Van der Wijden Carla, Manion Carol
Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 12;2015(10):CD001329. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001329.pub2.
It is estimated that about 40% of pregnancies in the world are unintended and that the major part of these are unwanted. There are several reasons no or ineffective contraception is used to prevent these pregnancies, including difficulty in obtaining contraceptives. The lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM) is a contraceptive method where the mother is informed and supported in how to use breastfeeding for contraception. LAM is available and accessible to many women.
To assess the effectiveness of LAM, as defined in the 1988 Bellagio Consensus statement, as a contraceptive method in fully breastfeeding women, who remain amenorrheic, using pregnancy and menstruation life tables.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS to 10 October 2014; reference lists of studies; review articles; books related to LAM; published abstracts from breastfeeding, reproductive health conferences; e-mails with study coordinators.
Out of 459 potentially relevant studies, 159 investigated the risk of pregnancy during LAM or lactational amenorrhoea. Our inclusion criteria were as follows: prospective study; cases (intervention group) and, if available, controls, had to be sexually active; pregnancy had to be confirmed by physical examination or a pregnancy test. Our endpoints were life table menstruation rates and life table pregnancy rates. We included 15 studies reporting on 11 intervention groups and three control groups. We identified one additional uncontrolled study in the 2007 update and one additional controlled study in this 2015 update.
Two review authors independently extracted data, resolving disagreements through discussion. We analysed the studies using narrative methods because of their heterogeneity.
For the primary outcome, pregnancy, two controlled studies of LAM users reported life table pregnancy rates at six months of 0.45% and 2.45%, one controlled study reported 5% pregnancies in the absence of life table rates per month, and eight uncontrolled studies of LAM users reported pregnancy rates of 0% to 7.5%. Life table pregnancy rates for fully breastfeeding women who were amenorrheic but not using any contraceptive method were 0.88% in one study and 0.9% to 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 2.4) in a second study, depending on the definition of menstruation used. The life table menstruation rate at six months in all studies varied between 11.1% and 39.4%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear differences in life table pregnancy rates between women using LAM and being supported in doing so, and fully breastfeeding amenorrheic women not using any method. As the length of lactation amenorrhoea in women using LAM differed greatly between the populations studied, and was population specific, it is uncertain whether LAM extends lactational amenorrhoea.
据估计,全球约40%的怀孕是意外怀孕,其中大部分是意外妊娠。未采取避孕措施或避孕措施无效的原因有多种,包括难以获取避孕药具。哺乳期闭经法(LAM)是一种避孕方法,在此方法中,母亲会得到关于如何利用母乳喂养进行避孕的指导和支持。许多女性都可以获得并采用LAM。
使用妊娠和月经生命表,评估1988年贝拉吉奥共识声明中定义的LAM作为完全母乳喂养且仍处于闭经状态的女性的避孕方法的有效性。
我们检索了截至2014年10月10日的MEDLINE、EMBASE、POPLINE和LILACS;研究的参考文献列表;综述文章;与LAM相关的书籍;母乳喂养、生殖健康会议上发表的摘要;与研究协调员的电子邮件。
在459项可能相关的研究中,159项研究调查了LAM或哺乳期闭经期间的怀孕风险。我们的纳入标准如下:前瞻性研究;病例(干预组)以及(若有)对照组必须有性活动;怀孕必须通过体格检查或妊娠试验确认。我们的终点是生命表月经率和生命表妊娠率。我们纳入了15项报告了11个干预组和3个对照组的研究。在2007年更新中我们确定了一项额外的非对照研究,在本次2015年更新中确定了一项额外的对照研究。
两位综述作者独立提取数据,通过讨论解决分歧。由于研究的异质性,我们使用叙述性方法对研究进行分析。
对于主要结局妊娠,两项关于LAM使用者的对照研究报告了6个月时的生命表妊娠率分别为0.45%和2.45%;一项对照研究报告在无每月生命表率的情况下怀孕率为5%;八项关于LAM使用者的非对照研究报告的怀孕率为0%至7.5%。一项研究中,完全母乳喂养且闭经但未使用任何避孕方法的女性的生命表妊娠率为0.88%,另一项研究中根据所使用的月经定义,该率为0.9%至1.2%(95%置信区间0.0至2.4)。所有研究中6个月时的生命表月经率在11.1%至39.4%之间。
我们发现,使用LAM并得到相关支持的女性与完全母乳喂养且闭经但未使用任何方法的女性在生命表妊娠率上没有明显差异。由于不同研究人群中使用LAM的女性的哺乳期闭经时长差异很大且因人群而异,因此不确定LAM是否会延长哺乳期闭经。