Removal of a well-palpable one-rod subdermal contraceptive implant using a dedicated hand-held device or standard technique: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Abstract

Study question: Is a mechanical hand-held device for removing a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant safe for implant users?

Summary answer: In terms of safety, the device is non-inferior to the standard technique for implant removal.

What is known already: An easy-to-use device for removing a subdermal contraceptive implant may be helpful in settings where skilled providers are in short supply. Prior to this study, the only report on the world's first hand-held, mechanical device with build-in incisor was a Swedish study using earlier versions of the product.

Study design, size, duration: From December 2019 to November 2020, we conducted a three-arm, open-label non-inferiority randomized trial involving 225 Ugandan women to assess safety (primary outcome) and measure implant removal efficacy (secondary outcomes) of a newly developed, hand-held device, compared to the standard removal technique.

Participants/materials, setting, methods: We randomized participants desiring removal of their one-rod contraceptive implant in a 1:1:1 ratio: standard technique/lidocaine injection, new device/lidocaine patch or new device/lidocaine injection. For primary safety endpoints, we examined removal complications and grouped them according to severity. For secondary endpoints on efficacy, we defined three device outcomes: intact implant removed without additional tools (primary), implant removed allowing implant breakage, but without tools (secondary) and implant removed allowing implant breakage and non-scalpel tools (tertiary). We assessed provider feedback on the device and used chi-square tests for all comparisons.

Main results and the role of chance: We recruited 225 participants and randomly assigned (n = 75) to each group. For safety, no primary complications occurred in any treatment group, while only one secondary complication occurred in each treatment group (1%). Primary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 85% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 73% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Secondary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 92% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 79% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Tertiary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 96% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 91% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P = 0.017). Unsuccessful removals with the new device did not hinder subsequent implant extractions with standard back-up tools. In over 90% of the 150 device procedures, providers agreed or strongly agreed that the product is an acceptable alternative to standard removal technique.

Limitations, reasons for caution: We tested a new removal device in the hands of Ugandan nurses who were adept at standard removal techniques; our estimates of removal efficacy may not apply to lower-level providers who arguably may be the prime beneficiaries of this technology.

Wider implications of the findings: The study was conducted in a region of the world where the new device could be used to expand access to implant removal services. Intended beneficiaries of the new product are implant users who cannot easily find skilled providers for traditional scalpel-dependent removals and/or users who are intimidated by scalpel procedures, and lower-level providers who can be trained to help deliver services to meet a growing demand. The new device is a safe, acceptable alternative; efficacy was high, but not on par with standard technique.

Study funding/competing interest(s): Funding for this study was provided by the RemovAid AS of Norway with grants from Research Council of Norway (GLOBVAC number 228319), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant INV-007571) and SkatteFUNN. M.B. is founder and former CEO of RemovAid AS, Norway. M.B. holds contraceptive rod remover patents (2012 1307156.8 and 2015), pre-removal test (filed) and shares in RemovAid AS. All of the remaining authors' institutions received payments in the form of contracts to help conduct the study; the funds for these contracts emanated from RemovAid AS.

Trial registration number: NCT04120337.

Trial registration date: 9 October 2019.

Date of first patient’s enrolment: 23 December 2019.

Keywords: device; female contraception; implant removal; randomized controlled trials; subdermal implant.

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Figures

Figure 1.

Picture of RemovAid™ device and description of components.

Figure 2.

Trial profile.

Figure 3.

Efficacy of implant removal procedures. Primary efficacy (most stringent definition): Implant successfully removed without implant breakage, and additionally for device procedures, without scalpel or forceps, P < 0.0001 Secondary efficacy: Implant successfully removed yet allowing implant breakage, and additionally for device procedures, without scalpel or forceps, P < 0.0001 Tertiary efficacy: Implant successfully removed yet allowing implant breakage, and additionally for device procedures, without the use of a scalpel, P = 0.017. Note: the standard procedure was 100% effective on all three efficacy measures.