Suppr超能文献

紧急避孕的干预措施。

Interventions for emergency contraception.

作者信息

Shen Jie, Che Yan, Showell Emily, Chen Ke, Cheng Linan

机构信息

Centre for Clinical Research and Training, Key Laboratory of Reproduction Regulation of NPFPC, SIPPR, IRD, Fudan University, 2140 Xie Tu Road, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 2;8(8):CD001324. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub5.

Abstract

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, I = 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, I = 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, I = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I = 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, I = 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, I = 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, I = 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 , I = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I = 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, I = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I = 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, I = 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.

摘要

背景

紧急避孕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。对于生殖健康护理提供者及其服务的女性而言,了解这些方法的相对有效性、安全性和便利性至关重要。这是对先前于2009年和2012年发表的一篇综述的更新。

目的

确定无保护性交后哪种紧急避孕方法预防妊娠最有效、最安全且最便捷。

检索方法

2017年2月,我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、护理学与健康领域数据库、人口资讯数据库和PubMed、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。我们还检索了国际临床试验注册平台和ClinicalTrials.gov,并联系了内容专家和制药公司,同时检索了相关论文的参考文献列表。

入选标准

纳入的随机对照试验需包含在单次无保护性交后寻求紧急避孕服务的女性。

数据收集与分析

我们采用了Cochrane推荐的标准方法程序。主要综述结局为观察到的妊娠数量。副作用和月经变化为次要结局。

主要结果

本综述纳入了115项试验,共60479名女性。主要结局的证据质量从中等到高,其他结局的证据质量从极低到高。主要局限性包括偏倚风险(与方法报告不佳有关)、不精确性和不一致性。不同紧急避孕药(ECP)的相对有效性左炔诺孕酮组的妊娠人数少于Yuzpe(雌二醇 - 左炔诺孕酮复方制剂)组(RR = 0.57,95%CI为0.39至0.84,6项随机对照试验,n = 4750,I² = 23%,高质量证据)。这表明,如果假设使用Yuzpe时每1000名女性中有29人怀孕,那么使用左炔诺孕酮时每1000名女性中的怀孕人数将在11至24人之间。米非司酮(所有剂量)组的妊娠人数少于Yuzpe组(RR = 0.14,95%CI为0.05至0.41,3项随机对照试验,n = 2144,I² = 0%,高质量证据)。这表明,如果假设使用Yuzpe后每1000名女性中有25人怀孕,那么使用米非司酮后每1000名女性中的怀孕人数将在1至10人之间。低剂量米非司酮(小于25mg)和中剂量米非司酮(25mg至50mg)组的妊娠人数可能都少于左炔诺孕酮组(RR = 0.72,95%CI为0.52至0.99,14项随机对照试验,n = 8752,I² = 0%,高质量证据;RR = 0.61,95%CI为0.45至0.83,27项随机对照试验,n = 6052,I² = 0%,中等质量证据)。这表明,如果假设使用左炔诺孕酮后每1000名女性中有20人怀孕,那么使用低剂量米非司酮后每1000名女性中的怀孕人数将在10至20人之间;如果假设使用左炔诺孕酮后每1000名女性中有35人怀孕,那么使用中剂量米非司酮后每1000名女性中的怀孕人数将在16至29人之间。醋酸乌利司他(UPA)组的妊娠人数少于左炔诺孕酮组(RR = 0.59;95%CI为0.35至0.99,2项随机对照试验,n = 3448,I² = 0%,高质量证据)。不同ECP剂量的相对有效性单剂量左炔诺孕酮(1.5mg)与标准两剂量方案(0.75mg,间隔12小时)之间的妊娠率是否存在差异尚不清楚(RR = 0.84,95%CI为0.53至1.33,3项随机对照试验,n = 6653,I² = 0%,中等质量证据)。中剂量米非司酮组的妊娠人数少于低剂量米非司酮组(RR = 0.73;95%CI为0.55至0.97,25项随机对照试验,n = 11914,I² = 0%,高质量证据)。Cu-IUD与米非司酮在妊娠风险上差异的比较尚无确凿证据表明Cu-IUD与米非司酮在妊娠风险上存在差异(RR = 0.33,95%CI为0.04至2.74,2项随机对照试验,n = 395,低质量证据)。不良反应恶心和呕吐是与紧急避孕相关的主要不良反应。与Yuzpe相比,米非司酮引起恶心(RR = 0.63,95%CI为0.53至0.76,3项随机对照试验,n = 2186,I² = 59%,中等质量证据)或呕吐(RR = 0.12,95%CI为0.07至0.20,3项随机对照试验,n = 2186,I² = 0%,高质量证据)的风险可能更低。与Yuzpe相比,左炔诺孕酮引起恶心(RR = 0.40,95%CI为0.36至0.44,6项随机对照试验,n = 4750,I² = 82%,中等质量证据)或呕吐(RR = 0.29,95%CI为0.24至0.35,5项随机对照试验,n = 3640,I² = 78%,中等质量证据)的风险可能更低。左炔诺孕酮使用者出现任何副作用的可能性低于Yuzpe使用者(RR = 0.80,95%CI为0.75至0.86;1项随机对照试验

相似文献

1
Interventions for emergency contraception.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 2;8(8):CD001324. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub5.
2
Interventions for emergency contraception.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 20;1(1):CD001324. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub6.
3
Interventions for emergency contraception.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(3):CD001324. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub2.
4
Interventions for emergency contraception.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16(2):CD001324. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub3.
5
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
6
Medical methods for first trimester abortion.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 24;5(5):CD002855. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002855.pub5.
7
Hormonal contraception for women at risk of HIV infection.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 6;6(6):CD015701. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015701.pub2.
8
Preoperative medical therapy before surgery for uterine fibroids.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Apr 4;4(4):CD000547. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000547.pub3.
9
Progesterone receptor modulators for endometriosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 25;7(7):CD009881. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009881.pub2.
10
Antioxidants for female subfertility.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 28;7(7):CD007807. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
Hyperemesis gravidarum: Associations with personal and family history of nausea.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 Sep;102(9):1176-1182. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14629. Epub 2023 Jul 10.
2
Clinical Utility of Mifepristone: Apprising the Expanding Horizons.
Cureus. 2022 Aug 23;14(8):e28318. doi: 10.7759/cureus.28318. eCollection 2022 Aug.
3
Emergency contraception from the pharmacy 20 years on: a mystery shopper study.
BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021 Jan;47(1):55-60. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2020-200648. Epub 2020 Jun 17.
4
Simplifying contraception requirements for iPLEDGE: A decision analysis.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):104-108. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.022. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
5
The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception and beyond: a systematic review update.
Int J Womens Health. 2019 Aug 21;11:471-479. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S213815. eCollection 2019.
6
Scoping Review of Access to Emergency Contraception for Sexual Assault Victims in Emergency Departments in the United States.
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2021 Apr;22(2):413-421. doi: 10.1177/1524838019882023. Epub 2019 Oct 14.
7
The attitudes of Korean physicians toward emergency contraceptive pills: regarding women's access and rescheduling.
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2019 May;62(3):173-178. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2019.62.3.173. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
8
Contraceptive Strategies in Women With Heart Failure or With Cardiac Transplantation.
Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2018 Jun;15(3):161-170. doi: 10.1007/s11897-018-0392-x.
9
Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review.
Reprod Health. 2017 Sep 26;14(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0380-8.

本文引用的文献

1
Safety and effectiveness data for emergency contraceptive pills among women with obesity: a systematic review.
Contraception. 2016 Dec;94(6):605-611. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.002. Epub 2016 May 24.
2
Impact of obesity on the pharmacokinetics of levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception: single and double dosing.
Contraception. 2016 Jul;94(1):52-7. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.03.006. Epub 2016 Mar 18.
4
Safety data for levonorgestrel, ulipristal acetate and Yuzpe regimens for emergency contraception.
Contraception. 2016 Feb;93(2):93-112. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.11.001. Epub 2015 Nov 3.
7
Emergency contraception. Widely available and effective but disappointing as a public health intervention: a review.
Hum Reprod. 2015 Apr;30(4):751-60. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev019. Epub 2015 Feb 11.
8
Mifepristone 5 mg versus 10 mg for emergency contraception: double-blind randomized clinical trial.
Int J Womens Health. 2015 Jan 12;7:95-102. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S65793. eCollection 2015.
9
Effect of body weight and BMI on the efficacy of levonorgestrel emergency contraception.
Contraception. 2015 Feb;91(2):97-104. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.11.001. Epub 2014 Nov 8.
10
Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends.
Stud Fam Plann. 2014 Sep;45(3):301-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00393.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验