Advertisement
Original Research Article| Volume 117, P7-12, January 2023

Download started.

Ok

Modeling the potential benefit of an over-the-counter progestin-only pill in preventing unintended pregnancies in the U.S.

Open AccessPublished:October 15, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.10.006

      ABSTRACT

      Objectives

      To develop a model to estimate the possible impact of use of an over-the-counter (OTC) progestin-only pill (POP) on the number of unintended pregnancies in the United States.

      Study design

      Using typical use failure rates (7% for POPs), we compared the expected number of unintended pregnancies for two theoretical cohorts of 100,000 women: one which purchased and used an OTC POP exclusively for contraception, the other using contraceptive methods at proportions obtained from an actual-use clinical trial simulating OTC use of norgestrel 0.075 mg (including 35% using no method and only 19% using hormonal contraception or long-acting contraceptives). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using alternative model inputs such as different failure rates for OTC POPs and varied alternative contraceptive method mix.

      Results

      An estimated 37,624 unintended pregnancies would occur annually if 100,000 women continued their usual contraceptive method as used at baseline in the actual use trial. This would be reduced by 81% to 7,000 pregnancies with the exclusive use of an OTC POP – a net reduction of 30,624 unintended pregnancies annually. While the number of unintended pregnancies prevented varied as the model parameters were modified (ranging from 1,461 to 34,124), a net benefit of OTC POP use was observed over a wide range of input values.

      Conclusions

      Using data from a real-world contraception user profile, our model suggests that use of an OTC POP could reduce the overall number of unintended pregnancies in the United States. This conclusion remains true across a wide range of modeled scenarios.

      Implications

      The estimates suggested by this model are supportive of an OTC switch for a POP.

      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

        • Finer LB
        • Zolna MR.
        Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008-2011.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 843-852https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1506575
      1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2030; https://health.gov/healthypeople. (accessed August 12, 2022).

      2. Over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception: ACOG committee opinion, number 788.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 134: e96-105https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003473
      3. American Medical Association. Over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives D-75.995 (modified resolution 518-A-22), 2022; https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/D-75.995?uri=%2FAMADoc%2Fdirectives.xml-0-2035.xml. (accessed August 12, 2022).

        • Wollum A
        • Trussell J
        • Grossman D
        • Grindlay K.
        Modeling the impacts of price of an over-the-counter progestin-only pill on use and unintended pregnancy among U.S. women.
        Womens Health Issues. 2020; 30: 153-160https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2020.01.003
        • National Center for Health Statistics
        2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth.
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta2016
        • Grindlay K
        • Grossman D.
        Interest in over-the-counter access to a progestin-only pill among women in the United States.
        Womens Health Issues. 2018; 28: 144-151https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2017.11.006
      4. ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). Identifier NCT04112095, Adherence With Continuous-dose Oral Contraceptive: Evaluation of Self-Selection and Use (ACCESS); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04112095. (accessed August 12, 2022).

        • Trussell J
        • Aiken ARA
        • Micks E
        • Guthrie KA
        • et al.
        Efficacy, safety, and personal considerations.
        (editors)in: Kowal D Hatcher RA Nelson AL Trussell J Cwiak C Cason P Contraceptive technology. 21st edition. Managing Contraception LLC, New York2018
      5. National Center for Health Statistics. 2017-2019 National Survey of Family Growth Public-Use Data and Documentation. Hyattsville, MD: CDC National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2017_2019_puf.htm. (accessed August 12, 2022)

        • Potter JE
        • McKinnon S
        • Hopkins K
        • Amastae J
        • Shedlin MG
        • Powers DA
        • et al.
        Continuation of prescribed compared with over-the-counter oral contraceptives.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 551-557https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820afc46
        • Vaughan B
        • Trussell J
        • Kost K
        • Singh S
        • Jones R.
        Discontinuation and resumption of contraceptive use: results from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.
        Contraception. 2008; 78: 271-283https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.05.007
        • Foster DG
        • Biggs MA
        • Phillips KA
        • Grindlay K
        • Grossman D.
        Potential public sector cost-savings from over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives.
        Contraception. 2015; 91: 373-379https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.010
        • Thomas A
        • Karpilow Q.
        The intensive and extensive margins of contraceptive use: comparing the effects of method choice and method initiation.
        Contraception. 2016; 94: 160-167https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.03.014
        • Castaño PM
        • Bynum JY
        • Andrés R
        • Lara M
        • Westhoff C.
        Effect of daily text messages on oral contraceptive continuation: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 119: 14-20https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823d4167
        • Raymond EG
        • Grossman D
        • et al.
        Progestin-only pills.
        (editors)in: Kowal D Hatcher RA Nelson AL Trussell J Cwiak C Cason P Contraceptive technology. 21st edition. Managing Contraception LLC, New York2018: 317-328
        • Bradley SEK
        • Polis CB
        • Bankole A
        • Croft T.
        Global contraceptive failure rates: who is most at risk?.
        Stud Fam Plann. 2019; 50: 3-24https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12085
        • Raine TR
        • Foster-Rosales A
        • Upadhyay UD
        • Boyer CB
        • Brown BA
        • Sokoloff A
        • et al.
        One-year contraceptive continuation and pregnancy in adolescent girls and women initiating hormonal contraceptives.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 363-371https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820563d3
        • Davis TC
        • Long SW
        • Jackson RH
        • Mayeaux EJ
        • George RB
        • Murphy PW
        • et al.
        Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument.
        Fam Med. 1993; 25 (PMID: 8349060): 391-395
        • Davis TC
        • Wolf MS
        • Arnold CL
        • Byrd RS
        • Long SW
        • Springer T
        • et al.
        Development and validation of the Rapid Estimate of Adolescent Literacy in Medicine (REALM-Teen): a tool to screen adolescents for below-grade reading in health care settings.
        Pediatrics. 2006; 118 (PMID: 17142495): e1707-e1714https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1139