Literature DB >> 22895920

Interventions for emergency contraception.

Linan Cheng1, Yan Che, A Metin Gülmezoglu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve.
OBJECTIVES: To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy. SEARCH
METHODS: The search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, PubMed, Biosis/EMBASE, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (July 2011). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Quality assessment was also done by two review authors independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity a random-effects model was applied. MAIN
RESULTS: One hundred trials with 55,666 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (86/100). Meta-analysis indicated that mid-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) (20 trials; RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92) or low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) (11 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.97) were significantly more effective than levonorgestrel (LNG), but the significance was marginal when only high-quality studies were included (4 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01). Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone (25 trials; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). This difference was not statistically significant when only high-quality trials were considered (6 trials; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10). Ulipristal acetate (UPA) appeared more effective (2 trials; RR 0.63) than LNG at a marginal level (P = 0.09) within 72 hours of intercourse.Regarding effectiveness in relation to the time of administration, women who took LNG within 72 hours of intercourse were significantly less likely to be pregnant than those who took it after 72 hours (4 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84). It was not evident that the coitus-treatment time affected the effectiveness of mifepristone and UPA.Single-dose LNG (1.5 mg) showed similar effectiveness as the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 h apart) (3 trials; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33). This conclusion was not modified by the time elapsed from intercourse to treatment administration.Mifepristone (all doses) (3 trials; RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) and LNG (5 trials; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80) were more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy. One trial compared gestrinone with mifepristone. No significant difference of effectiveness was identified in this trial (996 women; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.76).All methods of EC were safe. Nausea and vomiting occurred with oestrogen-containing EC methods and progestogen and anti-progestogen methods caused changes in subsequent menses. LNG users were more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date, but UPA users were more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) was superior to LNG and Yuzpe regimens. Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) may be more effective than LNG (0.75 mg two doses), but this was not conclusive. UPA may be more effective than LNG. LNG proved to be more effective than the Yuzpe regimen. The copper IUD was the most effective EC method and was the only EC method to provide ongoing contraception if left in situ.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22895920     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  26 in total

1.  Emergency contraception with a copper IUD or oral levonorgestrel: an observational study of 1-year pregnancy rates.

Authors:  David K Turok; Janet C Jacobson; Amna I Dermish; Sara E Simonsen; Shawn Gurtcheff; Molly McFadden; Patricia A Murphy
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  Effectiveness of emergency contraception in women after sexual assault.

Authors:  Dong Seok Choi; Miran Kim; Kyung Joo Hwang; Kyoung Mi Lee; Tae Wook Kong
Journal:  Clin Exp Reprod Med       Date:  2013-09-30

3.  Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.

Authors:  Kimberly A Workowski; Gail A Bolan
Journal:  MMWR Recomm Rep       Date:  2015-06-05

Review 4.  Emergency contraception. Widely available and effective but disappointing as a public health intervention: a review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception: the Bridge-it RCT.

Authors:  Sharon T Cameron; Anna Glasier; Lisa McDaid; Andrew Radley; Susan Patterson; Paula Baraitser; Judith Stephenson; Richard Gilson; Claire Battison; Kathleen Cowle; Thenmalar Vadiveloo; Anne Johnstone; Alessandra Morelli; Beatriz Goulao; Mark Forrest; Alison McDonald; John Norrie
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  Use of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a follow-up study.

Authors:  Aisling Susan Baird; James Trussell; Anne Webb
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2014-05-28

7.  The intrauterine device as emergency contraception: how much do young women know?

Authors:  Suzan R Goodman; Alison M El Ayadi; Corinne H Rocca; Julia E Kohn; Courtney E Benedict; Jessica R Dieseldorff; Cynthia C Harper
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  Same-day intrauterine device placement is rarely complicated by pelvic infection.

Authors:  Melissa Papic; Nan Wang; Sara M Parisi; Erin Baldauf; Glenn Updike; Eleanor Bimla Schwarz
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2014-11-26

9.  "I don't know what I would have done." Women's experiences acquiring ulipristal acetate emergency contraception online from 2011 to 2015.

Authors:  Nicole K Smith; Kelly Cleland; Brandon Wagner; James Trussell
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 3.375

10.  Preference for and efficacy of oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception with concomitant placement of a levonorgestrel IUD: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  David K Turok; Jessica N Sanders; Ivana S Thompson; Pamela A Royer; Jennifer Eggebroten; Lori M Gawron
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.