Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Intrauterine Contraception and Tubal Ligation

Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, Carrie A Lewis, Melanie S Dove, Eryn Murphy, Diana Zuckerman, Claudia Nunez-Eddy, Daniel J Tancredi, Raegan McDonald-Mosley, Sarita Sonalkar, Mark Hathaway, Aileen M Gariepy, Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, Carrie A Lewis, Melanie S Dove, Eryn Murphy, Diana Zuckerman, Claudia Nunez-Eddy, Daniel J Tancredi, Raegan McDonald-Mosley, Sarita Sonalkar, Mark Hathaway, Aileen M Gariepy

Abstract

Background: Tubal ligation remains common in the USA, especially among low-income patients.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) to laparoscopic tubal ligation for Medicaid clients.

Design: We partnered with patient and clinician stakeholders to conduct a retrospective cohort study using California Medicaid claims for patients who had an IUC placed or laparoscopic tubal ligation performed in 2008-2014, excluding procedures performed within 42 days of a birth. We applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data to adjust for sociodemographic variables and pre-procedure health status when examining associations between these contraceptive procedures and claims related to contraceptive failure, complications, and pain in the first year post-procedure.

Key results: We identified 35,705 patients who had a levonorgestrel IUC placed, 23,628 patients who had a copper IUC placed, and 23,965 patients who underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation. In unadjusted analyses, rates of pregnancy within 1 year were similar following levonorgestrel IUC (2.40%) or copper IUC placement (2.99%) or tubal ligation (2.64%). In adjusted analyses, compared to tubal ligation, pregnancy was less common following placement of a levonorgestrel IUC (adj IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.82) and similar with placement of a copper IUC (adj IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.05). Procedural complications such as infection (0.35% vs. 2.91%) were significantly less common with IUC placement than tubal ligation. Claims for pelvic and abdominal pain decreased in frequency with time since all procedures; 6 to 12 months post-procedure, pelvic pain claims were less common after levonorgestrel IUC (adj IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) or copper IUC placement (adj IRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.66-0.75) than tubal ligation.

Conclusions: IUC appears at least as effective as laparoscopic tubal ligation at 1-year post-procedure with lower rates of infection and pelvic pain 6 to 12 months post-procedure.

Clinical trial registration: NCT03438682.

Keywords: Medicaid; comparative effectiveness; disparities; female sterilization; intrauterine contraception; low income; permanent contraception; reproductive justice; tubal ligation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Long-acting contraceptive procedures performed for Medicaid clients in California, 2008–2014*.

References

    1. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Kelley A, Grumbach K, Steinauer J. Women’s preferences for contraceptive counseling and decision making. Contraception. 2013;88:250–6. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.012.
    1. Anderson S, Frerichs L, Kaysin A, Wheeler SB, Halpern CT, Lich KH. Effects of Two Educational Posters on Contraceptive Knowledge and Intentions: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:53–62. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003012.
    1. Eisenberg DL, Secura GM, Madden TE, Allsworth JE, Zhao Q, Peipert JF. Knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:479 e1-9.
    1. Werner CA, Papic MJ, Ferris LK, Schwarz EB. Promoting safe use of isotretinoin by increasing contraceptive knowledge. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:389–93. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.4171.
    1. Sundaram A, Vaughan B, Kost K, et al. Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017;49:7–16. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12017.
    1. Kramer DB, Xu S, Kesselheim AS. How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001276. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001276.
    1. Beshar I, So J, Chelvakumar M, Cahill EP, Shaw KA, Shaw JG. Socioeconomic differences persist in use of permanent vs long-acting reversible contraception: An analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth, 2006 to 2010 vs 2015 to 2017. Contraception. 2021;103:246–54. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.12.008.
    1. Schwarz EB, Postlethwaite D, Hung YY, Lantzman E, Armstrong MA, Horberg MA. Provision of contraceptive services to women with diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:196–201. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1875-6.
    1. Borrero SB, Reeves MF, Schwarz EB, Bost JE, Creinin MD, Ibrahim SA. Race, insurance status, and desire for tubal sterilization reversal. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:272–7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.041.
    1. Laird N, Olivier D. Covariance Analysis of Censored Survival Data Using Log-Linear Analysis Techniques. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1981;76:231–40. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1981.10477634.
    1. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD. Comparative contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices: the European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91:280–3. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.011.
    1. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J. The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1161–8. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70658-0.
    1. Eeckhaut MCW, Sweeney MM, Feng L. Desire for Sterilization Reversal Among U.S. Females: Increasing Inequalities by Educational Level. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2018;50:139–45. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12076.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner