NICE guidance will raise awareness of long-acting reversible contraception

New guidance should ensure women are able to make an informed choice about contraception, say Dr Chris Wilkinson (left), Irene Kwan and Dr Martin Dougherty

A new guideline from NICE on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC),published in October 2005, promotes greater contraceptive choice for women. It demonstrates that LARC methods are a cost-effective alternative to conventional contraception and can reduce unintended pregnancies.¹

LARC is defined as contraceptive methods that require administration less than once per cycle or month. The LARC methods described in this guideline are:

• Non-hormonal methods
  • Copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
• Progestogen-only methods
  • Intrauterine system (IUS)
  • Injectables (POIs)
  • Subdermal implants (SDIs).

It has been estimated that as many as 30% of pregnancies are unintended.² In England and Wales the abortion rate for the 3 months January-March 2004 was 18.6 per 1000 women of reproductive age. The abortion rates were 33.6 per 1000 for women in the 20-24 years age group, 28.1 per 1000 for women in the 16-19 years age group and 3.9 per 1000 in women under 16 years of age.³

Contraceptive use

The effectiveness of some contraceptive methods, including condoms and combined oral contraceptive pills (COCs), depends on their correct and consistent use. By contrast, the effectiveness of LARC methods is independent of daily concordance.

The uptake of LARC is low in Britain, at around 8% of women aged 16-49 years in 2003-2004, compared with 25% for the COC and 23% for condoms. ⁴ Access to and knowledge of LARC varied.⁵ The high initial costs and, up until now, lack of costeffectiveness data for LARC may play a part in its limited availability in England and Wales.

Clinical evidence and expert opinion are that LARC may have a wider role and an increase in its use could help reduce unintended pregnancies.

There may be several reasons for the current low uptake of LARC:

• Lack of awareness of the positive risk:benefit ratio for LARC among healthcare providers and women needing contraception
• Pressure from consumer preferences
• Lack of awareness of the relative cost-effectiveness of LARC compared with other contraceptive methods.

There are no current NHS guidelines covering this topic that are widely used or tailored to UK practice.

The LARC guideline, commissioned by NICE, intends to complement other existing and proposed guidance, including A strategic framework for sexual health in Wales,⁶ and the National strategy for sexual health and HIV.⁷

Improving access to all methods of contraception, including LARC, is an integral part of broader sexual health services.

Development of the LARC guideline

The guideline was developed by an independent advisory group, the guideline development group (GDG).

It comprised three specialists in sexual and reproductive healthcare (including contraception), one genitourinary medicine physician, two general practitioners, two family planning nurses (one working in primary care) and two consumer representatives. The GDG was supported by a technical team from the National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health.

The guideline development process included a rigorous systematic approach to searching the literature, appraising the clinical evidence, synthesising evidence statements and then forming recommendations.^8-14

Figure 1, below, shows the classification scheme for recommendations.

Figure 1: Classification of recommendations

The evidence

The lack of robust evidence to answer clinical questions about LARC methods posed the greatest challenge to the guideline developers.The true efficacy of LARC cannot be established with randomised controlled trials because of ethical concerns about withholding contraception.^15,16

The majority of evidence in the guideline is based on populations outside the UK, which have different healthcare systems and side-effect profiles.

The key recommendations

The key recommendations reflect the importance and relevance of choice, safety and cost-effectiveness (Box 1, above).

While the key recommendations are central to the guidance, there are 145 recommendations in total covering wider clinical and training issues, such as which IUD to use first line. (The most effective IUDs contain at least 380 mm2 of copper and have banded copper on the arms. This, along with the licensed duration of use, should be taken into account when deciding which IUD to use.)

Healthcare professionals should offer women a choice of all methods and must address each woman’s individual needs.Women considering using LARC should be provided with detailed information on topics such as contraceptive efficacy, risks and side-effects, duration of use and noncontraceptive benefits.

Those who advise or provide intrauterine or subdermal contraceptives should receive training to maintain the relevant skills to provide these methods and manage common problems.

Features of LARC methods to discuss with women

Information about the use of different LARC methods should be provided to women requesting LARC and they are summarised in a table in the guideline’s quick reference guide.

It is important to inform women about the differences between copper IUDs, the IUS, progestogen-only injections and implants as this will enable them to make an educated decision about contraception.

The medical eligibility of the women should be assessed to identify any contraindications and these are summarised in Box 2, below.

The care pathway

The guideline recommends that a planned pathway is important to ensure choice and comprehensive management of women seeking contraceptive advice, including LARC (Figure 2, below).

Figure 2: The care pathway

For further information on the different methods of LARC, refer to the quick reference guide (www.nice.org.uk)

Reproduced by kind permission of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Cost-effectiveness of LARC

This guideline incorporated an economic analysis to determine the costeffectiveness of LARC compared with other contraceptive methods.

Among the four LARC methods, the injectable is less cost-effective than the IUD, IUS and the implant. The IUD, IUS and the implant become more cost-effective with longer duration of use. This means the relatively high initiation costs should not be a barrier to their use, as LARC use results in the greatest cost savings compared with other reversible methods.

In the clinical context the cost-effectiveness of LARC is just one consideration when offering women contraception. Consumer preferences, lifestyle and individual circumstances must also be taken into account when helping women make an informed choice about contraception.

Conclusion

This guideline recommends the use of LARC because of its contraceptive efficacy and cost-effectiveness. To offer women choice, access to all methods of contraception, including LARC, needs to be available uniformly across contraceptive services.This guideline has gone some way to clarify the clinical position of LARC and dispel the myth that this method is not cost-effective.

Copies of the full guideline and the quick reference guide can be downloaded from the NICE website: www.nice.org.uk

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the technical team at the National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health for their work in the development of this guideline; in particular Ifigeneia Mavranezouli for her work on the economic analysis of LARC.

References

1. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Long acting reversible contraception: the effective and appropriate use of long-acting reversible contraception. London: RCOG Press, 2005.
2. Farrow A, Hull MG, Northstone K et al. Prolonged use of oral contraception before a planned pregnancy is associated with a decreased risk of delayed conception. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (10): 2754-61.
3. National Statistics. Health Statistics Quarterly 25. London: National Statistics, 2005.
4. Dawe F, Rainsbury P. Contraception and Sexual Health 2003. London: HMSO, 2004.
5. Edwards JE, Oldman A, Smith L et al.Women’s knowledge of, and attitudes to, contraceptive effectiveness and adverse health effects. Br J Fam Plann 2000; 26 (2): 73-80.
6. The National Assembly for Wales. A strategic framework for promoting sexual health in Wales. Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales Health Promotion Division, 2000.
7. Department of Health. The national strategy for sexual health and HIV. London: Department of Health, 2001.
8. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1993; 270 (17): 2093-5.
9. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention.A.Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1993; 270 (21): 2598-601.
10. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271 (1): 59-63.
11. Jaeschke R,Guyatt G, Sackett DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271 (5): 389-91.
12. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271 (9): 703-7.
13. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. 2nd Edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
14. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50:A Guideline developers’ handbook.No. 50. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, 2001.
15. Steiner MJ, Hertz-Picciotto I, Schulz KF et al. Measuring true contraceptive efficacy. A randomized approach – condom vs. spermicide vs. no method. Contraception 1998; 58 (6): 375-8.
16. Trussell J. Methodological pitfalls in the analysis of contraceptive failure. Stat Med 1991; 10 (2): 201-20.

Chris Wilkinson is a Consultant in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Camden PCT, Honorary Consultant, University College Hospital London, and the leader of the guideline development group

Irene Kwan is a Research Fellow and Martin Dougherty is Director, the National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health, London

Guidelines in Practice, December 2005, Volume 8(12) © 2005 MGP Ltd further information | subscribe