Pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implants in the UK: comparison of two 5-year reporting periods.
Authors: Rowlands, S., Cornforth, E. and Harrison-Woolrych, M.
Journal: BMJ Sex Reprod Health
eISSN: 2515-2009
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200338
Abstract:OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify pregnancies associated with the use of the contraceptive implants Implanon and Nexplanon in the UK during two 5-year reporting periods. (2) To classify the possible reasons for device failure in cases reported for each implant. (3) To examine any differences between reasons for pregnancies associated with these products. STUDY DESIGN: Extraction of data from the UK spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions in relation to etonogestrel implants. Reports indicating pregnancy were identified for the periods 2005-2009 (Implanon) and 2012-2016 (Nexplanon). Possible reasons for failure of the method in each reported case were assigned to one of eight predetermined categories. RESULTS: After exclusions, 229 Implanon and 234 Nexplanon cases contained sufficient information for analysis. True method failures accounted for a majority of the pregnancies in those using contraceptive implants (58%); the next most common cause was missing implants (26% of pregnancies). In all categories of cases, there was no difference in frequency of pregnancy when the two time periods were compared. CONCLUSIONS: There is still potential for greater avoidance of pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implant use. IMPLICATIONS: This study underscores the continuing need for taking a full drug history, timing the insertion on days 1-5 or according to recommended quick starting routines and palpating the arm after implant insertion.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32929/
Source: PubMed
Pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implants in the UK: comparison of two 5-year reporting periods
Authors: Rowlands, S., Cornforth, E. and Harrison-Woolrych, M.
Journal: BMJ SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
Volume: 46
Issue: 1
Pages: 26-31
eISSN: 2515-2009
ISSN: 2515-1991
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200338
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32929/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implants in the UK: comparison of two 5-year reporting periods.
Authors: Rowlands, S., Cornforth, E. and Harrison-Woolrych, M.
Journal: BMJ sexual & reproductive health
Pages: bmjsrh-2019-200338
eISSN: 2515-2009
ISSN: 2515-1991
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200338
Abstract:Objectives
(1) To identify pregnancies associated with the use of the contraceptive implants Implanon and Nexplanon in the UK during two 5-year reporting periods. (2) To classify the possible reasons for device failure in cases reported for each implant. (3) To examine any differences between reasons for pregnancies associated with these products.Study design
Extraction of data from the UK spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions in relation to etonogestrel implants. Reports indicating pregnancy were identified for the periods 2005-2009 (Implanon) and 2012-2016 (Nexplanon). Possible reasons for failure of the method in each reported case were assigned to one of eight predetermined categories.Results
After exclusions, 229 Implanon and 234 Nexplanon cases contained sufficient information for analysis. True method failures accounted for a majority of the pregnancies in those using contraceptive implants (58%); the next most common cause was missing implants (26% of pregnancies). In all categories of cases, there was no difference in frequency of pregnancy when the two time periods were compared.Conclusions
There is still potential for greater avoidance of pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implant use.Implications
This study underscores the continuing need for taking a full drug history, timing the insertion on days 1-5 or according to recommended quick starting routines and palpating the arm after implant insertion.https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32929/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implants in the UK: comparison of two 5-year reporting periods.
Authors: Rowlands, S., Cornforth, E. and Harrison-Woolrych, M.
Journal: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
Volume: 46
Pages: 26-31
ISSN: 2515-1991
Abstract:OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify pregnancies associated with the use of the contraceptive implants Implanon and Nexplanon in the UK during two 5-year reporting periods. (2) To classify the possible reasons for device failure in cases reported for each implant. (3) To examine any differences between reasons for pregnancies associated with these products. STUDY DESIGN: Extraction of data from the UK spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions in relation to etonogestrel implants. Reports indicating pregnancy were identified for the periods 2005-2009 (Implanon) and 2012-2016 (Nexplanon). Possible reasons for failure of the method in each reported case were assigned to one of eight predetermined categories. RESULTS: After exclusions, 229 Implanon and 234 Nexplanon cases contained sufficient information for analysis. True method failures accounted for a majority of the pregnancies in those using contraceptive implants (58%); the next most common cause was missing implants (26% of pregnancies). In all categories of cases, there was no difference in frequency of pregnancy when the two time periods were compared. CONCLUSIONS: There is still potential for greater avoidance of pregnancies associated with etonogestrel implant use. IMPLICATIONS: This study underscores the continuing need for taking a full drug history, timing the insertion on days 1-5 or according to recommended quick starting routines and palpating the arm after implant insertion.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32929/
Source: BURO EPrints