Use of serum evaluation of contraceptive and ovarian hormones to assess reduced risk of pregnancy among women presenting for emergency contraception in a multicenter clinical trial
Jeffrey T. Jensen,Alison Edelman,Carolyn L Westhoff,Coutney A. Schreiber,David F. Archer,Stephanie Teal,Michael Thomas,Jill Brown,Diana L Blithe
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110475
IF: 3.051
2024-04-26
Contraception
Abstract:Objective To evaluate ovulation risk among women enrolling in an emergency contraception (EC) study by measuring contraceptive steroids and ovarian hormones. Study Design We used standard chemoluminescent assays to evaluate endogenous hormones [estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), FSH, LH] and liquid chromatography-tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to simultaneously analyze concentrations of ethinylestradiol (EE), dienogest (DNG), norelgestromin (NGMN), norethindrone (NET), gestodene (GSD), levonorgestrel (LNG), etonogestrel (ENG), segesterone acetate (NES), medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and drospirenone (DRSP), in serum samples obtained at the time of enrollment in a recent study comparing oral ulipristal acetate and LNG EC in women with weight ≥ 80kg reporting no recent use of hormonal contraception. Results We enrolled 532 and obtained a valid baseline blood sample from 520 women. Of these, 117 (22.5%) had detectable concentrations of a progestin [MPA (n=58, 11.2%), LNG (50, 9.6%), ENG (11, 2.1%), NET (5, 0.96%), NGMN (3, 0.06%), or DRSP (1, 0.02%)]. LNG was co-detected in all three participants with samples containing NGMN. Multiple progestins were detected in 8 other women: ENG/MPA (1); ENG/LNG (2); MPA/LNG (5). Samples from 55 (10.6%) had concentrations of one or more progestin considered above the minimum level for contraceptive [MPA ≥ 0.1ng/mL, n = 19; NGMN/LNG ≥ 0.2ng/mL, n = 31; ENG ≥ 0.09 ng/mL, n = 8; NET ≥ 0.35 ng/mL, n = 4]. We detected concentrations of serum P4 ≥ 3ng/mL, indicative of luteal phase (post-ovulation) status, in an additional 194 (37.3%) samples. Conclusions More than one third of enrolled in our clinical trial of oral emergency contraception had evidence of prior ovulation at the time of enrollment. Additionally, about 23% had evidence of recent use of hormonal contraception recent use of hormonal contraception. This results would have decreased the expected risk of pregnancy in the study. Implications Many participants in a recent clinical trial of oral emergency contraception did not appear to be at risk for pregnancy or would not have benefited from intervention due to cycle timing. Investigators should consider the effects of these findings on expected pregnancy rates when determining sample size in future EC clinical trials, particularly when using non-inferiority designs or historical controls. Keywords
obstetrics & gynecology