P W Ashok1, H Hamoda, G M M Flett, A Templeton. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Foresterhill, Cornhill Road, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, United Kingdom. ogy159@abdn.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare side effects, women's acceptance and satisfaction with mifepristone (100 mg) versus the Yuzpe regimen for emergency contraception (EC). METHODS: A total of 1000 women requesting EC within 72 h of unprotected intercourse were randomized to receive mifepristone 100 mg or the standard Yuzpe regimen. Outcome measures included patient acceptability and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 620 (62%) questionnaires were returned, 64% in the mifepristone group and 60% in the Yuzpe group. Mifepristone was better tolerated than the Yuzpe regimen. The rates of nausea (P<0.0001), abdominal pain (P=0.001), tiredness (P<0.0001), lethargy (P=0.001), hot flushes (P<0.0001) and dizziness (P<0.0001) were all significantly higher in women given the Yuzpe regimen compared to those who received mifepristone. Of these 94% and 80% in the mifepristone and Yuzpe groups, respectively, were satisfied with treatment (P<0.0001). Of women in the mifepristone group, 56% (181/321) had used the Yuzpe regimen of EC in the past and of these, 93.6% (161/172) indicated they would use mifepristone in the future. A total of four women in the Yuzpe group had mifepristone in the past and all four said they would use mifepristone in the future. CONCLUSION:Mifepristone has high patient acceptability and few side effects compared to the standard Yuzpe regimen for EC.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare side effects, women's acceptance and satisfaction with mifepristone (100 mg) versus the Yuzpe regimen for emergency contraception (EC). METHODS: A total of 1000 women requesting EC within 72 h of unprotected intercourse were randomized to receive mifepristone 100 mg or the standard Yuzpe regimen. Outcome measures included patient acceptability and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 620 (62%) questionnaires were returned, 64% in the mifepristone group and 60% in the Yuzpe group. Mifepristone was better tolerated than the Yuzpe regimen. The rates of nausea (P<0.0001), abdominal pain (P=0.001), tiredness (P<0.0001), lethargy (P=0.001), hot flushes (P<0.0001) and dizziness (P<0.0001) were all significantly higher in women given the Yuzpe regimen compared to those who received mifepristone. Of these 94% and 80% in the mifepristone and Yuzpe groups, respectively, were satisfied with treatment (P<0.0001). Of women in the mifepristone group, 56% (181/321) had used the Yuzpe regimen of EC in the past and of these, 93.6% (161/172) indicated they would use mifepristone in the future. A total of four women in the Yuzpe group had mifepristone in the past and all four said they would use mifepristone in the future. CONCLUSION:Mifepristone has high patient acceptability and few side effects compared to the standard Yuzpe regimen for EC.