Krashin Jamie, Tang Jennifer H, Mody Sheila, Lopez Laureen M
Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, 4012 Old Clinic Building, CB 7570, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, 27599.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 17;2015(8):CD009805. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009805.pub3.
Women between the ages of 15 and 24 years have high rates of unintended pregnancy; over half of women in this age group want to avoid pregnancy. However, women under age 25 years have higher typical contraceptive failure rates within the first 12 months of use than older women. High discontinuation rates may also be a problem in this population. Concern that adolescents and young women will not find hormonal or intrauterine contraceptives acceptable or effective might deter healthcare providers from recommending these contraceptive methods.
To compare the contraceptive failure (pregnancy) rates and to examine the continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraception among young women aged 25 years and younger.
We searched until 4 August 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hormonal or intrauterine methods of contraception in women aged 25 years and younger. Computerized databases included the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).
We considered RCTs in any language that reported the contraceptive failure rates for hormonal or intrauterine contraceptive methods, when compared with another contraceptive method, for women aged 25 years and younger. The other contraceptive method could have been another intrauterine contraceptive, another hormonal contraceptive or different dose of the same method, or a non-hormonal contraceptive. Treatment duration must have been at least three months. Eligible trials had to include the primary outcome of contraceptive failure rate (pregnancy). The secondary outcome was contraceptive continuation rate.
One author conducted the primary data extraction and entered the information into Review Manager. Another author performed an independent data extraction and verified the initial entry. For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Because of disparate interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct meta-analysis.
Five trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies included a total of 1503 women, with a mean of 301 participants. The trials compared the following contraceptives: combined oral contraceptive (COC) versus transdermal contraceptive patch, vaginal contraceptive ring, or levonorgestrel intrauterine system 20 µg/day (LNG-IUS 20); LNG-IUS 12 µg/day (LNG-IUS 12) versus LNG-IUS 16 µg/day (LNG-IUS 16); and LNG-IUS 20 versus the copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD). In the trials comparing two different types of methods, the study arms did not differ significantly for contraceptive efficacy or continuation. The sample sizes were small for two of those studies. The only significant outcome was that a COC group had a higher proportion of women who discontinued for 'other personal reasons' compared with the group assigned to the LNG-IUS 20 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85), which may have little clinic relevance. The trial comparing LNG-IUS 12 versus LNG-IUS 16 showed similar efficacy over one and three years. In three trials that examined different LNG-IUS, continuation was at least 75% at 6 to 36 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We considered the overall quality of evidence to be moderate to low. Limitations were due to trial design or limited reporting. Different doses in the LNG-IUS did not appear to influence efficacy over three years. In another study, continuation of the LNG-IUS appeared at least as high as that for the COC. The current evidence was insufficient to compare efficacy and continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraceptive methods in women aged 25 years and younger.
15至24岁的女性意外怀孕率很高;该年龄组超过半数的女性希望避免怀孕。然而,25岁以下的女性在使用避孕方法的头12个月内,其典型避孕失败率高于年长女性。高停用率在这一人群中也可能是个问题。担心青少年和年轻女性认为激素避孕法或宫内避孕法不可接受或无效,可能会使医疗服务提供者不愿推荐这些避孕方法。
比较25岁及以下年轻女性中激素避孕法和宫内避孕法的避孕失败(怀孕)率,并研究其持续使用率。
我们检索了截至2015年8月4日的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了25岁及以下女性的激素避孕法或宫内避孕法。计算机化数据库包括Cochrane对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学索引数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、人口信息数据库(POPLINE)、护理及健康领域数据库(CINAHL)和拉丁美洲及加勒比地区健康科学文献数据库(LILACS)。我们还通过美国国立医学图书馆临床试验数据库(ClinicalTrials.gov)和国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)搜索了当前的试验。
我们纳入任何语言的RCT,这些试验报告了25岁及以下女性使用激素避孕法或宫内避孕法与另一种避孕方法相比的避孕失败率。另一种避孕方法可以是另一种宫内避孕器、另一种激素避孕法或同一方法的不同剂量,或者是非激素避孕法。治疗持续时间必须至少为三个月。符合条件的试验必须包括避孕失败率(怀孕)这一主要结局。次要结局是避孕持续使用率。
一位作者进行了主要数据提取,并将信息录入Review Manager软件。另一位作者进行了独立的数据提取,并核实了初始录入信息。对于二分法结局,我们计算了Mantel-Haenszel优势比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI)。由于干预措施和结局指标不同,我们未进行荟萃分析。
五项试验符合纳入标准。这些研究共纳入1503名女性,平均每组301名参与者。试验比较了以下几种避孕方法:复方口服避孕药(COC)与经皮避孕贴、阴道避孕环或左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统20μg/天(LNG-IUS 20);左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统12μg/天(LNG-IUS 12)与左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统16μg/天(LNG-IUS 16);以及LNG-IUS 20与铜T380A宫内节育器(IUD)。在比较两种不同类型方法的试验中,各研究组在避孕效果或持续使用方面无显著差异。其中两项研究的样本量较小。唯一显著的结果是,与分配到LNG-IUS 20组的女性相比,COC组因“其他个人原因”停用的女性比例更高(OR 0.27,95%CI 0.09至0.85),这可能与临床关系不大。比较LNG-IUS 12与LNG-IUS 16的试验显示,在一年和三年的时间里效果相似。在三项研究不同LNG-IUS的试验中,6至36个月时的持续使用率至少为75%。
我们认为证据的总体质量为中等至低等。局限性在于试验设计或报告有限。LNG-IUS的不同剂量在三年内似乎并未影响疗效。在另一项研究中,LNG-IUS的持续使用率似乎至少与COC一样高。目前的证据不足以比较25岁及以下女性中激素避孕法和宫内避孕法的疗效及持续使用率。