No abstract

Despite the high contraceptive effectiveness of many hormonal and intrauterine reversible contraceptive methods, many HCPs, users and potential users are concerned mainly about side effects and safety of both hormonal and non-hormonal contraceptive methods, and there is scarce information about the many benefits that these methods offer beyond contraception.

ISRCTN33378571 registered on 22 March 2004. The first participant was enrolled on 12 May 2003.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

STUDY QUESTIONIs it possible to extend the use of the 3-year one-rod etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant to 5 years?SUMMARY ANSWERThe extended use of the one-rod ENG-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant showed 100% efficacy in years 4 and 5.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYThe initial regulated trials on the ENG-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant conducted in the 1990 s were designed to measure cumulative 3-year efficacy. The ENG-implant has both well established safety and efficacy for up to 3 years. Pharmacokinetic data on ENG show high levels at 3 years and some previous clinical research confirms efficacy beyond the current approved duration of 3 years. Today, many women, because the labeled duration has been reached, have the ENG implant removed at 3 years, increasing costs, inconvenience and risks.STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATIONFor the first 3 years, this study was an open-label, multi-centre randomized trial comparing the 3-year ENG implant to the 5-year levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing implant. After 3 years, a subset of 390 ENG participants, consented to extended use. We compared efficacy, side effects and removal procedures of both implants. We used Kaplan–Meier (K–M) analysis. We included an observational cohort of copper intrauterine device (IUD) users as non-users of hormonal contraceptive method for comparative purposes.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSThe study took place in family planning clinics in seven countries worldwide. Women were enlisted after an eligibility check and informed consent, and 1328 women were enrolled: 390, 522 and 416 in the ENG-implant, LNG-implant and IUD groups, respectively.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEOver 200 women used the ENG implant for at least 5 years. No pregnancies occurred during the additional 2 years of follow up in the ENG or LNG implant group. The overall 5-year K–M cumulative pregnancy rates for ENG- and LNG- implants were 0.6 per 100 women-years (W-Y) [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2–1.8] and 0.8 per 100 W-Y [95% CI: 0.2–2.3], respectively. Complaints of bleeding changes were similar; however, ENG-users were more likely than LNG-users to experience heavy bleeding (p < 0.05). The median duration of the implant removal procedure was 64 seconds shorter for the one-rod ENG-implant (inter-quartile range (IQR) = 30.5, 117.5) compared to the two-rod LNG product (IQR = 77.0, 180.0). The 2-year rate for pregnancy in the IUD group compared with the two implant groups combined was 4.1 per 100 W-Y [95% CI: 2.5–6.5].LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONFew women were ≤19 years old or nulligravida. Although there was no weight limit for enrolment in the study, the number of women ≥70 kg were few.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe results from this study corroborate previous evidence showing high contraceptive efficacy through 4 years for the ENG-implant. Data through 5 years are a novel contribution and further proof of the product's capability to provide safe and effective contraception that rivals the current 5-year LNG-subdermal impla...

No abstract