Skip to content

Etonogestrel (ENG) Implant Insertion for Emergency Contraception With Oral Levonorgestrel (LNG) vs Placebo

Generating Evidence to Improve Same-day Etonogestrel (ENG) Implant Insertion for Emergency Contraception

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06162611
Enrollment
790
Registered
2023-12-08
Start date
2023-11-06
Completion date
2028-05-31
Last updated
2026-06-02

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Emergency Contraception

Keywords

contraception, etonogestrel implant, oral levonorgestrel

Brief summary

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are highly effective to prevent pregnancy when used for emergency contraception (following unprotected intercourse in the last 3 days), but data are lacking for people who desire an etonogestrel (ENG) contraceptive implant in this situation. This proposal will identify the most effective way to start an implant for emergency contraception using a randomized controlled trial comparing pregnancy risk between those receiving the implant vs. the implant plus oral emergency contraception (EC). Data from this project will inform clinical practice and add another option, the implant, for those desiring a long acting, highly effective contraceptive method when they present for emergency contraception.

Detailed description

Oral emergency contraception (EC), is commonly used after recent unprotected intercourse to avoid undesired pregnancy, but does not provide ongoing contraception. Rigorous data allow for use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) as both EC and ongoing contraception, but EC efficacy data on use of the etonogestrel (ENG) implant, is lacking. The CDC Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use support initiation of the ENG implant if oral levonorgestrel (LNG) is given concomitantly for EC. This recommendation lacks supporting evidence and serves as a barrier to method initiation, as oral LNG is not typically available in clinics when clients desire an implant. Additionally, oral LNG efficacy decreases in higher body mass index (BMI) users and the role of BMI on efficacy with co-administered oral LNG and the ENG implant is unknown. As the ENG implant is also a synthetic progestogen with a rapid rise and consistent systemic levels, it could plausibly serve as stand-alone EC or increase the efficacy of oral LNG with co-administration. Moreover, the EC mechanism of action, which is related to ovulatory suppression with oral EC, may differ if the implant is initiated with or without oral LNG, impacting efficacy in mid cycle users. This study addresses the following research gaps around use of the ENG implant for EC that serve as barriers to provider comfort with these options: efficacy with and without oral LNG, efficacy differences by BMI, and ovulation frequency with and without oral LNG. The investigators propose a randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority study to determine if the ENG implant alone is no worse than the ENG implant + oral LNG for EC, using a 3.5% non-inferiority margin. The investigators will include clients who present to Planned Parenthood Association of Utah clinics with report of unprotected intercourse within 72 hours who desire EC. Eligible EC clients interested in an implant with a negative pregnancy test will be allocated 1:1 to a study group: (1) ENG implant + oral LNG or (2) ENG implant + placebo. Our experienced research staff will follow up with participants for 4-week efficacy data as primary outcome. Our aims include: (1) To compare the efficacy of the ENG Implant + oral LNG to the ENG Implant + placebo for EC in 790 participants assessed by pregnancy status four weeks after implant placement, (2) To compare pregnancy risk by BMI category (the investigators anticipate half of the 790 participants will have a BMI ≥25) between and within the ENG Implant + oral LNG and the ENG Implant + placebo groups, and (3) To evaluate ovulation frequency within 5 days of insertion of ENG Implant + oral LNG or ENG implant + placebo in 202 participants who are mid cycle (day 7-14 post menses) at time of enrollment assessed by serum progesterone levels and urine fertility monitor results. Our short-term goal is to expand evidence on the efficacy of implant initiation with or without oral LNG to meet the needs of EC clients. Our long-term goals are to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines to inform global contraceptive practices, allow for equity in long acting reversible contraception counseling at the time of EC, and support reproductive autonomy for people to achieve to their life goals.

Interventions

DRUGEtonogestrel implant with Oral Levonorgestrel emergency contraception 1.5mg

Single pill of oral levonorgestrel 1.5mg X 1 dose (e.g. Plan B) same day as contraceptive implant insertion

DEVICEEtonogestrel implant with oral placebo

Single pill of placebo same day as contraceptive implant insertion

Sponsors

Lori Gawron
Lead SponsorOTHER
Planned Parenthood Association of Utah
CollaboratorUNKNOWN

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

The University of Utah Investigational Pharmacy encapsulated oral levonorgestrel and placebo pills and applied a randomization scheme that will not be broken until end of study or at the request of the data safety monitoring board

Intervention model description

Randomized controlled trial of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant randomized to same day oral levonorgestrel or placebo in emergency contraception patients

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Between 18-35 years old * Unprotected intercourse within 72 hours * Biologically capable of pregnancy (intact uterus without prior sterilization surgery * Fluent in English and/or Spanish * Have a regular menstrual cycle (21-35 days) * Known last menstrual period (+/- 3 days) * Working (cell) phone number * Willing to comply with the study requirements * Willing to abstain from any CYP3A4 inducer for 5 days

Exclusion criteria

* Current pregnancy (+urine pregnancy test in clinic) * Breastfeeding * Contraindication to ENG or LNG based on CDC MEC/SPR * Sterilization, hysterectomy, or has an IUD or contraceptive implant in place * Vaginal bleeding of unknown etiology * Previous use of EC in same cycle * Allergy to LNG or ENG * History of intolerance/ side effects with ENG Implant * Current (past 7 days) use of any CYP3A4 inducer * Plan to use any other steroid hormone in the next 4 weeks (testosterone, estrogen, progesterone) * Ended a pregnancy at or under 20 weeks gestational age within last 2 weeks * Ended a pregnancy over 20 weeks gestational age in last 6 weeks * Use of any injectable hormonal contraceptive (Depo-Provera) in the last 15 weeks * Use of any oral EC, contraceptive pills, patches, vaginal rings, or an IUD or Implant in the last 2 weeks

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Efficacy of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant with placebo for emergency contraception1 month after enrollmentPregnancy rate = number of pregnancies / participants in the placebo arm
Efficacy of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant with placebo for emergency contraception by BMI category1 month after enrollmentPregnancy rate = # of pregnancies / participants in the placebo arm stratified by BMI category
Efficacy of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant with oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception1 month after enrollmentPregnancy rate = # of pregnancies / participants in the oral levonorgestrel arm
Efficacy of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant with oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception by BMI category1 month after enrollmentPregnancy rate = # of pregnancies / participants in the oral levonorgestrel arm stratified by BMI category
Ovulation frequency within 5 days of implant insertion in the oral levonorgestrel arm5 days after implant insertionIncidence of ovulation within 5 days after implant insertion measured by urine fertility monitor results and serum progesterone
Ovulation frequency within 5 days of implant insertion in the placebo arm5 days after implant insertionIncidence of ovulation within 5 days after implant insertion measured by urine fertility monitor results and serum progesterone

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Implant continuation4 weeks after insertionParticipants continuing implant use at one month as a proportion of all participants having successful placement of implant at study entry. Measured by probabilities estimated using Kaplan-Meier approach.
Implant satisfaction4 weeks after insertionLikelihood of satisfaction by study group using ordinal regression. Measured by 5-point ordinal scale (5-point ordinal scale: (1) very unsatisfied, (2) unsatisfied, (3) neutral, (4) satisfied, (5) very satisfied). Measured by

Countries

United States

Contacts

CONTACTCorinne Sexsmith, MPH
corinne.sexsmith@hsc.utah.edu801-213-2419
CONTACTSarah Elliott, MPH
sarah.elliott@hsc.utah.edu801-646-7066
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORLori Gawron, MD, MPH

University of Utah

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Jun 3, 2026