02343613163ContraceptionContraceptionContraception0010-78241879-051827373540657952710.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.014HHSPA1033403ArticleMedications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic reviewZapataLauren B.*JatlaouiTara C.MarchbanksPolly A.CurtisKathryn M.Division of Reproductive Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Chamblee, Georgia, 30341-3717, USACorresponding author. Tel.: +1-770-488-6358; fax: +1-770-488-6391., lzapata@cdc.gov (L.B. Zapata).46201929620161220161762019946739759Background:

Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women.

Objective:

This study aims to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures, insertion success).

Search strategy:

We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016.

Selection criteria:

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined medications to ease interval insertion of levonorgestrel- releasing IUDs and copper T IUDs.

Results:

From 1855 articles, we identified 15 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Most evidence suggested that misoprostol did not improve provider ease of insertion, reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures or improve insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD (evidence Level I, good to fair). However, one RCT found significantly higher insertion success among women receiving misoprostol prior to a second IUD insertion attempt after failed attempt versus placebo (evidence Level I, good). Two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good to poor), and one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (evidence Level I, fair).

Conclusions:

Overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo.

MisoprostolLidocaineNitric oxide donorsIntrauterine devicesInsertion difficultySystematic reviewIntroduction

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are highly effective contraceptive methods [1] that are generally safe for women, including adolescents and nulliparous women, based on the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use [2]. Although IUD use is increasing in the United States [3–5], rates remain lower than use of combined hormonal methods and condoms [4], which have higher failure rates due to greater dependence on user adherence. Potential barriers to IUD use include patient pain with insertion [6–8] and provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women [9]. However, it has been shown that IUDs can be successfully inserted in nulliparous adolescents and young women, with high (96%) and similar first-attempt success rates as their parous counterparts [10]. Factors previously suggested to affect ease of IUD insertion or patient pain include age, parity, time of menses, time since last pregnancy, pregnancy delivery type, breastfeeding status, anticipated pain and IUD type [11–14], although findings are inconsistent. Identifying effective approaches to ease IUD insertion and reduce patient pain may increase IUD uptake by increasing the number and types of healthcare providers who perform IUD insertions.

Several systematic reviews have examined interventions to reduce pain with IUD insertion [15–18]. Medications examined have included nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), lidocaine, misoprostol and nitric oxide donors. Reviews have focused on patient outcomes including pain, side effects, adverse events and participant satisfaction. Provider outcomes such as ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures and insertion success have not been examined systematically. Since providers often initiate conversations about IUDs with women during contraceptive counseling [19] and may not discuss IUDs if there are concerns about difficult insertion, it is important to understand the effects of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes as well.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes the US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (US SPR) [20], which provides evidence-based guidance on a select group of common, yet sometimes complex, management issues around the initiation and use of specific contraceptive methods. Currently, the US SPR does not include recommendations for the provision of medications to ease IUD insertion. As part of a process to update the US SPR, the objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes, to complement prior evidence [15] on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on patient outcomes.

Materials and methods

We conducted this systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines [21]. Our key question was whether patient use of a specific medication to ease IUD insertion improves provider outcomes compared with nonuse of the specific medication.

Literature search

We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016 on the effect of medications to ease IUD insertion, using the following search strategy:

((((“Intrauterine Devices”[Mesh] OR “Intrauterine Devices, Copper”[Mesh] OR “Intrauterine Devices, Medicated” [Mesh] OR ((intrauterine OR intra-uterine) AND (device OR system OR contracept*)) OR IUD OR iucd OR IUS OR mirena OR skyla OR paragard OR “Copper T380” OR CuT380 OR “Copper T380a” OR “Cu T380a”) NOT (“Animals”[Mesh] NOT “Humans”[Mesh]))) AND insert*) AND (((((((“Pain”[Mesh])) OR “adverse effects”[Subheading]) OR “Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions”[Mesh]) OR “Patient Satisfaction”[Mesh]) OR“Anxiety”[Mesh])) OR ((((“Intrauterine Devices”[Mesh] OR “Intrauterine Devices, Copper”[Mesh] OR “Intrauterine Devices, Medicated”[Mesh] OR ((intrauterine OR intra- uterine) AND (device OR system OR contracept*)) OR IUD OR iucd OR IUS OR mirena OR skylab OR paragard OR “Copper T380” OR CuT380 OR “Copper T380a” OR “Cu T380a”) NOT (“Animals”[Mesh] NOT “Humans”[Mesh]))) AND insert*) AND ((((((((“Pain”[Mesh])) OR “adverse effects”[Subheading]) OR “Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions”[Mesh]) OR “Patient Satisfaction”[Mesh]) OR “Anxiety”[Mesh])) OR (pain OR “side effect*” OR “patient satisfaction” OR “ease of insertion” OR anxiety))

The search strategy was broad to capture all potential medications. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists from articles identified by the search and key review articles.

Selection criteria

We reviewed titles as well as abstracts to identify studies examining medications to ease IUD insertion. We included studies that examined insertion of currently available levonorgestrel-releasing (LNG) IUDs or any copper T IUD ever approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and distributed in the United States (i.e., Copper T380A, Copper 7, Copper T200B), for women of any age and for any indication. We included studies that examined multiple IUD types if the majority of women received an IUD meeting the above- mentioned criteria. We only included studies that examined interval insertion, and we excluded those that examined postabortion or postpartum insertion. We included studies that examined provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, generally measured by a visual analog scale; need for adjunctive insertion measures, including cervical dilation, ultrasound guidance or paracervical block; and insertion success) but excluded studies that only reported patient outcomes (e.g., pain, side effects, satisfaction). We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) given the number of interventions identified addressing ease of IUD insertion.

Study quality assessment and data synthesis

The evidence was summarized and systematically assessed by two authors independently. The quality of each individual piece of evidence was assessed using the grading system developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force [22]. We focused on several study factors when assessing quality, including randomization procedures, blinding of providers, study population, medication details, consideration of confounders and outcome measurement. We did not compute summary measures of association due to heterogeneity across the included studies related to study population, medication details and outcome measurement.

Results

The search strategy identified 1855 articles, of which 15 [23–37] met our inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were mainly review papers and papers not relevant to our key question. Two studies were excluded because they examined nonmedication interventions to ease IUD insertion (i.e., use of inhaled lavender [38] or having a full bladder [39]). Four studies were excluded because either they only included IUDs never available in the United States [40–42] or the majority of IUDs studied were never available in the United States [43]. Thirteen studies [13,14,44–54] were excluded because they only reported on patient outcomes (e.g., pain during IUD insertion) and have already been summarized in a recent systematic review [15]. One case series that examined second-attempt insertion success among women receiving misoprostol after a failed first-attempt insertion was excluded due to study design [55]. Of the 15 RCTs included in our systematic review, 10 examined misoprostol [23–32], 2 examined intracervical 2% lidocaine [33,35], 1 examined diclofenac plus intracervical 2% lidocaine [37] and 2 examined nitric oxide donors [34,36]. Four RCTs [27,34–36] included only LNG IUDs, three [28,31,37] included only copper (Cu) IUDs and eight [23–26,29,30,32,33] included both LNG and Cu IUDs but did not stratify results by IUD type. Of the 12 RCTs that included LNG IUDs, 1 specifically reported including only 52 mg LNG IUDs [23]; it is unlikely that any of the other RCTs included the newer, smaller LNG IUD (13.5 mg) since most completed data collection before it became available [24–26,29,30,32–34,36,37]. The indication for IUD use was for contraception in nine RCTs [25,26,30–32,34–37], contraception or therapeutic treatment in three RCTs [24,27,33] and unknown in three RCTs [23,28,29].

Misoprostol

Of the 10 misoprostol trials, 7 were among women without prior vaginal delivery [25,26,28–32], 2 were among women with and without prior vaginal delivery [24,27] and 1 was among women with a recent failed insertion [23] (Table 1). We rated two studies as good quality [23,26] and eight studies as fair quality [24,25,27–32]. Each examined 400 mcg of misoprostol, but the route and timing of administration differed in each trial. All studies compared misoprostol versus placebo, except one [28] that compared misoprostol plus oral diclofenac versus diclofenac alone. Sample sizes ranged from 40 [25] to 274 women [28].

