Long-acting reversible contraception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) or long-acting reversible birth control are methods of birth control that provide effective contraception for an extended period without requiring user action. They include injections, intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants. They are the most effective reversible methods of contraception because they do not depend on patient compliance. So their 'typical use' failure rates, at less than 1% per year, are about the same as 'perfect use' failure rates.[1]

In addition to being long-lasting, convenient, and well liked by users, they are very cost effective.[1] Typically, LARC users can save thousands of dollars over a five-year period compared to the use of condoms and birth control pills.[2] Despite their safety and effectiveness LARCs are underutilized: only 15.5% of women worldwide use IUDs, and only 3.4% use subdermal implants.[2]

Long-acting reversible contraception is recommended for adolescents to help decrease the teen pregnancy rate.[3] LARCs are recommended for women of any age no matter how many times they have given birth.[4] Women considering using LARCs should obtain contraceptive counseling from reproductive health professionals because those who do are more satisfied with them and use them for longer periods of time.[2]

Methods[edit]

Available LARC methods include IUDs and the subdermal implant:

Some shorter-acting methods are sometimes considered LARC:

Efficacy[edit]

The effectiveness of LARC methods has been shown to be superior to other types of birth control.[5] [6] A study in 2012, with the largest cohort of IUD and implant users to date, found that the risk of contraceptive failure for those using oral contraceptive pills, the birth control patch, or the vaginal ring was 17 to 20 times higher than the risk for those using long-acting reversible contraception.[6] For those under 21, who typically have lower adherence to drug regimens, the risk is twice as high as the risk among older participants.[6]

The discrepancy between LARC methods and other forms of birth control lies in the difference between "perfect use" and "typical use". Perfect use indicates complete adherence to medication schedules and guidelines. Typical use describes effectiveness in real-world conditions, where patients may not fully adhere to medication regimens. LARC methods require little to no user action after insertion; therefore, LARC perfect use failure rates are the same as their typical use failure rates.[7] LARC failure rates rival that of sterilization, but unlike sterilization LARC methods are reversible.[7] Other reversible methods, such as oral contraceptive pills, the birth control patch, or the vaginal ring require daily, weekly, or monthly action by the user. While the perfect use failure rates of those methods may equal LARC methods, the typical use failure rates are significantly higher.[8] Even methods such as the DMPA injection require users to return to their provider every 12 weeks for the intramuscular shot or every 4 weeks for the subcutaneous shot. So, DMPA typical use failure rates are also higher than perfect use failure rates as more than 40% of women discontinue DMPA in the first year.[9] In both effectiveness and continuation, LARC methods are considered the first-line option for contraception.[6]

Cost[edit]

LARC methods traditionally have a higher up-front cost as compared to other methods such as oral contraceptive pills, the patch, and the vaginal ring. However, LARC methods are some of the most cost-effective in the long term.[10] Regardless, the initial cost is still too high for many patients and is one of the biggest barriers to LARC use. Two recent studies done in California and St. Louis have shown that rates of LARC usage are dramatically higher when the costs of the methods are either covered or removed.[11][12] Like all contraceptive methods, access to LARC methods can reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and result in significant cost savings to publicly funded health systems.[10] A program geared toward increasing use of LARC among adolescents in Iowa demonstrated a significant decrease in the unintended pregnancy and abortion rate in that state along with a projected savings of $17.23 for every dollar spent on contraception for 14-19 year-olds.[13]

Promotion[edit]

The United Kingdom Department of Health has actively promoted LARC use since 2008, particularly for young people;[14] following on from the October 2005 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, which promoted LARC provision in the United Kingdom, accurate and detailed counseling for women about these methods, and training of healthcare professionals to provide these methods.[15] Giving advice on these methods of contraception has been included in the 2009 Quality and Outcomes Framework "good practice" for primary care.[16]

According to other guildines released in 2009 by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, LARC methods are considered to be the first-line option for birth control in the United States, and are recommended for the majority of women.[17] According to the CDC Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, LARC methods are recommended for the majority of women who are post-menarche (i.e. have had their first menstruation), regardless of parity.[18] Increasing access to long-acting reversible contraceptives was listed by the CDC as one of the top public health priorities for reducing teen pregnancy and unintended pregnancy in the United States.[19]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Stoddard, A.; McNicholas, C.; Peipert, J. F. (2011). "Efficacy and Safety of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception". Drugs 71 (8): 969–980. doi:10.2165/11591290-000000000-00000. PMID 21668037. 
  2. ^ a b c Blumenthal, P. D.; Voedisch, A.; Gemzell-Danielsson, K. (2010). "Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: Increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception". Human Reproduction Update 17 (1): 121–137. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmq026. PMID 20634208. 
  3. ^ Rowan, S. P.; Someshwar, J.; Murray, P. (2012). "Contraception for primary care providers". Adolescent medicine: state of the art reviews 23 (1): 95–110, x–xi. PMID 22764557. 
  4. ^ Mestad, R.; Kenerson, J.; Peipert, J. (2009). "Reversible Contraception Update: The Importance of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception". Postgraduate Medicine 121 (4): 18–25. doi:10.3810/pgm.2009.07.2025. PMC 3164772. PMID 19641264. 
  5. ^ Mavranezouli, I.; Group, on behalf of the LARC Guideline Development (2008), The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline, Human Reproduction 23 (6): 1338–1345, doi:10.1093/humrep/den091, PMID 18372257 
  6. ^ a b c d Winner, B; Peipert, JF; Zhao, Q; Buckel, C; Madden, T; Allsworth, JE; Secura, GM. (2012), Effectiveness of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception, New England Journal of Medicine 366 (21): 1998–2007, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1110855, PMID 22621627 
  7. ^ a b Trussel, J (2007), "Effectiveness of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception" In:Hatcher, RA; Nelson, TJ; Guest, F; Kowal, D., Contraceptive Technology 19th ed. (New York: Ardent Media) 
  8. ^ Kost, K; Singh, S; Vaughan, B; Trussel, J; Bankole, A (2008), Estimates of Contraceptive Failure from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, Contraception 77: 10–21, doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.09.013 
  9. ^ Peipert, JF; Zhao, Q; Allsworth, JE (2011), Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception, Obstet Gynecol 117: 1105–13, doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31821188ad 
  10. ^ a b Cleland, K; Peipert, JF; Spear, S; Trussel, J (2011), Family Planning as a Cost-Saving Preventive Health Service, New England Journal of Medicine 364 (37), doi:10.1056/NEJMp1104373, PMID 21506736 
  11. ^ Postlethwaite, D; Trussel, J; Zoolakis, A; Shabear, R; Petittie, D (2007), A comparison of contraceptive procurement pre- and post-benefit change, Contracpetion 76: 360–5, doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.07.006 
  12. ^ Secura, GM; Allsworth, JE; Madden, T; Mullersman, JL; Peipert, JF (2010), The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 115 (e1), doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.017 
  13. ^ Udeh, B; Losch, M; Spies, E (2009), The Cost of Unintended Pregnancy in Iowa: A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Public Funded Family Planning Services, The University of Iowa Public Policy Center 
  14. ^ "Increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception". Nursing Times.net. 21 October 2008. Retrieved 2009-06-19. 
  15. ^ "CG30 Long-acting reversible contraception: quick reference guide" (PDF). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Retrieved 2009-06-19. 
  16. ^ "Sexual Health Ruleset" (PDF). New GMS Contract Quality and Outcome Framework - Implementation Dataset and Business Rules. Primary Care Commissioning. 1 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-19. 
    Sumarised at
    * "Contraception - Management QOF indicators". NHS Clinical Knowledge Summaries. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved 2009-06-19. 
  17. ^ ACOG Committee Opinion 450 (December 2009). "Increasing the Use of Contraceptive Implants and Intrauterine Devices To Reduce Unintended Pregnancy". American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Retrieved 2012-06-28. 
  18. ^ "U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010" (PDF). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 28 May 2010. 
  19. ^ "Public Health Priorities". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 20 September 2011. 

External links[edit]