Advertisement

Case of a Girl Seeking Birth Control

Abstract

AB is a 17-year-old girl who has migraines with aura and presents for contraceptive management. Based on the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, estrogen-containing contraceptives are contraindicated for AB due to an elevated risk of thrombosis given her diagnosis of migraines with aura. After determining which contraceptive methods are safe, comprehensive counseling should start with a discussion of the most effective contraceptive methods including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal contraceptive implants. AB elects to have an IUD placed which is inserted the same day given it is reasonably certain she is not pregnant and no sedation is required prior to IUD placement. The only mandatory examination needed prior to IUD placement is a bimanual examination and cervical inspection in accordance with the US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use. Finally, condom use at every sexual encounter is recommended to reduce the risk for sexually transmitted infections.

Keywords

Contraceptive agents Female Long-acting reversible contraceptive Intrauterine device Contraceptive implant Adolescent health Reproductive health 

References

  1. 1.
    Curtis KM, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR. 2016;65(RR-04):1–66.  10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR. 2016;65(RR-03):1–104.  10.15585/mmwr.rr6503a1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Summary chart of U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 2016. Available via CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/pdf/summary-chart-us-medical-eligibility-criteria_508tagged.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2016.
  4. 4.
    Trenor CC, Chung RJ, Michelson AD, et al. Hormonal contraception and thrombotic risk: a multidisciplinary approach. Pediatrics. 2011;127(2):347–57. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2221.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spector JT, Kahn SR, Jones MR, et al. Migraine headache and ischemic stroke risk: an updated meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2010;123(7):612–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.12.021.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beksinska ME, Smit JA, Kleinschmidt I, et al. Prospective study of weight change in new adolescent users of DMPA, NET-EN, COCs, non-users and discontinuers of hormonal contraception. Contraception. 2010;81(1):30–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2009.07.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Providing quality family planning services: recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs. MMWR. 2014;63(RR-04):1–54.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Secura GM, Madden T, McNicholas C, et al. Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(14):1316–23. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Academy of Pediatrics. Contraception for adolescents. Pediatrics. 2014;134(4):1257–81. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-2300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1105–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821188ad.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 518: intimate partner violence. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:412–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318249ff74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 554: reproductive and sexual coercion. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:411–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000426427.79586.3b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al., editors. Contraceptive technology. 18th ed. New York: Ardent Media, Inc.; 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1998–2007. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1110855.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Funk S, Miller MM, Mishell DR, et al. Safety and efficacy of Implanon, a single-rod implantable contraceptive containing etonogestrel. Contraception. 2005;71(5):319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hova GG, Skjeldestada FE, Hilstadb T. Use of IUD and subsequent fertility – follow-up after participation in a randomized clinical trial. Contraception. 2007;75(2):88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stoddard AM, Xu H, Madden T, et al. Fertility after intrauterine device removal: a pilot study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20(3):223–30. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2015.1010639.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, et al. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Contraception. 2009;91(5):1646–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beatty MN, Blumenthal PD. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2009;5:561–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin 121: long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:184–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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(1):10–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.04.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nelson A, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. Two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lopez LM, Bernholc A, Zeng Y, et al. Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(7):CD007373. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007373.pub3.
  24. 24.
    Hubacher D, Reyes V, Lillo S, et al. Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(5):1272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sääv I, Aronsson A, Marions L, et al. Cervical priming with sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(10):2647–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson BA. Insertion and removal of intrauterine devices. Am Fam Physician. 2005;71(1):95–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Friedlander E, Kaneshiro B. Therapeutic options for unscheduled bleeding associated with long-acting reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015;42(4):593–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2015.07.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Madden T, Proehl S, Allsworth JE, et al. Naproxen or estradiol for bleeding and spotting with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(129):e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.09.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krajewski CM, Geetha D, Gomez-Lobo V. Contraceptive options for women with a history of solid-organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2013;95(10):1183–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e31827c64de.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sucato GS, Murray PJ. Developmental and reproductive health issues in adolescent solid organ transplant recipients. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2006;15(3):170–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maddox DD, Rahman Z. Etonogestrel (Implanon), another treatment option for contraception. Drug Forecast. 2008;33(6):337–47.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy statement: contraception for adolescents. Pediatrics. 2014;134(4):1244–56. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-2299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 642: increasing access to contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(412-417):44–8.Google Scholar
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Effectiveness of family planning methods. 2010. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2016.
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Summary chart of U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 2016. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/pdf/summary-chart-us-medical-eligibility-criteria_508tagged.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2016.
  5. Curtis KM, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR. 2016;65(RR-04):1–66.  10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Guttmacher Institute. An overview of minors’ consent law as of March 1, 2016. State Policies in Brief. 2016. Available at https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/spibs/spib_OMCL.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Adolescent MedicineJoseph M Sanzari Children’s Hospital, The Pediatric Hospital for Hackensack University Medical CenterHackensackUSA
  2. 2.Division of Adolescent MedicineChildren’s Hospital at Montefiore, The Pediatric Hospital for Albert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations