 women in total, it’s the only study to date that looks at the relationship between hypothalamic volume and oral contraceptive (OC) use, and the largest examining pituitary volume, according to Ke Xun (Kevin) Chen, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Using MRI, Dr. Chen and his colleagues found that hypothalamic volume was significantly smaller in women taking oral contraceptives than those who were naturally cycling (b value = –64.1; P = .006). The pituitary gland also was significantly smaller in those taking OCs (b = –92.8; P = .007).

“I was quite surprised [at the finding], because the magnitude of the effect is not small,” especially in the context of changes in volume of other brain structures, senior author Michael L. Lipton, MD, PhD, said in an interview. In Alzheimer’s disease, for example, a volume loss of 4% annually can be expected.

However, “it’s not shocking to me in a negative way at all. I can’t tell you what it means in terms of how it’s going to affect people,” since this is a cross-sectional study that only detected a correlation and can’t say anything about a causative relationship, he added. “We don’t even know that [OCs] cause this effect. ... It’s plausible that this is just a plasticity-related change that’s simply showing us the effect of the drug.

“We’re going to be much more careful to consider oral contraceptive use as a covariate in future research studies; that’s for sure,” he said.

Although OCs have been available since their 1960 Food and Drug Administration approval, and their effects in some areas of physiology and health have been well studied, there’s still not much known about how oral contraceptives affect brain function, said Dr. Lipton, professor of neuroradiology and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in the Montefiore medical system, New York.

The spark for this study came from one of Dr. Lipton’s main areas of research – sex differences in susceptibility to and recovery from traumatic brain injury. “Women are more likely to exhibit changes in their brain [after injury] – and changes in their brain function – than men,” he said.

In the present study, “we went at this trying to understand the effect to which the hormone effect might be doing something in regular, healthy people that we need to consider as part of the bigger picture,” he said.

Dr. Lipton, Dr. Chen (then a radiology resident at Albert Einstein College of Medicine), and their coauthors constructed the study to look for differences in brain structure between women who were experiencing natural menstrual cycles and those who were taking exogenous hormones, to begin to learn how oral contraceptive use might modify risk and susceptibility for neurologic disease and injury.

It had already been established that global brain volume didn’t differ between naturally cycling women and those using OCs. However, some studies had shown differences in volume of some specific brain regions, and one study had shown smaller pituitary volume in OC users, according to the presentation by Dr. Chen, who is now a radiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Accurately measuring hypothalamic volume represents a technical challenge, and the effect of OCs on the structure’s volume hadn’t previously been studied.

Sex hormones, said Dr. Lipton, have known trophic effects on brain tissue and ovarian sex hormones cross the blood brain barrier, so the idea that there would be some plasticity in the brains of those taking OCs wasn’t completely surprising, especially since there are hormone receptors that lie within the central nervous system. However, he said he was “very surprised” by the effect size seen in the study.

The study included 21 healthy women taking combined oral contraceptives, and 29 naturally cycling women. Participants’ mean age was 23 years for the OC users, and 21 for the naturally cycling women. Body mass index and smoking history didn’t differ between groups. Women on OCs were significantly more likely to use alcohol and to drink more frequently than those not taking OCs (P = .001). Participants were included only if they were taking a combined estrogen-progestin pill; those on noncyclical contraceptives such as implants and hormone-emitting intrauterine devices were excluded, as were naturally cycling women with very long or irregular menstrual cycles.

After multivariable statistical analysis, the only two significant predictors of hypothalamic volume were total intracranial volume and OC use. For pituitary volume, body mass index and OC use remained significant.

Courtesy RSNA

In addition to the MRI scans, participants also completed neurobehavioral testing to assess mood and cognition. An exploratory analysis showed no correlation between hypothalamic volume and the cognitive testing battery results, which included assessments for verbal learning and memory, executive function, and working memory.

However, a moderate positive association was seen between hypothalamic volume and anger scores (r = 0.34; P = .02). The investigators found a “strong positive correlation of hypothalamic volume with depression,” said Dr. Chen (r = 0.25; P = .09).

The investigators found no menstrual cycle-related changes in hypothalamic and pituitary volume among naturally cycling women.

Hypothalamic volume was obtained using manual segmentation of the MRIs; a combined automated-manual approach was used to obtain pituitary volume. Reliability was tested by having 5 raters each assess volumes for a randomly selected subset of the scans; inter-rater reliability fell between 0.78 and 0.86, values considered to indicate “good” reliability.

Courtesy RSNA

In addition to the small sample size, Dr. Chen acknowledged several limitations to the study. These included the lack of accounting for details of OC use including duration, exact type of OC, and whether women were taking the placebo phase of their pill packs at the time of scanning. Additionally, women who were naturally cycling were not asked about prior history of OC use.

Also, women’s menstrual phase was estimated from the self-reported date of the last menstrual period, rather than obtained by direct measurement via serum hormone levels.

Dr. Lipton’s perspective adds a strong note of caution to avoid overinterpretation from the study. Dr. Chen and Dr. Lipton agreed, however, that OC use should be accounted for when brain structure and function are studied in female participants.

Dr. Chen, Dr. Lipton, and their coauthors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The authors reported no outside sources of funding.
 

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chen K et al. RSNA 2019. Presentation SSM-1904.

CHICAGO – Women taking oral contraceptives had, on average, a hypothalamus that was 6% smaller than those who didn’t, in a small study that used magnetic resonance imaging. Pituitary volume was also smaller.

Courtesy RSNA

Though the sample size was relatively small, 50 women in total, it’s the only study to date that looks at the relationship between hypothalamic volume and oral contraceptive (OC) use, and the largest examining pituitary volume, according to Ke Xun (Kevin) Chen, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Using MRI, Dr. Chen and his colleagues found that hypothalamic volume was significantly smaller in women taking oral contraceptives than those who were naturally cycling (b value = –64.1; P = .006). The pituitary gland also was significantly smaller in those taking OCs (b = –92.8; P = .007).

“I was quite surprised [at the finding], because the magnitude of the effect is not small,” especially in the context of changes in volume of other brain structures, senior author Michael L. Lipton, MD, PhD, said in an interview. In Alzheimer’s disease, for example, a volume loss of 4% annually can be expected.

However, “it’s not shocking to me in a negative way at all. I can’t tell you what it means in terms of how it’s going to affect people,” since this is a cross-sectional study that only detected a correlation and can’t say anything about a causative relationship, he added. “We don’t even know that [OCs] cause this effect. ... It’s plausible that this is just a plasticity-related change that’s simply showing us the effect of the drug.

“We’re going to be much more careful to consider oral contraceptive use as a covariate in future research studies; that’s for sure,” he said.

Although OCs have been available since their 1960 Food and Drug Administration approval, and their effects in some areas of physiology and health have been well studied, there’s still not much known about how oral contraceptives affect brain function, said Dr. Lipton, professor of neuroradiology and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in the Montefiore medical system, New York.

The spark for this study came from one of Dr. Lipton’s main areas of research – sex differences in susceptibility to and recovery from traumatic brain injury. “Women are more likely to exhibit changes in their brain [after injury] – and changes in their brain function – than men,” he said.

In the present study, “we went at this trying to understand the effect to which the hormone effect might be doing something in regular, healthy people that we need to consider as part of the bigger picture,” he said.

Dr. Lipton, Dr. Chen (then a radiology resident at Albert Einstein College of Medicine), and their coauthors constructed the study to look for differences in brain structure between women who were experiencing natural menstrual cycles and those who were taking exogenous hormones, to begin to learn how oral contraceptive use might modify risk and susceptibility for neurologic disease and injury.

It had already been established that global brain volume didn’t differ between naturally cycling women and those using OCs. However, some studies had shown differences in volume of some specific brain regions, and one study had shown smaller pituitary volume in OC users, according to the presentation by Dr. Chen, who is now a radiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Accurately measuring hypothalamic volume represents a technical challenge, and the effect of OCs on the structure’s volume hadn’t previously been studied.

Sex hormones, said Dr. Lipton, have known trophic effects on brain tissue and ovarian sex hormones cross the blood brain barrier, so the idea that there would be some plasticity in the brains of those taking OCs wasn’t completely surprising, especially since there are hormone receptors that lie within the central nervous system. However, he said he was “very surprised” by the effect size seen in the study.

The study included 21 healthy women taking combined oral contraceptives, and 29 naturally cycling women. Participants’ mean age was 23 years for the OC users, and 21 for the naturally cycling women. Body mass index and smoking history didn’t differ between groups. Women on OCs were significantly more likely to use alcohol and to drink more frequently than those not taking OCs (P = .001). Participants were included only if they were taking a combined estrogen-progestin pill; those on noncyclical contraceptives such as implants and hormone-emitting intrauterine devices were excluded, as were naturally cycling women with very long or irregular menstrual cycles.

After multivariable statistical analysis, the only two significant predictors of hypothalamic volume were total intracranial volume and OC use. For pituitary volume, body mass index and OC use remained significant.

Courtesy RSNA

In addition to the MRI scans, participants also completed neurobehavioral testing to assess mood and cognition. An exploratory analysis showed no correlation between hypothalamic volume and the cognitive testing battery results, which included assessments for verbal learning and memory, executive function, and working memory.

However, a moderate positive association was seen between hypothalamic volume and anger scores (r = 0.34; P = .02). The investigators found a “strong positive correlation of hypothalamic volume with depression,” said Dr. Chen (r = 0.25; P = .09).

The investigators found no menstrual cycle-related changes in hypothalamic and pituitary volume among naturally cycling women.

Hypothalamic volume was obtained using manual segmentation of the MRIs; a combined automated-manual approach was used to obtain pituitary volume. Reliability was tested by having 5 raters each assess volumes for a randomly selected subset of the scans; inter-rater reliability fell between 0.78 and 0.86, values considered to indicate “good” reliability.

Courtesy RSNA

In addition to the small sample size, Dr. Chen acknowledged several limitations to the study. These included the lack of accounting for details of OC use including duration, exact type of OC, and whether women were taking the placebo phase of their pill packs at the time of scanning. Additionally, women who were naturally cycling were not asked about prior history of OC use.

Also, women’s menstrual phase was estimated from the self-reported date of the last menstrual period, rather than obtained by direct measurement via serum hormone levels.

Dr. Lipton’s perspective adds a strong note of caution to avoid overinterpretation from the study. Dr. Chen and Dr. Lipton agreed, however, that OC use should be accounted for when brain structure and function are studied in female participants.

Dr. Chen, Dr. Lipton, and their coauthors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The authors reported no outside sources of funding.
 

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chen K et al. RSNA 2019. Presentation SSM-1904.

CHICAGO – Women taking oral contraceptives had, on average, a hypothalamus that was 6% smaller than those who didn’t, in a small study that used magnetic resonance imaging. Pituitary volume was also smaller.

Courtesy RSNA

Though the sample size was relatively small, 50 women in total, it’s the only study to date that looks at the relationship between hypothalamic volume and oral contraceptive (OC) use, and the largest examining pituitary volume, according to Ke Xun (Kevin) Chen, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Using MRI, Dr. Chen and his colleagues found that hypothalamic volume was significantly smaller in women taking oral contraceptives than those who were naturally cycling (b value = –64.1; P = .006). The pituitary gland also was significantly smaller in those taking OCs (b = –92.8; P = .007).

“I was quite surprised [at the finding], because the magnitude of the effect is not small,” especially in the context of changes in volume of other brain structures, senior author Michael L. Lipton, MD, PhD, said in an interview. In Alzheimer’s disease, for example, a volume loss of 4% annually can be expected.

However, “it’s not shocking to me in a negative way at all. I can’t tell you what it means in terms of how it’s going to affect people,” since this is a cross-sectional study that only detected a correlation and can’t say anything about a causative relationship, he added. “We don’t even know that [OCs] cause this effect. ... It’s plausible that this is just a plasticity-related change that’s simply showing us the effect of the drug.

“We’re going to be much more careful to consider oral contraceptive use as a covariate in future research studies; that’s for sure,” he said.

Although OCs have been available since their 1960 Food and Drug Administration approval, and their effects in some areas of physiology and health have been well studied, there’s still not much known about how oral contraceptives affect brain function, said Dr. Lipton, professor of neuroradiology and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in the Montefiore medical system, New York.

The spark for this study came from one of Dr. Lipton’s main areas of research – sex differences in susceptibility to and recovery from traumatic brain injury. “Women are more likely to exhibit changes in their brain [after injury] – and changes in their brain function – than men,” he said.

In the present study, “we went at this trying to understand the effect to which the hormone effect might be doing something in regular, healthy people that we need to consider as part of the bigger picture,” he said.

Dr. Lipton, Dr. Chen (then a radiology resident at Albert Einstein College of Medicine), and their coauthors constructed the study to look for differences in brain structure between women who were experiencing natural menstrual cycles and those who were taking exogenous hormones, to begin to learn how oral contraceptive use might modify risk and susceptibility for neurologic disease and injury.

It had already been established that global brain volume didn’t differ between naturally cycling women and those using OCs. However, some studies had shown differences in volume of some specific brain regions, and one study had shown smaller pituitary volume in OC users, according to the presentation by Dr. Chen, who is now a radiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. Accurately measuring hypothalamic volume represents a technical challenge, and the effect of OCs on the structure’s volume hadn’t previously been studied.

Sex hormones, said Dr. Lipton, have known trophic effects on brain tissue and ovarian sex hormones cross the blood brain barrier, so the idea that there would be some plasticity in the brains of those taking OCs wasn’t completely surprising, especially since there are hormone receptors that lie within the central nervous system. However, he said he was “very surprised” by the effect size seen in the study.

The study included 21 healthy women taking combined oral contraceptives, and 29 naturally cycling women. Participants’ mean age was 23 years for the OC users, and 21 for the naturally cycling women. Body mass index and smoking history didn’t differ between groups. Women on OCs were significantly more likely to use alcohol and to drink more frequently than those not taking OCs (P = .001). Participants were included only if they were taking a combined estrogen-progestin pill; those on noncyclical contraceptives such as implants and hormone-emitting intrauterine devices were excluded, as were naturally cycling women with very long or irregular menstrual cycles.

After multivariable statistical analysis, the only two significant predictors of hypothalamic volume were total intracranial volume and OC use. For pituitary volume, body mass index and OC use remained significant.

Courtesy RSNA

In addition to the MRI scans, participants also completed neurobehavioral testing to assess mood and cognition. An exploratory analysis showed no correlation between hypothalamic volume and the cognitive testing battery results, which included assessments for verbal learning and memory, executive function, and working memory.

However, a moderate positive association was seen between hypothalamic volume and anger scores (r = 0.34; P = .02). The investigators found a “strong positive correlation of hypothalamic volume with depression,” said Dr. Chen (r = 0.25; P = .09).

The investigators found no menstrual cycle-related changes in hypothalamic and pituitary volume among naturally cycling women.

Hypothalamic volume was obtained using manual segmentation of the MRIs; a combined automated-manual approach was used to obtain pituitary volume. Reliability was tested by having 5 raters each assess volumes for a randomly selected subset of the scans; inter-rater reliability fell between 0.78 and 0.86, values considered to indicate “good” reliability.

Courtesy RSNA

In addition to the small sample size, Dr. Chen acknowledged several limitations to the study. These included the lack of accounting for details of OC use including duration, exact type of OC, and whether women were taking the placebo phase of their pill packs at the time of scanning. Additionally, women who were naturally cycling were not asked about prior history of OC use.

Also, women’s menstrual phase was estimated from the self-reported date of the last menstrual period, rather than obtained by direct measurement via serum hormone levels.

Dr. Lipton’s perspective adds a strong note of caution to avoid overinterpretation from the study. Dr. Chen and Dr. Lipton agreed, however, that OC use should be accounted for when brain structure and function are studied in female participants.

Dr. Chen, Dr. Lipton, and their coauthors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The authors reported no outside sources of funding.
 

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chen K et al. RSNA 2019. Presentation SSM-1904.

As health care providers to children, we always are learning. And with new knowledge we sometimes can be taken out of our comfort zone. One of those areas are teenagers, contraception, safe-sex counseling, and now emergency contraception (EC). In residency you have your 1-month adolescent medicine rotation to try and absorb every bit of information like a sponge, but there also will be a level of discomfort and uncertainty. However, as medical providers we cannot let the above prevent us from giving well-rounded and informed care.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

When our teens disclose the most private moment of their life, we have to be armed and ready to not only comfort them, but advise and guide them to making a decision so that they can ensure their safety. The answers regarding sexual activity are becoming more and more alarming, especially in our younger patients. Therefore, this is an important discussion to have at every visit (not just well-child checks), so that education opportunities are not missed and our patients feel a sense of normalcy about discussing reproductive health with their health care provider and or parents.

We all have our personal beliefs, but we cannot let that guide our decision on what care or education we give our patients. Unfortunately, I have heard many health care providers judge our patients for their promiscuity, when we need to educate them – not be their judge and jury. Our teens go through different stages of growth and development, and with these stages come experimentation and risk taking. So as their health care providers, we need to be up to date on the information out there.

With regards with EC, some of our patients think that they can get it only after having unprotected sex. However, they should know that the oral ECs can be given to them at any time, so should they be in the situation above, they have an immediate remedy. With the different options come different counseling and different instructions on administration and follow-up. In residency, we might not have learned the skill of inserting an IUD, which is another form of EC; that is why there are many resources available. These resources include hands-on workshops, videos on counseling, and your friendly neighborhood adolescent medicine physician or ob.gyn.

EC can give our patients that sense of relief, especially when they have unprotected sex. However, they also need to have a sense of responsibility for their actions because you do not want them to engage in high-risk behaviors. Just as we are responsible to provide up-to-date care, our patients must take ownership of their health and well-being. Also we should not discuss EC only with our female adolescents, but also with our male patients. If they are engaging in unprotected sex, they are just as responsible; therefore, they should know everything about contraception as well as EC. They should feel comfortable talking to their partners about contraception. Health care providers should make them feel comfortable receiving EC that they can give to their female partner.

We need to become knowledgeable and comfortable prescribing EC, as well as incorporating it in our routine care. This is a policy that I strongly believe should be part of every pediatrician’s and family physician’s office, especially when there is a lack of resources. Of the different options that are available, the oral forms of EC – especially Ella or Plan B step 1 (levonorgestrel) – would be the easiest to prescribe and counsel on. I would not recommend the options where multiple pills need to be taken more than once a day, because compliance becomes a factor. Also knowing that these options are available over the counter also is helpful because our community pharmacist also can help with medication administration and counseling.

In summary, I strongly recommend the discussion of EC in the office, especially the general pediatrician’s office. I recommend that, for those physicians’ who may be uncomfortable, that they should start with the “easier” options of oral progestins (Ella or Plan B step 1). As you become more comfortable with the information and counseling, you can learn skills such as IUD insertions, so you then can offer more options.

