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

U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024

The 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by persons who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25-27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016:65[No. RR-3]:1-103). Notable updates include 1) the addition of recommendations for persons with chronic kidney disease; 2) revisions to the recommendations for persons with certain characteristics or medical conditions (i.e., breastfeeding, postpartum, postabortion, obesity, surgery, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism with or without anticoagulant therapy, thrombophilia, superficial venous thrombosis, valvular heart disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, high risk for HIV infection, cirrhosis, liver tumor, sickle cell disease, solid organ transplantation, and drug interactions with antiretrovirals used for prevention or treatment of HIV infection); and 3) inclusion of new contraceptive methods, including new doses or formulations of combined oral contraceptives, contraceptive patches, vaginal rings, progestin-only pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and vaginal pH modulator. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

Postnatal Care: A Comparative Review of Guidelines

Importance

Postnatal care refers to the ongoing health care provision of both the mother and her offspring and contributes to the timely identification and effective management of complications in the postpartum period, to secure maternal and infant short- and long-term well-being.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published influential guidelines on postnatal care practices.

Evidence Acquisition

A comparative review of guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Public Health Agency of Canada regarding postnatal care was conducted.

Results

There is a consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the importance of health care provision in the postpartum period, including home visits and midwifery services, the use of telemedicine for the facilitation of communication with the patient, and the appropriate preparation for discharge, as well as the discharge criteria. All medical societies also agree on the clinical aspects that should be evaluated at each postnatal visit, although discrepancies exist with regard to the contact schedule. In addition, there is consistency regarding the management of postpartum infections, perineal pain, fecal and urinary incontinence, and physical activity guidance. Mental health issues should be addressed at each postnatal visit, according to all guidelines, but there is disagreement regarding routine screening for depression. As for the optimal interpregnancy interval, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends avoiding pregnancy for at least 6 months postpartum, whereas the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends a 12-month interval. There is no common pathway regarding the recommended contraceptive methods, the nutrition guidance, and the postpartum management of pregnancy complications. Of note, the World Health Organization alone provides recommendations concerning the prevention of specific infections during the postnatal period.

Conclusions

Postnatal care remains a relatively underserved aspect of maternity care, although the puerperium is a critical period for the establishment of motherhood and the transition to primary care. Thus, the development of consistent international protocols for the optimal care and support of women during the postnatal period seems of insurmountable importance to safely guide clinical practice and subsequently reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity.

Emergency contraception - A review

Emergency contraception (EC), or postcoital contraception, is a therapy aimed at preventing unintended pregnancy after an act of unprotected or under-protected sexual intercourse. Options include both emergency contraceptive pills (most commonly containing levonorgestrel or ulipristal acetate) and insertion of an intrauterine device. The aim of this paper is to summarize current evidence surrounding the use of emergency contraceptives and to present an evidence-based approach to EC provision. Emergency contraception is a safe and effective option in preventing unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of age, weight, or breastfeeding status. Efforts should be made to increase their availability, as well as knowledge of these methods, both among patients and healthcare providers.

Breastfeeding and Hormonal Contraception: A Scoping Review of Clinical Guidelines, Professional Association Recommendations, and the Literature

Background: Postpartum contraceptive use can help prevent short-interval pregnancies, which have been associated with adverse neonatal and maternal health outcomes. Many contraceptive methods are safe for postpartum use, but patients and providers may be confused as to what impact hormonal contraception has on lactation. We performed a scoping review of the most recent U.S.-based guidelines regarding hormonal contraception on lactation to provide synthesis and recommendations to aid providers in counseling their patients. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by identifying the most recent clinical recommendations and guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and three maternal and child health professional associations (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine [SMFM], and Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine [ABM]). We also reviewed the citations in these guidelines used in their development. We then conducted an updated literature review to capture studies published since the most recent systematic reviews were conducted. Results: We reviewed 1 clinical guideline from the CDC and 2 systematic reviews cited in its references, 6 professional association recommendations, and 28 publications identified through the updated literature review. Progestin-only contraceptive methods continue to demonstrate safety in breastfeeding patients, while low-quality evidence supports concerns of decreased milk supply with combined hormonal contraception. Discussion: Organizations should consider updating counseling recommendations regarding progestin-only contraceptives and lactation. Further research is needed to examine new contraceptive methods as well as the effect of hormonal contraception on lactation in the setting of preterm birth.

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.

Characterization of the Use of Emergency Contraception from Sentinel Pharmacies in a Region of Southern Europe

Numerous studies have been published suggesting that emergency contraception (EC) is used repeatedly, but a lack of information regarding the profile of users makes it difficult to evaluate actual consumer habits. The aim of this study was to obtain information regarding the profile of users who obtain EC and other factors that might play a role, and to provide criteria to evaluate and improve the strategies of current contraceptive programs. This was an observational one-year study based on surveillance data on the provision of EC to women of reproductive age in 60 community pharmacies in Catalonia, Spain. In total, 941 notifications of dispensation of EC in Catalonia were received. A total of 44.2% of users said it was not the first time that they had taken the medication (repeat user). The percentage of users who used condoms was lower in repeat users compared to first-time users (56.7% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.05). A total of 25.7% of users stated that they did not use any barrier contraceptive method. The use of natural methods in repeat users was 53.8% in the subgroup who requested the medication after 48 h, significantly higher than in users who obtained the medication within the first 24 h (p < 0.05). A high percentage of repeat users with risky sexual behaviors were detected, suggesting that new measures must be implemented to provide information for this method, together with educational and preventive strategies.

Diffuse Alveolar Hemorrhage after Receiving Oral Levonorgerstrel for Emergency Contraception: A Case Report

Introduction:

Drug-induced diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH) has been associated with the administration of various medications, among which levonorgestrel (LN) has not been reported until now.

Case Presentation:

This case study describes a 42-year-old woman who presented with hemoptysis, hypoxemia, and radiological depiction of ground glass opacities, 3 days after she had received emergency contraceptive medication containing levonorgestrel. Emergent bronchoscopy was performed, and BAL was diagnostic of diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH). A thorough diagnostic approach was followed, in order to detect the underlying pathological condition that induced DAH. The absence of other identifiable pathological conditions in this patient raised suspicion of LN’s potential causative role.

Conclusion:

DAH has not been reported as an adverse effect of LN until now. However, LN has been found to exert immunomodulatory effects and to present potential for manifestations of vasculitis as well as severe hypersensitivity reactions. These mechanisms may have been implicated in the development of DAH in our patient, who presented no other pathological conditions.

Vilaprisan, a New Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulator in Uterine Fibroid Pharmacotherapy-Will it Really be a Breakthrough?

BACKGROUND

Vilaprisan (VPR) is a new orally available selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM), with anti-proliferative activity against uterine fibroids (UFs). It definitively causes suppression of ovulation and inhibition of proliferation of endometrial, myometrial and UF cells.

PURPOSE

This review aims to summarize current knowledge on VPR from all studies, including clinical trials, conducted to date and to contextualize the potential role of VPR in future medical regimens for the treatment of UFs.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed US National Library of Medicine and Google Scholar databases. Both databases were extensively searched for all original and review articles/book chapters as well as congress abstracts published in English until July 2019. The use of VPR for UF therapy was identified by using the keywords: "uterine fibroids" and "vilaprisan".

RESULTS

In phase I and II clinical trials, VPR was shown to be effective in ameliorating UF-related clinical symptoms, especially abnormal or excessive uterine bleeding and in shrinking UFs. The tolerability of VPR is roughly similar to that of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and it tends to be more favorable than that of GnRH-agonists.

CONCLUSION

Presently, all trials examining the utility of VPR for the treatment of UF are halted; likely, due to the recently reported cases of hepato-toxicity with UPA, in addition to non reassuring toxicology results from preclinical long-term testing on rodents, carried out in parallel with late stage testing on humans. An accurate summary of robust data related to the safety of VPR is urgently needed to draw definitive conclusions on the future clinical development of this drug for UF therapy.

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.

Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) on pregnancy prevention among combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users with an extended pill-free interval. We accounted for the potential interaction of COCs and obesity on EC efficacy.

METHODS

We built a decision-analytic model using TreeAge software to evaluate the optimal oral EC strategy in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 twenty-five-year-old women midcycle with a prolonged "missed" pill episode (8-14 days). We used a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. From a healthcare perspective, we obtained probabilities, utilities and costs inflated to 2018 dollars from the literature. We set the threshold for cost-effectiveness at a standard $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We included the following clinical outcomes: number of protected cycles, unintended pregnancies, abortions, deliveries and costs.

RESULTS

We found that UPA was the optimal method of oral EC, as it resulted in 720 fewer unintended pregnancies, 736 fewer abortions and 80 fewer deliveries at a total cost savings of $50,323 and 79 additional adjusted life-years. UPA continued to be the optimal strategy even in the case of obesity or COCs impacting UPA efficacy, in which a COC interaction would have to change efficacy of UPA by 160% before LNG was the dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

Our models found that UPA was the dominant choice of oral EC among COC users with a prolonged "missed" pill episode, regardless of body mass index or an adverse interaction of COCs on UPA.

IMPLICATIONS

Ulipristal acetate is the dominant choice of oral emergency contraception among combined oral contraceptive users.

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.

Pericoital contraception

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the literature on repeat use of emergency contraception and pericoital approaches to contraception.

RECENT FINDINGS

Women are very interested in an oral, on-demand contraceptive option, were one available. Ulipristal acetate and a combination of levonorgestrel (LNG) and meloxicam (a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor) both appear to be more effective at disrupting ovulation than LNG alone. Recent advisories from the United Kingdom regarding daily dosing of ulipristal for fibroids emphasize the need for more safety data.

SUMMARY

Repeat pericoital dosing of 1.5-mg LNG is approximately as effective as other on-demand contraceptive methods and is overall very safe. The most common side effect is irregular bleeding. Repeat on-demand ulipristal acetate or meloxicam/other cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors have potential as an on-demand option either alone or in combination but have not been evaluated for contraceptive efficacy in a large-scale study. Given the high unmet need for contraception, even among women with access to available options, there is a distinct need for options that address needs of women who are interested in an on-demand option. On-demand oral contraception has the potential to expand the convenience of contraceptive options and overall contraceptive use.

[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.

Selective progesterone receptor modulators: current applications and perspectives

Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) are steroid progesterone receptor ligands able to induce agonistic or antagonistic activities. Mifepristone, the class leader, was primarily used for pregnancy termination from the 1980s. Emergency contraception with extended activity was the second major development 30 years later, with mifepristone in some countries and ulipristal acetate world-wide. More recently, ulipristal acetate was released for the treatment of myoma-related uterine bleeding. In addition to a very rapid cessation of bleeding, SPRMs allow a decrease in myoma volume, as do gonadotropin releasing hormone analogs. However, estradiol secretion is not blunted by SPRMs. This offers new alternatives for myoma treatment, especially in women close to menopause. In conclusion, use of SPRMs has allowed significant progress in emergency contraception and treatment of myoma-related symptoms. Numerous future perspectives in women's health care are currently under evaluation.

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.

Emergency Contraception Algorithm and Guide for Clinicians

There are currently three forms of emergency contraception: oral levonorgestrel, oral ulipristal acetate, and the copper intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device is the most effective, followed by ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel, respectively. Although levonorgestrel is the least effective method, studies show that more prescribers are familiar with it and that is the most frequently used method. Clinicians should consider several factors when helping women make informed medical decisions regarding emergency contraception, including access to the products, a woman's individual preference, timing since unprotected intercourse, body mass index or weight, and initiation or resumption of routine contraception. This article explains and summarizes these considerations and provides an algorithm to guide clinicians.

The safety of available and emerging options for emergency contraception

INTRODUCTION

Emergency contraception (EC) is a way to significantly reduce the chance of becoming pregnant after an episode of unprotected intercourse. Considerable data support the safety of all available and emerging options for EC. Areas covered: This review presents a comprehensive summary of the literature regarding the safety of EC as well as directions for further study. PubMed was searched for all relevant studies published prior to June 2017. Expertopinion: All available methods of EC (i.e., ulipristal acetate pills, levonorgestrel pills, and the copper-IUD), carry only mild side effects and serious adverse events are essentially unknown. The copper IUD has the highest efficacy of EC methods. Given the excellent safety profiles of mifepristone and the levonorgestrel IUD, research is ongoing related to use of these products for EC.

Pregnancy Outcomes Following Ulipristal Acetate Emergency Contraception Failure: A Report of Five Cases

INTRODUCTION

The emergency contraceptive ulipristal acetate (UPA) 30 mg is increasingly used by women, but there is no published data on UPA exposure in pregnancy.

CASE REPORT

Here we describe five cases of unintended pregnancies following the use of UPA for emergency contraception. Of five pregnant women exposed to UPA, one decided to terminate the pregnancy for personal reasons. Two of them experienced premature rupture of membranes and the babies were born large for gestational age (LGA). The other two women experienced gestational diabetes, and one of them also delivered a LGA baby. The blood glucose levels of the mothers were normal after delivery and at six weeks postpartum. No birth defects and no growth or developmental abnormalities for the infants were reported during 6 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women inadvertently exposed to UPA should be monitored carefully, unless further data are available.

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

OBJECTIVES

This study describes women's reasons for seeking ulipristal acetate (UPA) for emergency contraception (EC) through the only authorized online retailer for UPA EC in the US.

STUDY DESIGN

Women aged 14 to 59 years, living in states that allow prescription medications to be shipped from out-of-state, accessed the KwikMed online pharmacy between January 2011 and December 2015. After completing a medical eligibility screener, women answered optional multiple-choice questions. To obtain UPA through KwikMed, individuals must be female, 50 years of age or younger, not currently pregnant or breastfeeding and not attempting to order UPA more than once within 30 days or more than four times per year.

RESULTS

Over the 5-year period, KwikMed provided 8019 prescriptions for UPA, and the number of women using this service more than tripled over time. Among women who responded to the survey questions (n=7133; response rate = 89%), most sought EC because of a condom failure (45.3%) or because they did not use regular contraception (41.2%). More than half (53.5%) of women reported that they chose UPA because of its effectiveness compared to levonorgestrel EC pills, and 58.9% preferred ordering UPA online because they found it easier than getting it from a doctor, clinic or pharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents the importance of providing confidential services for acquiring EC online. Benefits of online access include convenience, less embarrassment, avoiding situations in which a provider might refuse to provide EC because of their own ideological belief and more reliable availability for this time-sensitive contraceptive.

IMPLICATIONS

Though physical, logistical and societal barriers can restrict women's access to EC, this study demonstrates that providing access to UPA online empowers women to obtain EC when they need it.