Editorials

New Contraceptive Options: Patient Adherence and Satisfaction



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 2004 Feb 15;69(4):811-816.

  Related Article

More than 10 million women in the United States use oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) to prevent pregnancy.1 However, OCPs have a 6 percent failure rate within the first year.1 Data14 have shown that unintended pregnancy with this method of contraception often is related to incorrect or inconsistent use, side effects, or patient dissatisfaction. Adolescents are less likely than adult women to adhere to OCP regimens, and only 12 percent of adolescents continue OCP use beyond one year.5 It is clear that patient adherence and satisfaction are critically important for effective contraception. Recently introduced contraceptive options should improve both of these factors.

In this issue of American Family Physician, Herndon and Zieman6 review newer contraceptive methods, including the combined hormonal vaginal ring (NuvaRing), combined hormonal injection, combination contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra), and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena). These contraceptive methods have approximately the same efficacy and safety as OCPs, but they use delivery systems that have been designed to encourage adherence and improve patient acceptability.

The vaginal ring provides once-a-month contraception, with one cycle consisting of three weeks of ring use and one ring-free week. This contraceptive method avoids first-pass metabolism and gastrointestinal interference, thereby allowing use of lower hormone doses. The vaginal ring also provides more uniform hormone concentrations than OCPs. In a study7 evaluating user acceptability in North America and Europe, 96 percent of women stated that they were satisfied with the vaginal ring, and 97 percent indicated that they would recommend this method of contraception to a friend. Reasons for preferring the vaginal ring included not having to remember daily dosing, ease of use, and effectiveness of contraception. More than 90 percent of the women in the study thought that the instructions for vaginal ring use and storage were simple, and 93 percent were pleased with cycle control. In the small number of women who disliked or discontinued using the vaginal ring, primary reasons were interference with intercourse and ring expulsion. Previous worldwide studies8,9 support these findings, with most women considering the vaginal ring easy to use, effective, and convenient. The vaginal ring has not been directly compared with OCPs for adherence, but it seems logical that adherence would improve with a once-monthly contraceptive method that has straightforward instructions for use.

The combined hormonal injection provides monthly contraception without the need to take a pill or insert and remove a device. The injection is administered every 28 to 30 days and supplies a steady concentration of hormones.10 Compared with women who use triphasic combined OCPs, women who use the hormonal injection report more discomfort but less interference with daily and social activities.11 Interestingly, only 60 percent of injection users and approximately 80 percent of OCP users planned to continue their method, but more than 90 percent of the women indicated that they would recommend their respective contraceptive method to a friend.11 The combined hormonal injection appears to have a niche, in that it eliminates daily adherence and the use of a device or medication; however, treatment burden may be increased because of the need for monthly office visits. Furthermore, the hormonal injection, marketed as Lunelle, currently is not available. Prefilled syringes were voluntarily recalled in October, 2002, by the manufacturer because of concerns about full potency resulting in an increased risk of contraceptive failure. Vials of the injection were not affected by this recall but became unavailable in October, 2003. The status of future availability is unknown.

Randomized controlled trials12,13 comparing the contraceptive patch with a combination OCP have demonstrated similar efficacy rates, higher early discontinuation rates, and increased side effects (breast tenderness, application site reactions, dysmenorrhea) with use of the patch. Contraceptive patch users report more cycles of adherence than OCP users (odds ratio, 2.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.8 to 2.3); furthermore, age does not affect compliance among women 18 to 45 years of age.14 Complete or partial patch detachment is rare (5 percent incidence), and replacement patches are readily accessible. It should be noted that the efficacy rate for the patch may be lower in patients who weigh more than 90 kg (198 lb), but OCP failure has been reported in women weighing 70.5 kg (155 lb) or more.15 The contraceptive patch provides once-weekly dosing (to improve compliance), avoids first-pass metabolism, and provides consistent hormone concentrations. However, patch use requires reliable skin adhesion, even in active lifestyle conditions.