As health care providers to children, we always are learning. And with new knowledge we sometimes can be taken out of our comfort zone. One of those areas are teenagers, contraception, safe-sex counseling, and now emergency contraception (EC). In residency you have your 1-month adolescent medicine rotation to try and absorb every bit of information like a sponge, but there also will be a level of discomfort and uncertainty. However, as medical providers we cannot let the above prevent us from giving well-rounded and informed care.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

When our teens disclose the most private moment of their life, we have to be armed and ready to not only comfort them, but advise and guide them to making a decision so that they can ensure their safety. The answers regarding sexual activity are becoming more and more alarming, especially in our younger patients. Therefore, this is an important discussion to have at every visit (not just well-child checks), so that education opportunities are not missed and our patients feel a sense of normalcy about discussing reproductive health with their health care provider and or parents.

We all have our personal beliefs, but we cannot let that guide our decision on what care or education we give our patients. Unfortunately, I have heard many health care providers judge our patients for their promiscuity, when we need to educate them – not be their judge and jury. Our teens go through different stages of growth and development, and with these stages come experimentation and risk taking. So as their health care providers, we need to be up to date on the information out there.

With regards with EC, some of our patients think that they can get it only after having unprotected sex. However, they should know that the oral ECs can be given to them at any time, so should they be in the situation above, they have an immediate remedy. With the different options come different counseling and different instructions on administration and follow-up. In residency, we might not have learned the skill of inserting an IUD, which is another form of EC; that is why there are many resources available. These resources include hands-on workshops, videos on counseling, and your friendly neighborhood adolescent medicine physician or ob.gyn.

EC can give our patients that sense of relief, especially when they have unprotected sex. However, they also need to have a sense of responsibility for their actions because you do not want them to engage in high-risk behaviors. Just as we are responsible to provide up-to-date care, our patients must take ownership of their health and well-being. Also we should not discuss EC only with our female adolescents, but also with our male patients. If they are engaging in unprotected sex, they are just as responsible; therefore, they should know everything about contraception as well as EC. They should feel comfortable talking to their partners about contraception. Health care providers should make them feel comfortable receiving EC that they can give to their female partner.

We need to become knowledgeable and comfortable prescribing EC, as well as incorporating it in our routine care. This is a policy that I strongly believe should be part of every pediatrician’s and family physician’s office, especially when there is a lack of resources. Of the different options that are available, the oral forms of EC – especially Ella or Plan B step 1 (levonorgestrel) – would be the easiest to prescribe and counsel on. I would not recommend the options where multiple pills need to be taken more than once a day, because compliance becomes a factor. Also knowing that these options are available over the counter also is helpful because our community pharmacist also can help with medication administration and counseling.

In summary, I strongly recommend the discussion of EC in the office, especially the general pediatrician’s office. I recommend that, for those physicians’ who may be uncomfortable, that they should start with the “easier” options of oral progestins (Ella or Plan B step 1). As you become more comfortable with the information and counseling, you can learn skills such as IUD insertions, so you then can offer more options.

As health care providers to children, we always are learning. And with new knowledge we sometimes can be taken out of our comfort zone. One of those areas are teenagers, contraception, safe-sex counseling, and now emergency contraception (EC). In residency you have your 1-month adolescent medicine rotation to try and absorb every bit of information like a sponge, but there also will be a level of discomfort and uncertainty. However, as medical providers we cannot let the above prevent us from giving well-rounded and informed care.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

When our teens disclose the most private moment of their life, we have to be armed and ready to not only comfort them, but advise and guide them to making a decision so that they can ensure their safety. The answers regarding sexual activity are becoming more and more alarming, especially in our younger patients. Therefore, this is an important discussion to have at every visit (not just well-child checks), so that education opportunities are not missed and our patients feel a sense of normalcy about discussing reproductive health with their health care provider and or parents.

We all have our personal beliefs, but we cannot let that guide our decision on what care or education we give our patients. Unfortunately, I have heard many health care providers judge our patients for their promiscuity, when we need to educate them – not be their judge and jury. Our teens go through different stages of growth and development, and with these stages come experimentation and risk taking. So as their health care providers, we need to be up to date on the information out there.

With regards with EC, some of our patients think that they can get it only after having unprotected sex. However, they should know that the oral ECs can be given to them at any time, so should they be in the situation above, they have an immediate remedy. With the different options come different counseling and different instructions on administration and follow-up. In residency, we might not have learned the skill of inserting an IUD, which is another form of EC; that is why there are many resources available. These resources include hands-on workshops, videos on counseling, and your friendly neighborhood adolescent medicine physician or ob.gyn.

EC can give our patients that sense of relief, especially when they have unprotected sex. However, they also need to have a sense of responsibility for their actions because you do not want them to engage in high-risk behaviors. Just as we are responsible to provide up-to-date care, our patients must take ownership of their health and well-being. Also we should not discuss EC only with our female adolescents, but also with our male patients. If they are engaging in unprotected sex, they are just as responsible; therefore, they should know everything about contraception as well as EC. They should feel comfortable talking to their partners about contraception. Health care providers should make them feel comfortable receiving EC that they can give to their female partner.

We need to become knowledgeable and comfortable prescribing EC, as well as incorporating it in our routine care. This is a policy that I strongly believe should be part of every pediatrician’s and family physician’s office, especially when there is a lack of resources. Of the different options that are available, the oral forms of EC – especially Ella or Plan B step 1 (levonorgestrel) – would be the easiest to prescribe and counsel on. I would not recommend the options where multiple pills need to be taken more than once a day, because compliance becomes a factor. Also knowing that these options are available over the counter also is helpful because our community pharmacist also can help with medication administration and counseling.

In summary, I strongly recommend the discussion of EC in the office, especially the general pediatrician’s office. I recommend that, for those physicians’ who may be uncomfortable, that they should start with the “easier” options of oral progestins (Ella or Plan B step 1). As you become more comfortable with the information and counseling, you can learn skills such as IUD insertions, so you then can offer more options.

A new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion addresses how contraception access can be improved through over-the-counter (OTC) hormonal contraception for people of all ages—including oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progesterone-only pills, the patch, vaginal rings, and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Although ACOG endorses OTC contraception, some health care providers may be hesitant to support the increase in accessibility for a variety of reasons. We are hopeful that we address these concerns and that all clinicians can move to support ACOG’s position.

Easing access to hormonal contraception is a first step

OCPs are the most widely used contraception among teens and women of reproductive age in the United States.¹ Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated health insurance coverage for contraception, many barriers continue to exist, including obtaining a prescription. Only 13 states have made it legal to obtain hormonal contraception through a pharmacist.² There also has been an increase in the number of telemedicine and online services that deliver contraceptives to individuals’ homes. While these efforts have helped to decrease barriers to hormonal contraception access for some patients, they only reach a small segment of the population. As clinicians, we should strive to make contraception universally accessible and affordable to everyone who desires to use it. OTC provision can bring us closer to this goal.

Addressing the misconceptions about contraception

Adverse events with hormonal contraception are rarer than one may think. There are few risks associated with hormonal contraception. Venous thromboembolus (VTE) is a serious, although rare, adverse effect (AE) of hormonal contraception. The rate of VTE with combined oral contraception is estimated at 3 to 8 events per 10,000 patient-years, and VTE is even less common with progestin-only contraception (1 to 5 per 10,000 patient-years). For both types of hormonal contraception, the risk of VTE is smaller than with pregnancy, which is 5 to 20 per 10,000 patient-years.³ There are comorbidities that increase the risk of VTE and other AEs of hormonal contraception. In the setting of OTC hormonal contraception, individuals would self-screen for contraindications in order to reduce these complications.

Patients have the aptitude to self-screen for contraindications. Studies looking at the ability of patients over the age of 18 to self-screen for contraindications to hormonal contraception have found that patients do appropriately screen themselves. In fact, they are often more conservative than a physician in avoiding hormonal contraceptive methods.⁴ Patients younger than age 18 rarely have contraindications to hormonal contraception, but limited studies have shown that they too are able to successfully self-screen.⁵ ACOG recommends self-screening tools be provided with all OTC combined hormonal contraceptive methods to aid an individual’s contraceptive choice.

Most patients continue their well person care. Some opponents to ACOG’s position also have expressed concern that people who access their contraception OTC will forego their annual exam with their provider. However, studies have shown that the majority of people will continue to make their preventative health care visits.^6,7

We need to invest in preventing unplanned pregnancy

Currently, hormonal contraception is covered by health insurance under the ACA, with some caveats. Without a prescription, patients may have to pay full price for their contraception. However, one can find generic OCPs for less than $10 per pack out of pocket. Any cost can be prohibitive to many patients; thus, transition to OTC access to contraception also should ensure limiting the cost to the patient. One possible solution to mitigate costs is to require insurance companies to cover the cost of OTC hormonal contraceptives. (See action item below.)

Reduction in unplanned pregnancies improves public health and public expense, and broadening access to effective forms of contraception is imperative in reducing unplanned pregnancies. Every $1 invested in contraception access realizes $7.09 in savings.⁸ By making hormonal contraception widely available OTC, access could be improved dramatically—although pharmacist provision of hormonal contraception may be a necessary intermediate step. ACOG’s most recent committee opinion encourages all reproductive health care providers to be strong advocates for this improvement in access. As women’s health providers, we should work to decrease access barriers for our patients; working toward OTC contraception is a critical step in equal access to birth control methods for all of our patients.

Action items

Remember, before a pill can move to OTC access, the manufacturing (pharmaceutical) company must submit an application to the US Food and Drug Administration to obtain this status. Once submitted, the process may take 3 to 4 years to be completed. Currently, no company has submitted an OTC application and no hormonal birth control is available OTC. Find resources for OTC birth control access here: http://ocsotc.org/ and www.freethepill.org.

• Talk to your state representatives about why both OTC birth control access and direct pharmacy availability are important to increasing access and decreasing disparities in reproductive health care. Find your local and federal representatives here and check the status of OCP access in your state here.
• Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) both have introduced legislation—the Affordability is Access Act (HR 3296/S1847)—to ensure insurance coverage for OTC contraception. Call your representative and ask them to cosponsor this legislation.
• Be mindful of legislation that promotes OTC OCPs but limits access to some populations (minors) and increases cost sharing to the patient. This type of legislation can create harmful barriers to access for some of our patients

A new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion addresses how contraception access can be improved through over-the-counter (OTC) hormonal contraception for people of all ages—including oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progesterone-only pills, the patch, vaginal rings, and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Although ACOG endorses OTC contraception, some health care providers may be hesitant to support the increase in accessibility for a variety of reasons. We are hopeful that we address these concerns and that all clinicians can move to support ACOG’s position.

Easing access to hormonal contraception is a first step

OCPs are the most widely used contraception among teens and women of reproductive age in the United States.¹ Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated health insurance coverage for contraception, many barriers continue to exist, including obtaining a prescription. Only 13 states have made it legal to obtain hormonal contraception through a pharmacist.² There also has been an increase in the number of telemedicine and online services that deliver contraceptives to individuals’ homes. While these efforts have helped to decrease barriers to hormonal contraception access for some patients, they only reach a small segment of the population. As clinicians, we should strive to make contraception universally accessible and affordable to everyone who desires to use it. OTC provision can bring us closer to this goal.

Addressing the misconceptions about contraception

Adverse events with hormonal contraception are rarer than one may think. There are few risks associated with hormonal contraception. Venous thromboembolus (VTE) is a serious, although rare, adverse effect (AE) of hormonal contraception. The rate of VTE with combined oral contraception is estimated at 3 to 8 events per 10,000 patient-years, and VTE is even less common with progestin-only contraception (1 to 5 per 10,000 patient-years). For both types of hormonal contraception, the risk of VTE is smaller than with pregnancy, which is 5 to 20 per 10,000 patient-years.³ There are comorbidities that increase the risk of VTE and other AEs of hormonal contraception. In the setting of OTC hormonal contraception, individuals would self-screen for contraindications in order to reduce these complications.

Patients have the aptitude to self-screen for contraindications. Studies looking at the ability of patients over the age of 18 to self-screen for contraindications to hormonal contraception have found that patients do appropriately screen themselves. In fact, they are often more conservative than a physician in avoiding hormonal contraceptive methods.⁴ Patients younger than age 18 rarely have contraindications to hormonal contraception, but limited studies have shown that they too are able to successfully self-screen.⁵ ACOG recommends self-screening tools be provided with all OTC combined hormonal contraceptive methods to aid an individual’s contraceptive choice.

Most patients continue their well person care. Some opponents to ACOG’s position also have expressed concern that people who access their contraception OTC will forego their annual exam with their provider. However, studies have shown that the majority of people will continue to make their preventative health care visits.^6,7

We need to invest in preventing unplanned pregnancy

Currently, hormonal contraception is covered by health insurance under the ACA, with some caveats. Without a prescription, patients may have to pay full price for their contraception. However, one can find generic OCPs for less than $10 per pack out of pocket. Any cost can be prohibitive to many patients; thus, transition to OTC access to contraception also should ensure limiting the cost to the patient. One possible solution to mitigate costs is to require insurance companies to cover the cost of OTC hormonal contraceptives. (See action item below.)

Reduction in unplanned pregnancies improves public health and public expense, and broadening access to effective forms of contraception is imperative in reducing unplanned pregnancies. Every $1 invested in contraception access realizes $7.09 in savings.⁸ By making hormonal contraception widely available OTC, access could be improved dramatically—although pharmacist provision of hormonal contraception may be a necessary intermediate step. ACOG’s most recent committee opinion encourages all reproductive health care providers to be strong advocates for this improvement in access. As women’s health providers, we should work to decrease access barriers for our patients; working toward OTC contraception is a critical step in equal access to birth control methods for all of our patients.

Action items

Remember, before a pill can move to OTC access, the manufacturing (pharmaceutical) company must submit an application to the US Food and Drug Administration to obtain this status. Once submitted, the process may take 3 to 4 years to be completed. Currently, no company has submitted an OTC application and no hormonal birth control is available OTC. Find resources for OTC birth control access here: http://ocsotc.org/ and www.freethepill.org.

