Search

Background: Provider training in intrauterine device (IUD) procedures is a key strategy for improving evidence-based IUD care. We examined the influence of IUD training on IUD attitudes and practices among U.S. family planning providers., Methods: In 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of U.S. family planning providers. We performed logistic regression to examine associations between training in routine IUD placement and specific IUD safety attitudes, confidence performing IUD procedures, and specific IUD practices., Results: Among 1,063 physicians and advanced practice clinicians, 85.1% reported training in routine IUD placement. Overall, IUD training was associated with accurately stating IUDs are safe for queried groups, including patients immediately postpartum (prevalence ratio [PR] 4.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-13.85). Trained providers reported higher confidence in routine IUD placement for parous (PR 7.71; 95% CI 1.31-45.3) and nulliparous (PR 7.12; 95% CI 1.17-43.5) women and in IUD removal (PR 2.06; 95% CI 1.12-3.81). Among providers with IUDs available onsite, IUD training was associated with frequent same-day IUD provision for adults (PR 7.32; 95% CI 2.16-24.79) and adolescents (PR 7.63; 95% CI 2.22-26.24). Trained providers were also less likely to routinely use misoprostol before IUD placement for nulliparous (PR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11-0.33) and parous women (PR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03-0.16)., Conclusion: Training in routine IUD placement was associated with evidence-based IUD safety attitudes, confidence in performing IUD procedures, and clinical practices aligned with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contraception guidance. Expanding IUD training might increase evidence-based care and patient access to the full range of contraception, including IUDs., (Copyright © 2022 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, George Washington University. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by timing of insertion, delivery type, and intrauterine device type to inform current intrauterine device insertion practices in the United States., Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2019., Study Eligibility Criteria: We included all studies, of any study design, that examined postpartum placement of Copper T380A (copper) or levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices that reported counts of expulsion., Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: We evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to <72 hours), "early outpatient" (72 hours to <4 weeks), and interval (≥4 weeks) time periods after delivery. We assessed study quality using the US Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of partial and complete intrauterine device expulsion separately and estimated adjusted relative risks by the timing of postpartum placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type using log-binomial multivariable regression., Results: We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality that reported a total of 7661 intrauterine device placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates varied by timing of placement as follows: 10.2% (range, 0.0-26.7) for immediate; 13.2% (3.5-46.7) for early inpatient; 0% for early outpatient; and 1.8% (0.0-4.8) for interval placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates also varied by delivery type: 14.8% (range, 4.8-43.1) for vaginal and 3.8% (0.0-21.1) for cesarean deliveries. Among immediate postpartum vaginal placements, the expulsion rate for levonorgetrel intrauterine devices was 27.4% (range, 18.8-45.2) and 12.4% (4.8-43.1) for copper intrauterine devices. Compared with interval placement, immediate and early postpartum placements (inpatient and outpatient combined) were associated with greater risk of complete expulsion (adjusted risk ratio, 8.33; 95% confidence interval, 4.32-16.08, and adjusted risk ratio, 5.27; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-10.85, respectively). Among immediate postpartum placements, risk of expulsion was greater for placement after vaginal compared with cesarean deliveries (adjusted risk ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 3.49-5.99). Among immediate placements at the time of vaginal delivery, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices were associated with a greater risk of expulsion compared with copper intrauterine devices (adjusted risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.65)., Conclusion: Although intrauterine device expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, type, and mode of delivery, intrauterine device insertion can take place at any time. Understanding the risk of intrauterine device expulsion at each time period will enable women to make an informed choice about when to initiate use of an intrauterine device in the postpartum period based on their own goals and preferences., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