The acceptability of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system has been studied in numerous countries (e.g., Austria, Finland, Brazil, France).1619 Women who choose this method of contraception tend to be older, to desire long-term contraception, or to have been dissatisfied with a different form of contraception. This contraceptive method is effective and safe, and is associated with decreased blood loss in women with menorrhagia. Compared with other intrauterine devices, the levonorgestrel intrauterine system is better tolerated, although use may be discontinued because of hormone-related side effects (e.g., mood changes, acne, headaches, weight gain). Adherence is high because there is no user involvement once the device is inserted; patient satisfaction increases when detailed information is provided at the insertion visit.17 The longest acceptability study to date found that 69 percent of women were very satisfied with this contraceptive method after six months of use and 77 percent were very satisfied after 36 months of use.16 The levonorgestrel intrauterine system is well accepted and is appropriate for use in women who desire long-term, reversible contraception.

The effectiveness of any contraceptive depends on the ability and willingness of the user to comply with the chosen method. The newer contraceptive methods have not yet been evaluated in adolescents. It is rational to assume that these contraceptive methods can improve unintended pregnancy rates in adolescents, although access and affordability may be problems.

The accompanying table2024 summarizes the newer contraceptive methods. When determining whether a newer option is better than a traditional contraceptive method, patient characteristics and contraceptive benefits and risks must be evaluated.

Characteristics of New Contraceptive Options

Contraceptive method Failure rate Side effects Office visits Easily reversible Dosing User controlled Discreet

Combined hormonal vaginal ring (NuvaRing)

One to two pregnancies per 100 women-years21

Estrogen and proges in related

Yes (prescription)

Yes

Every 4 weeks

Yes

Yes

Combination hormonal injection*

<1% per year22

Estrogen and progestin related

Yes (monthly)

Yes

Monthly

No

Yes

Combination contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra)

One pregnancy per 100 women-years23

Estrogen and progestin related

Yes (prescription)

Yes

Weekly

Yes

Maybe

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena)

0.2% per year, or 0.7% per 5 years24

Progestin related

Yes (insertion)

Yes

Every 5 years

No

Yes


*—The combined hormonal injection marketed as Lunelle is no longer being manufactured in the United States.

Adapted with permission from Wild RA. Contraception now: new options, better choices. Slide no. 7. Accessed January 23, 2004, at http://www.contraceptiononline.org/slides/, with additional information from references 21 through 24.

Characteristics of New Contraceptive Options

View Table

Characteristics of New Contraceptive Options

Contraceptive method Failure rate Side effects Office visits Easily reversible Dosing User controlled Discreet

Combined hormonal vaginal ring (NuvaRing)

One to two pregnancies per 100 women-years21

Estrogen and proges in related

Yes (prescription)

Yes

Every 4 weeks

Yes

Yes

Combination hormonal injection*

<1% per year22

Estrogen and progestin related

Yes (monthly)

Yes

Monthly

No

Yes

Combination contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra)

One pregnancy per 100 women-years23

Estrogen and progestin related

Yes (prescription)

Yes

Weekly

Yes

Maybe

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena)

0.2% per year, or 0.7% per 5 years24

Progestin related

Yes (insertion)

Yes

Every 5 years

No

Yes


*—The combined hormonal injection marketed as Lunelle is no longer being manufactured in the United States.

Adapted with permission from Wild RA. Contraception now: new options, better choices. Slide no. 7. Accessed January 23, 2004, at http://www.contraceptiononline.org/slides/, with additional information from references 21 through 24.

The Authors

Laura B. Hansen, Pharm.D., is a board-certified pharmacotherapy specialist and assistant professor in the Department of Clinical Pharmacy and the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.

Joseph J. Saseen, Pharm.D., is a board-certified pharmacotherapy specialist and associate professor in the Department of Clinical Pharmacy and the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

Address correspondence to Laura B. Hansen, Pharm.D., University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 E. 9th Ave., Box C238, Denver, CO 80262 (e-mail: laura.hansen@uchsc.edu). Reprints are not available from the authors.

