ArticleContraception2024
Pharmacodynamic evaluation of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant initiated midcycle with and without ulipristal acetate: An exploratory study.
Article in Contraception, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo 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. STUDY
designThis 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.
resultsFrom 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.
conclusionsOvulation suppression of the etonogestrel implant alone exceeds threshold testing for future research while the implant + ulipristal acetate does not. IMPLICATIONS: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.