Women without prior vaginal delivery only

Of the seven misoprostol trials among women without prior vaginal delivery, five [25,26,28,29,32] found no significant differences between misoprostol and control groups in provider ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures or insertion success. In the first of these studies [25], 40 nulliparous women requesting an IUD were randomized to receive either misoprostol (400 mcg, buccal, 1.5 h before IUD insertion; n=20) or placebo (n=20). IUD insertion technique was standardized, and IUDs were inserted by residents in obstetrics and gynecology and staff physicians. IUD types were LNG IUDs (≥75%) and Cu IUDs, and the distribution of IUD type did not differ by study group. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=17 in intervention group; n=18 in control group), there were no significant differences between misoprostol and control groups in procedure time (mean=5.1 versus 5.5 min, respectively), provider ratings of ease of insertion (mean=24 versus 29, respectively, on a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0=easy to 100=extremely difficult) or need for cervical dilation (0% versus 16%, respectively) or paracervical block (0% versus 12%, respectively). Also, insertion success was similar between misoprostol and control groups with 0% and 1% failed insertions, respectively (significance testing not conducted).

In the second of the five studies [32], 108 nulliparous women requesting an IUD were randomized to receive either misoprostol (400 mcg, vaginal or buccal by patient choice, 3–4 h before IUD insertion; n=54) or placebo (n=54). IUDs were inserted by experienced providers who had placed ≥10 IUDs in the past year. IUD types were LNG IUDs (74%) and Cu IUDs, and the distribution of IUD type did not differ by study group. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=54 in intervention group; n=51 in control group), there were no significant differences between misoprostol and control groups in provider ratings of ease of insertion (mean=25.0 versus 27.4, respectively, on a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0=extremely easy to 100=impossible); need for cervical dilation (9% versus 10%, respectively), ultrasound guidance (2% versus 6%, respectively) or paracervical block (6% versus 0%, respectively); or insertion success (4% versus 6% failed insertions, respectively).

In the third of the five studies [28], 274 parous women who had previously delivered only by elective cesarean section requesting an IUD were randomized to either intervention group (400 mcg misoprostol, sublingual, plus 100 mg diclofenac, 1 h before IUD insertion; n=137) or control group (diclofenac alone; n=137). IUDs were inserted following menstruation (timing otherwise not reported) and were inserted by obstetrician-gynecologists with ≥3 years of experience inserting IUDs. All IUDs were Cu IUDs. Cervical dilation was measured up to 4 mm in all women prior to IUD insertion. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=130 in intervention group; n=125 in control group), there were no significant differences between misoprostol and control groups in procedure time (mean=4.1 min for both groups), provider ratings of ease of insertion (easy, usual, difficult/failed; 92% versus 90% of insertions were rated as easy, respectively), cervical dilation (median=4 mm in both groups), need for analgesia (30% versus 29%, respectively) or additional cervical dilation (1% versus 2%, respectively) or insertion success (2% versus 4% failed insertions, respectively).

In the fourth of the five studies [29], 73 nulliparous women requesting an IUD were randomized to receive either misoprostol (400 mcg, buccal, 2–4 h before IUD insertion; n=37) or placebo (n=36). IUDs were inserted by obstetrician-gynecologists with advanced training in family planning. IUD types were LNG IUDs (71%) and Cu IUDs, and the distribution of IUD type did not differ by study group. Among all women randomized, there were no significant differences between misoprostol and control groups in provider ratings of ease of insertion (median=21 for both groups, on a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0=extremely easy to 100=impossible); need for cervical dilation (14% versus 8%, respectively), ultrasound guidance (3% versus 0%, respectively) or paracervical block (3% versus 0%, respectively); or insertion success (5% versus 0% failed insertions, respectively).

In the last of the five studies [26], 83 nulliparous women requesting an IUD were randomized to receive either misoprostol (400 mcg, buccal, 2–8 h before IUD insertion; n=42) or placebo (n=40). IUD insertion technique was standardized, and IUDs were inserted by five attending physicians skilled in IUD insertion (physician specialties not reported). IUD types were LNG IUDs (≥86%) and Cu IUDs, and the distribution of IUD type did not differ by study group. Among all women randomized, there were no significant differences between misoprostol and control groups in provider ratings of ease of insertion (mean=2.2 versus 2.5, respectively, on a 10-cm visual analog scale ranging from 0=easy to 10=extremely difficult), need for cervical dilation or ultrasound guidance (14% versus 25%, respectively; data not reported separately for each adjunctive insertion measure) or insertion success (all women had successful IUD placement).

In two trials [30,31], providers reported significantly easier insertion among women receiving misoprostol versus placebo 2–4 h before insertion. In the first of these studies [30], 61 nulliparous women requesting an IUD were randomized to receive either misoprostol (400 mcg, vaginal or buccal, 2 h before IUD insertion; n=30) or placebo (n=31). IUD insertion technique was standardized, and IUDs were inserted by residents in obstetrics and gynecology and attending physicians. IUD types were LNG IUDs (≥70%) and Cu IUDs, and the distribution of IUD type did not differ by study group. Among all women randomized, providers reported significantly (p<.05) easier insertion among women receiving misoprostol versus placebo (mean=24.1 versus 33.4, respectively, on a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0=easiest to 100=most difficult insertion). No differences between misoprostol and control groups were found in the need for adjunctive insertion measures (only one woman in the control group required cervical dilation; significance testing not conducted) or insertion success (all women had successful IUD placement).

In the second of two studies that found significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and control groups [31], 190 nulligravida women requesting an IUD were randomized to receive either misoprostol (400 mcg, vaginal, inserted by a provider into the posterior vaginal fornix 4 h before IUD insertion; n=95) or placebo (n=95). IUD insertion technique was standardized, and all IUDs were inserted by a single provider. All IUDs were Cu IUDs and inserted during menstruation. Cervical dilation was measured up to 4 mm in all women prior to IUD insertion. The provider rated insertion as easy or difficult/very difficult. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=86 in intervention group; n=93 in control group), the provider reported significantly (p<.0001) fewer insertions as difficult/very difficult for women receiving misoprostol versus placebo (27% versus 55%, respectively; relative risk [RR]=0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.33, 0.72). Women receiving misoprostol versus placebo also had significantly (p<.0001) reduced risk of cervical dilation measurement ≤4 mm (28% versus 58%, respectively; RR=0.48, CI=0.33, 0.70) No significant differences in insertion success were found between misoprostol and control groups (5% versus 3% failed insertions, respectively).

Women with and without prior vaginal delivery

Of the two misoprostol trials among women with and without prior vaginal delivery, one examined the effect of sublingual misoprostol (400 mcg, 3 h before IUD insertion) versus placebo among 89 women requesting immediate insertion of a subsequent IUD after removal of a prior IUD; 9% of women in the intervention group were nulliparous compared with 2% in the control group [27]. IUD insertion was conducted according to normal clinical practice including cervical dilation as a standard procedure in one of six sites, and IUDs were inserted by 11 providers experienced in IUD insertion. All IUDs were LNG IUDs. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=43 in intervention group; n=46 in control group; total number of women randomized was not reported), no significant differences in provider ratings ease of insertion (easy or difficult) were found between misoprostol and control groups (93% versus 91% of insertions were rated as easy, respectively) nor were there differences in the need for cervical dilation (19% versus 20%, respectively) or local anesthesia (2% for both groups).

In the second trial, 270 women requesting an IUD were randomized to receive either vaginal misoprostol (400 mcg, 3 h before IUD insertion; n=136) or placebo (n=134); nearly half of women in both study groups were nulliparous [24]. IUDs were inserted by 38 providers with a range of experience including interns, residents, midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists. IUD types were LNG IUDs (90%) and Cu IUDs, and the distribution of IUD type did not differ by study group. Some IUD types (b8%) were not available in the United States. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=102 in intervention group; n=97 in control group), there were no significant differences between misoprostol and control groups in provider ratings of ease of insertion (mean=2.9 versus 2.8, respectively, on a 10-cm visual analog scale ranging from 0=extremely easy to 10=extremely) or insertion success (2% versus 1% failed insertions, respectively). For both outcomes, findings did not differ when stratified by parity (data not reported).

Women with a recent failed insertion

The last misoprostol trial examined the effect of misoprostol among women with a recent failed insertion [23]. The study included 100 women with IUD insertion failure at first attempt. Three providers highly experienced in IUD insertion were called to assist providers unsuccessful with the first insertion attempt, who tried insertion again as part of the first attempt. These same highly experienced providers made the second insertion attempt (timing after initial attempt not reported). Women were randomized to receive misoprostol vaginally (200 mcg 10 h before insertion and 200 mcg 4 h before insertion) or placebo. IUD types were LNG IUDs (92%) and Cu IUDs; all women in the intervention group chose LNG IUDs versus 82% in the control group. Among the intervention group (n=55), 48 women attempted insertion and 7 never returned. Among the control group (n=45), 42 women attempted insertion and 3 never returned. Among women who attempted a second IUD insertion (excluding those who never returned to the clinic), there were significant differences in successful insertions between misoprostol (88%) and control (62%) groups (RR=1.41, CI=8.2, 43.0). Among intent-to-treat women (including those who never returned to the clinic), there were differences in successful insertions between misoprostol (76%) and control (58%) groups, but findings were not statistically significant (RR=1.32, CI=0.3, 36.0). There were no significant differences in the need for cervical dilation between groups (44% versus 50%, respectively). Also, among women who attempted a second insertion, receiving placebo versus misoprostol was significantly associated with failed insertion after adjustment for age, delivery history, uterus position, uterine sound measure and provider type (prevalence ratio [PR] = 2.90, CI=1.13, 7.42).

Intracervical 2% lidocaine

Two trials examined the effect of intracervical 2% lidocaine (inserted into the cervical canal or injected into the cervical stroma) on provider ease of insertion (Table 2) [33,35]. One was rated as having good quality [33], and one was rated as having poor quality [35].

The first trial examined the effect of 2% lidocaine as a topical gel inserted into the cervical canal with an angiocatheter 3 min before IUD insertion (n=75) versus a placebo gel (n=75) among 150 women requesting an IUD; 70% had a prior vaginal delivery, 23% had a prior cesarean section and 7% were nulliparous [33]. IUD insertion technique was standardized, and IUDs were inserted by 37 providers with a range of experience including nurse practitioners, residents in obstetrics and gynecology and attending physicians. IUD types were LNG IUDs (86%) and Cu IUDs, and the distribution of IUD type did not differ by study group. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=72 in intervention group; n=73 in control group), there were no significant differences between lidocaine and control groups in procedure time (median=111.0 versus 99.5 s, respectively) or provider ratings of ease of insertion (67% versus 66% of insertions were rated as easy, 29% versus 31% were rated as average and 4% versus 3% were rated as easy, respectively).

The second trial examined the effect of 2% lidocaine as an intracervical block injected 5 min before IUD insertion (n=50) versus 400 mg of ibuprofen taken 1 h before insertion (n=50) among 100 women requesting an IUD for the first time; 56% had a prior cesarean section and 44% were nulliparous [35]. IUD insertion technique was standardized, and IUDs were inserted between days 1 and 5 of menses by a single provider. All IUDs were LNG IUDs. Among women attempting IUD insertion and included in analyses (n=50 in intervention group; n=48 in control group), there were no significant differences in provider ratings of ease of insertion (rated as easy of difficult) between lidocaine and control groups (90% versus 83% of insertions were rated as easy, respectively).

Diclofenac plus intracervical 2% lidocaine

One trial rated as having good quality examined the effect of diclofenac plus intracervical 2% lidocaine on provider ease of insertion, (Table 2) [37]. Women requesting an IUD (n=90) were randomized to receive 100 mg of diclofenac 1 h before IUD insertion plus 2% lidocaine as a topical gel inserted into the cervical canal with a cotton swab 3 min before IUD insertion (n=45) or placebo tablets plus a placebo gel (n=45). The majority (78%) of women had a prior vaginal delivery. IUD insertion technique was standardized, and IUDs were inserted by eight experienced gynecologists. All IUDs were Cu IUDs. Among all women randomized, there were no significant differences between diclofenac plus lidocaine and control groups in provider ratings of ease of insertion (mean=2.2 versus 2.4, respectively, on a 10-cm visual analog scale ranging from 0=very easy to 10=extremely difficult).

Nitric oxide donors

Two trials examined the effect of nitric oxide donors on provider ease of insertion and need for adjunctive insertion measures, both rated as having fair quality (Table 2) [34,36].

The first trial examined the effect of nitroprusside gel applied intracervically immediately prior to IUD insertion (n=13) versus a placebo gel (n=11) among 24 nulliparous women requesting an IUD with no prior IUD use or attempted placement [34]. IUD insertion technique was standardized; however, the experience level of inserting physicians was not reported. All IUDs were LNG IUDs. Among all women randomized, there were no significant differences between nitroprusside gel and control groups in provider ratings of ease of insertion (mean=32.4 versus 26.5, respectively; range and description of visual analog scale not reported) or the need for cervical dilation (8% versus 9%, respectively) or paracervical block (0% versus 0%, respectively).

The second trial examined nitroglycerin gel applied vaginally 30–45 min before IUD insertion (n=12) versus a placebo gel (n=12) among 24 nulliparous women requesting an IUD for contraception with no prior IUD use or attempted placement [36]. Of note, 92% of women in the intervention group versus 50% in the control group premedicated with 800 mg of ibuprofen (p=.07). IUD insertion technique was standardized, and IUDs were inserted by three attending physicians. All IUDs were LNG IUDs. Among all women randomized, there were no significant differences between nitroglycerin gel and control groups in provider ratings of ease of insertion (mean=29.4 versus 22.8, respectively, on a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0=easy to 100= very difficult) or the need for cervical dilation (8% in both groups). One woman needed a paracervical block, but the study group was not reported.

Discussion

We included 15 RCTs in our systematic review that examined the effect of misoprostol [23–32], intracervical 2% lidocaine [33,35], diclofenac plus intracervical 2% lidocaine [37] or nitric oxide donors [34,36], on provider outcomes including ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures and/or insertion success. Of nine RCTs [24–32] that examined the effect of misoprostol on provider ease of insertion (measured by visual analog scales, 2- or 3-point rating scales or total procedure time), seven [24–29,32] found no significant differences between study groups. Two RCTs [30,31] found significantly easier insertion among women receiving misoprostol versus placebo 2–4 h before IUD insertion; however, all insertions were considered to be easy in one trial [30], and results may have been confounded in the other [31] given that providers measured cervical dilation in all women prior to IUD insertion that may have influenced provider ratings of ease of insertion. Of seven RCTs [25–30,32] that examined the effect of misoprostol on need for adjunctive insertion measures (e.g., cervical dilation, ultrasound guidance, paracervical block), none found differences between study groups. Of eight RCTs [24–26,28–32] that examined the effect of misoprostol on insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD, none found differences between study groups. However, among women with a recent failed insertion, one RCT found that, among women who attempted insertion again, insertion success was significantly higher among women receiving misoprostol 10 h and 4 h prior to the second IUD insertion attempt [23]. For 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection used 3–5 min before IUD insertion versus placebo gel or ibuprofen, neither of two RCTs [33,35] found significant differences in provider ratings of ease of insertion (measured by 2- or 3-point rating scales) between lidocaine and control groups. For diclofenac 1 h before IUD insertion plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topic gel used 3 min before IUD insertion versus placebo, the one RCT identified found no significant differences in provider ratings of ease of insertion (measured by a visual analog scale) between study groups [37]. For nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside gel applied intracervically immediately before IUD insertion or nitroglycerin gel applied vaginally 30–45 min before IUD insertion versus placebo, neither of two RCTs [34,36] found significant differences in provider ratings of ease of insertion (measured by visual analog scales) or need for adjunctive insertions measures (i.e., cervical dilation, paracervical block).

This body of evidence has several limitations. For RCTs examining misoprostol, one study did not describe randomization procedures [30], two studies did not describe whether or not allocation sequence procedures were concealed [29,30] and one study did not include a placebo for misoprostol [28]. Four studies used misoprostol formulated specifically for the study [26,29,30,32], and two did not report the source of the misoprostol [24,25]; it is possible that the pharmacokinetics of the study misoprostol may have differed from those of commercially formulated misoprostol. Misoprostol medication adherence was assumed in seven RCTs [23–26,29,30,32], and patient use of premedication (e.g., NSAIDs) was either not reported or assessed [29–31] or occurred but the distribution by study group was not reported [24]. In five studies, it was unknown if IUD insertion procedures were standardized [23,24,28,29,32], and the experience level of inserting physicians was not considered or adjusted for in three studies [24,25,30]. Three RCTs included limited response options when measuring provider ratings of ease of insertion [27,28,31]. Five studies were not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest [25,26,29,30,32], with sample sizes ranging from 40 [25] to 108 [32], and intent-to-treat analyses were not performed in six studies [24,25,27,28,31,32]. One study included IUD types not available in the United States (b8%) and did not stratify results by IUD type [24]. One study included both LNG IUDs and Cu IUDs with differential distribution by study group [23]. Last, two studies were among prior IUD users who had undergone a previous successful insertion [24,27] and these women may not be generalizable to the population of women seeking a first IUD.

For RCTs examining 2% intracervical lidocaine, one study did not blind participants or providers to group allocation and did not include a placebo for lidocaine injection (e.g., saline injection) [35]. Both RCTs included limited response options when measuring provider ratings of ease of insertion, were not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest and did not perform intent-to-treat analyses [33,35]. The RCT that examined diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine assumed diclofenac adherence, did not report patient premedication with nonstudy drugs (e.g., NSAIDs) and was not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest [37]. For RCTs examining nitric oxide donors, study groups were not comparable related to premedication with ibuprofen in one study [36], and the experience level of inserting physicians was not reported and may have differed in the other study [34]. Neither of the two RCTs were powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest and were conducted among small (n=24) samples of women [34,36].

A recent systematic review examined interventions to reduce patient pain and improve other patient outcomes [15]. RCTs that evaluated any intervention to reduce IUD insertion pain were included, as well as studies that examined any IUD type, regardless of past or present availability in the United States. A total of 33 RCTs were included and some metaanalyses conducted. Conclusions from the review were that misoprostol, 2% lidocaine gel and most NSAIDs did not help reduce pain at the time of insertion. In fact, several studies, including a metaanalysis of four trials, found significantly higher pain during IUD insertion among women receiving misoprostol versus placebo. Several studies also found increased side effects (e.g., cramping, shivering, headache, abdominal pain) among women receiving misoprostol versus placebo. The review suggested that paracervical block with lidocaine may reduce patient pain based on two RCTs [47,49] that found significantly reduced pain at either tenaculum placement or IUD insertion among women receiving paracervical block with 1% lidocaine 3–5 min before IUD insertion. The review also suggested that tramadol and naproxen may have some effect on reducing IUD insertion-related pain, but the RCTs [40,41] examining these medications included IUDs not available in the United States (i.e., Dalkon Shield, Multiload copper 375).

In conclusion, overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Evidence suggests that misoprostol does not improve provider ease of insertion (7/9 RCTs), reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures (7/7 RCTs) or improve insertion success (8/8 RCTs), among general samples of women seeking an IUD (body of evidence grading Level I, good to fair). However, among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo (body of evidence grading Level I, good). Limited evidence from one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggests no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (body of evidence grading Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggests no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (body of evidence grading Level I, good to poor). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggests no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (body of evidence grading Level I, fair). Additional research in this area should not focus on routine use of misoprostol for IUD insertion but rather on other medications that may improve provider and patient outcomes with IUD insertion, as well as the use of misoprostol for insertion after failed IUD insertion attempt. The information from all but one RCT [37] summarized in this review, along with findings from a complementary review on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on patient outcomes [15], was presented to an expert panel in August 2015 at a meeting held by the CDC and will be incorporated into the forthcoming update of the US SPR.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The authors have no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to disclose.

ReferencesTrussellJ Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011;83:397–404.21477680Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59:1–6.BranumAM, JonesJ. Trends in long-acting reversible contraception use among U.S. women aged 15–44. NCHS Data Brief 2015:1–8.DanielsK, DaughertyJ, JonesJ, MosherW. Current contraceptive use and variation by selected characteristics among women aged 15–44: United States, 2011–2013. Natl Health Stat Rep 2015:1–4.RomeroL, PazolK, WarnerL, Vital signs: trends in use of long- acting reversible contraception among teens aged 15–19 years seeking contraceptive services — United States, 2005–2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:363–9.25856258GomezAM, HartofelisEC, FinlaysonS, ClarkJB. Do knowledge and attitudes regarding intrauterine devices predict interest in their use? Womens Health Issues 2015;25:359–65.26025424HubacherD, SpectorH, MonteithC, ChenPL, HartC. Rationale and enrollment results for a partially randomized patient preference trial to compare continuation rates of short-acting and long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception 2015;91:185–92.25500324PotterJ, RubinSE, ShermanP. Fear of intrauterine contraception among adolescents in New York City. Contraception 2014;89:446–50.24560479BuhlingKJ, HauckB, DermoutS, ArdaensK, MarionsL. Understanding the barriers and myths limiting the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: results of a survey of European/Canadian healthcare providers. Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;183:146–54.TealSB, RomerSE, GoldthwaiteLM, PetersMG, KaplanDW, SheederJ. Insertion characteristics of intrauterine devices in adolescents and young women: success, ancillary measures, and complications. Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:515.e1–5.BahamondesMV, HidalgoMM, BahamondesL, MonteiroI. Ease of insertion and clinical performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in nulligravidas. Contraception 2011;84:e11–6.22018132BrownWM, TroutonK. Intrauterine device insertions: which variables matter? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2014;40:117–21.23771917HubacherD, ReyesV, LilloS, ZepedaA, ChenPL, CroxattoH. Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen. Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1272–7.MaguireK, DavisA, Rosario TejedaL, WesthoffC. Intracervical lidocaine gel for intrauterine device insertion: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 2012;86:214–9.22325115LopezLM, BernholcA, ZengY, Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;7:CD007373.Gemzell-DanielssonK, MansourD, FialaC, KaunitzAM, BahamondesL. Management of pain associated with the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:419–27.23670222GrimesDA, HubacherD, LopezLM, SchulzKF. Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs for heavy bleeding or pain associated with intrauterine device use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006:Cd006034.17054271PergialiotisV, VlachosDG, ProtopappasA, VlachosGD. Analgesic options for placement of an intrauterine contraceptive: a meta-analysis. Contracept Reprod Health Care 2014;19:149–60.DehlendorfC, TharayilM, AndersonN, GbenedioK, WittmanA, SteinauerJ. Counseling about IUDs: a mixed-methods analysis. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2014;46:133–40.24628710Centers for Diseaes Control and Prevention. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013: adapted from the World Health Organization Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use MMWR recommendations and reports: morbidity and mortality weekly report recommendations and reports/centers for disease control, 2nd ed., 62; 2013, pp. 1–0.MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, AltmanDG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.19622551HarrisRP, HelfandM, WoolfSH, Current methods of the US preventive services task force: a review of the process. Prev Med 2001;20:21–35.BahamondesMV, Espejo-ArceX, BahamondesL. Effect of vaginal administration of misoprostol before intrauterine contraceptive insertion following previous insertion failure: a double blind RCT. Hum Reprod 2015.DijkhuizenK, DekkersOM, HolleboomCA, Vaginal misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device: an RCT. Hum Reprod 2011;26:323–9.21159683EdelmanAB, SchaeferE, OlsonA, Effects of prophylactic misoprostol administration prior to intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women. Contraception 2011;84:234–9.21843686EspeyE, SinghRH, LeemanL, OgburnT, FowlerK, GreeneH. Misoprostol for intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:208.e1–5.HeikinheimoO, InkiP, KunzM, Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on the effect of misoprostol on ease of consecutive insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception 2010;81:481–6.20472114IbrahimZM, Sayed AhmedWA. Sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of a T380A intrauterine device in women with no previous vaginal delivery. Contracept Reprod Health Care 2013;18:300–8.LathropE, HaddadL, McWhorterCP, GoedkenP. Self-administration of misoprostol prior to intrauterine device insertion among nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 2013;88:725–9.24034580LotkePS, TiwariA, LeybasNV. Inserting intrauterine devices in nulliparous women: is misoprostol beneficial? A registered clinical trial. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2013;1:62–8.ScavuzziA, SouzaAS, CostaAA, AmorimMM. Misoprostol prior to inserting an intrauterine device in nulligravidas: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2118–25.23739219SwensonC, TurokDK, WardK, JacobsonJC, DermishA. Self- administered misoprostol or placebo before intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:341–7.22825094AllenRH, RakerC, GoyalV. Higher dose cervical 2% lidocaine gel for IUD insertion: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 2013;88:730–6.24012096BednarekPH, MicksEA, EdelmanAB, LiH, JensenJT. The effect of nitroprusside on IUD insertion experience in nulliparous women: a pilot study. Contraception 2013;87:421–5.23218853CastroTV, FranceschiniSA, Poli-NetoO, FerrianiRA, Silva de SaMF, VieiraCS. Effect of intracervical anesthesia on pain associated with the insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in women without previous vaginal delivery: a RCT. Hum Reprod 2014;29:2439–45.25240012MicksEA, JensenJT, BednarekPH. The effect of nitroglycerin on the IUD insertion experience in nulliparous women: a pilot study. Contraception 2014;90:60–5.24794720FoudaUM, Salah EldinNM, ElsetohyKA, TolbaHA, ShabanMM, SobhSM. Diclofenac plus lidocaine gel for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Contraception 2016.ShahnaziM, NikjooR, YavarikiaP, Mohammad-Alizadeh-CharandabiS. Inhaled lavender effect on anxiety and pain caused from intrauterine device insertion. J Caring Sci 2012;1:255–61.25276703CameronST, GlasierA, CooperA, JohnstoneA. Does a full bladder assist insertion of intrauterine contraception? A randomised trial. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2013;39:207–10.23349532KarabayirliS, AyrimAA, MusluB. Comparison of the analgesic effects of oral tramadol and naproxen sodium on pain relief during IUD insertion. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012;19:581–4.22766124MasseySE, VaradyJC, HenzlMR. Pain relief with naproxen following insertion of an intrauterine device. J Reprod Med 1974;13:226–31.4612152SaavI, AronssonA, MarionsL, StephanssonO, Gemzell-DanielssonK. Cervical priming with sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2647–52.17652452JensenHH, BlaabjergJ, LyndrupJ. Prophylactic use of prostaglandin synthesis inhibitors in connection with IUD insertion. Ugeskr Laeger 1998;160:6958–61.9846090AksoyH, AksoyU, OzyurtS, AcmazG, BabayigitM. Lidocaine 10% spray to the cervix reduces pain during intrauterine device insertion: a double-blind randomised controlled trial. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2015.BednarekPH, CreininMD, ReevesMF, CwiakC, EspeyE, JensenJT. Prophylactic ibuprofen does not improve pain with IUD insertion: a randomized trial. Contraception 2015;91:193–7.25487172ChorJ, Bregand-WhiteJ, GolobofA, HarwoodB, CowettA. Ibuprofen prophylaxis for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 2012;85:558–62.22176793CirikD, TaşkınEA, TuğluA, OrtacA, DaiO. Paracervical block with 1% lidocaine for pain control during intrauterine device insertion: a prospective, single-blinded, controlled study. Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2013;2:263–7.McNicholasCP, MaddenT, ZhaoQ, SecuraG, AllsworthJE, PeipertJF. Cervical lidocaine for IUD insertional pain: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:384.e1–6.ModySK, KileyJ, RademakerA, GawronL, StikaC, HammondC. Pain control for intrauterine device insertion: a randomized trial of 1% lidocaine paracervical block. Contraception 2012;86:704–9.22770792Mohammad-Alizadeh-CharandabiS, SeidiS, KazemiF. Effect of lidocaine gel on pain from copper IUD insertion: a randomized double- blind controlled trial. Med Sci 2010;64:349–55.NelsonAL, FongJK. Intrauterine infusion of lidocaine does not reduce pain scores during IUD insertion. Contraception 2013;88:37–40.23375352NgoLL, WardKK, ModySK. Ketorolac for pain control with intrauterine device placement. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:29–36.26241253TavakolianS, GhorbaniM, DoulabiMA, BaghbanAA, MortazaviA. Lidocaine-Prilocaine cream as analgesia for IUD insertion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, triple blinded study. Health Sci 2015;7:399–404.Tornblom-PaulanderS, TingakerBK, WernerA, Novel topical formulation of lidocaine provides significant pain relief for intrauterine device insertion: pharmacokinetic evaluation and randomized placebo- controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2015;103:422–7.25455873LiYT, KuoTC, KuanLC, ChuYC. Cervical softening with vaginal misoprostol before intrauterine device insertion. Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89:67–8.

Evidence on misoprostol to ease IUD insertion

Reference, funding, countryStudy design, populationInterventionOutcomeResultsQuality, Strengths, Weaknesses
Women without prior vaginal delivery only
Edelman, 2011 [25] No external funding [54] USA, Oregon Health and Science UniversityRCT; 2 study groups40 nulliparous women aged 18–45 years requesting an IUD for contraceptionIUD types included LNG (≥75%) or copper T380AIntervention group: 20 randomized;17 attempted insertion and included in analyses (3 withdrew prior to IUD insertion); mean age=25±5 yearsControl group:20 randomized;19 attempted insertion (1 declined IUD after vagal reaction);1 withdrew prior to IUD insertion;17 included in analyses; mean age=27±6 years35/40 (88%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, buccal, vs. placebo, 1.5 h priorIUDs inserted by OB/GYN residents and staff physiciansIUD insertion technique was standardizedFailed insertionUse of adjunctive insertion measures*Procedure timeProvider ease of insertion measured by VAS immediately after IUD insertion (0=easy, 100 mm= extremely difficult)

No differences in failed insertions between misoprostol and control groups (0% vs. 1%); significance testing NR

No significant differences in use of adjunctive insertion measures between misoprostol and control groups (cervical dilation: 0% vs. 16%; and paracervical block: 0% vs. 12%)

No significant differences in procedure time between misoprostol and control groups (mean minutes [SD]=5.1 [2.3] vs. 5.5 [2.4])

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and control groups (mean [SD] score= 24 [19] vs. 29 [21])

I, fairStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Excluded women with prior attempted or successful IUD insertion

Misoprostol and placebo were similar

High completion rate (88%)

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, BMI, race/ethnicity, pregnancy history, dysmenorrhea) and nonoutcome procedural details (use of premedication, IUD type, local anesthesia placed at tenaculum site)

Weaknesses

Source of misoprostol NR (commercially formulated or formulated for study)

Medication adherence assumed

Experience level of inserting physicians may have differed

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed

Swenson, 2012 [32] No external funding [54] USA, University of UtahRCT; 2 study groups108 nulliparous women aged ≥18 years requesting an IUD for contraceptionIUD types included LNG (74%) or copper T380AIntervention group:54 randomized, attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=25±4 yearsControl group:54 randomized;53 attempted insertion (1 failed to return for insertion);51 included in analyses (2 excluded for benzodiazepine or narcotic use); mean age=25±4 years105/108 (97%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, vaginal or buccal by patient choice, vs. placebo, 3–4 h prior; 94% chose to insert pills vaginallyMisoprostol and placebo were formulated by study pharmacistIUDs inserted by experienced providers (placed ≥10 IUDs in past year)Failed insertionUse of adjunctive insertion measures*Provider ease of insertion measured by VAS after IUD insertion (0=extremely easy, 100 mm=impossible)

No significant differences in failed insertions between misoprostol and control groups (4% vs. 6%)

No significant differences in use of adjunctive insertion measures between misoprostol and control groups (cervical dilation: 9% vs. 10%; ultrasound guidance: 2% vs. 6%; or paracervical block: 6% vs. 0%)

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and control groups (mean [SE] score= 25.0 [3.5] vs. 27.4 [3.5])

I, fairStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol and placebo were identical

Minimal variation in IUD insertion skill level between providers

High completion rate (97%)

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, race, pregnancy history) and nonoutcome procedural details (use of premedication, IUD type, route of pill administration)

Weaknesses

Possible difference in pharmacokinetics between commercially formulated misoprostol and misoprostol used in study

Medication adherence assumed

Unknown if insertion procedures standardized

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed

Ibrahim, 2013 [28] Funding source NR Egypt, Gynecology Clinic of the Suez Canal University HospitalRCT; 2 study groups274 parous women who delivered only by elective cesarean section requesting an IUDIUD type: copper T380AIntervention group:137 randomized;130 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=29±6 yearsControl group:137 randomized;125 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=30±7 years255/274 (93%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, sublingual, plus 100 mg diclofenac, oral, vs. 100 mg diclofenac, 1 h priorIUDs inserted by OB/GYNs with ≥ 3 years of experience inserting IUDsIUDs inserted following menstruationFailed insertionUse of adjunctive insertion measures*Cervical dilation ≤4 mm measured by inserting Hegar dilator through internal orifice of cervix prior to IUD insertionProcedure timeProvider ease of insertion judged by resistance of internal cervical os (easy, usual, difficult/failed)

No significant differences in failed insertions between misoprostol and control groups (2% vs. 4%)

No significant differences in use of adjunctive insertion measures between misoprostol and control groups (analgesia: 30% vs. 29%; dilation: 1% vs. 2%)

No significant differences in median cervical dilation between misoprostol and control groups (4 mm vs. 4 mm)

No significant differences in mean duration of procedure (4.1±1.6 vs. 4.1±2.8 min) between misoprostol and control groups

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and ontrol groups (easy: 92% vs. 90%; usual: 6% vs. 6%)

I, fairStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Providers blinded to group allocation

Allocation sequence concealed

Misoprostol was commercially formulated

Medication adherence known (given by clinic nurse 1 h prior to procedure)

Minimal variation in IUD insertion skill level between providers

High completion rate (93%)

Large sample size although unknown if power calculations conducted

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, BMI, pregnancy history)

Weaknesses

Time after sublingual misoprostol administration may not have been sufficient to achieve peak effect

Placebo for misoprostol not given

Unknown if insertion procedures standardized

Limited response options for measurement of provider ease of insertion

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed

Lathrop, 2013 [29] No external funding [54] USA, Emory UniversityRCT; 2 study groups73 nulliparous women aged ≥18 (mean=25.9) years requesting an IUDIUD types included LNG (71.3%) or copper T380AIntervention group:37 randomized, attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=26 yearsControl group:36 randomized, attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=26 years71/73 (97%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, buccal, vs. placebo, 2–4 h priorMisoprostol and placebo were formulated by study pharmacistIUDs inserted by 5 OB/GYNs with advanced training in family planningFailed insertionUse of adjunctive insertion measures*Provider ease of insertion measured by VAS after IUD insertion (0=extremely easy, 100 mm=impossible)

No significant differences in failed insertions between misoprostol and control groups (5% vs. 0%)

No significant differences in use of adjunctive insertion measures between misoprostol and control groups (cervical dilation: 14% vs. 8%; ultrasound guidance: 3% vs. 0%; or paracervical block: 3% vs. 0%)

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and control groups (median [range] score= 21 [0–100] and 21 [0–68])

I, fairStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol and placebo were identical

Minimal variation in IUD insertion skill level between providers

High completion rate (97%)

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, race, marital status, pregnancy history, STI history, income) and nonoutcome procedural details (IUD type)

Intent-to-treat analyses performed

Weaknesses

Allocation sequence concealment NR

Possible difference in pharmacokinetics between commercially formulated misoprostol and misoprostol used in study

Medication adherence assumed

Patient use of premedication (e.g., NSAIDs) NR

Unknown if insertion procedures standardized

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Lotke, 2013 [30] No external funding [54] USA, University of ArizonaRCT; 2 study groups61 nulliparous women aged ≥18 years requesting an IUD for contraceptionIUD types included LNG (≥70%) or copper T380AIntervention group:30 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=25±4 years; number randomized NRControl group:31 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=26±4 years; number randomized NR61/62 (98%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, vaginal or buccal by patient choice, vs. placebo, 2 h prior; 57% of misoprostol group took medication vaginally vs. 37% of placebo groupMisoprostol and placebo were formulated by university pharmacistIUDs inserted by OB/GYN residents and attending physiciansIUD insertion technique was standardizedFailed insertionUse of adjunctive insertion measures*Provider ease of insertion measured by VAS after IUD insertion (0=easiest insertion, 100 mm=most difficult)

All patients had successful IUD placement

Only 1 patient in control group required adjunctive insertion measures (cervical dilation)

Providers reported significantly (p=.04) easier insertion among misoprostol vs. control group (mean [SD] score= 24.1 [14.2] vs. 33.4 [20.3])

I, fairStrengths

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol and placebo were similar

High completion rate (98%)

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, BMI, race/ethnicity, relationship status, education, pregnancy history, number of sexual partners in last six months) and nonoutcome procedural details (IUD type, route of pill administration, mean time from taking medication to IUD insertion)

Intent-to-treat analyses performed

Weaknesses

Randomization procedures NR

Allocation sequence concealment NR

Possible difference in pharmacokinetics between commercially formulated misoprostol and misoprostol used in study

Medication adherence assumed

Experience level of inserting physicians may have differed

Patient use of premedication (e.g., NSAIDs) not assessed

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Scavuzzi, 2013 [31] Instituto de Medicina Integral Prof. Fernando Figueira BrazilRCT; 2 study groups190 nulligravida women aged 16–45 years requesting an IUD for contraceptionIUD type: copper T380AIntervention group:95 randomized;87 attempted insertion (1 declined) and included in analyses; 86 analyzed; mean age=25±6 yearsControl group:95 randomized;93 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=25±6 years179/190 (94%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, vaginal, vs. placebo, 4 h prior (inserted by provider into posterior vaginal fornix)IUDs inserted by single providerAll women were menstruating at time of IUD insertionIUD insertion technique was standardizedFailed insertionCervical dilation ≤4 mm measured by inserting Hegar dilator through internal orifice of cervix prior to IUD insertionProvider ease of insertion (easy vs. difficult/very difficult)

No significant differences in failed insertions between misoprostol and control groups (5% vs. 3%)

Misoprostol group had significantly (p<.0001) reduced risk of cervical dilation <4 mm vs. control group (RR=0.48; CI=0.33, 0.70; 28% vs. 58%)

Provider reported significantly (p<.0001) fewer insertions as difficult/very difficult for misoprostol vs. control group (RR=0.49 (27% vs. 55%), CI=0.33, 0.72)

I, fairStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and provider blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol and placebo were similar

Misoprostol commercially formulated

Medication adherence known (inserted vaginally by provider)

No variation in IUD insertion skill level (single provider)

High completion rate (94%)

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, education) and procedural details (day of menstrual cycle, uterus position)

Target sample size determined by power calculations

Weaknesses

Limited response options (with no neutral option) for measurement of provider ease of insertion

Patient use of premedication (e.g., NSAIDs) NR

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed

Espey, 2014 [26] No external funding [54] USA, University of New MexicoRCT; 2 study groups83 nulliparous women requesting an IUD for contraceptionIUD types included LNG (≥86%) or copper T380AIntervention group: 42 randomized, attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=24±4 yearsControl group:40 randomized, attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=24±5 years80/83 (96%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, buccal, vs. placebo, 2–8 h priorMisoprostol and placebo were formulated by university pharmacistIUDs inserted by 5 attending physicians skilled in IUD insertionIUD insertion technique was standardizedFailed insertionUse of adjunctive insertion measures*Provider ease of insertion measured by VAS after IUD insertion (0=easy, 10 cm= extremely difficult)

All patients had successful IUD placement

No significant differences in need for adjunctive insertion measures (dilation/ultrasound) between misoprostol and control groups (14% vs. 25%).

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and control groups (mean [SD]=2.2 [2.2] vs. 2.5 [2.2])

I, goodStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol and placebo were similar

Minimal variation in IUD insertion skill level between providers

High completion rate (96%)

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, pregnancy history, STI history) and nonoutcome procedural details (use of premedication, IUD type)

Intent-to-treat analyses performed

Weaknesses

Possible difference in pharmacokinetics between commercially formulated misoprostol and misoprostol used in study

Medication adherence assumed

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Women with and without prior vaginal delivery
Heikinheimo, 2010 [27] Bayer-Schering Pharma, Berlin, Germany 6 clinics in Finland, SwedenRCT; 2 study groups89 women aged 23–45 years requesting immediate insertion of a subsequent IUD after removal of a prior IUD for contraception (~70%) or menorrhagia treatment (~30%) (number randomized NR)IUD type: LNGIntervention group:43 attempted insertion; mean age=38±5 years; 9% nulliparousControl group:46 attempted insertion; mean age=39±5 years; 2% nulliparousCompletion rate NR400 mcg misoprostol, sublingual, vs. placebo, 3 h priorIUDs inserted by 11 providers experienced and trained in IUD insertionIUD insertion was done according to normal clinical practice (cervical dilation included in standard procedure at 1 site)Use of adjunctive insertion measures*Provider ease of insertion (easy or difficult)

No significant differences in use of adjunctive insertion measures between misoprostol and control groups (cervical dilation: 19% vs. 20%; and use of local anesthesia: 2% vs. 2%)

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and control groups (easy insertion: 93% vs. 91%)

I, fairStrengths

Multicenter

Randomization computer-generated, stratified by site

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol was commercially formulated

Medication adherence known (given by study nurse 3 h prior to procedure)

Misoprostol and placebo were similar

Minimal variation in IUD insertion skill level between providers

Target sample size determined by power calculations

Study groups appear comparable related to most baseline characteristics (age, BMI, number of pregnancies, number of births, years first IUD used) and nonoutcome procedural details (use of premedication, main indication for IUD), but statistical testing NR

Weaknesses

Number of women randomized NR; unable to calculate completion rate

Prior IUD users (who had undergone a previous successful insertion) may differ from general population of women seeking first IUD

Limited response options (with no neutral option) for measurement of provider ease of insertion

Higher proportion of intervention group were nulliparous, but statistical testing NR

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed (number randomized NR)

Dijkhuizen, 2011 [24] Leiden University Medical Center 5 hospitals, NetherlandsRCT; 2 study groups270 women aged ≥ 18 years requesting IUD for contraception (~85%) or therapeutic treatment (~15%);1 woman sought subsequent IUD after removal of a prior IUDIUD types included LNG (90%) or copper (Multiload 275: n=4; T-safe Cu380: n=6; Flexi-T: n=4; frameless: n=1; other: n=5)Intervention group:136 randomized;102 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=32±9 years; 48% nulliparousControl group:134 randomized;97 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=31±8 years; 47% nulliparous199/270 (74%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, vaginal, vs. placebo, 3 h priorIUDs inserted by 38 providers (interns [little experience], residents, midwives, OB/GYNs [at least average experience])Failed insertionProvider ease of insertion measured by VAS immediately after IUD insertion (0=extremely easy, 10 cm=extremely difficult)

No significant differences in failed insertions between misoprostol and control groups (2% vs. 1%); RR=1.9, CI=0.2, 20.6; did not differ by parity

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between misoprostol and control groups (mean [SD]=2.9 [2.8] vs. 2.8 [2.6]); did not differ by parity

I, fairStrengths

Multicenter

Randomization computer-generated, stratified by parity

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol and placebo were similar

Target sample size determined by power calculations

Study groups appear comparable related to most baseline characteristics (age, ethnicity, weight, parity, pregnancy history, menses during insertion, main indication for IUD) and procedural details (IUD type), but statistical testing NR

Weaknesses

Some women were prior IUD users (who had undergone a previous successful insertion) and may differ from general population of women seeking first IUD

Source of misoprostol NR (commercially formulated or formulated for study)

Medication adherence assumed; known that 5 (3%) did not follow protocol but ≥70% of misoprostol group had remains of tablets present in vagina

Unknown if insertion procedures standardized

Experience level of inserting providers differed

Some IUD types included not available in USA; results not stratified

Completion rate <85%, although rate did not differ between study group

Use of premedication (n=3) and local anesthesia before insertion (n=1) occurred, but distribution by study group NR

Study groups appear dissimilar related to proportion of women breastfeeding (17% vs. 10% in misoprostol and control groups), but statistical testing NR

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed

Women with a recent failed insertion
Bahamondes, 2015 [23] Brazilian National Research Council, Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo Brazil, University of Campinas Medical SchoolRCT; 2 study groups100 women requesting an IUD with recent failed IUD insertion (mean age=37±7 years)IUD types included LNG (92%) or copper T380AIntervention group:55 randomized;48 attempted insertion; 16% nulliparous;100% chose LNG IUDControl group:45 randomized;42 attempted insertion; 22% nulliparous;82% chose LNG IUD90/100 (90%) completed study through clinic discharge400 mcg misoprostol, vaginal, vs. placebo, 10 (200 mcg) and 4 (200 mcg) hours prior to second insertion attempt3 providers highly experienced in IUD insertion were called to assist providers unsuccessful with first insertion attempt; same 3 highly experienced providers made second insertion attemptSuccessful insertionUse of adjunctive insertion measures*

Among women who attempted a second IUD insertion (vs. intent to treat), there were significant differences in successful insertions between misoprostol and control groups (88% vs. 62%, p=.007; RR=1.41, CI=8.2, 43.0)

Among intent-to-treat women, there were differences in successful insertions between misoprostol and control groups (76% vs. 58%, significance testing NR) but RR=1.32, CI=0.3, 36.9

Among women who attempted a second IUD insertion, receiving placebo (PR=2.90, CI=1.13, 7.42) was significantly associated with failed insertion after adjustment for age, delivery history, uterus position, uterine sound measure and provider type

No significant differences in need for cervical dilation between misoprostol and control groups (44% vs. 50%, p=.8); no pain medication was given

I, goodStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Misoprostol and placebo were similar

Misoprostol was commercially formulated

Minimal variation in IUD insertion skill level between providers

High completion rate (90%); rate did not differ between misoprostol and control groups (87% vs. 93%)

Target sample size determined by power calculations

Intent-to-treat analyses performed

Study groups appear comparable related to most baseline characteristics (age, pregnancy and delivery history) and nonoutcome procedural details (uterus position, uterine sound measure), but statistical testing NR

Weaknesses

Medication adherence assumed

Unknown if insertion procedures standardized

Study groups dissimilar related to IUD type (LNG: 100% vs. 82% in misoprostol and control groups), but statistical testing NR

BMI, body mass index; CI, 95% confidence interval; IUD, intrauterine device; LNG, levonorgestrel-releasing; NR, not reported; NSAID, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug; OB/GYN, obstetrics and gynecology; PR, prevalence ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; STI, sexually transmitted infection; USA, United States of America; VAS, visual analog scales.

Cervical dilation or use of os finder or soft endometrial biopsy, use of ultrasound guidance or additional anesthesia or analgesia during procedure to facilitate insertion.

