Mifepristone versus other interventions for the prevention of pregnancy in reproductive-age women using emergency contraception.

IF 11.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Shaalini Ramanadhan, Alison Edelman, Yan Che, Robin A Paynter, Alyssa Hersh, Jillian T Henderson
{"title":"Mifepristone versus other interventions for the prevention of pregnancy in reproductive-age women using emergency contraception.","authors":"Shaalini Ramanadhan, Alison Edelman, Yan Che, Robin A Paynter, Alyssa Hersh, Jillian T Henderson","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Emergency contraception uses drugs or intrauterine devices to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Understanding the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the various methods available is critical for reproductive healthcare providers and their patients.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of mifepristone compared to other interventions in reproductive-age women using emergency contraception for the prevention of pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field, to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 28 February 2025.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mifepristone to oral emergency contraception pills (levonorgestrel, the Yuzpe regimen, and ulipristal acetate) or copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs). We also planned to include non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) for capturing rare adverse outcomes and detecting minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). Participants were women seeking emergency contraception within five days of unprotected intercourse.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>The critical outcome was the number of pregnancies. Important outcomes included any side effects, altered menses, and acceptability, assessed as treatment satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the RCTs.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis where possible, using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 87 studies with approximately 36,000 participants. Seventy-nine studies were conducted in China, four in the UK, two in Cuba, and two were multi-country studies. Forty-one studies compared mifepristone with levonorgestrel; three with the Yuzpe regimen (estrogen and progestin); 42 compared two or more doses of mifepristone; and two compared mifepristone with copper IUD. We excluded all relevant NRSIs identified because none reported additional outcome data that were unavailable from the included RCTs.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) versus levonorgestrel Compared to levonorgestrel, mid-dose mifepristone likely results in fewer pregnancies (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.91; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 27 studies, 6052 participants) and likely reduces the occurrence of any side effects (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.76; I<sup>2</sup> = 72%; 17 studies, 4350 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. It probably leads to fewer occurrences of early menses (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.03; 7 studies, 1324 participants), but a higher risk of delayed menses (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.64; I<sup>2</sup> = 25%; 17 studies, 3615 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. No studies reported on acceptability. Low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) versus levonorgestrel Low-dose mifepristone reduces pregnancy compared to levonorgestrel (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 14 studies, 8752 participants; high-certainty evidence). It likely results in a large reduction in any side effects (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.38; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 3 studies, 609 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose mifepristone reduces the risk of early menses after treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.58; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 6 studies, 1898 participants), but slightly increases the risk of delayed menses (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.08; I<sup>2</sup> = 50%; 10 studies, 7618 participants), both with high-certainty evidence. Low-dose mifepristone probably results in slightly higher treatment satisfaction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07; 1 study, 724 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mifepristone versus the Yuzpe regimen Compared to the Yuzpe regimen, mifepristone (any dose) probably results in a reduction in pregnancies (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 3 studies, 2144 participants) and probably results in a large reduction in any side effects (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; I<sup>2</sup> = 97%; 2 studies, 1693 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. Mifepristone increases the risk of delayed menses (RR 2.83, 95% CI 2.31 to 3.47; I<sup>2</sup> = 85%; 3 studies, 1912 participants; high-certainty evidence). It likely increases treatment satisfaction (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25; 1 study, 615 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported on early menses. Mifepristone versus copper IUD We included two studies. Neither reported data for any side effects nor treatment satisfaction. Evidence for the number of pregnancies and altered menses was of very low certainty due to risk of bias, imprecision, and few events. Mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) versus low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) Mid-dose mifepristone results in a slight reduction in pregnancies (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.00; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 26 studies, 12,358 participants) and a slight increase in delayed menses (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.50; I<sup>2</sup> = 53%; 22 studies, 11,733 participants) compared to low-dose mifepristone, both with high-certainty evidence. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of any side effect or early menses between mid-dose and low-dose mifepristone (both outcomes with low-certainty evidence). No studies reported treatment satisfaction. Certainty and limitations The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high, with downgrading primarily due to the risk of bias for unclear reporting. Most studies were conducted in China, which may limit the generalizability of findings on side effects and satisfaction. Substantial missing data affected four risk of bias domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies at low overall risk of bias yielded similar effect estimates.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Both mid-dose and low-dose mifepristone are probably more effective than levonorgestrel. Mifepristone is likely more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy following unprotected intercourse. Nausea and vomiting are less common with all mifepristone doses than with Yuzpe. A delay in menses is probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone; higher doses of mifepristone seem to lead to increased frequency of delayed menses than lower doses.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review was funded in part by the World Health Organization (WHO).</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024591428.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016275"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13590219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016275","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Emergency contraception uses drugs or intrauterine devices to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Understanding the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the various methods available is critical for reproductive healthcare providers and their patients.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of mifepristone compared to other interventions in reproductive-age women using emergency contraception for the prevention of pregnancy.

Search methods: We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field, to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 28 February 2025.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mifepristone to oral emergency contraception pills (levonorgestrel, the Yuzpe regimen, and ulipristal acetate) or copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs). We also planned to include non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) for capturing rare adverse outcomes and detecting minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). Participants were women seeking emergency contraception within five days of unprotected intercourse.

Outcomes: The critical outcome was the number of pregnancies. Important outcomes included any side effects, altered menses, and acceptability, assessed as treatment satisfaction.

Risk of bias: We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the RCTs.

Synthesis methods: We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis where possible, using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Included studies: We included 87 studies with approximately 36,000 participants. Seventy-nine studies were conducted in China, four in the UK, two in Cuba, and two were multi-country studies. Forty-one studies compared mifepristone with levonorgestrel; three with the Yuzpe regimen (estrogen and progestin); 42 compared two or more doses of mifepristone; and two compared mifepristone with copper IUD. We excluded all relevant NRSIs identified because none reported additional outcome data that were unavailable from the included RCTs.

Synthesis of results: Mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) versus levonorgestrel Compared to levonorgestrel, mid-dose mifepristone likely results in fewer pregnancies (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.91; I2 = 0%; 27 studies, 6052 participants) and likely reduces the occurrence of any side effects (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.76; I2 = 72%; 17 studies, 4350 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. It probably leads to fewer occurrences of early menses (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.03; 7 studies, 1324 participants), but a higher risk of delayed menses (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.64; I2 = 25%; 17 studies, 3615 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. No studies reported on acceptability. Low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) versus levonorgestrel Low-dose mifepristone reduces pregnancy compared to levonorgestrel (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 8752 participants; high-certainty evidence). It likely results in a large reduction in any side effects (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.38; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 609 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose mifepristone reduces the risk of early menses after treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1898 participants), but slightly increases the risk of delayed menses (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.08; I2 = 50%; 10 studies, 7618 participants), both with high-certainty evidence. Low-dose mifepristone probably results in slightly higher treatment satisfaction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07; 1 study, 724 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mifepristone versus the Yuzpe regimen Compared to the Yuzpe regimen, mifepristone (any dose) probably results in a reduction in pregnancies (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 2144 participants) and probably results in a large reduction in any side effects (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; I2 = 97%; 2 studies, 1693 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. Mifepristone increases the risk of delayed menses (RR 2.83, 95% CI 2.31 to 3.47; I2 = 85%; 3 studies, 1912 participants; high-certainty evidence). It likely increases treatment satisfaction (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25; 1 study, 615 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported on early menses. Mifepristone versus copper IUD We included two studies. Neither reported data for any side effects nor treatment satisfaction. Evidence for the number of pregnancies and altered menses was of very low certainty due to risk of bias, imprecision, and few events. