Drug Safety

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 695–706 | Cite as

How Safe is Emergency Contraception?

Current Opinion

Abstract

Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex but before pregnancy begins. Currently, women can use emergency contraception by taking higher doses of the active ingredients found in ordinary oral contraceptive pills [either combined estrogen-progestogen (progestin) or progestogen-only formulations], or by having providers insert copper-bearing intrauterine devices (IUDs). The antiprogestogen mifepristone also has an excellent efficacy and safety profile as emergency contraception, but it is currently available for this indication only in China.

Many studies have documented providers’ and women’s fears about the individual and public health safety risks of emergency contraception. Some of these concerns include potentially increased risks of cardiovascular events (including arterial and venous disease), worries about possible effects on future fertility, feared teratogenic consequences following method failure or inadvertent use during pregnancy, exaggerated or extreme fears of adverse tolerability, and concerns about drug interactions with other medications. Wider public health questions include feared reductions in the use of ongoing, more effective contraception, possible ‘abuse’ of emergency contraception through overly frequent use, and potential increases in risky sexual encounters (owing to the existence of a backup, postcoital method) and therefore in rates of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.

These fears can each be generally allayed. Direct and indirect investigations of emergency contraception in the biomedical and social science literature, the extensively documented safety profile of ordinary oral contraceptives, and more than 30 years of clinical experience since hormonal emergency contraception was first described, give strong evidence for its safety. This review confirms declarations by the World Health Organization and the US Food and Drug Administration, and shows that emergency contraception has an excellent safety profile in nearly all women. Finally, emergency contraception allows women a second chance to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Whether pregnancy is carried to term or terminated, the condition has inherent risks that are greater than any posed by emergency contraception.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Emergency contraception: a guide for service delivery. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1998Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin: emergency oral contraception. No. 25. Washington, DC: ACOG, 2001 MarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food and Drug Administration. Prescription drug products: certaincombined oral contraceptives for use as postcoital emergency contraception. Fed Regist 1997; 62: 8610–2Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Princeton University Office of Population Research. The emergency contraception website [online]. Available from URL: http://www.not-2-late.com [Accessed 2002 Apr 16]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glasier A. Safety of emergency contraception. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1998; 53(5 Suppl. 2): 219–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kubba AA. Contraception: a review. Int J Clin Pract 1998; 52(2): 102–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shulman LP. Oral contraceptives: risks. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2000; 27(4): 695–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yuzpe AA, Thurlow HJ, Ramzy I, et al. Post coital contraception: a pilot study. J Reprod Med 1974; 13(2): 53–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ellertson C, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al. Emergency contraception. Semin Reprod Med 2001; 19(4): 323–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trussell J, Rodriguez G, Ellertson C. New estimates of the effectiveness of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Contraception 1998; 57(6): 363–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Lancet 1998; 352 (9126): 428–33Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho PC, Kwan MS. A prospective randomized comparison oflevonorgestrel with the Yuzpe regimen in post-coital contraception. Hum Reprod 1993; 8(3): 389–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Piaggio G, von Hertzen H, Grimes DA, et al. Timing of emergency contraception with levonorgestrel or the Yuzpe regimen. Task force on postovulatory methods of fertility regulation. Lancet 1999; 353(9154): 721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rodrigues I, Grou F, Joly J. Effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills between 72 and 120 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184(4): 531–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kishen M. Intrauterine contraceptive devices. In: Glasier A, Gebbie A, editors. Handbook of family planning and reproductive healthcare. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 105–26Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramirez Hidalgo A, Pujol Ribera E. Use of the intrauterine device: efficacy and safety. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000; 5(3): 198–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liying Z, Bilian X. Emergency contraception with multiload Cu-375 SL IUD: a multicenter clinical trial. Contraception 2001; 64(2): 107–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trussell J, Ellertson C. Efficacy of emergency contraception:topical reviews. Fert Control Rev 1995; 4(2): 8–11Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheng D. The intrauterine device: still misunderstood after all these years. South Med J 2000; 93(9): 859–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reuter S. Barriers to the use of IUDs as emergency contraception. Br J Fam Plann 1999; 25(2): 61–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Borgatta L. Managing clinical complexities of long-term contraception.Medscape Womens Health 1998; 3(1): 3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am J Public Health 1995; 85(4): 494–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, et al. Mifepristone (RU 486) compared with high-dose estrogen and progestogen for emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1992; 327(15): 1041–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Webb AM, Russell J, Elstein M. Comparison of Yuzpe regimen, danazol, and mifepristone (RU486) in oral postcoital contraception. BMJ 1992; 305(6859): 927–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ashok PW, Wagaarachchi PT, Flett GM, et al. Mifepristone as a late post-coital contraceptive. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(1): 72–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Comparison of three single doses of mifepristone as emergency contraception: a randomised trial. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Lancet 1999; 353 (9154): 697–702Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Webb A. How safe is the Yuzpe method of emergency contraception? Fert Control Rev 1995; 4(2): 16–8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of and mortality due to unsafe abortion, with a listing of available country data. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1998, WHO/RHT/MSM/97Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jick H, Kaye JA, Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism among users of third generation oral contraceptives compared with users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel before and after 1995: cohort and case-control analysis. BMJ 2000; 321(7270): 1190–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, Jick H. Risk of venous thromboembolism with cyproterone or levonorgestrel contraceptives. Lancet 2001; 358(9291): 1427–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Webb A, Taberner D. Clotting factors after emergency contraception. Adv Contracept 1993; 9(1): 75–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vasilakis C, Jick SS, Jick H. The risk of venous thromboembolism in users of postcoital contraceptive pills. Contraception 1999; 59(2): 79–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pymar HC, Creinin MD. The risks of oral contraceptive pills. Semin Reprod Med 2001; 19(4): 305–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Burkman RT, Collins JA, Shulman LP, et al. Current perspectives on oral contraceptive use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185Suppl. 2: S4–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tanis BC, van den Bosch M, Kemmeren JM, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2001; 345(25): 1787–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Rao RS, et al. Low-dose oral contraceptive use and the risk of myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161(8): 1065–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shapiro S, Slone D, Rosenberg L, et al. Oral-contraceptive use in relation to myocardial infarction. Lancet 1979; 1(8119): 743–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Godsland IF, Crook D, Simpson R, et al. The effects of different formulations of oral contraceptive agents on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. N Engl J Med 1990; 323(20): 1375–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heinemann LA. Emerging evidence on oral contraceptives and arterial disease. Contraception 2000; 62Suppl. 2: 29S–36SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burkman RTJ. Noncontraceptive effects of hormonal contraceptives: bone mass, sexually transmitted disease and pelvic inflammatory disease, cardiovascular disease, menstrual function, and future fertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170(5 Pt 2): 1569–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huggins GR, Cullins VE. Fertility after contraception or abortion. Fertil Steril 1990; 54(4): 559–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Skjeldestad F, Bratt H. Fertility after complicated and noncomplicated use of IUDs: a controlled prospective study. Adv Contracept 1988; 4(3): 179–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gupta BK, Gupta AN, Lyall S. Return of fertility in various types of IUD users. Int J Fertil 1989; 34(2): 123–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van Os WA, Edelman DA. Fifteen years’ experience with the Multiload IUD. Adv Contracept 1988; 4(3): 165–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Doll H, Vessey M, Painter R. Return of fertility in nulliparous women after discontinuation of the intrauterine device: comparison with women discontinuing other methods of contraception. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 108(3): 304–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grimes DA. Intrauterine devices and infertility: sifting through the evidence. Lancet 2001; 358(9275): 6–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stewart FH, Wells ES, Flinn SK, Weitz TA. Early medical abortion: issues for practice. San Francisco: UCSF Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy, 2001Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Simpson JL, Phillips OP. Spermicides, hormonal contraception and congenitalmalformations. Adv Contracept 1990; 6: 141–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Harlap S, Shiono PH, Ramcharan S. Congenital abnormalities in the offspring of women who used oral and other contraceptives around the time of conception. Int J Fertil 1985; 30(2): 39–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Savolainen E, Saksela E, Saxen L. Teratogenic hazards of oral contraceptives analyzed in a national malformation register. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 140(5): 521–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vessey M, Meisler L, Flavel R, et al. Outcome of pregnancy in women using different methods of contraception. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1979; 86(7): 548–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Raman-Wilms L, Tseng AL, Wighardt S, et al. Fetal genital effects of first-trimester sex hormone exposure: a metaanalysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85(1): 141–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Glasier A. Emergency contraception. In: Glasier A, Gebbie A, editors. Handbook of family planning and reproductive healthcare. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 201–13Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Grimes DA, Raymond EG. Bundling a pregnancy test with the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94(3): 471–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Creinin MD, Pymar HC, Schwartz JL. Mifepristone 100 mg in abortion regimens. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98(3): 434–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Trussell J, Ellertson C, Stewart F. The effectiveness of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Fam Plann Perspect 1996; 28(2): 58–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cheng L, Gulmezoglu AM, Ezcurra E, Van Look PF. Interventions for emergency contraception. Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 2000: CD001324Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sanchez-Borrego R, Balasch J. Ethinyl oestradiol plus dl-norgestrel or levonorgestrel in the Yuzpe method for postcoital contraception: results of an observational study. Hum Reprod 1996; 11(11): 2449–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Raymond EG, Creinin MD, Barnhart KT, et al. Meclizine for prevention of nausea associated with use of emergency contraceptive pills: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95(2): 271–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    McMillan A. Sexually transmitted infections. In: Glasier A, Gebbie A, editors. Handbook of family planning and reproductive healthcare. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 281–313Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gynétics. Preven™ Emergency Contraceptive Prescribing Information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.preven.com/prodinfo/prescinfo.asp [Accessed 2002 Apr 16]Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Women’s Capital Corporation. Plan B Patient information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.go2planb.com/consumers_guide/patient_info.html#IndicationsAndUsage [Accessed 2002 Apr 16]Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weaver K, Glasier A. Interaction between broad-spectrum antibiotics and the combined oral contraceptive pill: a literature review. Contraception 1999; 59(2): 71–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Izzo AA, Ernst E. Interactions between herbal medicines and prescribed drugs: a systematic review. Drugs 2001; 61(15): 2163–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Piscitelli SC, Burstein AH, Chaitt D, et al. Indinavir concentrations and St John’s wort. Lancet 2000; 355(9203): 547–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Does St. John’s Wort decrease OC efficacy? Contraceptive Technology Update 2001; 22 (2): 15–7Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Danco Laboratories. The Early Option Pill (Mifeprex): product labeling [online]. Available from URL: http://www.earlyoptionpill.com/hcp_labeling.php3. [Accessed 2002 Apr 16]Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Harper C, Ellertson C. Knowledge and perceptions of emergency contraceptive pills among a college-age population: a qualitative approach. Fam Plann Perspect 1995; 27(4): 149–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Langer A, Harper C, Garcia-Barrios C, et al. Emergency contraception in Mexico City: what do health care providers and potential users know and think about it? Contraception 1999; 60(4): 233–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Muia E, Ellertson C, Lukhando M, et al. Emergency contraception in Nairobi, Kenya: knowledge, attitudes and practices among policymakers, family planning providers and clients, and university students. Contraception 1999; 60(4): 223–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Golden NH, Seigel WM, Fisher M, et al. Emergency contraception: pediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes, and opinions. Pediatrics 2001; 107(2): 287–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ziebland S, Graham A, McPherson A. Concerns and cautions about prescribing and deregulating emergency contraception: a qualitative study of GPs using telephone interviews. Fam Pract 1998; 15(5): 449–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ziebland S, Maxwell K. Not a ‘proper’ solution? The gap between professional guidelines and users’ views about the safety of using emergency contraception. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3(1): 12–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rowlands S, Devalia H, Lawrenson R, et al. Repeated use of hormonal emergency contraception by younger women in the UK. Br J Fam Plann 2000; 26(3): 138–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Glasier A, Baird D. The effects of self-administering emergency contraception. N Engl J Med 1998; 339(1): 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Raine T, Harper C, Leon K, et al. Emergency contraception: advance provision in a young, high-risk clinic population. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96(1): 1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    United Nations Development Programme. Efficacy and side effects of immediate postcoital levonorgestrel used repeatedly for contraception. Contraception 2000; 61 (5): 303–8Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ellertson C, Ambardekar S, Hedley A, et al. Emergency contraception: randomized comparison of advance provision and information only. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98(4): 570–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shelton JD. Risk of clinical pelvic inflammatory disease attributable to an intrauterine device [letter]. Lancet 2001; 357(9254): 443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Grimes DA. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet 2000; 356(9234): 1013–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Foran T. Contraception in general practice before teenage pregnancy: intrauterine device may not be suitable method of contraception for teenagers. BMJ 2001; 322(7282): 363–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Klima CS. Unintended pregnancy: consequences and solutions for a worldwide problem. J Nurse Midwifery 1998; 43(6): 483–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Population Crisis Committee. Policymaker’s chartbook on world population issues. Washington, DC: Population Crisis Committee, 1992Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    International Planned Parenthood Federation. Family planning for the underserved: an IPPF perspective. In: Family planning, health and family well-being. Proceedings of the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Family Planning, Health and Family Well-Being; New York, NY. United Nations, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, Population Division, 1996Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Women’s Studies Project. Egypt: the social and behavioral outcomes of unintended pregnancy. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Family Health International, 1998Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Adetunji JA. Unintended childbearing in developing countries: levels, trends, and determinants. DHS Analytical Reports no 8. Calverton (MD): Macro International, 1998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Program ManagerPopulation CouncilMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Director of Reproductive Health for Latin America and the CaribbeanPopulation Council, Regional Office for Latin America and the CaribbeanMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations