Purpose of review

In this review, we discuss the efficacy, safety, and benefits of four new contraceptive products available in the USA, specifically Annovera, Phexxi, Slynd, and Twirla.

Recent findings

Annovera is a vaginal ring releasing ethinyl estradiol and segesterone acetate that can be used for up to one year (13 cycles), offering patients an effective, user-controlled option that may improve contraceptive access for those in low-resource settings or those with barriers to retrieving monthly prescriptions; however, given limited efficacy and safety data in people with body mass index (BMI) > 29 kg/m², clinicians may consider whether Annovera is an appropriate contraceptive method for obese patients if there are other acceptable alternatives. Phexxi prescription-only vaginal gel is a user-controlled, non-hormonal, on-demand contraceptive method that represents a novel addition to the market with its additional uses as a personal lubricant and as a potential microbicide for urogenital infection prevention. Slynd, a drospirenone-only pill, provides more flexibility for delayed or missed pills while maintaining efficacy and a more favorable bleeding profile compared with previously available progestin-only pills. Lastly, Twirla is a transdermal patch releasing ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel that offers users an additional option for a user-controlled, combined hormonal contraceptive method without daily dosing; however, prescription is limited to patients with BMI < 30 kg/m² due to decreased efficacy and VTE events in people with obesity.

Summary

The addition of these products expands the available options for pregnancy prevention to address unmet contraceptive needs.

Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods are effective options for pregnancy prevention. Currently available products in the United States include an etonogestrel implant, a copper intrauterine device (IUD), and several levonorgestrel IUDs. With increasing prevalence and duration of use, our understanding of efficacy, risks, and benefits has evolved. In addition to a brief discussion on nomenclature and LARC use within a framework of bodily autonomy and reproductive justice, this review covers clinical challenges with placement and removal, evidence-based duration of use, and how to mitigate side effects. Although all obstetrician-gynecologists as well as primary care clinicians can safely provide LARCs, complex family planning specialists are an expert referral source for challenging cases and evidence-based care as contraceptive technology continues to develop.

Objective

To describe experiences with abortion counseling and access in patients with lethal or life-limiting fetal diagnoses in Texas after enactment of Senate Bill 8 (SB8).

Methods

In this qualitative study, we interviewed patients who obtained abortions after enactment of SB8, using semi-structured interviews to explore how restrictions affected abortion care. Two researchers coded all transcripts using an inductive technique and analyzed themes in an iterative approach.

Results

We interviewed 16 participants who reported gestational durations from 13 to 29 weeks at the time of abortion. Participants described loss of the therapeutic patient-physician relationship and feelings of isolation while pursuing abortion due to the limitations imposed by SB8. For example, participants felt there was a physician "gag rule" regarding abortion ("the unspoken word of termination"), resulting in the need to find information about pregnancy options outside of the medical community and further highlighting the privilege of financial resources necessary to obtain an abortion on their own. Participants also expressed fears regarding confidentiality with their support systems and clinicians ("I would joke around and say, well don't sue me, but halfway mean it") and personal safety when self-referring for abortion ("…am I making the right choice on where I need to go? Is it safe?").

Conclusion

Abortion restrictions and bans such as SB8 erode the patient-physician relationship, evoking fear and safety concerns during a vulnerable time for those undergoing abortion for lethal or life-limiting fetal diagnoses. They force patients to shoulder the significant burden of understanding pregnancy options and navigating the process of abortion alone, which is likely to have greater effects on those with fewer resources.

Objectives

This study aimed to review clinical practice outcomes of early pregnancy loss (EPL) medical management using mifepristone and misoprostol outside of a clinical trial setting.

Study design

In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed a deidentified database of patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol for EPL from May 2018 to May 2021 at our academic center-based clinic, which was a study site for a multicenter mifepristone-misoprostol EPL trial completed in March 2018. All patients received mifepristone 200 mg orally and misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally or buccally, with clinic follow-up typically scheduled within 1 week. The primary outcome was successful medical management, defined as management without the need for aspiration, and the secondary outcomes included additional interventions and indications, follow-up ultrasonography findings, and adverse events requiring treatment.

Results

We treated 90 patients with a median ultrasound-measured gestational size of 49 (range 30-80) days and median time from mifepristone to misoprostol of 24 (range 8-66) hours. Follow-up was completed in clinic by 80 (88.9%), completed remotely by five (5.6%), and not completed by five (5.6%) patients. Overall, 76 (95% CI 82.9%-96.0%) of 85 patients (89.4%) with follow-up were successfully managed without uterine aspiration. Eighty patients had initial follow-up ultrasonography interpreted as gestational sac expulsion; seven (8.8%) of these ultimately underwent aspiration, including one patient who had a previously undiagnosed cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. Two patients had significant safety outcomes: one pelvic infection and one blood transfusion during aspiration in the patient with a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy.

Conclusions

Outside of a clinical trial setting, medical management of EPL with mifepristone and misoprostol remains effective and safe.

Implications

Medical management of EPL with mifepristone and misoprostol is effective and safe outside of a clinical trial setting. A standardized protocol based on the best available clinical trial evidence can be used in clinical practice for the medical management of EPL.

Objectives

To assess referral center outcomes with removal of difficult or nonpalpable contraceptive implants using high-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography.

Study design

We present a case series examining patients referred to our specialty center from January 2019 through September 2020 for difficult or nonpalpable implant removal.

Results

Of the 54 referrals, 6 had palpable implants and 48 required ultrasonography. We localized 46 (96%) implants in-office, including 13 located subfascially; 2 Implanon implants could not be localized. We successfully completed 50 (96%) of 52 attempted in-office removals, including 12 (92%) subfascial implants.

Conclusion

High-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography can effectively localize nonpalpable contraceptive implants leading to successful in-office removal.

Implications

Specialists can use high-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography to localize nonpalpable implants without formal radiology scans and skilled technologists, optimizing patient time and convenience. However, the probe is expensive, and providers may need to consider this cost in the context of reimbursement for these highly specialized procedures.

Objectives

To evaluate mifepristone impact on osmotic dilator placement and procedural outcomes when given 18 to 24 hours before dilator placement for dilation and evacuation (D&E) at 18 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days gestation.

Study design

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from April 2019 through February 2021, enrolling participants undergoing osmotic dilator (Dilapan) placement for a planned, next-day D&E. Participants took mifepristone 200 mg or placebo orally 18 to 24 hours before dilator placement. We used a gestational age-based protocol for minimum number of dilators. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants for whom 2 or more additional dilators could be placed compared to the minimum gestational age-based standard. We secondarily evaluated cervical dilation after dilator removal in the operating room, subjective procedure ease, and complication rates (cervical laceration, uterine perforation, blood transfusion, infection, hospitalization, or extramural delivery).

Results

Of the planned 66 participants, we enrolled 44 (stopped due to coronavirus disease 2019-related obstacles), and 41 (19 mifepristone; 22 placebo) completed the study. We placed 2 or more additional dilators compared to standard in 7 (36.8%) and 3 (13.6%) participants after mifepristone and placebo, respectively (p = 0.14). We measured greater median initial cervical dilation in the mifepristone (3.2 cm[2.6-3.6]) compared to placebo (2.6 cm[2.2-3.0]) group, p = 0.03. Surgeon's perception of procedure being "easy" (8/19[42.1] vs 9/22[40.9], respectively, p = 1.00) and complication rate (3/19[15.8%] vs 3/22[13.6], respectively, p = 1.00) did not differ.

Conclusion

Our underpowered study did not demonstrate a difference in cervical dilator placement, but mifepristone 18 to 24 hours prior to dilators increases cervical dilation without increasing complications.

Implications

Mifepristone 18 to 24 hours prior to cervical dilator placement may be a useful adjunct to cervical dilators based on increased cervical dilation at time of procedure; however, logistical barriers, such as an additional visit, may preclude routine adoption without definite clinical benefit.