Dataset Information

Cohort study to evaluate efficacy, safety and acceptability of a two-rod contraceptive implant during third, fourth and fifth year of product use in China.

ABSTRACT: Objective:Sino-implant (II) is a contraceptive implant approved for 4 years of use in China. We evaluated the contraceptive efficacy during the third, fourth and fifth year, and assessed additional pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and acceptability endpoints. Study design:We enrolled a cohort of 255 current Sino-Implant (II) users entering their third year and a second cohort of 243 users entering their fourth year. We followed these two cohorts for 12 and 24?months, respectively. To characterize PK endpoints (i.e. levonorgestrel (LNG), sex hormone binding globulin and free LNG index) over 5 years, we collected blood samples in a subset of 50 participants we followed during the third, fourth and fifth year. We also enrolled small cohorts (n?=?20) of Sino-implant (II) users entering their sixth month and second year and followed them each for up to 6 months. Our primary efficacy measures were the pregnancy Pearl Indices during Year 3 and 4. Secondary objectives included assessments of PK, safety, acceptability and efficacy in the fifth year. Results:We recorded four pregnancies, with a higher pregnancy rate during Year 3 [1.34 (95% CI: 0.28-3.93)] than Year 4 [0.44 (95% CI: 0.01-2.47)] or Year 5 [0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-2.02)]. The overall pregnancy rate for the third, fourth and fifth years of product use was 0.63 per 100 WY; 95% CI: (0.17-1.62). Mean LNG concentrations remained well above 200?pg/mL (Year 3?=?280.9; Year 4?=?233.6; Year 5?=?270.6). Most participants (93.7%) described their bleeding pattern as acceptable. Conclusion:Sino-implant (II) is a highly effective contraceptive method in this population of Chinese women over 5 years. Implications:Sino-implant (II) is a highly effective contraceptive method with an estimated Pearl Index of less than 1% over the third, fourth and fifth years of use in a population of Chinese women of reproductive age.

SUBMITTER: Che Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7252427 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cohort study to evaluate efficacy, safety and acceptability of a two-rod contraceptive implant during third, fourth and fifth year of product use in China.

Che Y Y Taylor D D Luo D D Maldonado L Y LY Wang M M Wevill S S Vahdat H H Han X X Halpern V V Dorflinger L L Steiner M J MJ

Contraception: X 20190101

<h4>Objective</h4>Sino-implant (II) is a contraceptive implant approved for 4 years of use in China. We evaluated the contraceptive efficacy during the third, fourth and fifth year, and assessed additional pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and acceptability endpoints.<h4>Study design</h4>We enrolled a cohort of 255 current Sino-Implant (II) users entering their third year and a second cohort of 243 users entering their fourth year. We followed these two cohorts for 12 and 24 months, respectively. T ...[more]

PMID: 32494773

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSino-implant (II) is a contraceptive implant that had a commodity price one-third of the competing products a decade ago. To make Sino-implant (II) more widely available, we conducted a trial to collect safety and efficacy data required for World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification, a quality standard allowing global donors to procure a pharmaceutical product.Study designThis was a randomized controlled trial allocating 650 participants to either Sino-implant (II) or Jadelle®. Participants were seen at 1 and 6 months, and then semiannually. The primary efficacy measure was the pregnancy Pearl Index [number of pregnancies per 100 women-years (WY) of follow-up] in the Sino-implant (II) group during up to 4 years of implant use.ResultsFor the primary outcome, Sino-implant (II) had a 4-year Pearl Index of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.37) compared to 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-1.04) for Jadelle®. The Sino-implant (II) pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the fourth year (3.54 per 100 WY) than in the first 3 years combined (0.18 per 100 WY; p <.001). Total levonorgestrel concentrations were equivalent between groups at month 12, but were 19%, 22% and 32% lower in the Sino-implant (II) group at months 24, 36 and 48, respectively (p <.001 at each time point). Safety and acceptability of the two products were similar, while providers documented significantly higher breakage rates during removal of Sino-implant (II) (16.3% vs. 3.1%; p <.001).ConclusionBased on these results, WHO prequalified Sino-Implant (II) with a 3-year use label in June 2017, 2 years shorter than the 5-year duration of Jadelle®.ImplicationsWHO prequalification allows global donors to procure Sino-implant (II), which means women in many low resource countries will have greater access to highly effective and acceptable contraceptive implants. Our study noted important clinical differences, including shorter duration of high effectiveness with Sino-implant (II) when compared to the other available two-rod system, Jadelle®. Introduction strategies should include appropriate training on these differences.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe our experience with office removal of nonpalpable contraceptive implants at our referral center. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the charts of patients referred to our family planning specialty center for nonpalpable or complex contraceptive implant removal from January 2015 through December 2018. We localized nonpalpable implants using high-frequency ultrasonography and skin mapping in radiology, followed by attempted removal in the office using local anesthesia and a modified vasectomy clamp. We abstracted information on demographics, implant location, and outcomes. RESULTS:Of 61 referrals, 55 patients attended their scheduled appointments. Seven patients had palpable implants; six elected removal. The other 48 patients had ultrasound localization, which identified 47 (98%) of the implants; the remaining patient had successful localization with computed tomography imaging. Nonpalpable implants were suprafascial (n=22), subfascial (n=25) and intrafascial (n=1); four of these patients opted to delay removal. Of 50 attempted office removals, all palpable (n=6), all nonpalpable suprafascial (n=21 [100%, 95% CI 83-100%]), and 19 out of 23 (83%, 95% CI 67-98%) subfascial implants were successful. Three of the four patients with failed subfascial implant office removal had successful operating room removal with a collaborative orthopedic surgeon; the other patient sought removal elsewhere. Transient postprocedure neuropathic complaints were noted in 7 out of 23 (30%, 95% CI 12-49%) subfascial and 1 out of 21 (5%, 95% CI 0-13%) suprafascial removals (P=.048). Nonpalpable implants were more likely to be subfascial in nonobese patients (24/34, 71%) as compared with obese (1/13, 8%) patients (P<.001). Seven (28%) of the 25 subfascially located implants had been inserted during a removal-reinsertion procedure through the same incision. CONCLUSION:Most nonpalpable contraceptive implants can be removed in the office by an experienced subspecialty health care provider after ultrasound localization. Some patients may experience transient postprocedure neuropathic pain. Nonpalpable implants in thinner women are more likely to be in a subfascial location.

Project description:Is a mechanical hand-held device for removing a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant safe for implant users? In terms of safety, the device is non-inferior to the standard technique for implant removal. An easy-to-use device for removing a subdermal contraceptive implant may be helpful in settings where skilled providers are in short supply. Prior to this study, the only report on the world's first hand-held, mechanical device with build-in incisor was a Swedish study using earlier versions of the product. From December 2019 to November 2020, we conducted a three-arm, open-label non-inferiority randomized trial involving 225 Ugandan women to assess safety (primary outcome) and measure implant removal efficacy (secondary outcomes) of a newly developed, hand-held device, compared to the standard removal technique. We randomized participants desiring removal of their one-rod contraceptive implant in a 1:1:1 ratio: standard technique/lidocaine injection, new device/lidocaine patch or new device/lidocaine injection. For primary safety endpoints, we examined removal complications and grouped them according to severity. For secondary endpoints on efficacy, we defined three device outcomes: intact implant removed without additional tools (primary), implant removed allowing implant breakage, but without tools (secondary) and implant removed allowing implant breakage and non-scalpel tools (tertiary). We assessed provider feedback on the device and used chi-square tests for all comparisons. We recruited 225 participants and randomly assigned (n = 75) to each group. For safety, no primary complications occurred in any treatment group, while only one secondary complication occurred in each treatment group (1%). Primary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 85% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 73% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Secondary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 92% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 79% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Tertiary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 96% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 91% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P = 0.017). Unsuccessful removals with the new device did not hinder subsequent implant extractions with standard back-up tools. In over 90% of the 150 device procedures, providers agreed or strongly agreed that the product is an acceptable alternative to standard removal technique. We tested a new removal device in the hands of Ugandan nurses who were adept at standard removal techniques; our estimates of removal efficacy may not apply to lower-level providers who arguably may be the prime beneficiaries of this technology. The study was conducted in a region of the world where the new device could be used to expand access to implant removal services. Intended beneficiaries of the new product are implant users who cannot easily find skilled providers for traditional scalpel-dependent removals and/or users who are intimidated by scalpel procedures, and lower-level providers who can be trained to help deliver services to meet a growing demand. The new device is a safe, acceptable alternative; efficacy was high, but not on par with standard technique. Funding for this study was provided by the RemovAid AS of Norway with grants from Research Council of Norway (GLOBVAC number 228319), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant INV-007571) and SkatteFUNN. M.B. is founder and former CEO of RemovAid AS, Norway. M.B. holds contraceptive rod remover patents (2012 1307156.8 and 2015), pre-removal test (filed) and shares in RemovAid AS. All of the remaining authors' institutions received payments in the form of contracts to help conduct the study; the funds for these contracts emanated from RemovAid AS. NCT04120337. 9 October 2019. 23 December 2019.

Dataset Information

Cohort study to evaluate efficacy, safety and acceptability of a two-rod contraceptive implant during third, fourth and fifth year of product use in China.

Publications

Cohort study to evaluate efficacy, safety and acceptability of a two-rod contraceptive implant during third, fourth and fifth year of product use in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets