Anna Glasier

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

BACKGROUNDnEmergency contraception can prevent unintended pregnancies, but current methods are only effective if used as soon as possible after sexual intercourse and before ovulation. We compared the efficacy and safety of ulipristal acetate with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception.nnnMETHODSnWomen with regular menstrual cycles who presented to a participating family planning clinic requesting emergency contraception within 5 days of unprotected sexual intercourse were eligible for enrolment in this randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. 2221 women were randomly assigned to receive a single, supervised dose of 30 mg ulipristal acetate (n=1104) or 1.5 mg levonorgestrel (n=1117) orally. Allocation was by block randomisation stratified by centre and time from unprotected sexual intercourse to treatment, with allocation concealment by identical opaque boxes labelled with a unique treatment number. Participants were masked to treatment assignment whereas investigators were not. Follow-up was done 5-7 days after expected onset of next menses. The primary endpoint was pregnancy rate in women who received emergency contraception within 72 h of unprotected sexual intercourse, with a non-inferiority margin of 1% point difference between groups (limit of 1.6 for odds ratio). Analysis was done on the efficacy-evaluable population, which excluded women lost to follow-up, those aged over 35 years, women with unknown follow-up pregnancy status, and those who had re-enrolled in the study. Additionally, we undertook a meta-analysis of our trial and an earlier study to assess the efficacy of ulipristal acetate compared with levonorgestrel. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00551616.nnnFINDINGSnIn the efficacy-evaluable population, 1696 women received emergency contraception within 72 h of sexual intercourse (ulipristal acetate, n=844; levonorgestrel, n=852). There were 15 pregnancies in the ulipristal acetate group (1.8%, 95% CI 1.0-3.0) and 22 in the levonorgestrel group (2.6%, 1.7-3.9; odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.35-1.31). In 203 women who received emergency contraception between 72 h and 120 h after sexual intercourse, there were three pregnancies, all of which were in the levonorgestrel group. The most frequent adverse event was headache (ulipristal acetate, 213 events [19.3%] in 1104 women; levonorgestrel, 211 events [18.9%] in 1117 women). Two serious adverse events were judged possibly related to use of emergency contraception; a case of dizziness in the ulipristal acetate group and a molar pregnancy in the levonorgestrel group. In the meta-analysis (0-72 h), there were 22 (1.4%) pregnancies in 1617 women in the ulipristal acetate group and 35 (2.2%) in 1625 women in the levonorgestrel group (OR 0.58, 0.33-0.99; p=0.046).nnnINTERPRETATIONnUlipristal acetate provides women and health-care providers with an effective alternative for emergency contraception that can be used up to 5 days after unprotected sexual intercourse.nnnFUNDINGnHRA Pharma.

Attitudes of women in Scotland to contraception: a qualitative study to explore the acceptability of long-acting methods

Background and methodology Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) (i.e. injections, implants and intrauterine methods) has the potential to reduce unintended pregnancies but in the UK these methods are under-used. To inform a campaign planned to increase awareness of LARC, eight focus discussion groups were held with 55 women in two cities in Scotland, UK. Trained interviewers sought spontaneous views of unintended pregnancy and contraception in general, and condoms and pills in particular, and attitudes towards health professionals giving contraceptive advice. Attitudes towards LARC were discussed both before and after women were given detailed information about the methods. Results Women recognised the importance of using contraception but admitted to taking risks. Pills and condoms were familiar and acceptable despite undesirable side effects. Women were poorly informed about LARC, had firm but incorrect beliefs about their safety and side effects, disliked any method which involved an invasive procedure and/or vaginal examination, and had rather a low opinion of advice given by health professionals. Accurate information was not wholly successful in dispelling negative views of LARC. Discussion and conclusions Many factors influence contraceptive choice. Attitudes towards methods are complex and may be difficult to change. Some barriers to LARC, including the need to see a health professional, cannot be overcome but giving more information about ease of use, reversibility, effects on weight and the positive experiences of other women, as well as describing these methods as lasting rather than long-acting, may help improve acceptability.

Interaction between broad-spectrum antibiotics and the combined oral contraceptive pill: A literature review

There is considerable variation in opinion about the importance of drug interactions between the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Clinical practice varies widely, especially between doctors in Europe and those in the US. Rifampicin and griseofulvin induce hepatic enzymes and do appear to have a genuine interaction with the COCP, leading to reduced efficacy. The situation with the broad-spectrum antibiotics is less clear. There are relatively few prospective studies of the pharmacokinetics of concurrent COCP and antibiotic use and few, if any, demonstrate a convincing basis for any reduced contraceptive efficacy. There is evidence, however, that variable contraceptive steroid handling could make some women, at some times, more susceptible to COCP failure. Given the serious consequences of unwanted pregnancy, the cautious approach of using additional or alternative contraception during short courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics and the initial weeks of long-term antibiotic administration may be justified to safeguard the few unidentifiable women who may be at risk. Conflicting opinion and advice is potentially confusing to both professionals and patients, and instructions for additional precautions during and after concurrent COCP and antibiotic use are complicated. Many women are ignorant of, or confused about, the circumstances that can cause OC to fail. Health professionals who prescribe the COCP must continue to strive to educate women about the mode of action and about the times when there is the greatest danger of failure. Professionals who feel that concurrent antibiotic use represents a real threat to contraceptive efficacy of the COCP should be prepared to present the advice for additional contraceptive precautions in a simple and consistent way, backed up with written information and reinforced at regular intervals.

Continuation rates of long-acting methods of contraception : A comparative study of norplant® implants and intrauterine devices

Following adverse widespread publicity in the United Kingdom and the United States, it is commonly believed that discontinuation rates for the contraceptive implants Norplant in the UK are high. We have compared discontinuation rates between new intrauterine device (IUD) users (253 women) and new Norplant implant users (502 women) over 33 months following the introduction of Norplant implants among a population of women attending the same clinic and counseled in the same manner by the same group of providers. Women choosing the IUD were slightly older and were more likely to be changing their contraceptive method because of dissatisfaction with their current method. Nor plant implant users were more likely to have completed their families. Continuation rates for Norplant implants were significantly higher than for IUD at 12, 18, and 24 months after insertion. At 24 months, continuation rates for Norplant implants were 72% compared with rates of 55% for IUD users. Higher continuation rates may be related more to factors associated with the providers than with the users of these two long-acting methods.

Emergency contraception: dispelling the myths and misperceptions

This article focuses on emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) and the usage and knowledge barriers associated with this particular type of contraception. It addresses the myths and misperceptions of ECPs that are present throughout the world that are further magnified by media and Internet channels.

Original Research ArticlesContinuation Rates of Long-Acting Methods of Contraception: A Comparative Study of Norplant® Implants and Intrauterine Devices

Following adverse widespread publicity in the United Kingdom and the United States, it is commonly believed that discontinuation rates for the contraceptive implants Norplant in the UK are high. We have compared discontinuation rates between new intrauterine device (IUD) users (253 women) and new Norplant implant users (502 women) over 33 months following the introduction of Norplant implants among a population of women attending the same clinic and counseled in the same manner by the same group of providers. Women choosing the IUD were slightly older and were more likely to be changing their contraceptive method because of dissatisfaction with their current method. Nor plant implant users were more likely to have completed their families. Continuation rates for Norplant implants were significantly higher than for IUD at 12, 18, and 24 months after insertion. At 24 months, continuation rates for Norplant implants were 72% compared with rates of 55% for IUD users. Higher continuation rates may be related more to factors associated with the providers than with the users of these two long-acting methods.