"U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use" (U.S. MEC) 2016 provides evidence-based guidance for the safe use of contraceptive methods among U.S. women with certain characteristics or medical conditions (1). The U.S. MEC is adapted from global guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and kept up to date through continual review of published literature (1). CDC recently evaluated the evidence and the updated WHO guidance on the risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition among women using hormonal contraception and intrauterine devices (IUDs) (2). After careful review, CDC adopted WHO's 2019 updated guidance for inclusion in the U.S. MEC guidance; CDC's updated guidance states that progestin-only injectable contraception (including depot medroxyprogesterone acetate [DMPA]) and IUDs (including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-bearing) are safe for use without restriction among women at high risk for HIV infection (U.S. MEC category 1 [previously U.S. MEC category 2, advantages outweigh risks]) (Box). CDC's guidance also adds an accompanying clarification for women who wish to use IUDs, which states "Many women at a high risk for HIV infection are also at risk for other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). For these women, refer to the recommendations in the 'U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use' for women with other factors related to STDs, and the 'U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use' on STD screening before IUD insertion" (1,3). Recommendations for other hormonal contraceptive methods (including combined hormonal methods, implants, and progestin-only pills) remain the same; there is also no restriction for their use among women at high risk for HIV infection (U.S. MEC category 1). Finally, CDC clarified that the U.S. MEC recommendations for concurrent use of hormonal contraceptives or IUDs and antiretroviral use for treatment of HIV infection also apply to use of antiretrovirals for prevention of HIV acquisition (preexposure prophylaxis [PrEP])., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Context: Women who are living with HIV use IUDs at a lower rate than the general population, and it is unclear whether health care providers' misconceptions about IUD safety contribute to this disparity., Methods: A 2013-2014 nationwide survey of 1,998 U.S. family planning providers assessed perceptions of IUD safety for women with HIV or other medical conditions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between provider characteristics and whether individuals believed IUDs were safe for HIV-positive women. Data from public-sector providers and office-based physicians were analyzed separately., Results: Seven in 10 providers considered IUDs safe for women with HIV, and there were no differences by provider type. Among public-sector providers, some of the characteristics associated with believing that IUDs were unsafe for seropositive women were working at a clinic without Title X funding (odds ratio, 1.5), not being trained in IUD insertion (2.1) and not using the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) for clinical guidance (1.8). Office-based physicians who did not use the guidelines also had an increased likelihood of believing that IUDs were unsafe for women with HIV (2.9), and physicians who had completed training 25 or more years ago were more likely than those who had done so less than five years ago to consider IUDs unsafe (3.3)., Conclusions: Greater use of evidence-based contraceptive guidance such as the U.S. MEC may help inform provider perceptions of IUD safety and hence contribute to increased contraceptive choice for women with HIV., (Copyright © 2018 by the Guttmacher Institute.)

Objective: Immediate postpartum intrauterine devices (IUDs) have been underutilized in the United States despite their known safety. Understanding how providers' attitudes contribute to underutilization is important in improving access. Our objective was to examine healthcare providers' perceptions of the safety of immediate postpartum IUDs before publication of United States contraceptive guidelines., Materials and Methods: We analyzed survey data collected from December 2009 to March 2010 from 635 office-based physicians and 1368 Title X clinic providers (overall response rate of 64.8%). Providers were asked how safe they thought copper and levonorgestrel (LNG) IUDs were in postpartum women (very safe, safe, unsafe, very unsafe, and unsure). Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for characteristics associated with considering immediate and delayed postpartum IUDs to be safe., Results: Less than 40% of respondents considered immediate or delayed IUD insertion to be safe. Providers with <1 day of family planning training had decreased odds of considering immediate postpartum IUD insertion to be safe compared with unsafe/unsure (aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.84 for copper IUD and aOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.81 for LNG-IUD). Providers without training in postpartum or interval copper IUD insertion had decreased odds of considering immediate postpartum copper IUD insertion (aOR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.79) and delayed postpartum insertion for both IUD types to be safe (aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.66 for copper IUD and aOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.77 for LNG-IUD)., Conclusions: Before United States contraceptive guidelines, a majority of providers perceived immediate postpartum IUDs to be unsafe.

Objective: The objective was to assess risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) among women with current asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or who are at high risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), comparing those who have a copper-bearing (Cu-) or levonorgestrel (LNG-) intrauterine device (IUD) placed with women who do not., Study Design: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library for articles from January 1984 through January 2016 addressing our objective. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system., Results: Our search strategy yielded 2220 articles, of which 10 met inclusion criteria. Two studies provided direct evidence of PID rates in women with undiagnosed gonococcal or chlamydial (GC/CT) infection or at high risk for STIs initiating IUDs versus other contraceptive methods (level II-2, fair to poor), and neither study found a difference. Eight studies provided indirect evidence (II-2 to II-3, fair to poor). One study found no difference in PID rates between initiators of Cu- versus LNG-IUDs. Five studies compared algorithms based on patient factors with laboratory GC/CT screening to predict cervical infection. Based on likelihood ratios, none of these algorithms adequately identified women at high risk of asymptomatic cervical infection who should not undergo IUD placement. Two studies compared IUD placement on the same day as STI screening with delayed placement after screening and found no difference in PID rates., Conclusion: Limited evidence suggests that IUD placement does not increase the risk of PID compared with no IUD placement among women with asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or at high risk of STIs. Algorithms based on patient characteristics to identify women with asymptomatic GC/CT may be overly restrictive, leading to missed opportunities for IUD initiation. Historical concerns about higher PID risk among women at risk for STIs who use IUDs may not be relevant with modern devices and STI screening and treatment practices., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women., Objective: This study aims to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures, insertion success)., Search Strategy: We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined medications to ease interval insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs and copper T IUDs., Results: From 1855 articles, we identified 15 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Most evidence suggested that misoprostol did not improve provider ease of insertion, reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures or improve insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD (evidence Level I, good to fair). However, one RCT found significantly higher insertion success among women receiving misoprostol prior to a second IUD insertion attempt after failed attempt versus placebo (evidence Level I, good). Two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good to poor), and one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (evidence Level I, fair)., Conclusions: Overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Use of highly effective contraception among women living with HIV is critical to prevent unintended pregnancy and subsequent risk of maternal complications and perinatal HIV transmission. However, it is not known whether use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) among women with advanced HIV disease poses an increased risk of pelvic infection or HIV progression and transmission., Objectives: To identify evidence regarding the risk of pelvic infection, HIV disease progression or HIV transmission among women with HIV using IUDs and whether this risk differs by severity of HIV disease., Methods: We searched the PubMed database for all articles published from database inception through January 2016. For the outcome of pelvic infection, we included studies that examined women using IUDs and reported risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) or pelvic infections among women with varying levels of HIV severity or among women with HIV compared with women without HIV. For the outcomes of HIV disease progression and HIV transmission to noninfected male partners, we included studies of women with HIV using IUDs compared with other contraceptive methods or no method., Results: The review identified eight articles from six study populations which addressed pelvic infections or other IUD-related complications and found mixed results. One study that directly compared women with varying levels of HIV disease severity found no differences in complication rates between those with severe or mild disease after short- and longer-term follow-up. The remaining studies generally found low or no incidence of PID among IUD users. Among eight articles from seven study populations that reported on HIV disease progression, there were generally no differences between women using IUDs compared with other contraceptives, nor were there changes between baseline and follow-up. One article that reported directly on HIV disease transmission to noninfected male partners found no difference in HIV disease transmission, and five articles found no differences in genital viral shedding among women using IUDs. No direct evidence addresses potential differences in HIV disease progression or transmission by HIV disease severity., Conclusion: Limited evidence of fair to poor quality found no differences in infectious complications when comparing IUD complication rates among women with varying levels of HIV disease severity. One study found that IUD use was not associated with HIV transmission, and studies generally found no differences in genital viral shedding or disease progression; however, there was little direct evidence to address potential differences related to HIV severity., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Postpartum women need effective contraception. Concerns have been raised that use of progestogen-only