CONTEXT: Women who are living with HIV use IUDs at a lower rate than the general population, and it is unclear whether health care providers' misconceptions about IUD safety contribute to this disparity. METHODS: A 2013-2014 nationwide survey of 1,998 U.S. family planning providers assessed perceptions of IUD safety for women with HIV or other medical conditions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between provider characteristics and whether individuals believed IUDs were safe for HIV-positive women. Data from public-sector providers and office-based physicians were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Seven in 10 providers considered IUDs safe for women with HIV, and there were no differences by provider type. Among public-sector providers, some of the characteristics associated with believing that IUDs were unsafe for seropositive women were working at a clinic without Title X funding (odds ratio, 1.5), not being trained in IUD insertion (2.1) and not using the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) for clinical guidance (1.8). Office-based physicians who did not use the guidelines also had an increased likelihood of believing that IUDs were unsafe for women with HIV (2.9), and physicians who had completed training 25 or more years ago were more likely than those who had done so less than five years ago to consider IUDs unsafe (3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Greater use of evidence-based contraceptive guidance such as the U.S. MEC may help inform provider perceptions of IUD safety and hence contribute to increased contraceptive choice for women with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Rifamycin antibiotics are commonly used for treatment of tuberculosis, but may reduce effectiveness of hormonal contraception (HC). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether interactions between rifamycins and HC result in decreased effectiveness or increased toxicity of either therapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and clinicaltrials. gov through May, 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials, cohort, and case-control studies addressing pregnancy rates, pharmacodynamics, or pharmacokinetic (PK) outcomes when HC and rifamycins were administered together versus apart. Of 7291 original records identified, 11 met inclusion criteria after independent review by two authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently abstracted study details and assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading system. Findings are reported descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: Studies only addressed combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and none reported pregnancy rates. Quality ranged from good to poor. Rifampin increased the frequency of ovulation in two of four studies, and reduced estrogen and/or progestin exposure in five studies. Rifabutin led to smaller PK changes than rifampin in two studies. Rifaximin and rifalazil did not alter hormone PK in one study each. CONCLUSIONS: No studies evaluated pregnancy risk or non-oral HCs. PK and ovulation outcomes support a clinically concerning drug interaction between COCs and rifampin, and to a lesser extent rifabutin. Data are limited for other rifamycins. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether interactions between non-rifamycin antibiotics and hormonal contraceptives result in decreased effectiveness or increased toxicity of either therapy. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane libraries from database inception through June, 2016. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included trials, cohort, case-control, and pharmacokinetic (PK) studies in any language addressing pregnancy rates, pharmacodynamics or PK outcomes when any hormonal contraceptive and non-rifamycin antibiotic were administered together versus apart. Of 7291 original records identified, 29 met criteria for inclusion. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and risk of bias using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. Findings were tabulated by drug class. RESULTS: Study quality ranged from good to poor and addressed only oral contraceptive pills, emergency contraception pills and the combined vaginal ring. Two studies demonstrated no difference in pregnancy rates in women using oral contraceptives with and without non-rifamycin antibiotics. No differences in ovulation suppression or breakthrough bleeding were observed in any study combining hormonal contraceptives with any antibiotic. No significant decreases in any progestin PK parameter occurred during co-administration with any antibiotic. Ethinyl estradiol area under the curve decreased when administered with dirithromycin but no other drug. CONCLUSION: Evidence from clinical and PK outcomes studies does not support the existence of drug interactions between hormonal contraception and non-rifamycin antibiotics. Data are limited by low quantity and quality for some drug classes. Most women can expect no reduction in hormonal contraceptive effect with concurrent use of non-rifamycin antibiotics.

The US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (US MEC) and US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US SPR) provide evidence-based guidance to safely provide contraception counseling and services. Both documents were updated in 2016 and are endorsed by the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. The purpose of this mini-review is to highlight updates to the US MEC and US SPR that are most relevant to health care providers of adolescents in order to support dissemination and implementation of these evidence-based best practices. This document is intended to highlight these changes and to complement, not replace, the detailed practice guidance within the US MEC and US SPR.

