Précis
Pregnancy is unlikely when a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (52 mg) is placed 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse.
Introduction
In this report, we evaluate the chance of pregnancy with levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) placement 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse. Initiation of contraception after unprotected intercourse in the previous 6–14 days [1–4] increases contraceptive use and decreases risk of unplanned pregnancy [5–9]. However, for patients reporting recent unprotected intercourse, a negative urine pregnancy test on day of placement, may not identify a very early pregnancy. Studies of copper IUD placement six or more days following unprotected intercourse reported no pregnancies [1, 10, 11].
Methods
We combined data from three prospective observational studies and one randomized controlled trial. All studies enrolled participants from June 2013 to September 2019, who presented for contraception and reported unprotected intercourse occurring 6–14 days prior to presentation. All participants underwent LNG-IUS placement on the day of presentation. All protocols required negative point of care urine pregnancy testing and all collected demographic information and reporting of days with unprotected intercourse in the two weeks prior to LNG 52mg IUS placement. Two to 4 weeks after LNG-IUS placement, participants reported results of home pregnancy testing. All protocols followed participants for up to 6 months to assess method continuation and the possibility of pregnancy. The four study protocols were conducted at seven family planning clinics in Utah, Pennsylvania and Minnesota as previously described by Thompson et al. [1]. The two clinical research sites in Minnesota and Pennsylvania shared a protocol and enrolled participants desiring an LNG-IUS who reported unprotected intercourse 6–14 days previously. All other data came from participants reporting unprotected intercourse 6–14 days prior to LNG-IUS placement in three other research protocols in Utah [12–14]. Two of these protocols were observational studies - 65 participants had a same day placement of LNG-IUS and an additional 24 participants received the LNG-IUS simultaneously with oral LNG for emergency contraception and were included in this analysis. The lone randomized controlled trial contributing data to this analysis allocated emergency contraception users 1:1 to either an LNG 52 mg IUS or a copper T380A IUD. In that trial 54, participants used the LNG-IUS alone as emergency contraception. We performed statistical analysis using Stata version 15 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) using one-way analysis of variance, Chi-square tests, and the exact binomial method when appropriate.
Results
This study includes 187 individuals across the four combined protocols (Appendix 1, available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx, Table 1). The majority of participants reported regular menstrual cycles and multiple episodes of unprotected sex in the 6–14 days prior to enrollment. Follow up home pregnancy test results were reported by 123 participants (66%) 2–4 weeks after LNG-IUS placement; 64 participants (34%) self-reported pregnancy status without a pregnancy test. Only 1 participant reported a pregnancy within four weeks of LNG-IUS placement (0.5%; 95% confidence interval 0.01%−2.9%). We performed subanalyses (Appendix 2, available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx).
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants with a negative pregnancy test who initiated a 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse
| CHARACTERISTIC | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Total participants | 187 (100) |
| Age in years* | |
| 18–19 | 53 (28) |
| 20–24 | 54 (29) |
| 25–29 | 38 (20) |
| 30–34 | 28 (15) |
| 35+ | 14 (7) |
| Previously pregnant* | 129 (69) |
| Relationship status | |
| Single | 84 (45) |
| Married or cohabitating | 97 (52) |
| Missing | 6 (3) |
| Education | |
| High school or less | 91 (49) |
| College or vocational training | 96 (51) |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m2) | |
| Underweight (<18.5) | 10 (5) |
| Normal (18.5–24.9) | 51 (27) |
| Overweight (25–29.9) | 33 (18) |
| Obese (≥30) | 27 (14) |
| Missing† | 66 (35) |
| Cycle length 25–35 days | 159 (85) |
| Menstrual cycle day at placement‡ | 17 ± 11 |
| Unprotected sex in fertile window§ | 68 (36) |
| Multiple episodes of unprotected sex in 6–14 days | 116 (62) |
Group percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Distributions of age, race, and parity differed across study protocols (p<0.05) using chi2; other variables statistically similar.
Body mass index has large number of missing values as it was not collected in the HER protocol.
Data presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Fertile window is defined as 5 days prior to and one day after calculated ovulation date [11].
Discussion
Pregnancy is unlikely with LNG-IUS placement 6–14 days following unprotected intercourse, even for women reporting multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse. Further, pregnancy rates appear similar to those among patients receiving a copper IUD 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse, which have been reported to be 0–2.7% [1, 10, 11].
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
DISCLOSURE AND FUNDING: Components of this project were supported by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. Bayer Women’s Healthcare contributed the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system products for the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative. Use of REDCap provided by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development grant (8UL1TR000105 (formerly UL1RR025764) NCATS NIH). Team members receive support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development and the Office of Research on Women’s Health of the National Institute of Health, JNS via Award Number K12HD085852 and DKT via K24HD087436 and 1R01HD083340.
Clinical Trial Registration: Quick Start NCT02076217, RAPID EC NCT01963962, COLIEC NCT02734199, HER Salt Lake NCT02175030
The authors thank the staff of Planned Parenthood MN-ND-SD and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah for assistance in the execution of this study.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of any of the funding agencies or participating institutions, including the National Institutes of Health or Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
References
- [1].Thompson I, Sanders JN, Schwarz EB, Boraas C, Turok DK. Copper intrauterine device placement 6–14 days after unprotected sex. Contraception. 2019. September;100(3):219–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Sanders JN, Howell L, Salzman HM, Schwarz EB, Thompson IS, Turok DK. Unprotected intercourse in the 2 weeks prior to requesting emergency intrauterine contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016. November;215(5):592.e1–592.e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Schwarz EB, Kavanaugh M, Douglas E, Dubowitz T, Creinin MD. Interest in intrauterine contraception among seekers of emergency contraception and pregnancy testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:833–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Sadler LS, Chen JY, Daley AM, Leventhal JM, Reynolds H. Reproductive care and rates of pregnancy in teenagers with negative pregnancy test results. J Adolesc Health. 2006;38:222–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Westhoff C, Kerns J, Morroni C, Cushman LF, Tiezzi L, Murphy PA. Quick start: novel oral contraceptive initiation method. Contraception. 2002;66:141–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Westhoff C, Heartwell S, Edwards S, et al. Initiation of oral contraceptives using a quick start compared with a conventional start: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1270–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Schafer JE, Osborne LM, Davis AR, Westhoff C. Acceptability and satisfaction using Quick Start with the contraceptive vaginal ring versus an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2006;73:488–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Murthy AS, Creinin MD, Harwood B, Schreiber CA. Same-day initiation of the transdermal hormonal delivery system (contraceptive patch) versus traditional initiation methods. Contraception. 2005;72:333–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Nelson AL, Katz T. Initiation and continuation rates seen in 2-year experience with Same Day injections of DMPA. Contraception. 2007;75:84–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Goldstuck ND. Delayed postcoital IUD insertion. Contracept Deliv Syst. 1983. September;4(4):293–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Turok DK, Godfrey EM, Wojdyla D, Dermish A, Torres L, Wu SC. Copper T380 intrauterine device for emergency contraception: highly effective at any time in the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2013. October;28(10):2672–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Turok DK, Sanders JN, Thompson IS, Royer PA, Eggebroten J, Gawron LM. Preference for and efficacy of oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception with concomitant placement of a levonorgestrel IUD: a prospective cohort study. Contraception 2016;93:526–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Turok DK, Gero A, Simmons R, Kaiser J, Stoddard GS, Sexsmith CD, Gawron LM, Sanders JN. The Levonorgestrel vs. Copper Intrauterine Device for Emergency Contraception. NEJM 2021. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Sanders JN, Myers K, Gawron LM, Simmons RG, Turok DK. Contraceptive method use during the community-wide HER salt lake contraceptive initiative. Am J Public Health 2018;108:550–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
