Literature DB >> 26969148

Population-based evaluation of the effectiveness of two regimens for emergency contraception.

Vivian W Y Leung1, Judith A Soon1, Larry D Lynd2, Carlo A Marra3, Marc Levine4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel and Yuzpe regimens for hormonal emergency contraception in routine clinical practice.
METHODS: A retrospective population-based study included women who accessed emergency contraceptives for immediate use prescribed by community pharmacists in British Columbia, Canada, between December 2000 and December 2002. Linked administrative healthcare data were used to discern the timings of menses, unprotected intercourse, and any pregnancy-related health services. A panel of experts evaluated the compatibility of observed pregnancies with the timing of events. The two regimens were compared with statistical adjustments for potential confounding.
RESULTS: Among 7493 women in the cohort, 4470 (59.7%) received levonorgestrel and 3023 (40.3%) the Yuzpe regimen. There were 99 (2.2%) compatible pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group and 94 (3.1%) in the Yuzpe group (P=0.017). The estimated odds ratio for levonorgestrel compared with the Yuzpe regimen after adjusting for potential confounders was 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.47-0.87). Against an expected pregnancy rate of approximately 5%, the relative and absolute risk reductions were 56.0% and 2.8%, respectively, for levonorgestrel and 36.7% and 1.8% for the Yuzpe regimen.
CONCLUSION: The levonorgestrel regimen is more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in routine use. The data suggest that both regimens are less effective than has been observed in randomized trials.
Copyright © 2016 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative effectiveness research; Emergency contraception; Emergency contraceptives; Levonorgestrel; Postcoital contraceptives; Pregnancy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26969148     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.10.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet        ISSN: 0020-7292            Impact factor:   3.561


  3 in total

1.  Validating abortion procedure coding in Canadian administrative databases.

Authors:  Saied Samiedaluie; Sandra Peterson; Rollin Brant; Janusz Kaczorowski; Wendy V Norman
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 2.  90 YEARS OF PROGESTERONE: Selective progesterone receptor modulators in gynaecological therapies.

Authors:  H O D Critchley; R R Chodankar
Journal:  J Mol Endocrinol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 5.098

3.  Dispensing and practice use patterns, facilitators and barriers for uptake of ulipristal acetate emergency contraception in British Columbia: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Michelle C Chan; Sarah Munro; Laura Schummers; Arianne Albert; Frannie Mackenzie; Judith A Soon; Parkash Ragsdale; Brian Fitzsimmons; Regina Renner
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2021-11-30
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.