Use of serum evaluation of contraceptive and ovarian hormones to assess reduced risk of pregnancy among women presenting for emergency contraception in a multicenter clinical trial

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate ovulation risk among women enrolling in an emergency contraception (EC) study by measuring contraceptive steroids and ovarian hormones. Study DesignWe used standard chemoluminescent assays to evaluate endogenous hormones [estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), FSH, LH] and liquid chromatography-tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to simultaneously analyze concentrations of ethinylestradiol (EE), dienogest (DNG), norelgestromin (NGMN), norethindrone (NET), gestodene (GSD), levonorgestrel (LNG), etonogestrel (ENG), segesterone acetate (NES), medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and drospirenone (DRSP), in serum samples obtained at the time of enrollment in a recent study comparing oral ulipristal acetate and LNG EC in women with weight ≥ 80kg reporting no recent use of hormonal contraception. ResultsWe enrolled 532 and obtained a valid baseline blood sample from 520 women. Of these, 117 (22.5%) had detectable concentrations of a progestin [MPA (n=58, 11.2%), LNG (50, 9.6%), ENG (11, 2.1%), NET (5, 0.96%), NGMN (3, 0.06%), or DRSP (1, 0.02%)]. LNG was co-detected in all three participants with samples containing NGMN. Multiple progestins were detected in 8 other women: ENG/MPA (1); ENG/LNG (2); MPA/LNG (5). Samples from 55 (10.6%) had concentrations of one or more progestin considered above the minimum level for contraceptive [MPA ≥ 0.1ng/mL, n = 19; NGMN/LNG ≥ 0.2ng/mL, n = 31; ENG ≥ 0.09 ng/mL, n = 8; NET ≥ 0.35 ng/mL, n = 4]. We detected concentrations of serum P4 ≥ 3ng/mL, indicative of luteal phase (post-ovulation) status, in an additional 194 (37.3%) samples. ConclusionsMore than one third of enrolled in our clinical trial of oral emergency contraception had evidence of prior ovulation at the time of enrollment. Additionally, about 23% had evidence of recent use of hormonal contraception recent use of hormonal contraception. This results would have decreased the expected risk of pregnancy in the study. ImplicationsMany participants in a recent clinical trial of oral emergency contraception did not appear to be at risk for pregnancy or would not have benefited from intervention due to cycle timing. Investigators should consider the effects of these findings on expected pregnancy rates when determining sample size in future EC clinical trials, particularly when using non-inferiority designs or historical controls.Keywords