We modeled the potential cost-effectiveness of increasing access to contraception in Puerto Rico during a Zika virus outbreak. The intervention is projected to cost an additional $33.5 million in family planning services and is likely to be cost-saving for the healthcare system overall. It could reduce Zika virus-related costs by $65.2 million ($2.8 million from less Zika virus testing and monitoring and $62.3 million from avoided costs of Zika virus-associated microcephaly [ZAM]). The estimates are influenced by the contraception methods used, the frequency of ZAM, and the lifetime incremental cost of ZAM. Accounting for unwanted pregnancies that are prevented, irrespective of Zika virus infection, an additional $40.4 million in medical costs would be avoided through the intervention. Increasing contraceptive access for women who want to delay or avoid pregnancy in Puerto Rico during a Zika virus outbreak can substantially reduce the number of cases of ZAM and healthcare costs.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States. PERIOD COVERED: 2013. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2013, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For trend analysis, abortion data were evaluated from 47 areas that reported data every year during 2004-2013. Census and natality data, respectively, were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births). RESULTS: A total of 664,435 abortions were reported to CDC for 2013. Of these abortions, 98.2% were from the 47 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2004-2013. Among these 47 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, and the abortion ratio was 200 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2012 to 2013, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 5%. From 2004 to 2013, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 20%, 21%, and 17%, respectively. In 2013, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2004-2013). In 2013 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates; women in their 30s and older accounted for a much smaller percentage of abortions and had lower abortion rates. In 2013, women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years accounted for 32.7% and 25.9% of all abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 21.8 and 18.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years, respectively. In contrast, women aged 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years accounted for 16.8%, 9.2%, and 3.6% of all abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.8, 7.0, and 2.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30-34 years, 35-39 years, and ≥40 years, respectively. During 2004-2013, the decrease in abortion rates among adult women aged 20-39 years ranged from 8% to 27% across these age groups, whereas the abortion rate was stable for women aged ≥40 years. In 2013, adolescents aged <15 and 15-19 years accounted for 0.3% and 11.4% of all abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 0.6 and 8.2 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged <15 and 15-19 years, respectively. From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of abortions accounted for by adolescents aged 15-19 years decreased 31% and their abortion rate decreased 46%. These decreases were greater than the decreases for women in any older age group. In contrast to the percentage distribution of abortions and abortion rates by age, abortion ratios in 2013 and throughout the entire period of analysis were highest among adolescents and lowest among women aged 30-39 years. Abortion ratios decreased from 2004 to 2013 for women in all age groups, except for adolescents aged <15 years. In 2013, the majority (66.0%) of abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (91.6%) were performed by ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks' gestation (7.1%) or at ≥21 weeks' gestation (1.3%). From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of all abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation remained consistently high (≥91.5%) and among those performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, the percentage performed at ≤6 weeks' gestation increased 16%. In 2013, among the 43 reporting areas that included medical (nonsurgical) abortion on their reporting form, a total of 67.9% of abortions were performed by curettage at ≤13 weeks' gestation, 22.2% were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at ≤8 weeks' gestation), and 8.6% were performed by curettage at >13 weeks' gestation; all other methods were uncommon. Among abortions performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation that were eligible for early medical abortion on the basis of gestational age, 32.8% were completed by this method. From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 5%. Deaths of women associated with complications from abortion for 2013 are being investigated as part of CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2012, the most recent year for which data were available, four women were identified to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. No reported deaths were associated with known illegal induced abortion. INTERPRETATION: Among the 47 areas that reported data every year during 2004-2013, the decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions that occurred during 2009-2012 continued from 2012 to 2013, resulting in historic lows for all three measures of abortion. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: The data in this report can help program planners and policymakers identify groups of women with highest rates of abortion. Unintended pregnancy is the major contributor to abortion. Increasing access to and use of contraception, including the most effective methods, can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate from the literature whether combined hormonal contraception (CHC), including combined oral contraception pills (COC), transdermal patch, vaginal ring, or combined injectables, have different effectiveness or failure rates by body weight or body mass index (BMI). STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases for all articles in all languages published between inception and February 2016, for evidence relevant to body weight or BMI, CHC use and contraceptive effectiveness. The quality of each individual study was assessed using the system for evaluating evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: From 2874 articles, we identified 15 reports for inclusion, all of fair to poor quality. Fourteen studies measured the association of obesity status and contraceptive failure among COC users. Three fair quality and one poor quality study reported increased COC failure among a heterogeneous population of overweight and obese women compared with normal weight women, while eight fair quality and two poor quality studies did not find an association. Two fair quality studies reported on contraceptive transdermal patches. One pooled analysis described a higher proportion of pregnancies among women using the patch who weighed≥90 kg; another secondary analysis suggested BMI>30 was associated with increased failure. No studies directly compared contraceptive effectiveness using the combined vaginal ring or combined injectable. CONCLUSION: Current available evidence addressing the risk of CHC failure in obese compared to normal weight women is limited to fair and poor quality studies. Studies of COCs show mixed results, though absolute differences in COC failure by body weight and BMI are small. Based on limited evidence, it appears that increasing body weight and BMI may contribute to decreasing contraceptive patch effectiveness.

The 2016 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by women and men who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and consultation with national experts who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during August 26-28, 2015. The information in this report updates the 2010 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR 2010:59 [No. RR-4]). Notable updates include the addition of recommendations for women with cystic fibrosis, women with multiple sclerosis, and women receiving certain psychotropic drugs or St. John's wort; revisions to the recommendations for emergency contraception, including the addition of ulipristal acetate; and revisions to the recommendations for postpartum women; women who are breastfeeding; women with known dyslipidemias, migraine headaches, superficial venous disease, gestational trophoblastic disease, sexually transmitted diseases, and human immunodeficiency virus; and women who are receiving antiretroviral therapy. The recommendations in this report are intended to assist health care providers when they counsel women, men, and couples about contraceptive method choice. Although these recommendations are meant to serve as a source of clinical guidance, health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking family planning services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients. Persons should seek advice from their health care providers when considering family planning options.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the co-administration of hormonal contraceptives (HC) and psychotropic drugs commonly used to treat anxiety and/or depression results in safety or efficacy concerns for either drug. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane libraries for clinical or pharmacokinetic [PK] studies that examined co-administration of any HC with psychotropic drugs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], oral benzodiazepines, bupropion, mirtazapine, trazadone, buspirone, hydroxyzine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors [MAOIs], or atypical antipsychotics) in reproductive aged women. RESULTS: Of 555 articles identified, 22 articles (18 studies) met inclusion criteria. We identified five studies on SSRIs, four on TCAs, one on bupropion, three on atypical antipsychotics and five on oral benzodiazepines. No articles met inclusion criteria for SNRIs, mirtazapine, trazadone, buspirone, hydroxyzine or MAOIs. Overall, clinical studies did not demonstrate differences in unintended pregnancy rates when HCs were administered with and without psychotropic drugs or in psychotropic drug treatment outcomes when psychotropic drugs were administered with and without HCs. PK studies did not demonstrate changes in drug exposure related to contraceptive safety, contraceptive effectiveness or psychotropic drug effectiveness for most classes of psychotropic drugs. However, limited PK data raise concern for HCs increasing systemic exposure of amitriptyline and imipramine (both TCAs), theoretically posing safety concerns. CONCLUSION: Limited quality and quantity evidence on use of psychotropic drugs and HCs suggests low concern for clinically significant interactions, though no data exist specifically for non-oral formulations of HC. Given the high frequency of use for both HCs and psychotropic drugs among reproductive age women in the US, this review highlights a need for further research in this area.

CONTEXT: Combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) use may modify the risk of cardiovascular events in obese [body mass index (BMI) ≥30kg/m2] women. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate from the literature whether CHC use modifies the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women, and to evaluate evidence for a dose-response relationship between BMI and VTE. METHODS: We searched PubMed for all articles published between database inception and February 2016 providing direct evidence on BMI, CHCs, and cardiovascular outcomes. We also searched for indirect evidence related to a dose-response relationship between BMI and risk of VTE in the general population, as these data were lacking for CHC users. The quality of each individual study was assessed using the system for grading evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). RESULTS: The direct evidence search yielded three pooled analyses, eleven case-control studies, and one cohort study. There was conflicting evidence about the risk of AMI or stroke among obese combined oral contraceptive (COC) users compared to obese non-users, with one study finding no increased risk for AMI or stroke for COC-users overall or stratified by BMI. A second study found significant increased risk of AMI and stroke for COC-users, with the highest risk estimates for high BMI COC-users. A single study suggested that obese COC-users may be at higher risk for CVT compared with normal weight, non-users. For VTE, obese COC users consistently had a risk that was 5 to 8 times that of obese non-users and approximately 10 times that of non-obese, non-users. Five prospective cohort studies were identified as indirect evidence, and all found increased risk for VTE as BMI increased, suggesting a dose-response relationship between BMI and risk for VTE. No studies on the contraceptive patch or vaginal ring were identified that met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence of Level II-2, fair quality, concerning whether CHC use modifies the risk of AMI and stroke in obese women is inconclusive, while a single study of Level II-2, poor quality found obese COC-users may be at higher risk for CVT compared with normal weight, non-users. Both COC use and higher BMI increase risk for VTE, and the greatest relative risks are for those with both risk factors, based on a body of evidence graded as Level II-2, fair to poor quality. It is not possible to estimate absolute risk of VTE among women with both of these risk factors; however, the absolute risk of VTE in healthy women of reproductive age is small.

OBJECTIVE: To assess risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) among women with current asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or who are at high risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), comparing those who have a copper-bearing (Cu-) or levonorgestrel (LNG-) intrauterine device (IUD) placed with women who do not. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library for articles from January 1984 through January 2016 addressing our objective. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 2220 articles, of which ten met inclusion criteria. Two studies provided direct evidence of PID rates in women with undiagnosed gonococcal or chlamydial (GC/CT) infection or at high risk for STIs initiating IUDs versus other contraceptive methods (level II-2, fair to poor), and neither study found a difference. Eight studies provided indirect evidence (II-2 to II-3, fair to poor). One study found no difference in PID rates between initiators of Cu versus LNG IUDs. Five studies compared algorithms based on patient factors with laboratory GC/CT screening to predict cervical infection. Based on likelihood ratios, none of these algorithms adequately identified women at high risk of asymptomatic cervical infection who should not undergo IUD placement. Two studies compared IUD placement on the same day as STI screening with delayed placement after screening, and found no difference in PID rates. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that IUD placement does not increase the risk of PID compared with no IUD placement among women with asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or at high risk of STIs. Algorithms based on patient characteristics to identify women with asymptomatic GC/CT may be overly restrictive, leading to missed opportunities for IUD initiation. Historical concerns about higher PID risk among women at risk for STIs who use IUDs may not be relevant with modern devices and STI screening and treatment practices.