Pharmacodynamic evaluation of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant initiated midcycle with and without ulipristal acetate: An exploratory study

• Published in: Contraception (Stoneham) Vol. 132; p. 110370
• Main Authors: Gawron, Lori M., Kaiser, Jennifer E., Gero, Alexandra, Sanders, Jessica N., Johnstone, Erica B., Turok, David K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-04-2024
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Contraception, Postcoital - methods; Contraceptive Agents, Female - pharmacology; Desogestrel; Emergency contraception; Etonogestrel implant; Female; Humans; Norpregnadienes; Ovulation; Pharmacodynamics; Ulipristal acetate; Young Adult; Pharmacodynamics; Etonogestrel implant; Ovulation; Emergency contraception; Ulipristal acetate
• ISSN: 0010-7824; 1879-0518
• DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110370

To estimate the incidence of ovulation suppression within five days of etonogestrel 68 mg implant insertion in the presence of a dominant follicle with and without same-day ulipristal acetate.
This single site non-masked, exploratory randomized trial recruited people age 18–35 years with regular menstrual cycles, no pregnancy risk, and confirmed ovulatory function. We initiated transvaginal ultrasound examinations on menstrual day 7–9 and randomized participants 1:1 to etonogestrel implant alone or with concomitant ulipristal acetate 30 mg oral when a dominant follicle reached ≥14 mm in diameter. We completed daily sonography and serum hormone levels for up to seven days or transitioned to labs alone if sonographic follicular rupture occurred. We defined ovulation as follicular rupture followed by progesterone >3 ng/mL. We calculated point estimates, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for ovulation for each group. Ovulation suppression of ≥44% in either group (the follicular rupture suppression rate with oral levonorgestrel emergency contraception), would prompt future method testing.
From October 2020 to October 2022, we enrolled 40 people and 39 completed primary outcome assessments: 20 with etonogestrel implant alone (mean follicular size at randomization: 15.2 mm ± 0.9 mm) and 19 with etonogestrel implant + ulipristal acetate (mean follicular size at randomization: 15.4 mm ± 1.2 mm, p = 0.6). Ovulation suppression occurred in 13 (65%) of etonogestrel implant-alone participants (Risk ratio 0.6 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.1), p = 0.08) and seven (37%) of implant + ulipristal acetate participants.
Ovulation suppression of the etonogestrel implant alone exceeds threshold testing for future research while the implant + ulipristal acetate does not.
Data are lacking on midcycle ovulation suppression for the etonogestrel implant with and without oral ulipristal acetate. In this exploratory study, ovulation suppression occurred in 65% of implant participants and 37% of implant + ulipristal acetate participants. Ovulation suppression of the implant alone exceeds threshold testing for future emergency contraception research.