Randomised controlled trial assessing the acceptability of GyneFix versus Gyne-T380S for emergency contraception

To assess insertion-linked pain and the short-term user-acceptability and safety of the GyneFix as compared with T-framed intrauterine devices (IUDs).

A randomised controlled trial in an outpatient clinic setting.

Women requesting an IUD for emergency contraception (EC) were allocated to either the short-term arm (GyneFix versus Nova-T200, or the long-term arm (GyneFix versus Gyne-T380S, and then randomised within each group. Visual analogue scores were used to assess the women's perception of the pain associated with insertion, which was patient-blinded. Follow-up was double-blinded, at 6 weeks, with bleeding and pain recorded over this time.

A total of 175 women received an IUD in the long-term arm. The short-term arm was discontinued due to low recruitment (17 women at 20 months) and therefore the results relate to the long-term arm only. Outcome was known in 98% of subjects. The actual insertion procedure was scored as more painful for the GyneFix, both by the women (p = 0.013) and the doctors making their assessment of the women's pain (p = 0.04). The women with GyneFix described less pain in the subsequent 30 days after insertion (p = 0.005). Only 13% of women with GyneFix requested removal as compared with 20% with Gyne-T380S, with the difference being attributed to removal due to pain. The bleeding pattern was similar for those using GyneFix and Gyne-T380S.

Our study suggests that although the actual fitting may be more painful, pain is less during the 6 weeks after insertion of GyneFix and fewer women discontinue its use because of pain, as compared with Gyne-T380S. The high overall continuation rate of all emergency IUDs at 6 weeks and low morbidity seen in this study favours more frequent IUD insertion where unprotected intercourse has occurred, given also its higher efficacy over oral hormonal EC.