contraceptives (POCs) may affect breastfeeding performance and infant health outcomes., Objectives: We investigated the clinical outcomes of breastfeeding duration, initiation of supplemental feeding and weaning, as well as infant outcomes including infant growth, health and development among breastfeeding women using POCs compared with breastfeeding women not using POCs., Search Strategy: We searched the PubMed database for all articles published from database inception through December 2014., Selection Criteria: We included primary research studies of breastfeeding women of any age or parity who received POCs, including progestogen-only pills, injectables, implants or hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). The main outcomes were breastfeeding performance (as measured by initiation, continuation, frequency and exclusivity of breastfeeding) and infant health (as measured by growth, development or adverse health effects)., Results: Forty-nine articles reporting on 47 different studies were identified that investigated the use of POCs in breastfeeding women and reported clinically relevant outcomes of infant growth, health or breastfeeding performance. Studies ranged from poor to fair methodological quality and generally failed to show negative effects of the use of POCs on breastfeeding outcomes or on infant growth or development. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) raises concerns that immediate insertion of the levonorgestrel IUD postpartum may be associated with poorer breastfeeding performance when compared with delayed insertion, although two other RCTs evaluating early etonogestrel implants compared with delayed initiation of implants or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate failed to find such an association., Conclusion: The preponderance of evidence fails to demonstrate adverse breastfeeding outcomes or negative health outcomes in infants such as restricted growth, health problems or impaired development. Evidence newly added to this review was largely consistent with previous evidence., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of and factors associated with dual method use (i.e., condom with hormonal contraception or an intrauterine device) among adolescents and young women in the United States., Methods: We used 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth data from 2,093 unmarried females aged 15-24 years and at risk for unintended pregnancy. Using multivariable logistic regression, we estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the associations between dual method use at last sex and sociodemographic, behavioral, reproductive history, and sexual behavior factors., Results: At last sex, 20.7% of adolescents and young women used dual methods, 34.4% used condoms alone, 29.1% used hormonal contraception or an intrauterine device alone, and 15.8% used another method or no method. Factors associated with decreased odds of dual method use versus dual method nonuse included having a previous pregnancy (aOR = .44, 95% CI .27-.69), not having health insurance coverage over the past 12 months (aOR = .41, 95% CI .19-.91), and having sex prior to age 16 (aOR = .49, 95% CI .30-.78)., Conclusions: The prevalence of dual method use is low among adolescents and young women. Adolescents and young women who may have a higher risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (e.g., those with a previous pregnancy) were less likely to use dual methods at last sex. Interventions are needed to increase the correct and consistent use of dual methods among adolescents and young women who may be at greater risk for unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Women using intrauterine devices (IUDs) are not protected against acquiring pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). If a woman has an IUD in place when she is diagnosed with PID, there is a theoretical concern that presence of an IUD might impact the course of treatment. This review was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding whether an IUD should be retained or removed if a woman develops PID., Study Design: The PubMed database was searched from database inception through April 2012 for all peer-reviewed articles in any language concerning PID in women using IUDs. Articles were included if they examined women with IUDs who developed PID and compared the clinical course of women in whom the IUD was retained versus women in whom the IUD was removed. Articles were excluded if the infection was diagnosed before or at the time of IUD insertion. The quality of each study was assessed using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading system., Results: Four fair-quality studies met inclusion criteria for this review. One randomized controlled trial showed that women with IUDs removed had longer hospitalizations than those with IUD retention (15% versus 4%, p<.01), although there were no differences in PID recurrences or subsequent pregnancies. Another randomized controlled trial showed no differences in laboratory parameters among women who retained the IUD when compared with women in whom the IUD was removed. One prospective cohort study showed that there were no differences in clinical or laboratory parameters during hospitalization; however, the IUD removal group had a higher proportion hospitalized for more than 2 weeks compared with the IUD retention group (33% versus 19%, p<.05). One randomized controlled trial showed that women who had the IUD removed experienced improved recovery in most clinical signs and symptoms compared with women who retained the IUD., Conclusions: Three fair-quality studies showed no difference in clinical or laboratory outcomes among women who retained IUDs when compared with women who had IUDs removed, and two of these studies showed that women who had IUDs removed had longer hospitalizations. In contrast, one fair quality study showed improved clinical signs and symptoms among women who had IUDs removed. Overall, women who retained their IUDs had similar or better outcomes than women who had their IUDs removed., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: After a woman initiates certain methods of contraception [e.g., hormonal methods, intrauterine devices (IUDs)], she is generally asked to return at some interval for a follow-up visit; however, is it unclear whether follow up is needed, what an appropriate follow-up schedule is and what should be done at follow-up visits., Methods: We conducted four separate searches in the PubMed database for all peer-reviewed articles in any language published from database inception through April 2012 that examined the following health outcomes for combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs), IUDs or medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA): (a) incidence of hypertension among women who began using a CHC compared to women not using a CHC; (b) incidence of migraine among women who began using a CHC compared to women not using a CHC; (c) incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) among women who began using an IUD compared to women who started another form or used no method of contraception or examined incidence of PID at two or more time periods after IUD insertion and (d) whether initial weight gain predicts future weight gain among women who began using DMPA. The quality of each study was assessed using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading system., Results: A total of 15 studies met our inclusion criteria: 5 examined hypertension and combined oral contraceptive (COC) use, 7 examined PID and IUD use and 3 examined weight gain after DMPA initiation. No studies that examined migraine after CHC initiation met our inclusion criteria. Few women developed hypertension after initiating COCs, and studies examining increases in blood pressure after COC initiation found mixed results (Level I, fair to II-2, fair). Among women who had a copper IUD inserted, there was little difference in incidence of PID, or IUD removal for PID, compared with women who initiated DMPA, a hormone-releasing IUD, or COCs (Level I, good to Level II-2, fair). Studies that examined when women were diagnosed with PID after IUD insertion found mixed results. The study with the largest sample size found a much greater incidence of PID in the first 20 days after insertion, with very low rates of PID up to 8 years postinsertion (Level I, good to Level II-3, poor). Studies that examined weight gain after DMPA initiation found that weight gain >5% of baseline weight at 6 months was associated with greater mean change in weight and greater mean change in body mass index at follow-up times ranging from 12 to 36 months (Level II-2, fair to Level II-3, fair)., Conclusions: Evidence on select adverse events associated with initiation of contraceptive use is limited but does not suggest increased risk of hypertension among COC users or increased risk of PID among IUD users. DMPA users who gain >5% of baseline body weight may be at increased risk of future weight gain., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Intrauterine device (IUD) insertion during menses may be viewed as preferable by some providers, as it provides reassurance that the woman is not pregnant. However, this practice may result in unnecessary inconvenience and cost to women. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for the effect of inserting IUDs on different days of the menstrual cycle on contraceptive continuation, effectiveness and safety., Study Design: We searched the MEDLINE database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through March 2012 concerning the effect of inserting copper IUDs (Cu-IUD) or levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs (LNG-IUDs) on different days of the menstrual cycle on contraceptive continuation, effectiveness, and safety. The quality of each individual piece of evidence was assessed using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading system., Results: We identified eight articles that met the criteria for review. Each study examined the Cu-IUD; no studies were identified that examined the LNG-IUD. Overall, these studies suggest that timing of Cu-IUD insertion has little effect on longer term outcomes (rates of continuation, removal, expulsion, or pregnancy) or on shorter term outcomes (pain at insertion, bleeding at insertion, immediate expulsion). Specifically, there was no evidence to suggest that outcomes were better when Cu-IUD insertions were performed during menses. Limitations of the studies include small sample sizes for insertions performed during later days of the menstrual cycle and non-randomized assignment to timing of insertion., Conclusions: There is fair evidence (body of evidence grading: II-2, fair) indicating that timing of Cu-IUD insertion has little effect on contraceptive continuation, effectiveness or safety., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate US rates of postpartum intrauterine device (IUD) insertion and postpartum tubal sterilization., Study Design: Data from the 2001-2008 Nationwide Inpatient Sample were used to identify delivery hospitalizations with IUD insertion or tubal sterilization procedure codes., Results: Estimated rates of postpartum IUD insertion and postpartum tubal sterilization were 0.27 and 770.67 per 10,000 deliveries, respectively. Although the rate of IUD insertion was similar across age groups, the rate of tubal sterilization increased with age. Nonetheless, 15% of tubal sterilizations occurred among women who were ≤ 24 years old. IUD insertion was more likely among women who delivered at teaching hospitals (odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-6.37); tubal sterilization was more likely among women without private insurance (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-2.11)., Conclusion: Among US postpartum women, IUD insertion occurs considerably less frequently than tubal sterilization, even among younger women for whom poststerilization regret is a concern., (Published by Mosby, Inc.)

Background: This review was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion immediately following spontaneous or induced abortion., Study Design: We searched MEDLINE databases for all articles (in all languages) published in peer-reviewed journals from January 1966 through March 2010 for evidence comparing immediate postabortion IUD insertion with either no IUD insertion, insertion at a different time, insertion following first-trimester compared with second-trimester abortion or copper IUD insertion compared with hormone-releasing IUD insertion postabortion. We used standard abstraction forms to summarize and assess the quality of the evidence., Results: The search strategy identified a total of 990 articles, of which 19 met our inclusion criteria for this review. Studies comparing immediate postabortion IUD insertion with no IUD insertion found that both groups experienced similar rates of pain and infection and a similar number of bleeding days, but one study reported that women with copper IUD insertion experienced a greater amount of bleeding than women without IUD insertion after abortion. Results from studies comparing immediate postabortion IUD insertion and insertion at a time not associated with pregnancy did not report differences between the two groups in the duration of bleeding, pain, expulsions or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). One study however reported a greater amount of bleeding and another reported more removals for medical reasons among women with postabortion IUD insertion. Evidence from studies that examined immediate vs. delayed postabortion insertion reported minimal differences in bleeding, pain, expulsion and PID between groups. Studies comparing immediate IUD insertion after first- vs. second-trimester abortion reported no difference in removals for pain and bleeding, and an increased risk of expulsion among those women who had insertions after second-trimester abortion. In addition, women with insertions immediately after abortions occurring later in the first trimester had higher expulsion rates than those with insertions after early first-trimester abortions. Studies examining women using a copper IUD compared with a hormone-releasing IUD reported inconsistent results, with one paper reporting more bleeding days in the copper IUD group and another finding higher rates of removal for bleeding in the progesterone-releasing IUD group., Conclusion: Intrauterine device insertion immediately after abortion is not associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes compared with use of other contraceptive methods or with no IUD insertion after abortion and compared with IUD insertion at times other than immediately after abortion. Intrauterine device expulsion rates, while generally low, were higher with insertions that occurred after later first-trimester abortion compared with after early first-trimester abortion and higher with IUD insertion after second-trimester abortion compared with after first-trimester abortion., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the determinants of intrauterine device (IUD) use and reasons for choosing IUDs over other reversible contraceptive methods., Design: Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression were used to assess multiple factors associated with IUD use and the use of other reversible methods in the United States., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Women at risk of pregnancy from the 2006 to 2008 National Survey of Family Growth and a 2004 Guttmacher Institute survey., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): Sociodemographic and reproductive characteristics, family background, and health insurance coverage., Result(s): IUD use was positively associated with women's parity and the highest education level of respondent's mother; it was less common among women who had ≥4 sexual partners in the last 12 months and those who were widowed, divorced, or separated. IUD users reported pregnancy prevention, provider recommendation, and no interruption of sex as the most important reasons for choosing the method and reported a high level of satisfaction., Conclusion(s): IUD users differed substantially from users of other reversible contraceptives. IUD use was especially uncommon among nulliparae. Most current IUD users were satisfied with their choice., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Women undergoing solid organ transplantation are advised to avoid pregnancy for up to 24 months following transplant surgery., Study Design: We conducted a systematic review of the literature, from database (PubMed) inception through February 2009, to evaluate evidence on the safety and effectiveness of contraceptive use among women having undergone solid organ transplantation., Results: From 643 articles, eight articles from seven studies satisfied review inclusion criteria; six articles pertained to kidney transplant patients, and two reported on liver transplant patients. Two reports of one prospective cohort of 36 kidney transplant recipients taking combined oral contraceptives (COCs) or using the transdermal contraceptive patch reported no significant changes in biochemical measures after 18 months of use for either group, although 13 women modified antihypertensive medication, and two women discontinued the study because of serious medical complications. Four case reports of five kidney recipients using intrauterine devices reported inconsistent findings, including both beneficial health effects and contraceptive failures. One retrospective, noncomparative study of 15 liver transplant recipients using COCs or the transdermal contraceptive patch found no significant changes in any biochemical measures obtained, no discontinuations or severe complications and no pregnancies after a 12-month follow up. One case report of a liver transplant recipient on cyclosporine and prednisone documented the development of cholestasis associated with high-dose (50 mcg ethinyl estradiol) COC use as treatment for heavy uterine bleeding., Conclusions: Very limited evidence on COC and transdermal contraceptive patch use among kidney and liver transplant recipients indicated no pregnancies and no overall changes in biochemical measures. Excluding case reports, evidence on other contraceptive methods or contraception among other types of solid organ transplants was not identified., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Fertility-sparing treatment may be an option for women with early stage ovarian cancer and certain tumor types. This systematic review evaluated the evidence on the safety of intrauterine device (IUD) use by women with ovarian cancer., Study Design: We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles relevant to IUD (copper or levonorgestrel-releasing) use and ovarian cancer published in any language from database inception through August 2009. We sought studies that examined outcomes among women using an IUD at or after ovarian cancer diagnosis., Results: Of the 250 articles identified by our search strategy, none provided evidence (direct or indirect) regarding the safety of IUD use among women with ovarian cancer., Conclusions: No evidence on the safety of IUD use among women with ovarian cancer was identified. While there are some theoretical concerns that IUD use might affect monitoring of disease progression of sex cord-stromal tumors, or increase risk of pelvic infection or vaginal bleeding among women undergoing chemotherapy, we did not find any data to suggest that IUD use would lead to worsening of primary ovarian cancer., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To examine the evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of intrauterine devices (IUDs) in women with uterine abnormalities., Methods: We searched PubMed for all peer-reviewed articles in any language that had been published on the topic from database inception to September 2009. Primary research articles were included if they addressed the safety or effectiveness of any type of IUD among women with Müllerian anomalies or uterine synechiae., Results: In total, 19 case reports or case series met the inclusion criteria. Reported complications included expulsion, pregnancy, bleeding, perforation, and pain. In several case reports, no complications were reported., Conclusion: Evidence concerning the safety and effectiveness of IUD use among women with uterine abnormalities is very limited., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Objective: To determine from the literature whether HIV-infected women who use hormonal or intrauterine contraception are at increased risk of HIV disease progression, other adverse health outcomes, or HIV transmission to uninfected sexual partners., Design: A systematic review., Methods: We searched PubMed for articles published in peer-reviewed journals through August 2009 for evidence relevant to all hormonal and intrauterine contraceptive methods and HIV/AIDS., Results: Eight observational studies reported no increased risk of HIV disease progression with hormonal or intrauterine contraceptive use, whereas one randomized controlled trial found increased risks of declining CD4 cell count and death for hormonal contraceptive users compared with intrauterine device users. Women with HIV who used hormonal contraception had increased risks of acquiring sexually transmitted infections compared with women not using hormonal contraception, similar to the risks reported among uninfected women. One study found no association between hormonal or intrauterine contraceptive use and increased risk of HIV transmission to uninfected partners, whereas findings from nine studies examining contraceptive use and viral shedding from the genital tract were inconsistent., Conclusion: Evidence regarding the safety of hormonal and intrauterine contraceptive use among women with HIV remains limited, but generally reassuring regarding adverse health effects, disease transmission to uninfected partners, and disease progression; however, one randomized trial raised concerns about enhanced disease progression among women using hormonal contraception. Preventing unintended pregnancy among women with HIV remains a high priority in public health, both for the health of the woman as well as for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

To identify characteristics associated with provider attitudes on the safety of "Quick Start" initiation of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for adolescents. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of providers in public-sector health centers and office-based physicians (n = 2056) during 2013-2014. Overall, the prevalence of considering "Quick Start" initiation of LARC for adolescents as safe was 70.9% for implants and 64.5% for intrauterine devices (IUDs). Among public-sector providers, those not trained in implant or IUD insertion had lower odds of perceiving the practice safe (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.41 for implants; aOR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55 for IUDs), whereas those practicing at health centers that did not receive Title X funding had lower odds of perceiving the practice safe for IUDs (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98). Among office-based physicians, lack of training in LARC insertion was associated with lower odds of perceiving "Quick Start" initiation to be safe for IUDs (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.77). Those specializing in adolescent medicine had higher odds of reporting "Quick Start" initiation of LARC as safe (implants: aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.23-3.98; IUDs: aOR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.39-8.21) compared with obstetrician-gynecologists. Approximately two-thirds of providers considered "Quick Start" initiation of LARC for adolescents safe; however, there were differences according to provider characteristics (eg, Title X funding, training in LARC insertion, specialty). Targeted LARC insertion training and dissemination of evidence-based family planning guidance and implementation into facility and practice-level policies might increase access to "Quick Start" initiation of LARC for adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: One of the mechanisms by which intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent pregnancy is the creation of a sterile inflammatory response in the endometrium. Additionally, hormone-releasing IUDs or intrauterine systems (IUSs) release progestins or progesterone into the uterus. Both of these mechanisms may affect users'' risk for neoplasia. Study Design: We searched the PubMed database for studies on IUD use and risk for neoplasia conducted between 1960 and September 2006 and published in all languages. We excluded case reports and case series. For the association between ever using an IUD and risk for endometrial cancer, we conducted a meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects model to account for between-study heterogeneity. Results: We found no evidence of increased risk for neoplasia with IUD use. Nine case–control studies and one cohort study found reduced risks for endometrial cancer with having ever used an IUD (pooled adjusted odds ratio=0.6, 95% confidence interval=0.4–0.7). No trend in associations was observed with characteristics of IUD use, type of IUD and histologic type of cancer. Four case–control studies found no association between IUD use and risk for cervical cancer. One study found no increased incidence of breast cancer among levonorgestrel-releasing IUS users as compared with the general population in Finland. Finally, three studies found no association between IUD use and occurrence of hydatidiform moles or malignant sequelae. Conclusions: Use of an IUD does not appear to increase the risk for neoplasia. While nearly all studies found that IUD use was associated with a decreased risk for endometrial cancer, it remains unclear whether this association is causal. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Women diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD) need safe and effective contraception because they are advised to delay a subsequent pregnancy. Study Design: We searched MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library for articles in any language on use of combined oral contraceptives (COC), copper-bearing or levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs among women with benign or malignant GTD, from database inception through November 2008. One review and nine articles were identified and evaluated. Results: Incidence of postmolar trophoblastic disease was lower among COC users compared with nonusers in six studies, but higher among COC users in three studies. Five studies reported shorter human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) regression duration among COC users compared with other methods. Development of postmolar trophoblastic disease did not differ significantly among IUD users compared with COC users or nonusers in three studies. Conclusions: Evidence shows that postmolar trophoblastic disease risk does not increase among women using COCs or an IUD following molar pregnancy evacuation compared with use of other contraceptive methods or no method. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]