Cheng Linan, Che Yan, Gülmezoglu A Metin
Centre for Clinical Research and Training, Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research (SIPPR), Shanghai, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15(8):CD001324. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub4.
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.
To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.
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.
Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.
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.
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.
紧急避孕(EC)是指在无保护性交后不久使用药物或铜宫内节育器(Cu-IUD)来预防妊娠。有多种干预措施可用于紧急避孕。这些方法的比较有效性、安全性和便利性信息对于生殖健康保健提供者及其服务的女性至关重要。
确定无保护性交后哪种紧急避孕方法在预防妊娠方面最有效、最安全且最方便。
检索包括Cochrane对照试验注册库、Popline、MEDLINE、PubMed、Biosis/EMBASE、中国生物医学数据库以及联合国开发计划署/联合国人口基金/世界卫生组织/世界银行人类生殖特别规划署(HRP)紧急避孕数据库(2011年7月)。还联系了内容专家和制药公司。
随机对照试验和对照临床试验,纳入对象为单次无保护性交后寻求紧急避孕服务的女性。
由两位综述作者独立且重复提取结局和试验特征数据。质量评估也由两位综述作者独立完成。荟萃分析结果采用固定效应模型以风险比(RR)表示,并给出95%置信区间(CI)。若存在统计学显著异质性,则应用随机效应模型。
纳入了100项试验,共55666名女性。大多数试验在中国进行(86/100)。荟萃分析表明,中剂量米非司酮(25 - 50 mg)(20项试验;RR 0.64;95% CI 0.45至0.92)或低剂量米非司酮(< 25 mg)(11项试验;RR 0.70;95% CI 0.50至0.97)比左炔诺孕酮(LNG)显著更有效,但仅纳入高质量研究时该显著性不明显(4项试验;RR 0.70;95% CI 0.49至1.01)。低剂量米非司酮比中剂量米非司酮效果差(25项试验;RR 0.73;95% CI 0.55至0.97)。仅考虑高质量试验时,这种差异无统计学显著性(6项试验;RR 0.75;95% CI 0.50至1.10)。在性交后72小时内,醋酸乌利司他(UPA)似乎比LNG在边缘水平上更有效(2项试验;RR 0.63)(P = 0.09)。关于给药时间的有效性,在性交后72小时内服用LNG的女性怀孕可能性显著低于72小时后服用者(4项试验;RR 0.51;95% CI 0.31至0.84)。未发现性交 - 治疗时间对米非司酮和UPA的有效性有影响。单剂量LNG(1.5 mg)与标准两剂量方案(0.75 mg,间隔12小时)效果相似(3项试验;RR 0.84;95% CI 0.53至1.33)。该结论不受性交至治疗给药间隔时间的影响。米非司酮(所有剂量)(3项试验;RR 0.14;95% CI 0.05至0.41)和LNG(5项试验;RR 0.54;95% CI 0.36至0.80)在预防妊娠方面比Yuzpe方案更有效。一项试验比较了孕三烯酮与米非司酮。该试验未发现有效性有显著差异(996名女性;RR 0.75;95% CI 0.32至1.76)。所有紧急避孕方法都是安全的。含雌激素的紧急避孕方法会出现恶心和呕吐,孕激素和抗孕激素方法会导致后续月经改变。LNG使用者月经提前来潮的可能性更大,但UPA使用者月经推迟来潮的可能性更大。月经推迟是米非司酮的主要不良反应,且似乎与剂量有关。
中剂量米非司酮(25 - 50 mg)优于LNG和Yuzpe方案。低剂量米非司酮(< 25 mg)可能比LNG(0.75 mg两剂)更有效,但尚无定论。UPA可能比LNG更有效。LNG被证明比Yuzpe方案更有效。铜宫内节育器是最有效的紧急避孕方法,且是唯一一种若留在原位可提供持续避孕效果的紧急避孕方法。