Literature DB >> 24869461

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

Aisling Susan Baird1, James Trussell2, Anne Webb3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Previously we showed that increasing the choice of emergency contraception (EC) guided by medical eligibility did not result in wholesale large-scale usage of ulipristal acetate (UPA). This further 12-month study aimed to answer three questions. (1) Does offering choice of EC lead to change in methods used? (2) Are women who choose UPA more likely than those who choose levonorgestrel (LNG) to continue using condoms for subsequent contraception or to decline any ongoing contraception? (3) Do more women choosing LNG 'quick start' hormonal contraception?
METHODS: A retrospective study of EC episodes (1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013) by quarters. Among women offered all three methods of EC (49.1%) we noted the method chosen, and decisions on ongoing contraception among those choosing either LNG or UPA. Differences were tested for statistical significance.
RESULTS: In 6110 episodes of EC, LNG was issued in 69.2%, UPA in 26.0%, and a copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) was fitted in 4.8%. Quarter by quarter, the data show a small decline in LNG use, suggesting plateauing by the last quarter, and a significant increase in UPA use between the first and the other three quarters (p<0.001). Use of the Cu-IUD remained static. The percentage of women offered three methods rose to 54.2%. In women offered full choice (3000; 49.1%) we saw a significant increase in choice of UPA, from 39.3% to 48.6% (p<0.001). Women who chose LNG were more likely to quick start (p=0.02) or be continuing contraception already used (p<0.001). Overall, those choosing UPA were more likely to use condoms (p<0.001) but were no more likely to decline ongoing contraception (p=0.13).
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in women using UPA for EC compared with our previous study, particularly among those wishing to use condoms for continuing contraception. Women choosing LNG were more likely to quick start pills or to continue current hormonal contraception. Detailed attention to continuing contraception following EC may be an important factor in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  emergency contraception

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24869461      PMCID: PMC4247351          DOI: 10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care        ISSN: 1471-1893


  12 in total

1.  Estimating the efficacy of emergency contraception--how reliable are the data?

Authors:  Alex Stirling; Anna Glasier
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  An emergency contraception algorithm based on risk assessment: changes in clinicians' practice and patients' choices.

Authors:  Rebecca Jayne McKay; Lynne Gilbert
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2013-02-21

Review 3.  Advance supply of emergency contraception: a systematic review.

Authors:  Maria I Rodriguez; Kathryn M Curtis; Mary Lyn Gaffield; Emily Jackson; Nathalie Kapp
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Ulipristal acetate prevents ovulation more effectively than levonorgestrel: analysis of pooled data from three randomized trials of emergency contraception regimens.

Authors:  Vivian Brache; Leila Cochon; Maëva Deniaud; Horacio B Croxatto
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anna F Glasier; Sharon T Cameron; Paul M Fine; Susan J S Logan; William Casale; Jennifer Van Horn; Laszlo Sogor; Diana L Blithe; Bruno Scherrer; Henri Mathe; Amelie Jaspart; Andre Ulmann; Erin Gainer
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Interventions for emergency contraception.

Authors:  Linan Cheng; Yan Che; A Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-08-15

7.  The timing of the "fertile window" in the menstrual cycle: day specific estimates from a prospective study.

Authors:  A J Wilcox; D Dunson; D D Baird
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-11-18

8.  Is it worth paying more for emergency hormonal contraception? The cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg.

Authors:  Christine M Thomas; Ramona Schmid; Sharon Cameron
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2010-10

Review 9.  Emergency contraception: clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Anna Glasier
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 3.375

10.  The price of emergency contraception in the United States: what is the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus single-dose levonorgestrel?

Authors:  Lisa L Bayer; Alison B Edelman; Aaron B Caughey; Maria I Rodriguez
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  1 in total

1.  Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It): a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial.

Authors:  Sharon T Cameron; Anna Glasier; Lisa McDaid; Andrew Radley; Paula Baraitser; Judith Stephenson; Richard Gilson; Claire Battison; Kathleen Cowle; Mark Forrest; Beatriz Goulao; Anne Johnstone; Alessandra Morelli; Susan Patterson; Alison McDonald; Thenmalar Vadiveloo; John Norrie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 202.731

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.