Advertisement

Pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes in a prospective cohort study: Final results from the Nexplanon Observational Risk Assessment Study (NORA)

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To monitor pregnancy occurrence and outcomes among Nexplanon users in the United States during standard clinical practice.

      Study design

      The Nexplanon Observational Risk Assessment (NORA) study was a large prospective cohort study conducted in the United States (US). Study participants with a newly inserted Nexplanon implant were recruited by health care professionals (HCPs) who had completed the Nexplanon clinical training. Via a survey, study participants were followed up at 6-month intervals for 36 months and 6 months after implant removal. Reported unintended pregnancies were validated and classified as noninsertion, preinsertion, during-use, or postremoval.

      Results

      Four hundred and twenty-eight HCPs in 47 states recruited 7364 Nexplanon users. Pregnancies included one noninsertion, eight preinsertion, three during-use, and 14 postremoval pregnancies; of these 26 pregnancies, 22 resulted in the birth of a healthy child, two resulted in an induced abortion, one resulted in a spontaneous abortion, and one resulted in an ectopic pregnancy. Six pregnancies occurred during-use (n = 3) or within 7 days following implant removal (n = 3), yielding a Pearl Index of 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02–0.09).

      Conclusions

      Nexplanon is an effective contraceptive in real-world users; the Pearl Index was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.00–0.06) for during-use pregnancies, and 0.04 when including pregnancies that occurred within 7 days following implant removal.

      Implications

      This large real-world-use study indicates that Nexplanon is as effective as shown in the preapproval clinical trials.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Nexplanon prescribing information. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA; Available from: https://www.organon.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/n/nexplanon/nexplanon_pi.pdf (accessed May 20, 2022).

        • Graesslin O
        • Korver T.
        The contraceptive efficacy of Implanon: a review of clinical trials and marketing experience.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008; 13: 4-12https://doi.org/10.1080/13625180801942754
        • Darney PD.
        Hormonal implants: contraception for a new century.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170: 1536-1543https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(12)91812-8
        • Rocca ML
        • Palumbo AR
        • Visconti F
        • Di Carlo C.
        Safety and benefits of contraceptives implants: a systematic review.
        Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021; 14: 548https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14060548
        • Bensouda-Grimaldi L
        • Jonville-Béra A-P
        • Beau-Salinas F
        • Llabres S
        • Autret-Leca E
        Insertion problems, removal problems, and contraception failures with Implanon.
        Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005; 33: 986-990https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2005.10.016
        • Mäkäräinen L
        • van Beek A
        • Tuomivaara L
        • Asplund B
        • Coelingh Bennink H
        Ovarian function during the use of a single contraceptive implant: implanon compared with norplant.
        Fertil Steril. 1998; 69: 714-721https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00015-6
        • Reed S
        • Do Minh T
        • Lange JA
        • Koro C
        • Fox M
        • Heinemann K
        Real world data on Nexplanon® procedure-related events: final results from the Nexplanon Observational Risk Assessment study (NORA).
        Contraception. 2019; 100: 31-36https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.03.052
        • Clopper CJPE
        • Pearson ES
        The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial.
        Biometrika. 1934; 26: 404https://doi.org/10.2307/2331986
        • Lange J
        • Teal S
        • Tocce K.
        Decreased efficacy of an etonogestrel implant in a woman on antiepileptic medications: a case report.
        J Med Case Rep. 2014; 8: 43https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1947-8-43
        • Leticee N
        • Viard J-P
        • Yamgnane A
        • Karmochkine M
        • Benachi A.
        Contraceptive failure of etonogestrel implant in patients treated with antiretrovirals including efavirenz.
        Contraception. 2012; 85: 425-427https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.09.005