Search

OBJECTIVE(S): To understand how contraception method use differed between women prescribed and not prescribed medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among commercially-insured and Medicaid insured women. STUDY DESIGN: IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Multi-State Medicaid database were used to calculate the (1) crude prevalence, and (2) adjusted odds ratios (adjusted for demographic characteristics) of using long-acting reversible or short-acting hormonal contraception methods or female sterilization compared with none of these methods (no method) in 2018 by MOUD status among women with OUD, aged 20 to 49 years, with continuous health insurance coverage through commercial insurance or Medicaid for ≥6 years. Claims data was used to define contraception use. Fisher exact test or χ(2) test with a P-value ≤ 0.0001, based on the Holm-Bonferroni method, and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine statistically significant differences for prevalence estimates and adjusted odds ratios, respectively. RESULTS: Only 41% of commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women with OUD were prescribed MOUD. Medicaid-insured women with OUD prescribed MOUD had a significantly lower crude prevalence of using no method (71.1% vs 79.0%) and higher odds of using female sterilization (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06–1.67 vs no method) than those not prescribed MOUD. Among commercially-insured women there were no differences in contraceptive use by MOUD status and 66% used no method. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with ≥ 6 years of continuous insurance coverage, contraceptive use differed by MOUD status and insurance. Prescribing MOUD for women with OUD can be improved to ensure quality care. IMPLICATIONS: : Only two in five women with OUD had evidence of being prescribed MOUD, and majority did not use prescription contraception or female sterilization. Our findings support opportunities to improve prescribing for MOUD and integrate contraception and MOUD services to improve clinical care among women with OUD.

Purpose Among U.S. primary care physicians who delivered sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to adolescents before the COVID-19 pandemic, we examine (1) changes in availability of in-person SRH services; (2) changes in accessibility and utilization of SRH services; and (3) use of strategies to support provision of SRH services during the pandemic. Methods Data were from the DocStyles provider survey administered September–October 2020. Descriptive analyses were restricted to family practitioners, internists, and pediatricians whose main work setting was outpatient and whose practice provided family planning or sexually transmitted infection services to ≥ one patient aged 15–19 years per week just before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 791). Results Among physicians whose practices provided intrauterine device/implant placement/removal or clinic-based sexually transmitted infection testing before the COVID-19 pandemic, 51% and 36% indicated disruption of these services during the pandemic, respectively. Some physicians also reported reductions in walk-in hours (38%), evening/weekend hours (31%), and adolescents seeking care (43%) in the past month. At any point during the pandemic, 61% provided contraception initiation/continuation and 44% provided sexually transmitted infection services via telehealth. Among these physicians, about one-quarter reported confidentiality concerns with telehealth in the past month. There were small increases or no changes in other strategies to support contraceptive care. Conclusions Findings suggest disruption of certain SRH services and issues with access because of the pandemic among primary care providers who serve adolescents. There are opportunities to enhance implementation of confidential telehealth services and other service delivery strategies that could help promote adolescent SRH in the United States.

Ensuring access to contraceptive services is an important strategy for preventing unintended pregnancies, which account for nearly one half of all U.S. pregnancies (1) and are associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes (2). Equitable, person-centered contraceptive access is also important to ensure reproductive autonomy (3). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data collected during 2017-2019 were used to estimate the proportion of women aged 18-49 years who were at risk for unintended pregnancy* and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services.† During 2017-2019, in the 45 jurisdictions§ from which data were collected, 76.2% of women aged 18-49 years were considered to be at risk for unintended pregnancy, ranging from 67.0% (Alaska) to 84.6% (Georgia); 60.7% of women had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, ranging from 45.3% (Puerto Rico) to 73.7% (New York). For all jurisdictions combined, the proportion of women who were at risk for unintended pregnancy and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services varied significantly by age group, race/ethnicity, and urban-rural status. Among women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, 15.2% used a long-acting reversible method (intrauterine device or contraceptive implant), 25.0% used a short-acting reversible method (injectable, pill, transdermal patch, or vaginal ring), and 29.5% used a barrier or other reversible method (diaphragm, condom, withdrawal, cervical cap, sponge, spermicide, fertility-awareness-based method, or emergency contraception). In addition, 30.3% of women with ongoing or potential need were not using any method of contraception. Data in this report can be used to help guide jurisdictional planning to deliver contraceptive services, reduce unintended pregnancies, ensure that the contraceptive needs of women and their partners are met, and evaluate efforts to increase access to contraception.

U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR), adapted by CDC from global guidance developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), provides evidence-based guidance on contraceptive use for U.S. health care providers (1). During January-February, 2021, CDC evaluated the 2019 WHO recommendation on self-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) (2). CDC adopted the WHO recommendation on the basis of moderate-certainty evidence that self-administered DMPA-SC is safe and effective, and has higher continuation rates compared with provider-administered DMPA. The new U.S. SPR recommendation states that self-administered DMPA-SC should be made available as an additional approach to deliver injectable contraception. Provider-administered DMPA should remain available. Self-administered DMPA-SC is a user-controlled method that has the potential to improve contraceptive access and increase reproductive autonomy. Self-administered DMPA-SC should be offered in a noncoercive manner through a shared decision-making process between patients and their health care providers, with a focus on patient preferences and equitable access to the full range of contraceptive methods.

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, providing recommendations for health care providers on safe use of contraception for people with certain characteristics or medical conditions. Adapted from World Health Organization guidance, the goal of the recommendations is to remove unnecessary medical barriers to contraception. Over the past decade, CDC has updated recommendations based on new evidence, collaborated with national partners to disseminate and implement the guidelines, and conducted provider surveys to assess changes in attitudes and practices around contraception safety and provision. CDC remains committed to supporting evidence-based guidelines for safe use of contraception, as the basis for improving access to contraception and high-quality family planning services, reducing unintended pregnancy, and improving reproductive health in the United States.

Objective The Zika Contraception Access Network (Z-CAN) provided women in Puerto Rico access to contraceptive counseling and the full range of reversible contraceptive methods, on the same day and at no cost, during the Zika virus outbreak. Because trained physicians and clinic staff were crucial to the program, we aimed to assess the implementation of and satisfaction with Z-CAN from their perspectives. Study design Physicians and clinic staff in the Z-CAN program participated in an online survey on program implementation (e.g., on-site and same-day contraceptive provision), program satisfaction, and knowledge consistent with program training (e.g., contraceptive initiation and safety, client-centered contraceptive counseling, intrauterine device [IUD] and implant insertion and removal). Results Survey respondents included 63 physicians and 53 clinic staff members. A high proportion of physicians (>93%) reported providing IUDs, implants, pills, rings, condoms, and injections and most were very often or always able to provide same-day access to most methods. Over 90% of physicians were satisfied with the Z-CAN program, training, and ongoing support. Staff satisfaction with these program elements was similar but slightly lower. Knowledge about exams and tests needed for initiation and safety of methods varied but was generally consistent with guidelines on which physicians received training. Most physicians (>90%) reported confidence in skills on which they received training as part of the program. Conclusions From the perspectives of participating physicians and clinic staff, the program was generally implemented as intended and providers were largely satisfied with program strategies including training and on-going support. Implications Certain key components of the Z-CAN program, such as training, proctoring, and involvement of clinic staff were likely critical to Z-CAN’s implementation and provider satisfaction. Results from this provider survey can inform implementation of similar efforts to increase access to contraception in both emergency and non-emergency settings.

"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]).

ObjectivesTo review systematically copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and HIV acquisition in women.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library between database inception and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using an unspecified IUD or Cu-IUD compared with non-hormonal or no contraceptive users, or hormonal contraceptive users. We extracted information from included studies, assessed study quality, and summarised study findings.ResultsFrom 2494 publications identified, seven met our inclusion criteria. One randomised controlled trial (RCT), judged “informative with few limitations”, found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk between users of the Cu-IUD and either intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM) or levonorgestrel implant. One observational study, deemed “informative but with important limitations”, found no statistically significant difference in HIV incidence among IUD users compared with women who had tubal ligation or who were not using any contraception. Another “informative but with important limitations” observational study found no difference in HIV incidence between Cu-IUD users and DMPA or norethisterone enanthate injectable, or implant users. An RCT considered “unlikely to inform the primary question” also found no difference in HIV risk between Cu-IUD and progestogen-only injectable users. Findings from the other three “unlikely to inform the primary question” cohort studies were consistent with the more robust studies suggesting no increased risk of HIV acquisition among Cu-IUD users.ConclusionThe collective evidence, including that from a large high-quality RCT, does not indicate an increased risk of HIV acquisition among users of Cu-IUDs.

ObjectiveTo update a 2016 systematic review on hormonal contraception use and HIV acquisition.MethodsWe searched Pubmed and Embase between 15 January 2016 and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using a hormonal contraceptive method and either non-users or users of another specific hormonal contraceptive method. We extracted information from newly identified studies, assessed study quality, and updated forest plots and meta-analyses.ResultsIn addition to 31 previously included studies, five more were identified; three provided higher quality evidence. A randomised clinical trial (RCT) found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among users of intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), levonorgestrel implant (LNG implant) or the copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD). An observational study found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among women using DMPA, norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN), implants (type not specified) or Cu-IUD. Updated results from a previously included observational study continued to find a statistically significant increased HIV risk with oral contraceptives and DMPA compared with no contraceptive use, and found no association between LNG implant and HIV risk.ConclusionsHigh-quality RCT data comparing use of DMPA, LNG implant and Cu-IUD does not support previous concerns from observational studies that DMPA-IM use increases the risk of HIV acquisition. Use of other hormonal contraceptive methods (oral contraceptives, NET-EN and implants) is not associated with an increased risk of HIV acquisition.

Objective To systematically review the literature around the safety and effectiveness of hormonal contraception for women who use opioids. Our specific research questions are: 1) Among women who use opioids, do those who use hormonal contraception have increased adverse health events compared with those who do not use hormonal contraception? 2) Are there drug interactions between hormonal contraception and opioids that cause decreased effectiveness or increased toxicity from either drug? Methods We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov through August 2018. We considered randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case–control studies, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies. We planned to use standard frameworks to assess risk of bias of included studies. Results The search identified 1852 articles. The full text of 66 articles was reviewed, and none met inclusion criteria. Conclusions Because we found no direct evidence on the safety and effectiveness of hormonal contraception for women who use opioids, we considered theoretical concerns. While women with OUD have a high prevalence of co-morbidities, such as viral hepatitis, generally women with medical conditions can safely use most contraceptive methods. When considering the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of hormonal contraception and opioids, there is little theoretical concern for interactions. Therefore, future research efforts could focus on improving access to the full range of contraceptive methods for women who use opioids, reducing unnecessary barriers to initiating and using contraception, while ensuring voluntary choice related to contraceptive use.

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.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.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).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.

Study Objective To identify characteristics associated with provider attitudes on the safety of “Quick Start” initiation of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for adolescents. Design, Setting, Participants, Interventions, and Main Outcome Measures We conducted a cross-sectional survey of providers in public-sector health centers and office-based physicians (n = 2056) during 2013-2014. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

Context The objective of this systematic review was to update a prior review and summarize the evidence (newly identified and cumulative) on the impact of contraceptive counseling provided in clinical settings. Evidence acquisition Multiple databases, including PubMed, were searched during 2016–2017 for articles published from March 1, 2011, to November 30, 2016. Evidence synthesis The search strategy identified 24,953 articles; ten studies met inclusion criteria. Two of three new studies that examined contraceptive counseling interventions (i.e., enhanced models to standard of care) among adolescents and young adults found a statistically significant positive impact on at least one outcome of interest. Five of seven new studies that examined contraceptive counseling, in general, or specific counseling interventions or aspects of counseling (e.g., personalization) among adults or mixed populations (adults and adolescents) found a statistically significant positive impact on at least one outcome of interest. In combination with the initial review, six of nine studies among adolescents and young adults and 16 of 23 studies among adults or mixed populations found a statistically significant positive impact of counseling on at least one outcome of interest. Conclusions Overall, evidence supports the utility of contraceptive counseling, in general, and specific interventions or aspects of counseling. Promising components of contraceptive counseling were identified. The following would strengthen the evidence base: improved documentation of counseling content and processes, increased attention to the relationships between client experiences and behavioral outcomes, and examining the comparative effectiveness of different counseling approaches to identify those that are most effective. Theme information This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate expulsion rates among women with postpartum intrauterine device (IUD) placement by timing of insertion, IUD type, and delivery method. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1974 to May 2018. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched databases for any published studies that examined post-partum placement of a copper IUD or levonorgestrel intrauterine system and reported counts of expulsions. We assessed study quality using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of IUD expulsion and estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) for timing of postpartum placement, delivery method, and IUD type using log-binomial multivariable regression model. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality. Pooled rates of expulsion varied by timing of IUD placement, ranging from 1.9% with interval placements (4 weeks postpartum or greater), 10.0% for immediate placements (10 minutes or less after placental delivery), and 29.7% for early placements (greater than 10 minutes to less than 4 weeks postpartum). Immediate and early postpartum placements were associated with increased risk of expulsion compared with interval placement (adjusted RR 7.63, 95% CI 4.31–13.51; adjusted RR 6.17, 95% CI 3.19–11.93, respectively). Postpartum placement less than 4 weeks after vaginal delivery was associated with an increased risk of expulsion compared with cesarean delivery (adjusted RR 5.19, 95% CI 3.85–6.99). Analysis of expulsion rates at less than 4 weeks postpartum also indicated that the levonorgestrel intrauterine system was associated with a higher risk of expulsion (adjusted RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.50–2.43) compared with CuT380A. CONCLUSION: Postpartum IUD expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, delivery method, and IUD type. These results can aid in counseling women to make an informed choice about when to initiate their IUD and to help institutions implement postpartum contraception programs.

Equitable access to contraception is critical for reproductive autonomy. Using cross-sectional data from the DocStyles survey administered September-October 2020 (68% response rate), we compared changes in family planning-related clinical services and healthcare delivery strategies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed service provision issues among 1063 U.S. physicians whose practice provided family planning services just before the pandemic. About one-fifth of those whose practices provided the following services or strategies just before the pandemic discontinued these services during the pandemic: long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) placement (16%); LARC removal (17%); providing or prescribing emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) in advance (18%); and reminding patients about contraception injections or LARC removal or replacement (20%). Many practices not providing the following services or strategies just before the pandemic initiated these services during the pandemic: telehealth for contraception initiation (43%); telehealth for contraception continuation (48%); and renewing contraception prescriptions without requiring an office visit (36%). While a smaller proportion of physicians reported service provision issues in the month before survey completion than at any point during the pandemic, about one-third still reported fewer adult females seeking care (37%) and technical challenges with telehealth (32%). Discontinuation of key family planning services during the COVID-19 pandemic may limit contraception access and impede reproductive autonomy. Implementing healthcare service delivery strategies that reduce the need for in-person visits (e.g., telehealth for contraception, providing or prescribing ECPs in advance) may decrease disruptions in care. Resources exist for public health and clinical efforts to ensure contraception access during the pandemic.

Objective(s) We estimated the prevalence of requiring specific examinations or tests before providing contraception in a nationwide survey of family planning providers. Study Design We conducted a cross-sectional survey of public-sector health centers and office-based physicians providing family planning services across the United States in 2019 (n = 1395). We estimated the weighted proportion of providers (or their health center or practice) who required blood pressure measurement, pelvic examination (bimanual examination and cervical inspection), Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, clinical breast examination (CBE), and chlamydia and gonorrhea (CT/GC) screening before initiating hormonal or intrauterine contraception (IUC) for healthy women. We performed multivariable regression to identify factors associated with pelvic examination practices aligned with clinical recommendations; these recommendations classify examinations and tests as recommended or unnecessary before initiation of specific contraceptive methods. Results The overall response rate was 51%. Most providers required blood pressure measurement before initiating each method. Unnecessary CBE, Pap smears, and CT/GC screening were required by 14% to 33% of providers across methods. Fifty-two to 62% of providers required recommended pelvic examination before IUC placement; however, 16% to 23% of providers required unnecessary pelvic examinations before non-intrauterine hormonal method initiation. Factors associated with recommendation-aligned pelvic examination practices included having a higher proportion of patients using public funding (Medicaid or other assistance) and more recently completing formal clinical training. Conclusions Almost half (47%) of providers did not require necessary pelvic examination before placing IUC. Conversely, many providers required unnecessary examinations and tests before contraception initiation for patients. Implications Most providers required the few recommended examinations and tests for safe contraceptive provision. Reduction of unnecessary examinations and tests may reduce barriers to contraceptive access. There are also opportunities to increase use of recommended examinations, as up to 48% of providers did not require recommended pelvic examination before IUC.

Objective Increasingly, states authorize pharmacists to prescribe hormonal contraception to patients without a prescription from another healthcare provider. The purpose of this review is to investigate pharmacist and patient perspectives on pharmacist-prescribed contraception in the United States. Study design We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 10, 2019. We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies, quantitative surveys, observational studies, and randomized trials in the United States. Risk of bias was assessed using tools for quantitative and qualitative studies. Results Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria, including studies on pharmacists and student pharmacists (n = 9), patients (n = 5), and both (n = 1). Study samples ranged from local to national. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias, primarily due to low response rates and lack of validated instruments. Most pharmacists (57–96%) across four studies were interested in participating in pharmacist-prescribed contraception services. Among patients, 63–97% across three studies supported pharmacist-prescribed contraception, and 38–68% across four studies intended to participate in these services. At least half of pharmacists across four studies felt comfortable prescribing contraception, though pharmacists identified additional training needs. Pharmacists and patients identified several reasons for interest in pharmacist-prescribed contraception services, including increasing patient access, reducing unintended pregnancies, and offering professional development for pharmacists. They also identified barriers, including payment, time and resource constraints, liability, and patient health concerns. Conclusions Most pharmacists and patients across 15 studies were interested in expanded access to contraception through pharmacist-prescribed contraception. Findings on facilitators and barriers may inform implementation efforts. Implications Pharmacist-prescribed contraception is a strategy to expand patient access to contraception. Reducing barriers to implementation could improve participation among pharmacists and patients.

Purpose: To evaluate the association between postpartum hormonal contraceptive use and postpartum depression. Materials and methods: We searched the literature through March 2018 on the association between postpartum hormonal contraception use and incident postpartum depression. We used the United States Preventive Services Task Force framework to assess study quality. Results: Of 167 articles identified, four met inclusion criteria. Two studies found no differences in rates of postpartum depression between women using postpartum depot medroxyprogesterone and those not using hormonal contraception; however, a study of women receiving injectable norethisterone enanthate immediately postpartum found a 2–3-fold increased risk of depression at 6 weeks, though not at 3 months. One study compared combined hormonal contraception, progestin-only pills (POPs), etonogestrel implants and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs) with no hormonal contraception, and found a 35–44% decreased risk of postpartum depression with POPs and LNG-IUDs, a small increased risk of postpartum antidepressant use among women using the etonogestrel implant and vaginal ring, and a decreased risk of antidepressant use with POPs. Conclusions: Limited evidence found no consistent associations between hormonal contraceptive use and incidence of postpartum depression. Future research would be strengthened by using validated diagnostic measures, careful consideration of confounders, and ensuring adequate follow-up time.

ObjectivesTo 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 sourcesWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June2019.Study eligibility criteriaWe 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 methodsWe evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to

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.

Background Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) containing various progestogens could be associated with differential risks for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective To evaluate the comparative risks of VTE associated with the use of low‐dose (less than 50 μg ethinyl estradiol) COCs containing different progestogens. Search strategy PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception through September 15, 2016, by combining search terms for oral contraception and venous thrombosis. Selection criteria Studies reporting VTE risk estimates among healthy users of progestogen‐containing low‐dose COCs were included. Data collection and analysis A random‐effects model was used to generate pooled adjusted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals; subgroup and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of monophasic‐COC use and study‐level characteristics. Main results There were 22 articles included in the analysis. The use of COCs containing cyproterone acetate, desogestrel, drospirenone, or gestodene was associated with a significantly increased risk of VTE compared with the use of levonorgestrel‐containing COCs (pooled risk ratios 1.5–2.0). The analysis restricted to monophasic COC formulations with 30 μg of ethinyl estradiol yielded similar findings. After adjustment for study characteristics, the risk estimates were slightly attenuated. Conclusions Compared with the use of levonorgestrel‐containing COCs, the use of COCs containing other progestogens could be associated with a small increase in risk for VTE., Combined oral contraceptives containing certain progestogens could be associated with a small increase in risk for venous thromboembolism compared with those containing levonorgestrel.

Background Rifamycin antibiotics are commonly used for treatment of tuberculosis, but may reduce the effectiveness of hormonal contraception (HC). Objectives To determine whether interactions between rifamycins and HC result in decreased effectiveness or increased toxicity of either therapy. Search strategy We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov through May 2017. Selection criteria We included trials, cohort, and case-control studies addressing pregnancy rates, pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetic (PK) outcomes when HC and rifamycins were administered together versus apart. Of 7291 original records identified, 11 met inclusion criteria after independent review by two authors. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently abstracted study details and assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading system. Findings are reported descriptively. Main results Studies only addressed combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and none reported pregnancy rates. Quality ranged from good to poor. Rifampin increased the frequency of ovulation in two of four studies, and reduced estrogen and/or progestin exposure in five studies. Rifabutin led to smaller PK changes than rifampin in two studies. In one study each, rifaximin and rifalazil did not alter hormone PK. Conclusions No studies evaluated pregnancy risk or non-oral HCs. PK and ovulation outcomes support a clinically concerning drug interaction between COCs and rifampin, and to a lesser extent rifabutin. Data are limited for other rifamycins. Tweetable abstract Rifampin and rifabutin reduce systemic exposure of oral contraceptives, but no studies have evaluated pregnancy risk.

Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause of microcephaly and other serious brain abnormalities (1). To support state and territory response to the threat of Zika, CDC's Interim Zika Response Plan outlined activities for vector control; clinical management of exposed pregnant women and infants; targeted communication about Zika virus transmission among women and men of reproductive age; and primary prevention of Zika-related adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes by prevention of unintended pregnancies through increased access to contraception.* The most highly effective,† reversible contraception includes intrauterine devices and implants, known as long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). On September 28, 2016, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP) and CDC facilitated a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, of representatives from 15 states to identify state-led efforts to implement seven CDC-published strategies aimed at increasing access to contraception in the context of Zika virus (2). Qualitative data were collected from participating jurisdictions. The number of states reporting implementation of each strategy ranged from four to 11. Participants identified numerous challenges, particularly for strategies implemented less frequently. Examples of barriers were discussed and presented with corresponding approaches to address each barrier. Addressing these barriers could facilitate increased access to contraception, which might decrease the number of unintended pregnancies affected by Zika virus.

CDC's U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) (first published in 2010 and updated in 2016) provides evidence-based guidance for the safe use of contraceptive methods among U.S. women with certain characteristics or medical conditions (1), and is adapted from global guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and kept up to date based on continual review of published literature (2).* CDC recently evaluated the evidence and the updated WHO guidance on the risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition among women using hormonal contraception.† After careful review, CDC adopted the updated WHO guidance for inclusion in the U.S. MEC guidance; this guidance states that the advantages of progestin-only injectable contraceptive use (including depot medroxyprogesterone acetate [DMPA]) by women at high risk for HIV infection outweigh the theoretical or proven risks (U.S. MEC category 2). The guidance also includes an accompanying updated clarification, which states that "there continues to be evidence of a possible increased risk of acquiring HIV among progestin-only injectable users. Uncertainty exists about whether this is due to methodological issues with the evidence or a real biological effect. In many settings, unintended pregnancies and/or pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality are common, and progestin-only injectables are among the few types of methods widely available. Women should not be denied the use of progestin-only injectables because of concerns about the possible increased risk. Women considering progestin-only injectables should be advised about these concerns, about the uncertainty over whether there is a causal relationship, and about how to minimize their risk of acquiring HIV." Recommendations for other hormonal contraceptive methods (including combined hormonal methods, implants, and progestin-only pills) remain the same; there is no restriction for their use among women at high risk for HIV infection (U.S. MEC category 1).

Family planning is essential for any comprehensive treatment plan for women of reproductive age with multiple sclerosis (MS), including counseling on using effective contraception to optimally time desired and prevent unintended pregnancies. This topical review summarizes the first evidence-based recommendations on contraception safety for women with MS. In 2016, evidence-based recommendations for contraceptive use by women with MS were included in US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. They were developed after review of published scientific evidence on contraception safety and consultation with experts. We summarize and expand on the main conclusions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. Most contraceptive methods appear based on current evidence to be safe for women with MS. The only restriction is use of combined hormonal contraceptives among women with MS with prolonged immobility because of concerns about possible venous thromboembolism. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) do not appear to decrease the effectiveness of hormonal contraception although formal drug–drug interaction studies are limited. Neurologists can help women with MS make contraceptive choices that factor their level of disability, immobility, and medication use. For women with MS taking potentially teratogenic medications, highly effective methods that are long-acting (e.g. intrauterine devices, implants) might be the best option.

Key Clinical PointsLong-Acting Reversible Contraception Intrauterine devices (IUDs) and hormonal implants are the most effective reversible methods of contraception — approximately 20 times as effective as pills, patches, and rings; couples should be counseled and informed about the superior effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods. IUDs and hormonal implants are safe for almost all women, including adolescents, as well as women in the postpartum or postabortion period. The main side effect of IUDs and hormonal implants is a change in bleeding patterns; anticipatory counseling about expected changes in bleeding may increase rates of continuation. Barriers to access to IUDs and hormonal implants remain, including those related to education, provider training, cost, and logistics; successful interventions have been shown to minimize these barriers. Adolescents and adult women should be counseled about contraception and should have access to the full range of contraceptive methods...

Background Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs), containing estrogen and progestin, are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) compared with nonuse. Few studies have examined whether nonoral formulations (including the combined hormonal patch, combined vaginal ring and combined injectable contraceptives) increase the risk of thrombosis compared with combined oral contraceptives (COCs). Objectives The objectives were to examine the risk of VTE and ATE among women using nonoral CHCs compared to women using COCs. Methods We searched the PubMed database for all English language articles published from database inception through May 2016. We included primary research studies that examined women using the patch, ring or combined injectables compared with women using levonorgestrel-containing or norgestimate-containing COCs. Outcomes of interest included VTE (deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) or ATE (acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke). We assessed the quality of each individual piece of evidence using the system developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Results Eight studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Of seven analyses from six studies examining VTE among patch users compared with levonorgestrel- or norgestimate-containing COC users, two found a statistically significantly elevated risk among patch users (risk estimates 2.2–2.3), one found an elevated risk that did not meet statistical significance (risk estimate 2.0), and four found no increased risk. Of three studies examining VTE among ring users compared with levonorgestrel COC users, one found a statistically significantly elevated risk among patch users (risk estimate 1.9) and two did not. Two studies did not find an increased risk for ATE among women using the patch compared with norgestimate COCs. We did not identify any studies examining combined injectable contraceptives. Conclusion Limited Level II-2 good to fair evidence demonstrated conflicting results on whether women using the patch or the ring have a higher risk of VTE than women using COCs. Evidence did not demonstrate an increased risk of ATE among women using the patch. Overall, any potential elevated risk likely represents a small number of events on a population level. Additional studies with standard methodology are needed to further clarify any associations and better understand mechanisms of hormone-induced thrombosis among users of nonoral combined hormonal contraception.

Objective To examine whether the co-administration of hormonal contraceptives (HC) and psychotropic drugs commonly used to treat anxiety and/or depression results in safety or efficacy concerns for either drug. Methods We searched PubMed and Cochrane libraries for clinical or pharmacokinetic (PK) studies that examined co-administration of any HC with psychotropic drugs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), oral benzodiazepines, bupropion, mirtazapine, trazadone, buspirone, hydroxyzine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), or atypical antipsychotics] in reproductive aged women. Results Of 555 articles identified, 22 articles (18 studies) met inclusion criteria. We identified 5 studies on SSRIs, four on TCAs, one on bupropion, three on atypical antipsychotics and five on oral benzodiazepines. No articles met inclusion criteria for SNRIs, mirtazapine, trazadone, buspirone, hydroxyzine or MAOIs. Overall, clinical studies did not demonstrate differences in unintended pregnancy rates when HCs were administered with and without psychotropic drugs or in psychotropic drug treatment outcomes when psychotropic drugs were administered with and without HCs. PK studies did not demonstrate changes in drug exposure related to contraceptive safety, contraceptive effectiveness or psychotropic drug effectiveness for most classes of psychotropic drugs. However, limited PK data raise concern for HCs increasing systemic exposure of amitriptyline and imipramine (both TCAs), theoretically posing safety concerns. Conclusion Limited quality and quantity evidence on use of psychotropic drugs and HCs suggests low concern for clinically significant interactions, though no data exist specifically for non-oral formulations of HC. Given the high frequency of use for both HCs and psychotropic drugs among reproductive-age women in the US, this review highlights a need for further research in this area.

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.

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.

Context Combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) use may modify the risk of cardiovascular events in obese [body mass index (BMI) ≥30kg/m 2 ] women. Objective The objective was to evaluate from the literature whether CHC use modifies the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women and to evaluate evidence for a dose–response relationship between BMI and VTE. Methods We searched PubMed for all articles published between database inception and February 2016 providing direct evidence on BMI, CHCs, and cardiovascular outcomes. We also searched for indirect evidence related to a dose–response relationship between BMI and risk of VTE in the general population, as these data were lacking for CHC users. The quality of each individual study was assessed using the system for grading evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Results The direct evidence search yielded 3 pooled analyses, 11 case–control studies and 1 cohort study. There was conflicting evidence about the risk of AMI or stroke among obese combined oral contraceptive (COC) users compared to obese nonusers, with one study finding no increased risk for AMI or stroke for COC users overall or stratified by BMI. A second study found significantly increased risk of AMI and stroke for COC users, with the highest risk estimates for high-BMI COC users. A single study suggested that obese COC users may be at higher risk for CVT compared with normal-weight nonusers. For VTE, obese COC users consistently had a risk that was 5 to 8 times that of obese nonusers and approximately 10 times that of nonobese nonusers. Five prospective cohort studies were identified as indirect evidence, and all found increased risk for VTE as BMI increased, suggesting a dose–response relationship between BMI and risk for VTE. No studies on the contraceptive patch or vaginal ring were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion Limited evidence of Level II-2, fair quality, concerning whether CHC use modifies the risk of AMI and stroke in obese women is inconclusive, while a single study of Level II-2, poor quality, found that obese COC users may be at higher risk for CVT compared with normal-weight nonusers. Both COC use and higher BMI increase risk for VTE, and the greatest relative risks are for those with both risk factors based on a body of evidence graded as Level II-2, fair to poor quality. It is not possible to estimate absolute risk of VTE among women with both of these risk factors; however, the absolute risk of VTE in healthy women of reproductive age is small.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are less safe and effective for women with obesity compared with those without obesity. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed for articles through November 2015 regarding the safety and effectiveness of ECPs [ulipristal acetate (UPA), levonorgestrel (LNG) and combined estrogen and progestin] among obese users. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. RESULTS: We identified four pooled secondary analyses (quality: poor to fair), two of which examined UPA and three examined LNG formulations. Three analyses pooled overlapping data from a total of three primary studies and demonstrated significant associations between obesity and risk of pregnancy after ECP use. One analysis reported a 4-fold increased risk of pregnancy among women with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m(2)) compared with women within normal/underweight categories (BMI

Background Migraine is common among women of reproductive age and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are also associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Use of hormonal contraception among women with migraine might further elevate the risk of stroke among women of reproductive age. Objective To identify evidence regarding the risk of arterial thromboembolism (stroke or myocardial infarction) among women with migraine who use hormonal contraceptives. Methods We searched the PubMed database for all articles published from database inception through January 2016. We included studies that examined women with migraine overall or separated by subtype (with or without aura). Hormonal contraceptives of interest included combined hormonal methods (COCs, patch and ring) and progestin-only methods (progestin-only pills, injectables, implants and progestin intrauterine devices). Results Seven articles met inclusion criteria. All were case–control studies of fair to poor quality reporting on use of COCs or oral contraceptives (OCs) not further described and all reported stroke outcomes. Four studies demonstrated that, among women with migraine (not separated by subtype), COC use was associated with approximately two to four times the risk of stroke compared with nonuse. The only study to examine specific migraine subtypes found an elevated risk of stroke among women with migraine with aura, and this risk was similar regardless of OC use, although these odds ratios were not reported. Two studies did not report risks among women with migraine and COC use combined, but both found increased risks of stroke with migraine and COC use independently. No evidence was found on other hormonal contraceptives or on risk of myocardial infarction. Conclusion Limited evidence suggests a two- to fourfold increased risk of stroke among women with migraine who use COCs compared with nonuse. Additional study is needed on the risks of hormonal contraceptives, including combined and progestin-only methods, among women with different migraine subtypes.

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.

We are grateful to Sharon Achilles for her thoughtful input related to describing potential biological mechanisms, and to all study investigators who provided additional information about their analyses. WHO provided support for the writing of this systmatic review and for the writing group to attend a working meeting in Geneva, Switzerland in October 2015. D.J.W. was partially funded by NIH DP2-HD-08-4070. The review was conducted independently of the WHO guidance development process; and conclusions represent the independent opinions of the authors. The findings and conclusions in this article do not necessarily reflect the positions and policies of the donor. Role of authors: The World Health Organization (J.N.K. and P.S.S.) initiated the idea to conduct this systematic review update. C.B.P. led the conduct of the systematic review, including conducting the systematic literature search and drafting the manuscript. C.B.P., K.M.C., and P.C.H. screened titles, abstracts, and full-text manuscripts to determine study inclusion. S.J.P. conducted the statistical meta-analysis. All coauthors (C.B.P., K.M.C., P.C.H., S.J.P., T.C., J.N.K., D.J.W., and P.S.S.) participated in framing the study question, developing the quality criteria, abstracting study information and assessing study quality, interpreting the data, and contributing to the writing and editing of the manuscript. Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of the Guttmacher Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, or other institutions with which the authors are affiliated.

Objective The purpose of this study was to determine whether interactions between non-rifamycin antibiotics and hormonal contraceptives result in decreased effectiveness or increased toxicity of either therapy. Study Design We searched MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov , and Cochrane libraries from database inception through June 2016. We included trials, cohort, case-control, and pharmacokinetic studies in any language that addressed pregnancy rates, pharmacodynamics, or pharmacokinetic outcomes when any hormonal contraceptive and non-rifamycin antibiotic were administered together vs apart. Of 7291 original records that were identified, 29 met criteria for inclusion. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Two authors independently assessed study quality and risk of bias using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. Findings were tabulated by drug class. Results Study quality ranged from good to poor and addressed only oral contraceptive pills, emergency contraception pills, and the combined vaginal ring. Two studies demonstrated no difference in pregnancy rates in women who used oral contraceptives with and without non-rifamycin antibiotics. No differences in ovulation suppression or breakthrough bleeding were observed in any study that combined hormonal contraceptives with any antibiotic. No significant decreases in any progestin pharmacokinetic parameter occurred during co-administration with any antibiotic. Ethinyl estradiol area under the curve decreased when administered with dirithromycin, but no other drug. Conclusion Evidence from clinical and pharmacokinetic outcomes studies does not support the existence of drug interactions between hormonal contraception and non-rifamycin antibiotics. Data are limited by low quantity and quality for some drug classes. Most women can expect no reduction in hormonal contraceptive effect with the concurrent use of non-rifamycin antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE: The US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (USMEC) is the first national guidance containing evidence-based recommendations for contraception. We describe provider attitudes about contraceptive safety before and after the 2010 USMEC release. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted two cross-sectional mailed surveys using different nationwide samples of office-based physicians and Title X clinic providers before (2009–2010) and after (2013–2014) the USMEC release. We compared the proportion of providers reporting select contraceptive methods as safe for women with specific characteristics or medical conditions before and after the USMEC release and conducted multivariable logistic regression to adjust for provider characteristics. RESULTS: For the following select characteristics for which the USMEC classifies specific contraceptive methods as safe (Category 1 or 2), a significantly (p

Background Clinical practice guidelines that recommend women avoid pregnancy immediately after bariatric surgery, highlighting the need for effective contraception. However, women with a history of malabsorptive bariatric procedures should generally not use oral contraceptives, as these procedures may decrease oral contraceptive effectiveness. Objectives To identify provider characteristics associated with knowledge of combined oral contraceptive (COC) effectiveness. Setting United States. Methods We analyzed weighted survey data collected from national samples of public-sector health centers and office-based physicians who regularly provide family planning services (N = 2060). We asked providers about the effectiveness of COCs for women with a history of malabsorptive procedures compared with healthy women, giving them the response options of more/equally effective, less effective, and do not know. We used multinomial logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to identify characteristics associated with knowledge of COC effectiveness. Results Approximately 55% of providers correctly answered that COCs are less effective for women with malabsorptive procedures; 25% considered COCs more/equally effective, and 20% were uncertain. Among public-sector providers, the adjusted odds of uncertainty were significantly higher for those whose clinical focus was not reproductive health, for nurses versus advanced practice clinicians, and for providers working in clinics without Title X funding. For office-based physicians, adolescent medicine providers had higher odds of uncertainty versus obstetrician-gynecologists. Physicians practicing in settings classified as “other” (such as community health centers) had higher odds of considering COCs effective compared with those practicing in hospital or university clinics. Conclusions Substantial proportions of surveyed providers had inadequate knowledge of COC effectiveness for women with a history of malabsorptive procedures.

Objective To estimate the absolute and relative risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women who initiate depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) immediately postpartum compared with those who do not initiate hormonal contraception. Methods The IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters databases were used to identify delivery hospitalizations among women aged 15-44 years during 2005 through 2014. Diagnosis, procedure, and drug codes were used to identify contraception, VTE, and potential confounding chronic or pregnancy-related conditions. Women who initiated DMPA during days 0 through 7 postpartum were compared with women who did not initiate hormonal contraception during days 0 through 7 postpartum. Women were followed from date of delivery through 12 weeks postpartum for the occurrence of VTE, with censoring at hormonal contraception initiation or prescription, hysterectomy, sterilization, or inpatient death. The incidence rate of VTE and 95% CIs were calculated within each group and the incidence rate ratio was calculated comparing the two groups. Results The unadjusted VTE incidence rate through 12 weeks postpartum was 0.42/10,000 women-days in the immediate postpartum DMPA group (34 events among 11,159 women contributing 805,999 days of follow-up) and 0.15/10,000 women-days in the control group (3,107 events among 3,102,011 women contributing 206,180,811 days of follow-up). The incidence rate ratio for VTE was 2.87 (95% CI 2.05-4.03) among women in the immediate postpartum DMPA group compared with women in the control group, adjusting for age alone. After adjusting for age and pregnancy-related and chronic conditions, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for VTE was 1.94 (95% CI 1.38-2.72) among women in the immediate postpartum DMPA group compared with women in the control group. Conclusion Initiation of DMPA immediately postpartum is associated with a low incidence but an increased relative risk of VTE compared with nonuse of hormonal contraception.

Background Contraception use among postpartum women is important to prevent unintended pregnancies and optimize birth spacing. Long-acting reversible contraception, including intrauterine devices and implants, is highly effective, yet compared to less effective methods utilization rates are low. Objectives We sought to estimate prevalence of long-acting reversible contraception use among postpartum women and examine factors associated with long-acting reversible contraception use among those using any reversible contraception. Study Design We analyzed 2012–2015 data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a population-based survey among women with recent live births. We included data from 37 sites that achieved the minimum overall response rate threshold for data release. We estimated the prevalence of long-acting reversible contraception use in our sample (n = 143,335). We examined maternal factors associated with long-acting reversible contraception use among women using reversible contraception (n = 97,013) using multivariable logistic regression (long-acting reversible contraception vs other type of reversible contraception) and multinomial regression (long-acting reversible contraception vs other hormonal contraception and long-acting reversible contraception vs other nonhormonal contraception). Results The prevalence of long-acting reversible contraception use overall was 15.3%. Among postpartum women using reversible contraception, 22.5% reported long-acting reversible contraception use, which varied by site, ranging from 11.2% in New Jersey to 37.6% in Alaska. Factors associated with postpartum long-acting reversible contraception use vs use of another reversible contraceptive method included age ≤24 years (adjusted odds ratio = 1.43; 95% confidence interval = 1.33–1.54) and ≥35 years (adjusted odds ratio = 0.87; 95% confidence interval = 0.80–0.96) vs 25–34 years; public insurance (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15; 95% confidence interval = 1.08–1.24) and no insurance (adjusted odds ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval = 0.55–0.96) vs private insurance at delivery; having a recent unintended pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio = 1.44; 95% confidence interval = 1.34–1.54) or being unsure about the recent pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval = 1.18–1.40) vs recent pregnancy intended; having ≥1 previous live birth (adjusted odds ratio = 1.40; 95% confidence interval = 1.31–1.48); and having a postpartum check-up after recent live birth (adjusted odds ratio = 2.70; 95% confidence interval = 2.35–3.11). Hispanic and non-Hispanic black postpartum women had a higher rate of long-acting reversible contraception use (26.6% and 23.4%, respectively) compared to non-Hispanic white women (21.5%), and there was significant race/ethnicity interaction with educational level. Conclusion Nearly 1 in 6 (15.3%) postpartum women with a recent live birth and nearly 1 in 4 (22.5%) postpartum women using reversible contraception reported long-acting reversible contraception use. Our analysis suggests that factors such as age, race/ethnicity, education, insurance, parity, intendedness of recent pregnancy, and postpartum visit attendance may be associated with postpartum long-acting reversible contraception use. Ensuring all postpartum women have access to the full range of contraceptive methods, including long-acting reversible contraception, is important to prevent unintended pregnancy and optimize birth spacing. Contraceptive access may be improved by public health efforts and programs that address barriers in the postpartum period, including increasing awareness of the availability, effectiveness, and safety of long-acting reversible contraception (and other methods), as well as providing full reimbursement for contraceptive services and removal of administrative and logistical barriers.

Identify factors associated with healthcare providers' frequency of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) provision to adolescents.We analyzed data from surveys mailed to a nationally representative sample of public-sector providers and office-based physicians (n=1984). We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of factors associated with frequent DMPA provision to adolescents in the past year.Although most providers (95%) considered DMPA safe for adolescents, fewer reported frequent provision (89% of public-sector providers; 64% of office-based physicians). Among public-sector providers, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included working in settings without Title X funding (aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.64), reporting primary care as their primary clinical focus versus reproductive or adolescent health (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28-0.61), and providing fewer patients with family planning services. Among office-based physicians, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included specializing in obstetrics/gynecology (aOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.91) and family medicine (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.47) versus adolescent medicine, completing training ≥15 versus5 years ago (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.83), and reporting that 0-24% of patients pay with Medicaid or other government healthcare assistance versus ≥50% (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.61). The reason most commonly reported by providers for infrequent DMPA provision was patient preference for another method.While most providers reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents, training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception, focused on subgroups of providers with lower odds of frequent DMPA provision, may increase adolescents' access to contraception.Although95% of providers considered depot medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) a safe contraceptive for adolescents, only 89% of public-sector providers and 64% of office-based physicians reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents. Provider training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception counseling and provision may increase adolescents' access to DMPA and all methods of contraception.