Consensus of best practice in intrauterine contraception in France

References

• Ministère des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé. 2017. Stratégie nationale de santé sexuelle. Agenda 2017–2030. [cited 2019 Jun 05]. Available from: https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/strategie_nationale_sante_sexuelle.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bajos N, Moreau C, Leridon H, et al. Pourquoi le nombre d’avortements n’a-t-il pas baissé en France depuis 30 ans? Popul Soc. 2004;407:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Rahib D, Le Guen M, Lydié N. Baromètre santé 2016. Contraception. Quatre ans après la crise de la pilule, les évolutions se poursuivent. Saint-Maurice: Santé Publique France; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Black A, Guilbert E, Costescu D, et al. Canadian contraception consensus (part 3 of 4): chapter 7 –intrauterine contraception. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38:182–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black K, Lotke P, Bühling KJ, et al. A review of barriers and myths preventing the more widespread use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2012;17:340–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bajos N, Bohet A, Le Guen M, et al. La contraception en France: nouveau contexte, nouvelles pratiques? Popul Soc. 2012;492:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Aubin C, Jourdain Menninger D, Chambaud L, La prévention des grossesses non désirées: contraception et contraception d’urgence. Paris: Inspection générale des affaires sociales; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Critères de recevabilité pour l’adoption et l’utilisation continue de méthodes contraceptives. 5th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Gaspard U, Verguts J, Simon P, et al. The use of intrauterine device in nulliparous over 18 years: a Belgian consensus. J Pharm Belg. 2014;4:28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis KM, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65:1–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelin E, Koistinen H, Koistinen R, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device-wearing women express contraceptive glycodelin A in endometrium during midcycle: another contraceptive mechanism? Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2671–2675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinecke I, Hofmann B, Mesic E, et al. An integrated population pharmacokinetic analysis to characterize levonorgestrel pharmacokinetics after different administration routes. J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;58:1639–1654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apter D, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Hauck B, et al. Pharmacokinetics of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems and effects on ovulation rate and cervical function: pooled analyses of phase II and III studies. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1656–1662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindh I, Milsom I. The influence of intrauterine contraception on the prevalence and severity of dysmenorrhea: a longitudinal population study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1953–1960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitzer J, Heikinheimo O, Nelson AL, et al. Medical management of heavy menstrual bleeding: a comprehensive review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70:115–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mawet M, Nollevaux F, Nizet D, et al. Impact of a new levonorgestrel intrauterine system, Levosert, on heavy menstrual bleeding: results of a one-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19:169–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haute Autorité de Santé. 2010. Méthodes d’élaboration des recommandations de bonne pratique. Recommandations par consensus formalisé. [cited 2019 Jun 05]. Available from: www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_418716/fr/methodes-d-elaboration-des-recommandations-de-bonne-pratique.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg DL, Schreiber CA, Turok DK, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety of a new 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 2015;92:10–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. The effect of age, parity and body mass index on the efficacy, safety, placement and user satisfaction associated with two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: subgroup analyses of data from a phase III trial. PloS One. 2015;10:e0135309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, et al. Comparative contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices: the European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91:280–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgatta L, Bühling KJ, Rybowski S, et al. A multicentre, open-label, randomised phase III study comparing a new levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system (LNG-IUS 8) with combined oral contraception in young women of reproductive age. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21:372–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Hofler LG, Modest AM, et al. Continuation of copper and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:57.e1–57.e6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson A, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. Two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1205–1213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Goldstuck ND, Jackers G. Results of a 5-year contraceptive trial in parous and nulliparous women with a new LNG-IUS. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017;33:223–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Odlind V, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: a randomized comparative trial. Contraception. 1994;49:56–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Dermout S, et al. Evaluation of a new, low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system over 5 years of use. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:22–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubuisson JB, Mugnier E. Acceptability of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system after discontinuation of previous contraception: results of a French clinical study in women aged 35 to 45 years. Contraception. 2002;66:121–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sitruk-Ware R. Pharmacological profile of progestins. Maturitas. 2004;47:277–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry-Bibee EN, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. The safety of intrauterine devices in breastfeeding women: a systematic review. Contraception. 2016;94:725–738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen RH, Raker C, Goyal V. Higher dose cervical 2% lidocaine gel for IUD insertion: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2013;88:730–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bednarek PH, Creinin MD, Reeves MF, et al. Prophylactic ibuprofen does not improve pain with IUD insertion: a randomized trial. Contraception. 2015;91:193–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espey E, Singh RH, Leeman L, et al. Misoprostol for intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:208.e1–208.e5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swenson C, Turok DK, Ward K, et al. Self-administered misoprostol or placebo before intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:341–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapata LB, Jatlaoui TC, Marchbanks PA, et al. Medications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review. Contraception. 2016;94:739–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez LM, Bernholc A, Zeng Y, et al. Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD007373.
   Google Scholar
• Edelman AB, Schaefer E, Olson A, et al. Effects of prophylactic misoprostol administration prior to intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2011;84:234–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lathrop E, Haddad L, McWhorter CP, et al. Self-administration of misoprostol prior to intrauterine device insertion among nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception. 2013;88:725–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caddy S, Yudin MH, Hakim J, et al. Best practices to minimize risk of infection with intrauterine device insertion. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014;36:266–274.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munteanu O, Radulescu L, Bodean O, et al. Is antibiotic prophylaxis mandatory after the insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in order to decrease the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease? J Med Life. 2013;6:459–461.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Serfaty D. La contraception. Paris: Eska; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Haute Autorité de Santé. 2013. Document de synthèse. Méthodes contraceptives. Focus sur les méthodes les plus efficaces disponibles. [cited 2019 Jun 05]. Available from: www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-03/synthese_methodes_contraceptives_format2clics.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brahmi D, Steenland MW, Renner R-M, et al. Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review. Contraception. 2012;85:131–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moschos E, Twickler DM. Intrauterine devices in early pregnancy: findings on ultrasound and clinical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:427.e1–427.e6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foran T, Butcher BE, Kovacs G, et al. Safety of insertion of the copper IUD and LNG-IUS in nulliparous women: a systematic review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018;23:379–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagano HP, Zapata LB, Berry-Bibee EN, et al. Safety of hormonal contraception and intrauterine devices among women with depressive and bipolar disorders: a systematic review. Contraception. 2016;94:641–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aleknaviciute J, Tulen JHM, De Rijke YB, et al. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device potentiates stress reactivity. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;80:39–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merki-Feld GS, Apter D, Bartfai G, et al. ESC expert statement on the effects on mood of the natural cycle and progestin-only contraceptives. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22:247–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency, Pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee (PRAC). 2017. Minutes of the meeting on 23–26 October 2017. [cited 2019 Jun 05]. Available from: www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/minutes/minutes-prac-meeting-23-26-october-2017_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Birgisson NE, Zhao Q, Secura GM, et al. Positive testing for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease in IUD users. J Womens Health. 2002;2015:354–359.
   Google Scholar
• Sufrin CB, Postlethwaite D, Armstrong MA, et al. Neisseria gonorrhea and Chlamydia trachomatis screening at intrauterine device insertion and pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1314–1321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farley TM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe PJ, et al. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet. 1992;339:785–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau C, Spira A, Bajos N. Trends in contraceptive practices in France: population effect and social impact [article in French]. Méd Thér Méd Reprod Gynécol Endocrinol. 2009;11:338–344.
   Google Scholar
• Marret H, Wagner N, Ouldamer L, et al. Pelvic actinomycosis: just think of it [article in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2010;38:307–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Akande V, Turner C, Horner P, et al. Impact of Chlamydia trachomatis in the reproductive setting: British Fertility Society Guidelines for Practice. Hum Fertil. 2010;13:115–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace LA, Scoular A, Hart G, et al. What is the excess risk of infertility in women after genital chlamydia infection? A systematic review of the evidence. Sex Transm Infect. 2008;84:171–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottlieb SL, Berman SM, Low N. Screening and treatment to prevent sequelae in women with Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection: how much do we know? J Infect Dis. 2010;201:S156–S167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haggerty CL, Gottlieb SL, Taylor BD, et al. Risk of sequelae after Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection in women. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:S134–S155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar