A randomized trial of mifepristone (10 mg) and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and association between levonorgestrel and ectopic pregnancy

BACKGROUND

The use of levonorgestrel emergency oral contraceptives (EOCs) is one of the factors that may be associated with ectopic pregnancy. We aimed to investigate the incidence of ectopic pregnancy in EOC users and the association between EOCs and ectopic pregnancy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched for articles that provided the incidence of and the association between levonorgestrel EOCs and ectopic pregnancy in women of reproductive ages in CINAHL Complete, Medline, OpenDissertations, Scopus, Science Direct, and Thai Journal Online. The risk of bias was assessed by Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies or Risk of Bias 2. A meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1839 nonredundant articles from the systematic search. The meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of ectopic pregnancy was not statistically different from zero (pooled prevalence estimate = 0.029%; 95%CI: -0.006, 0.065; N = 9; I2 = 0) and rare. In addition, levonorgestrel EOCs increased the risk of ectopic pregnancy (OR = 6.17; 95%CI: 3.78, 10.08; N = 5; I2 = 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with extrauterine or ectopic pregnancy had higher odds of using levonorgestrel emergency oral contraceptives than those with intrauterine pregnancy. However, the prevalence of ectopic pregnancy is rare.

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Emergency contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) refers to several contraceptive options that can be used within a few days after unprotected or under protected intercourse or sexual assault to reduce the risk of pregnancy. Current EC options available in the United States include the copper intrauterine device (IUD), levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg IUD, oral LNG (such as Plan B One-Step, My Way, Take Action), and oral ulipristal acetate (UPA) (ella). These clinical recommendations review the indications, effectiveness, safety, and side effects of emergency contraceptive methods; considerations for the use of EC by specific patient populations and in specific clinical circumstances and current barriers to emergency contraceptive access. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of LNG IUDs for emergency contraceptive use; address the effects of repeated use of UPA at different times in the same menstrual cycle; assess the impact on ovulation of initiating or reinitiating different regimens of regular hormonal contraception following UPA use; and elucidate effective emergency contraceptive pill options by body mass indices or weight.

Clinical Update on Uses for Mifepristone in Obstetrics and Gynecology

IMPORTANCE

Mifepristone (RU-486) is a selective progesterone receptor modulator that has antagonist properties on the uterus and cervix. Mifepristone is an effective abortifacient, prompting limitations on its use in many countries. Mifepristone has many uses outside of induced abortion, but these are less well known and underutilized by clinicians because of challenges in accessing and prescribing this medication.

OBJECTIVES

To provide clinicians with a history of the development of mifepristone and mechanism of action and safety profile, as well as detail current research on uses of mifepristone in both obstetrics and gynecology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search of mifepristone and gynecologic and obstetric conditions was conducted between January 2018 and December 2021. Other resources were also searched, including guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Family Planning.

RESULTS

Mifepristone is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-trimester medication abortion but has other off-label uses in both obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetric uses that have been investigated include management of early pregnancy loss, intrauterine fetal demise, treatment of ectopic pregnancy, and labor induction. Gynecologic uses that have been investigated include contraception, treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding, and as an adjunct in treatment of gynecologic cancers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Mifepristone is a safe and effective medication both for its approved use in first-trimester medication abortion and other off-label uses. Because of its primary use as an abortifacient, mifepristone is underutilized by clinicians. Providers should consider mifepristone for other indications as clinically appropriate.

Case of rupture ectopic pregnancy with emergency contraception levonorgestrel 0.075 mg in a lactating woman

Levonorgestrel emergency contraception (LNG-EC) tends to make uterus unfavorable for implantation but does not prevent embryo implantation. Emergency contraceptives pills should be used with caution among lactating women who at the same time should be monitored closely for ectopic pregnancy.

Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulators-Mechanisms and Therapeutic Utility

Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) are a new class of compounds developed to target the progesterone receptor (PR) with a mix of agonist and antagonist properties. These compounds have been introduced for the treatment of several gynecological conditions based on the critical role of progesterone in reproduction and reproductive tissues. In patients with uterine fibroids, mifepristone and ulipristal acetate have consistently demonstrated efficacy, and vilaprisan is currently under investigation, while studies of asoprisnil and telapristone were halted for safety concerns. Mifepristone demonstrated utility for the management of endometriosis, while data are limited regarding the efficacy of asoprisnil, ulipristal acetate, telapristone, and vilaprisan for this condition. Currently, none of the SPRMs have shown therapeutic success in treating endometrial cancer. Multiple SPRMs have been assessed for efficacy in treating PR-positive recurrent breast cancer, with in vivo studies suggesting a benefit of mifepristone, and multiple in vitro models suggesting the efficacy of ulipristal acetate and telapristone. Mifepristone, ulipristal acetate, vilaprisan, and asoprisnil effectively treated heavy menstrual bleeding (HBM) in patients with uterine fibroids, but limited data exist regarding the efficacy of SPRMs for HMB outside this context. A notable class effect of SPRMs are benign, PR modulator-associated endometrial changes (PAECs) due to the actions of the compounds on the endometrium. Both mifepristone and ulipristal acetate are effective for emergency contraception, and mifepristone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 for the treatment of Cushing's syndrome due to its additional antiglucocorticoid effect. Based on current evidence, SPRMs show considerable promise for treatment of several gynecologic conditions.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Adverse Effects of Levonorgestrel Emergency Oral Contraceptive

INTRODUCTION

The levonorgestrel oral emergency contraceptive is well tolerated and effective, however its use is still limited, mainly due to safety concerns.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize current evidence regarding the adverse events, and their prevalence, reported during the use of oral levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives.

METHODS

Four electronic databases and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Public Dashboard were searched. Studies that reported or investigated safety outcomes or adverse reactions during the use of levonorgestrel as an emergency oral contraceptive were included. Data on study design, demographics of levonorgestrel and the control cohort, and reported adverse effects were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 47 articles were included in this systematic review, from which it was shown that most of the adverse reactions were common and not serious. Uncommon adverse reactions identified included anorexia, ectopic pregnancy, exanthema, chloasma, miscarriage, and weight gain. Multiple serious adverse events, including convulsion, ectopic pregnancy, febrile neutropenia, stroke, abdominal hernia, anaphylaxis, cancer, ovarian cyst rupture, serious infections, and suicidal ideation, were reported. In addition, the prevalence of adverse events after a levonorgestrel 0.75 mg two-dose regimen and a levonorgestrel 1.5 mg single-dose regimen were not statistically different (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The most common adverse effects of levonorgestrel were not serious. This systematic review shows that data regarding the adverse reactions of repeated use of levonorgestrel are scarce. Studies on the multiple uses of levonorgestrel emergency contraception are still required to ensure its safety.

Interventions for emergency contraception

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. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence).Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I² = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I² = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA may be more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

[Emergency contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

OBJECTIVES

Edit, by the French National College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF), recommendations based on the evidence available in the literature for the use in terms of effectiveness, safety and side effects of emergency contraception (EC).

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted by consulting Medline, Cochrane Library and international recommendations in French and English from January 1, 1979 to May 1, 2018.

RESULTS

It is recommended to inform patients that EC is not 100% effective. A pregnancy test is recommended if there is a delay after taking an EC. It is recommended to use EC as soon as possible after the unprotected intercourse. In the absence of long-term contraception, in the first 72hours after unprotected intercourse, ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) may be offered with a superiority of UPA from 0 to 72h. Beyond 72hours, the data suggest a better efficiency of the UPA. However, taking into account practical elements (access to EC, cost, impact on the taking of hormonal contraception after UPA), it is difficult to recommend the UPA as a priority between 0 and 72h. Menstruation is more likely to happen early with LNG. The copper IUD is an effective method that can be used in EC until 120hours after unprotected intercourse or when there is a risk of contraceptive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

EC is not 100% effective. The closer the intake of EC with the unprotected intercourse, the more effective is the EC in terms of pregnancy rate.

State of emergency contraception in the U.S., 2018

Emergency contraception is indicated in instances of unprotected sexual intercourse, including reproductive coercion, sexual assault, and contraceptive failure. It plays a role in averting unintended pregnancies due to inconsistent use or non-use of contraception. Options for emergency contraception vary by efficacy as well as accessibility within the U.S. This paper provides an overview of levonorgestrel (Plan B One-Step and generic counterparts), ulipristal acetate (sold as ella), and the copper intrauterine device (IUD, sold as ParaGard), including the mechanisms of action, administration, efficacy, drug interactions, safety, side effects, advantages, and drawbacks. It will also review current misconceptions about emergency contraception and access for subpopulations, including adolescents, immigrants, survivors of sexual assault, rural populations, and military/veteran women. This paper will address barriers such as gaps in knowledge, and financial, health systems, and practice barriers. Continuing areas of research, including the impact of body weight on the efficacy of emergency contraceptive pills and potential interactions between ulipristal acetate and ongoing hormonal contraceptives, are also addressed.

Interventions for emergency contraception

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. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency. Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence). Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I2 = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I2 = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA was more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Practice Bulletin No. 152: Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception, also known as postcoital contraception, is therapy used to prevent pregnancy after an unprotected or inadequately protected act of sexual intercourse. Common indications for emergency contraception include contraceptive failure (eg, condom breakage or missed doses of oral contraceptives) and failure to use any form of contraception (). Although oral emergency contraception was first described in the medical literature in the 1960s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first dedicated product for emergency contraception in 1998. Since then, several new products have been introduced. Methods of emergency contraception include oral administration of combined estrogen-progestin, progestin only, or selective progesterone receptor modulators and insertion of a copper intrauterine device (IUD). Many women are unaware of the existence of emergency contraception, misunderstand its use and safety, or do not use it when a need arises (). The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of available methods of emergency contraception and to increase awareness of these methods among obstetrician-gynecologists and other gynecologic providers.

Emergency contraception: What is new?

Unintended pregnancy rates remain high throughout the World and increase the risk of poor maternal and infant outcomes. Most of unintended pregnancies occur in women who were not using contraception or who became pregnant despite the reported use of contraception. Women who have had recent unprotected intercourse including those who have had another form of contraception fail are potential candidates for this intervention. Currently used emergency contraceptive methods are pills that contain combined estrogen-progesterone, only progestin, antiprogestins and copper intrauterine devices. The most common form of this type of contraception is oral progestin-only pills (levonorgestrel). The most effective method is copper intrauterine devices followed by anti-progestins and oral progestin-only pills. The major pathogenesis of oral emergency contraceptives is the prevention or delay of ovulation. Although conception is possible on only a few days of the cycle, emergency contraception is offered when indicated without regard to the timing of the menstrual cycle because of uncertainty in the timing of the ovulation. Levonorgestrel and E/P regimes are most effective as soon as possible after unprotected sexual intercourse. A linear relationship has been shown between effectiveness and the time of dose. The effectiveness continues for 120 h, but it is recommended to be used within 72 h after intercourse. Intrauterine devices may prevent pregnancy when 5 d after ovulation.

Safety data for levonorgestrel, ulipristal acetate and Yuzpe regimens for emergency contraception

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide recommendations for use of emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), including levonorgestrel (LNG) and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). A new ECP formulation, ulipristal acetate (UPA), is now available worldwide. To determine whether LNG, UPA or COC (Yuzpe) ECPs are safe for women with certain characteristics or medical conditions, we searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published from date of inception until May 2015 pertaining to the safety of LNG, UPA or Yuzpe ECP use. For direct evidence, we considered studies that looked at safety outcomes among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics taking ECPs compared with women not taking ECPs. For indirect evidence, we considered studies that reported pharmacokinetic (PK) data for ECP use among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics and studies that reported safety outcomes among healthy women taking ECPs. Five studies provided direct evidence; of these five studies, four examined LNG or Yuzpe use among pregnant or breastfeeding women, and one reported risk of ectopic pregnancy among women repeatedly using LNG ECPs. Poor pregnancy outcomes were rare among pregnant women who used LNG or Yuzpe ECPs during the conception cycle or early pregnancy. Breastfeeding outcomes did not differ between women exposed to LNG ECP and those unexposed, and there was no increased risk of ectopic pregnancy versus intrauterine pregnancy after repeated use of LNG ECPs compared with nonuse. Forty-five studies provided indirect evidence. One PK study demonstrated that LNG passes into breastmilk but in minimal quantities. In addition, nine studies examined pregnancy outcomes following ECP failure among healthy women, and 35 articles reported adverse events. Studies suggest that serious adverse events are rare among women taking any of these ECP formulations.

IMPLICATIONS

Evidence on safety of ECPs among women with characteristics or medical conditions listed within WHO and CDC family planning guidance is limited. However, both direct and indirect evidence for our study question did not suggest any special safety concerns for the use of ECPs among women with particular medical conditions or personal characteristics, such as pregnancy, lactation or frequent ECP use.

Reduced prevalence of chronic tubal inflammation in tubal pregnancies after levonorgestrel emergency contraception failure

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare chronic fallopian tubal inflammatory disease and fibrosis between patients with general tubal pregnancy (TP) and TP with levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied patients with general TP (n = 79) and TP following LNG-EC failure (n = 81) within the same conception cycle. Information on the gynecological features of each subject was collected. Pelvic inflammatory disease and associated sequelae were assessed by the serum Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) IgG test, laparoscopic evaluation of tubal damage, and histopathological observation of tube tissues. Chi-square and Student's t-tests were employed to determine the difference between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with general TP, cases of TP following LNG-EC failure subjects were less likely to have a history of previous ectopic pregnancy (5.06% vs. 18.52%, p = 0.009) and adnexal surgery (6.33% vs. 22.22%, p = 0.010). Patients with TP following LNG-EC failure were less likely to have pelvic inflammatory disease and associated sequelae than those with general TP, as revealed by positive reaction to anti-CT IgG (18.18% vs. 35.94%, p = 0.031), assessment of tubal damage (grade I: 5.06% vs. 17.28%; grade II: 2.53% vs. 11.11%; grade III: 1.27% vs. 6.17%; p = 0.001), infiltration of chronic inflammatory cells (10.91% vs. 62.50%, p < 0.001), and positive Masson's staining (7.69% vs. 39.58%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with cases of general TP, cases of TP following LNG-EC failure exhibited reduced rates of CT infection, fallopian tubal inflammation, and/or fibrosis.

Association between levonorgestrel emergency contraception and the risk of ectopic pregnancy: a multicenter case-control study

Cases of ectopic pregnancy (EP) following levonorgestrel emergency contraception (LNG-EC) failure have been reported continuously, but whether there is an association between EP risk and LNG-EC is unclear. We concluded a case-control study to explore this association by recruiting 2,411 EP patients as case group, and 2,416 women with intrauterine pregnancy and 2,419 non-pregnant women as control groups. Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidential intervals (CIs) were calculated and adjusted for potential confounding factors. Previous use of LNG-EC was not correlated with the EP. Compared to women who did not use contraceptives, current use of LNG-EC reduced the risk for intrauterine pregnancy (Adjusted OR [AOR] = 0.20, 95%CI: 0.14-0.27), but did not increase the risk for EP (AOR2 = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.76-1.42). Furthermore, compared to women who did not have further act of intercourse, women with unprotected further act of intercourse were at a higher risk of EP (AOR1 = 2.35, 95%CI: 1.17-4.71), and women with repeated use of LNG-EC for further intercourse during the same cycle was also associated with a higher risk for EP (AOR1 = 3.08, 95%CI: 1.09-8.71; AOR2 = 2.49, 95%CI: 1.00-6.19). A better understanding of the risk of EP following LNG-EC failure can optimize LNG-EC use and thus reduce the risk of EP.

Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception

There has been much debate regarding levonorgestrel emergency contraception's (LNG-EC's) method of action since 1999 when the Food and Drug Administration first approved its use. Proponents of LNG-EC have argued that they have moral certitude that LNG-EC works via a non-abortifacient mechanism of action, and claim that all the major scientific and medical data consistently support this hypothesis. However, newer medical data serve to undermine the consistency of the non-abortifacient hypothesis and instead support the hypothesis that preovulatory administration of LNG-EC has significant potential to work via abortion. The implications of the newer data have important ramifications for medical personnel, patients, and both Catholic and non-Catholic emergency room protocols. In the future, technology such as the use of early pregnancy factor may have the potential to quantify how frequently preovulatory LNG-EC works via abortion. Lay Summary: How Plan B (levonorgestrel emergency contraception) works has been vigorously debated ever since the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 1999. Many doctors and researchers claim that it has either no-or at most-an extremely small chance of working via abortion. However, the latest scientific and medical evidence now demonstrates that levonorgestrel emergency contraception theoretically works via abortion quite often. The implications of the newer data have important ramifications for medical personnel, patients, and both Catholic and non-Catholic emergency room rape protocols.

Mifepristone 5 mg versus 10 mg for emergency contraception: double-blind randomized clinical trial

Purpose

To estimate the efficacy and safety of 5 mg and 10 mg mifepristone for emergency contraception up to 144 hours after unprotected coitus.

Methods

This double-blind randomized clinical trial was carried out at Eusebio Hernandez Hospital (Havana, Cuba). A total of 2,418 women who requested emergency contraception after unprotected coitus received either 5 mg or 10 mg mifepristone. The variables for assessing efficacy were the pregnancies that occurred and the fraction of pregnancies that were prevented. Other variables assessed were the side effects of mifepristone, vaginal bleeding, and changes in the date of the following menstruation.

Results

There were 15/1,206 (1.2%) and 9/1,212 (0.7%) pregnancies in the 5 mg and 10 mg group, respectively (P=0.107). There were 88% and 93% prevented pregnancies in the 5 mg and un ≥7 days was experienced by 4.9% and 11.0% of subjects in the 5 mg and 10 mg group, respectively (P=0.001). There was a significant high failure rate for women weighing >75 kg in the 5 mg group.

Conclusion

It would be advisable to use the 10 mg dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception as there was a trend suggesting that the failure rate of the larger dose was lower.

Contraceptive Use and the Risk of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Multi-Center Case-Control Study

Objective

To evaluate the association between the risk of ectopic pregnancy (EP) and the use of common contraceptives during the previous and current conception/menstrual cycle.

Methods

A multi-center case-control study was conducted in Shanghai. Women diagnosed with EP were recruited as the case group (n = 2,411). Women with intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) (n = 2,416) and non-pregnant women (n = 2,419) were matched as controls at a ratio of 1∶1. Information regarding the previous and current use of contraceptives was collected. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidential intervals (CIs).

Results

Previous use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) was associated with a slight risk of ectopic pregnancy (AOR₁ = 1.87 [95% CI: 1.48–2.37]; AOR₂ = 1.84 [1.49–2.27]), and the risk increased with the duration of previous use (P₁ for trend <10⁻⁴, P₂ for trend <10⁻⁴). The current use of most contraceptives reduced the risk of both unwanted IUP (condom: AOR = 0.04 [0.03–0.05]; withdrawal method: AOR = 0.10 [0.07–0.13]; calendar rhythm method: AOR = 0.54 [0.40–0.73]; oral contraceptive pills [OCPs]: AOR = 0.03 [0.02–0.08]; levonorgestrel emergency contraception [LNG-EC]: AOR = 0.22 [0.16–0.30]; IUDs: AOR = 0.01 [0.005–0.012]; tubal sterilization: AOR = 0.01 [0.001–0.022]) and unwanted EP (condom: AOR₁ = 0.05 [0.04–0.06]; withdrawal method: AOR₁ = 0.13 [0.09–0.19]; calendar rhythm method: AOR₁ = 0.66 [0.48–0.91]; OCPs: AOR₁ = 0.14 [0.07–0.26]; IUDs: AOR₁ = 0.17 [0.13–0.22]; tubal sterilization: AOR₁ = 0.04 [0.02–0.08]). However, when contraception failed and pregnancy occurred, current use of OCPs (AOR₂ = 4.06 [1.64–10.07]), LNG-EC (AOR₂ = 4.87 [3.88–6.10]), IUDs (AOR₂ = 21.08 [13.44–33.07]), and tubal sterilization (AOR₂ = 7.68 [1.69–34.80]) increased the risk of EP compared with the non-use of contraceptives.

Conclusion

Current use of most contraceptives reduce the risk of both IUP and EP. However, if the contraceptive method fails, the proportions of EP may be higher than those of non-users. In the case of contraceptive failure in the current cycle, EP cases should be differentiated according to current use of OCPs, LNG-EC, IUDs, and tubal sterilization. In addition, attention should be paid to women with previous long-term use of IUDs.

Recent advances in contraception

Focusing on intrauterine contraceptives (IUC), contraceptive implants, and emergency contraceptives, we review recent advances in contraceptive development and discuss progress in policies to improve access to the most effective methods. We report on the shift in practice towards routinely providing IUCs and implants to young and nulliparous women, prompted in part by the reduced diameter of the insertion tube for the Mirena IUC and the development of a smaller IUC called Skyla. Additionally, we describe the new SCu300A intrauterine ball and the development of an implant called Nexplanon, which comes with a preloaded inserter. We also discuss the efficacy of ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception, especially for women who weigh more than 75 kg. Finally, in light of the increasing interest in providing IUCs and implants to women in the immediate postpartum and post-abortion periods, we consider the rationale for this change in practice and review the progress that has been made so far in the United States.

Prevention of unintended pregnancy: a focus on long-acting reversible contraception

This article summarizes the literature regarding the epidemiology and prevention of unintended pregnancy in the United States. Because of the Affordable Care Act and its accompanying contraceptive provision, there is a need for more primary care clinicians to provide family planning services. Office-based interventions to incorporate family planning services in primary care are presented, including clinical tools and electronic health record use. Special attention is paid to long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (the subdermal implant and intrauterine devices); these highly effective and safe methods have the greatest potential to decrease the rate of unintended pregnancy, but have been underused.

A review of global access to emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception has been known for several decades, and dedicated products have been on the market for close to 20 years. Yet it is unclear whether women, particularly in low-resource countries, have access to this important second-chance method of contraception.

OBJECTIVES

To review relevant policies, regulations, and other factors related to access to emergency contraception worldwide.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A wide range of gray literature was reviewed, several specific studies were commissioned, and a number of online databases were searched.

MAIN RESULTS

Several positive policies and regulations are in place: emergency contraception products are registered in the majority of countries around the world, listed in many countries' essential medicines lists, included in widely used guidance, and supported by most donors. Yet analysis of demographic data shows that the majority of women in low-income countries have never heard of emergency contraception, and surveys find that many providers have negative attitudes toward providing emergency contraception.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more than a decade of concerted international and country-level efforts to ensure that women have access to emergency contraception, accessibility remains limited.

Expressions of candidate molecules in the human fallopian tube and chorionic villi of tubal pregnancy exposed to levonorgestrel emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Cases of ectopic pregnancy (EP) following levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) failure were reported, however, the effects of LNG on tubal microenvironment or chorionic villi in EP have not yet been documented.

METHODS

Fifty-five women with tubal pregnancy were divided into two groups according to whether LNG-EC was administrated during the cycle of conception. The serum concentrations of beta-hCG, E2 and P were measured. The mRNA and protein expressions of estrogen and progesterone receptors, leukemia inhibitory factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and endocannabinoid receptor - CB1 in the ectopic implantation site and chorionic villi were examined.

RESULTS

Compared to those unexposed to LNG-EC, women with tubal pregnancy exposed to LNG-EC during the cycle of conception had no statistically significances in the serum concentrations of beta-hCG, E2 P, nor in the pathological types of tubal pregnancy or the expressions of ER-alpha, PR, LIF, VEGF, iNOS and CB1.

CONCLUSIONS

The expressions of candidate molecules in the fallopian tube and chorionic villi were not altered by exposure to LNG-EC. A routine therapy with no additional intervention might thus be applied to tubal pregnancy exposed to LNG-EC.

Emergency contraception

This review will focus on the available methods for emergency contraception (EC), efficacy, side effects and mechanisms of action. Copper intrauterine device (IUD) has been shown to be the most effective method for EC which can be continually used for regular contraception. However, this possibility is seldom used and may be little known. Among the hormonal EC methods 1.5 mg levonorgestrel is the most widely used EC pill while the more recently developed Ulipristal acetate (UPA) has been shown to be the most effective option. This is probably due to a more pronounced prevention of follicular rupture compared with other hormonal EC methods. Knowledge is needed to better advise lactating women and obese women on optimal EC method. Furthermore a possible interaction of UPA with regular hormonal contraception and possibilities for "bridging" from EC to regular contraception needs to be explored. To increase efficacy future studies should focus on EC methods that target the endometrium.

Ulipristal blocks ovulation by inhibiting progesterone receptor-dependent pathways intrinsic to the ovary

Ulipristal acetate (UPA), a progesterone receptor (PR) modulator, is used as an emergency contraceptive in women. Here, using a mouse model, we investigated the mechanism of action of UPA as an ovulation blocker. In mice, ovulation is induced ~12 hours following the treatment with exogenous gonadotropins, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which mimics the action of luteinizing hormone (LH). When administered within 6 hours of hCG treatment, UPA is a potent blocker of ovulation. However, UPA's effectiveness declined significantly when it was given at 8 hours post hCG. Our study revealed that, when administered within 6 hours of hCG, UPA blocks ovulation by inhibiting PR-dependent pathways intrinsic to the ovary. At 8 hours post hCG, when the PR signaling has already occurred, UPA is unable to block ovulation efficiently. Collectively, these results indicated that UPA, when administered within a critical time window following the LH surge, blocks PR-dependent pathways in the ovary to function as an effective antiovulatory contraceptive.

Interventions for emergency contraception

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.

The immninent dawn of SPRMs in obstetrics and gynecology

Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) have been developed since the late 70s when mifepristone was first described. They act through nuclear progesterone receptors and can have agonist or mixed agonist antagonist actions depending on the cell and tissue. Mifepristone has unique major antagonist properties allowing its use for pregnancy termination. Ulipristal acetate has been marketed in 2009 for emergency contraception and has been recently approved for preoperative myoma treatment. Further perspectives for SPRMs use include long term estrogen free contraception, endometriosis treatment. However long term applications will be possible only after confirmation of endometrial safety.