Evidence on other medications to ease IUD insertion

Reference, funding, countryStudy design, populationInterventionOutcomeResultsQuality, Strengths, Weaknesses
Intracervical 2% lidocaine
Allen, 2013 [33] Society of Family Planning USA, Brown UniversityRCT; 2 study groups150 women aged 18–41 years requesting an IUD for contraception or abnormal uterine bleeding; 70% had prior vaginal delivery, 23% had prior cesarean section and 7% were nulliparous; no prior IUD useIUD type: LNG (86%) or copper T380ALidocaine group:75 randomized;72 included in analyses (3 had protocol violations)Control group:75 randomized; 73 included in analyses (2 had protocol violations)145/150 (97%) completed study2% lidocaine gel vs. placebo gel (water-based lubricant), 6 mL (inserted into cervical canal via angiocatheter 3 min prior to insertion; 3 mL placed on anterior lip of cervix and remaining placed at internal os); no women used nonstudy, preinsertion analgesics, anxiolytics or misoprostolIUDs inserted by 37 providers (nurse practitioners, OB/GYN residents, attending physicians)IUD insertion technique was standardizedProcedure timeProvider ease of insertion (easy, average or difficult)

No significant differences in duration of procedure time in seconds between lidocaine and control groups (median [range]= 111.0 [64.0–569.0] vs. 99.5 [52.01719.0])

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between lidocaine and control groups (easy: 67% vs. 66%; average: 29% vs. 31%; difficult: 4% vs. 3%)

I, goodStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, insurance, BMI, gravida, parity, delivery history, breastfeeding, dysmenorrhea, self-rated pain tolerance) and procedural details (IUD type, timing of insertion, uterine position, provider type)

High completion rate (97%)

Weaknesses

Limited response options for measurement of provider ease of insertion

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed

Castro, 2014 [35] National Institute of Hormones and Women's Health, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development Brazil, University of Sao PauloRCT; 2 study groups100 women aged 18–45 years requesting an IUD for the first time for contraception; 56% had prior cesarean section and 44% were nulliparousIUD type: LNGLidocaine group: 50 randomized, attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=30±6 yearsControl group: 50 randomized; 48 attempted insertion and included in analyses; mean age=31±6 years98/100 (98%) completed study2% lidocaine injection (1.8 mL) 5 min prior to insertion (injected into cervix at 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-o’clock positions using carpule syringe and 27-gauge needle) vs. 400 mg ibuprofen 1 h priorIUDs inserted by single providerIUD insertion technique was standardizedIUDs inserted between days 1–5 of mensesProvider ease of insertion (easy or difficult)

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between lidocaine and control groups (easy: 90% vs. 83%; difficult: 10% vs. 17%)

I, poorStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

No variation in IUD insertion skill level (single provider)

High completion rate (98%)

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, BMI, blood pressure, parity, prior use of HC, education, income, smoker status)

Weaknesses

Participants and provider not blinded to group allocation

No placebo (e.g., saline injection)

Unclear if women delivering by cesarean section experienced labor/cervical dilation

Limited response options (with no neutral option) for measurement of provider ease of insertion

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Intent-to-treat analyses not performed

Diclofenac plus intracervical 2% lidocaine
Fouda, 2016 [37,33] Funding source NR Egypt, Cairo UniversityRCT; 2 study groups90 parous women aged 18–50 years requesting an IUD for contraception; 78% had prior vaginal delivery; no prior IUD useIUD type: copper T380ADiclofenac+lidocaine group: 45 randomized, received IUD and included in analysesControl group: 45 randomized, received IUD and included in analyses90/90 (100%) completed studyDiclofenac (2–50 mg tablets), 1 h prior+2% lidocaine gel, 6 mL vs. placebo tablets+placebo gel (water-based lubricant); gel inserted into cervical canal via cotton swab 3 min prior to insertion (3 mL placed on anterior lip of cervix and remaining placed at internal os);IUDs inserted by 8 experienced gynecologists IUD insertion technique was standardizedProvider ease of insertion measured by VAS after IUD insertion (0=very easy, 10 cm=extremely difficult)

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between diclofenac+lidocaine and control groups (mean [SD]= 2.2 [1.5] vs. 2.4 [2.0])

I, goodStrengths

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Study groups comparable related to baseline characteristics (age, BMI, gravida, parity, delivery history, time since last delivery, breastfeeding, dysmenorrhea, baseline anxiety scores) and procedural details (uterine position)

High completion rate (100%)

Intent-to-treat analyses conducted

Weaknesses

Medication adherence assumed

Patient premedication with nonstudy drugs (e.g., NSAIDs) NR

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Nitric oxide donors
Bednarek, 2013 [34] Society of Family Planning USA, Oregon Health and Science University and Planned Parenthood Columbia WillametteRCT; 2 study groups24 nulliparous women aged 18–45 years requesting an IUD for contraception; no prior IUD use or attempted placementIUD type: LNGNitroprusside gel group: 13 randomized and included in analysesControl group: 11 randomized and included in analyses 23/24 (96%) completed study10 mg nitroprusside gel (1 mL) vs. placebo gel, applied intracervically immediately prior to IUD insertionIUD insertion technique was standardized and included local anesthesia placed at tenaculum siteNeed for cervical dilation or paracervical blockProvider ease of insertion measured by VAS after IUD insertion (scale NR)

No significant differences between nitroprusside gel and control groups in need for cervical dilation (8% vs. 9%); no women needed paracervical block

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between nitroprusside gel and control groups (mean [SD]= 32.4 [22.7] vs. 26.5 [27.2])

I, fairStrengths

Multiple centers

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Excluded women with prior attempted or successful IUD insertion

Nitroprusside and placebo gels were identical

High completion rate (96%)

Study groups comparable related to most baseline characteristics (age, BMI, race/ethnicity, current menstruation, dysmenorrhea) and nonoutcome procedural details (use of premedication, expected pain, anxiety level, uterine position)

Intent-to-treat analyses for outcomes of interest performed

Weaknesses

Experience level of inserting physicians NR and may have differed

Unable to calculate participation rate

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

Micks, 2014 [36] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Research Award in Long-Term Contraception USA, Oregon Health and Science University and Planned Parenthood Columbia WillametteRCT; 2 study groups24 nulliparous women aged 18–45 years requesting an IUD for contraception; no prior IUD use or attempted placementIUD type: LNGNitroglycerin gel group: 12 randomized and included in analysesControl group: 12 randomized and included in analyses24/24 (100%) completed study0.5 mg nitroglycerin gel (1 mL) vs. placebo gel, applied vaginally 30–45 min prior to IUD insertion; women given the option of premedication with ibuprofen (800 mg) prior to receiving study gel (92% vs. 50% in nitroglycerin and control groups, p=.07)IUDs inserted by 3 attending physiciansIUD insertion technique was standardizedNeed for cervical dilation or paracervical blockProvider ease of insertion measured by VAS (0=easy, 100 mm=very difficult)

No significant differences between nitroglycerin gel and control groups in need for cervical dilation (8% vs. 8%); 1 needed paracervical block (study group NR)

No significant differences in provider ease of insertion between nitroglycerin gel and control groups (mean [SD]=29.4 [23.8] vs. 22.8 [29.9])

I, fairStrengths

Multiple centers

Randomization computer-generated

Allocation sequence concealed

Participants and providers blinded to group allocation

Excluded women with prior attempted or successful IUD insertion

Nitroglycerin and placebo gels were identical

Minimal variation in IUD insertion skill level between providers

High completion rate (100%)

Target sample size determined by power calculations

Study groups comparable related to most baseline characteristics (age, BMI, race/ethnicity, current menstruation, dysmenorrhea) and nonoutcome procedural details (expected pain, anxiety level, uterine position)

Intent-to-treat analyses conducted (1 women had copper vs. LNG IUD inserted)

Weaknesses

Unable to calculate participation rate

Study groups not comparable related to premedication with ibuprofen (92% vs. 50% in nitroglycerin gel and control groups)

Study not powered to detect differences in outcomes of interest

BMI, body mass index; HC, hormonal contraception; IUD, intrauterine device; LNG, levonorgestrel-releasing; NR, not reported; OB/GYN, obstetrics and gynecology; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SD, standard deviation; USA, United States of America; VAS, visual analog scales.