• Talk to your state representatives about why both OTC birth control access and direct pharmacy availability are important to increasing access and decreasing disparities in reproductive health care. Find your local and federal representatives here and check the status of OCP access in your state here.
• Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) both have introduced legislation—the Affordability is Access Act (HR 3296/S1847)—to ensure insurance coverage for OTC contraception. Call your representative and ask them to cosponsor this legislation.
• Be mindful of legislation that promotes OTC OCPs but limits access to some populations (minors) and increases cost sharing to the patient. This type of legislation can create harmful barriers to access for some of our patients

A new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion addresses how contraception access can be improved through over-the-counter (OTC) hormonal contraception for people of all ages—including oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progesterone-only pills, the patch, vaginal rings, and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Although ACOG endorses OTC contraception, some health care providers may be hesitant to support the increase in accessibility for a variety of reasons. We are hopeful that we address these concerns and that all clinicians can move to support ACOG’s position.

Easing access to hormonal contraception is a first step

OCPs are the most widely used contraception among teens and women of reproductive age in the United States.¹ Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated health insurance coverage for contraception, many barriers continue to exist, including obtaining a prescription. Only 13 states have made it legal to obtain hormonal contraception through a pharmacist.² There also has been an increase in the number of telemedicine and online services that deliver contraceptives to individuals’ homes. While these efforts have helped to decrease barriers to hormonal contraception access for some patients, they only reach a small segment of the population. As clinicians, we should strive to make contraception universally accessible and affordable to everyone who desires to use it. OTC provision can bring us closer to this goal.

Addressing the misconceptions about contraception

Adverse events with hormonal contraception are rarer than one may think. There are few risks associated with hormonal contraception. Venous thromboembolus (VTE) is a serious, although rare, adverse effect (AE) of hormonal contraception. The rate of VTE with combined oral contraception is estimated at 3 to 8 events per 10,000 patient-years, and VTE is even less common with progestin-only contraception (1 to 5 per 10,000 patient-years). For both types of hormonal contraception, the risk of VTE is smaller than with pregnancy, which is 5 to 20 per 10,000 patient-years.³ There are comorbidities that increase the risk of VTE and other AEs of hormonal contraception. In the setting of OTC hormonal contraception, individuals would self-screen for contraindications in order to reduce these complications.

Patients have the aptitude to self-screen for contraindications. Studies looking at the ability of patients over the age of 18 to self-screen for contraindications to hormonal contraception have found that patients do appropriately screen themselves. In fact, they are often more conservative than a physician in avoiding hormonal contraceptive methods.⁴ Patients younger than age 18 rarely have contraindications to hormonal contraception, but limited studies have shown that they too are able to successfully self-screen.⁵ ACOG recommends self-screening tools be provided with all OTC combined hormonal contraceptive methods to aid an individual’s contraceptive choice.

Most patients continue their well person care. Some opponents to ACOG’s position also have expressed concern that people who access their contraception OTC will forego their annual exam with their provider. However, studies have shown that the majority of people will continue to make their preventative health care visits.^6,7

We need to invest in preventing unplanned pregnancy

Currently, hormonal contraception is covered by health insurance under the ACA, with some caveats. Without a prescription, patients may have to pay full price for their contraception. However, one can find generic OCPs for less than $10 per pack out of pocket. Any cost can be prohibitive to many patients; thus, transition to OTC access to contraception also should ensure limiting the cost to the patient. One possible solution to mitigate costs is to require insurance companies to cover the cost of OTC hormonal contraceptives. (See action item below.)

Reduction in unplanned pregnancies improves public health and public expense, and broadening access to effective forms of contraception is imperative in reducing unplanned pregnancies. Every $1 invested in contraception access realizes $7.09 in savings.⁸ By making hormonal contraception widely available OTC, access could be improved dramatically—although pharmacist provision of hormonal contraception may be a necessary intermediate step. ACOG’s most recent committee opinion encourages all reproductive health care providers to be strong advocates for this improvement in access. As women’s health providers, we should work to decrease access barriers for our patients; working toward OTC contraception is a critical step in equal access to birth control methods for all of our patients.

Action items

Remember, before a pill can move to OTC access, the manufacturing (pharmaceutical) company must submit an application to the US Food and Drug Administration to obtain this status. Once submitted, the process may take 3 to 4 years to be completed. Currently, no company has submitted an OTC application and no hormonal birth control is available OTC. Find resources for OTC birth control access here: http://ocsotc.org/ and www.freethepill.org.

• Talk to your state representatives about why both OTC birth control access and direct pharmacy availability are important to increasing access and decreasing disparities in reproductive health care. Find your local and federal representatives here and check the status of OCP access in your state here.
• Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) both have introduced legislation—the Affordability is Access Act (HR 3296/S1847)—to ensure insurance coverage for OTC contraception. Call your representative and ask them to cosponsor this legislation.
• Be mindful of legislation that promotes OTC OCPs but limits access to some populations (minors) and increases cost sharing to the patient. This type of legislation can create harmful barriers to access for some of our patients

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.