A pilot study to assess candidacy for emergency contraception and interest in sexual health education in a pediatric emergency department population

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess potential candidacy for hormonal emergency contraception (EC) and desire for sexual health education among female adolescents presenting for care to a pediatric emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We used an anonymous, cross-sectional, written survey of girls aged 15 to 19 years seeking care in an urban, children's hospital ED. The survey included questions about personal sexual history and desire for sexual health education about sexually transmitted infections and contraception options.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four patients were eligible for participation; 77 (57%) consented and completed the survey. The mean age was 16.6 years. Fifty-six percent reported ever having had sexual intercourse. Of those, 6 (14%; confidence interval, 5%-28%) stated that they had unprotected sexual intercourse within the previous 5 days. When asked about their interest in sexual health education in the ED, 48% of all subjects wanted information about sexually transmitted infections, 36% wanted information about HIV, and 34% wanted information about preventing pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Among sexually active adolescents seeking care in an urban, children's hospital ED, a significant proportion could potentially utilize EC if they so chose. Furthermore, adolescents with and without a history of sexual activity expressed interest in learning about sexual health issues in the ED setting.

Ectopic pregnancy and emergency contraceptive pills: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the existing data to estimate the rate of ectopic pregnancy among emergency contraceptive pill treatment failures.

DATA SOURCES

Our initial reference list was generated from a 2008 Cochrane review of emergency contraception. In August 2009, we searched Biosys Previews, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Global Health Database, Health Source: Popline, and Wanfang Data (a Chinese database).

METHODS

This study included data from 136 studies, which followed a defined population of women treated one time with emergency contraceptive pills (either mifepristone or levonorgestrel) and in which the number and location of pregnancies were ascertained.

RESULTS

Data from each article were abstracted independently by two reviewers. In the studies of mifepristone, 3 of 494 (0.6%) pregnancies were ectopic; in the levonorgestrel studies, 3 of 307 (1%) were ectopic.

CONCLUSION

The rate of ectopic pregnancy when treatment with emergency contraceptive pills fails does not exceed the rate observed in the general population. Because emergency contraceptive pills are effective in lowering the risk of pregnancy, their use will reduce the chance that an act of intercourse will result in ectopic pregnancy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Mifepristone: pharmacology and clinical impact in reproductive medicine, endocrinology and oncology

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Mifepristone is a synthetic selective progesterone-receptor modulator (SPRM) that is widely used around the globe in the field of reproductive medicine. At present mifepristone is approved in a number of countries for early termination of pregnancy (TOP), cervical dilatation before surgical TOP, and management of early embryonic loss or fetal death. A number of new clinical applications are being developed in gynecology, endocrinology and oncology. Mifepristone has also served as an invaluable tool in the study of steroid hormone biology.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

Current indications for mifepristone are reviewed. New applications for mifepristone under clinical investigation are discussed. In addition, the unique molecular and cellular effects of mifepristone are described.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will understand the mechanisms of action of mifepristone and the underlying steroid hormone biology. The reader will know the approved clinical indications for mifepristone and appreciate the ongoing basic and clinical research into new applications.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Mifepristone is the first-discovered and still most widely used antiprogestin. It has several indications in reproductive medicine and is under investigation for a variety of potential applications in other fields of medicine. The molecular and cellular effects of mifepristone illuminate important aspects of steroid hormone biology.

Understanding contraceptive failure

Contraceptive failure is a major source of unintended pregnancy. This chapter will review sources of data and measurement of contraceptive failure, summarize results from the literature on the risks of contraceptive failure during typical and perfect use for available methods of contraception, provide a tool for communicating risks of contraceptive failure to clients, examine determinants of contraceptive failure, and identify methodological pitfalls in the published literature.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for emergency contraception. Information on the comparative efficacy, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive health care providers and the women they serve.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which emergency contraceptive method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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 (December 2006). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for emergency contraception 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 reviewers. Quality assessment was also done by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as relative risk (RR) using a fixed-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity a random-effect model was applied.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-one trials with 45,842 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (70/81). There were more pregnancies with levonorgestrel compared to mid-dose (25-50 mg) (15 trials, RR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.27 to 3.17) or low-dose mifepristone (<25 mg) (9 trials, RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.01). Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose (20 trials, RR:0.67; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.92), but this effect was no longer statistically significant when only high quality trials were considered (6 trials, RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.10). Single dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) administration seemed to have similar effectiveness as the standard 12 hours apart split-dose (0.75 mg twice) (2 trials, 3830 women; RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.30). Levonorgestrel was more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy (2 trials, RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.83). CDB-2914 (a second-generation progesterone receptor modulator) may be as effective as levonorgestrel (1 trial, 1549 women; RR:1.89; 95% CI: 0.75 to 4.64) but the confidence interval is wide and the result compatible with higher or lower effectiveness. Delay in the onset of subsequent menses was the main unwanted effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone middle dose (25-50 mg) was superior to other hormonal regimens. Mifepristone low dose (<25 mg) could be more effective than levonorgestrel 0.75 mg (two doses) but this was not conclusive. Levonorgestrel proved more effective than the Yuzpe regimen. The copper IUD was another effective emergency contraceptive that can provide ongoing contraception.

Emergency contraception in Cuba with 10 mg of mifepristone

BACKGROUND

Mifepristone in a dose of 10 mg is an effective emergency contraceptive when administered up to 120 hours after unprotected coitus.

METHODS

Between May 2003 and February 2005, we conducted in Cuba a single-arm trial to evaluate the effectiveness of 10 mg mifepristone for emergency contraception up to 6 days after unprotected coitus. A total of 635 women who requested emergency contraception after a single act of unprotected intercourse were included in the study.

RESULTS

After treatment there were 7/635 (1.1%) pregnancies (95% CI 0.4-2.3%). Pregnancy that might have occurred was prevented in 88.0% of the cases (95% CI 77.1-95.1%). The most common side effects reported by participants were fatigue (10.7%), dizziness (6.1%) and nausea (4.9%); vomiting was only reported by 0.6%. In 38/635 (6.0%) women menstruation was delayed more than 7 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone 10 mg administered is an effective emergency contraceptive with an acceptable profile of side effects up to five days, but greater studies are necessary to verify its efficacy up to 6 days after unprotected intercourse.

Emergency contraception under attack in Latin America: response of the medical establishment and civil society

The concept that it is possible to prevent a pregnancy after coitus is not new, but has gained prominence over the last 10-15 years. It provides a second chance to women who do not want to get pregnant and who, voluntarily or not, have had unprotected intercourse. Emergency contraception has been under strong attack by the Catholic church and anti-choice organisations in Latin America, who claim that the interference with implantation of the fertilised ovum is equivalent to an early abortion. The accumulation of evidence, however, is that the mechanism of action of emergency contraception is to prevent ovulation and that it does not interfere with implantation. This has been ignored by the anti-choice movement. The pattern of opposition to emergency contraception has been the same all over the Latin America region. The medical establishment and civil society, including the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception, have played a key role in defending access to emergency contraception throughout the region. A positive consequence of the public opposition of the Catholic church is that the concept and the method have become better known, and emergency contraception has become widely used. The cases of Peru, Brazil and Chile are described as examples.

Need for emergency contraception in urgent care settings

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraceptive (EC) pills are safe and effective in preventing pregnancy up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to determine the proportion and characteristics of women seeking urgent care who might benefit from receiving EC.

METHODS

We used a computerized survey to assess desire for pregnancy and frequency of sex without contraception among 360 fertile women aged 18 to 45 years, who were seeking urgent care at two clinics in San Francisco, CA. Medical records were abstracted to assess whether clinicians discussed contraception.

RESULTS

At both clinics, 11% (95% confidence interval, 8-15%) of women seeking urgent care might have benefited from immediately using EC. Few (8%) women reported a personal objection to EC, but few (7%) women had used EC in the prior 6 months. Chart review showed no evidence that any participants discussed EC with a clinician during their visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Many women presenting for urgent care might benefit from EC.

Effect of single administration of levonorgestrel on the menstrual cycle

BACKGROUND

Levonorgestrel (LNG) 1.5 mg administered within 72 h of unprotected coitus is an established method of emergency contraception. Currently, there is some, although incomplete, knowledge about the mechanism of action.

METHODS

We administered 1.5 mg LNG peri-ovulatory to determine the effects on serum gonadotrophins, estradiol and progesterone levels. Fourteen women were studied in a pretreatment and treatment cycle; eight women (Group A) took LNG 3 days before the expected day of ovulation, while 6 (Group B) took LNG a day before the expected day of ovulation.

RESULTS

The women in Group A had a significant delay in their LH peak and onset of the next menses compared with their pretreatment cycles (26.4 vs. 39.1 days, p<.05). Those in Group B had no significant changes in the endocrine parameters but there was a significant shortening of the mean cycle length in comparison with their pretreatment cycles (25.1 vs. 20.2 days).

CONCLUSION

Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg acts as an emergency contraception by delaying the LH surge and interfering with ovulation. It may also disrupt corpus luteum formation causing premature luteinization of unruptured follicles.