REFERENCES

1. Contraceptive use. New York, N.Y.: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1998. Accessed January 22, 2004, at: from http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.pdf.

2. Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Meehan TE. Use and misuse of oral contraceptives: risk indicators for poor pill taking and discontinuation. Contraception. 1995;51:283–8.

3. Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS. Oral contraceptive discontinuation: a prospective evaluation of frequency and reasons. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;1793 pt 1:577–82.

4. Rosenberg MJ, Burnhill MS, Waugh MS, Grimes DA, Hillard PJ. Compliance and oral contraceptives: a review. Contraception. 1995;52:137–41.

5. Zibners A, Cromer BA, Hayes J. Comparison of continuation rates for hormonal contraception among adolescents. J Ped Adolesc Gynecol. 1999;12:90–4.

6. Herndon EJ, Zieman M. New contraceptive options. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69:853–60.

7. Novak A, de la Loge C, Abetz L, van der Meulen EA. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing: an international study of user acceptability. Contraception. 2003;67:187–94.

8. Roumen FJ, Apter D, Mulders TM, Dieben TO. Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing etonogestrel and ethinyl oestradiol. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:469–75.

9. Szarewski A. High acceptability and satisfaction with NuvaRing use. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002;7suppl 2:31–6.

10. Rahimy MH, Ryan KK, Hopkins NK. Lunelle monthly contraceptive injection (medroxyprogesterone acetate and estradiol cypionate injectable suspension): steady-state pharmacokinetics of MPA and E2 in surgically sterile women. Contraception. 1999;60:209–14.

11. Shulman LP, OleenBurkey M, Wilke RJ. Patient acceptability and satisfaction with Lunelle monthly contraceptive injection (medroxyprogesterone acetate and estradiol cypionate injectable suspension). Contraception. 1999;60:215–22.

12. Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD, Waldbaum AS, Shangold G, Fisher AC, et al. Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285:2347–54.

13. Dittrich R, Parker L, Rosen JB, Shangold G, Creasy GW, Fisher AC. Ortho Evra/Evra 001 Study Group. Transdermal contraception: evaluation of three transdermal norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol doses in a randomized, multicenter, dose-response study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:15–20.

14. Archer DF, Bigrigg A, Smallwood GH, Shangold GA, Creasy GW, Fisher AC. Assessment of compliance with a weekly contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra/Evra) among North American women. Fertil Steril. 2002;772 suppl 2:S27–31.

15. Holt VL, Cushing-Haugen KL, Daling JR. Body weight and risk of oral contraceptive failure. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;995 pt 1:820–7.

16. Baldaszti E, Wimmer-Puchinger B, Loschke K. Acceptability of the long-term contraceptive levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena): a 3-year follow-up study. Contraception. 2003;67:87–91.

17. Backman T, Huhtala S, Luoto R, Tuominen J, Rauramo I, Koskenvuo M. Advance information improves user satisfaction with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:608–13.

18. Dubuisson JB, Mugnier E. Acceptability of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system after discontinuation of previous contraception: results of a French clinical study in women aged 35 to 45 years. Contraception. 2002;66:121–8.

19. Diaz J, Bahamondes L, Monteiro I, Petta C, Hildago MM, Arce XE. Acceptability and performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) in Campinas, Brazil. Contraception. 2000;62:59–61.

20. Wild RA. Contraception now: new options, better choices. Slide no. 7. Accessed: January 23, 2004, at: http://www.contraceptiononline.org/slides/.

21. NuvaRing [Package insert]. West Orange, N.J.: Organon Inc., 2001.

22. Lunelle [Package insert]. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, 2001.

23. Ortho Evra [Package insert]. Raritan, N.J.: Ortho-McNeill Pharmaceutical, Inc., 2003.

24. Mirena [Package insert]. Berlex Laboratories, Inc., 2000.



Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article