Implanon use is associated with an unpredictable bleeding pattern, which includes amenorrhoea and infrequent, frequent, and/or prolonged bleeding. The bleeding pattern experienced during the first three months is broadly predictive of future bleeding patterns for many women. Effective preinsertion counselling on the possible changes in bleeding patterns may improve continuation rates.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe primary objective was to assess the efficacy, cycle control and tolerability of a monophasic combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing nomegestrol acetate (NOMAC) and 17β-oestradiol (E2). Effects on acne were evaluated as a secondary objective. Results were compared to those of a COC containing drospirenone (DRSP) and ethinylestradiol (EE).MethodsWomen (aged 18-50 years) were randomised to receive NOMAC/E2 (2.5 mg/1.5 mg) in a 24/4-day regimen (n = 1591) or DRSP/EE (3 mg/30 μg) in a 21/7-day regimen (n = 535) for 13 cycles.ResultsEstimated Pearl Indices for NOMAC/E2 and DRSP/EE were 0.38 and 0.81 in women aged ≤ 35 years and 0.31 and 0.66 for all women (18–50 years), respectively. Scheduled withdrawal bleedings were shorter and lighter among users of NOMAC/E2 and were sometimes absent altogether. Intracyclic bleeding/spotting was infrequent in both groups, and decreased over time. Type and frequency of adverse events were similar to those typically reported for COCs.ConclusionsThese data show that NOMAC/E2 provides high contraceptive efficacy with acceptable cycle control as well as an overall adverse event profile similar to that of DRSP/EE.

No abstract

Background: Non-attenders for cervical screening are at increased risk of cervical cancer. Studies offering self-sampling for high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HrHPV) testing have shown greater uptake than sending another invitation for cytology. Objectives: To explore whether uptake would increase in a less diverse, more stable population than the previous English study, which demonstrated a lower response rate than other studies. The primary objective was whether non-attenders were more likely to respond to a postal invitation, including kit, to collect a self-sample compared with a further invitation for cytology screening. The secondary objective was whether women with an abnormal result would attend for follow-up. Methods: 6000 non-attenders for screening in this pragmatic, randomized (1:1) controlled trial in Newcastle-upon-Tyne were sent an HPV self-sample kit (intervention) or a further invitation for cytology screening (comparator). Results: 411(13%) responded to the intervention, returning a self-sample (247(8%)) or attending for cytology (164(5%)), compared with 183(6%) attending for cytology, relative risk 2.25 (95% CI 1.90-2.65) (comparator arm). Of those testing hrHPV positive (32(13%)), 19(59%) subsequently attended cytology screening. Of those in the intervention group who attended for cytology screening without returning an hrHPV self-sample (n ¼ 164), 5% (n ¼ 8) were referred for colposcopy -all attended. In the comparator group eight of the nine referred for colposcopy attended. Conclusion: Persistent non-responders to invitations for cervical screening are significantly more likely to respond to a postal invitation to return a self-collected sample for HPV testing than a further invitation for cytology screening. However, just over half followed up on this positive HPV result.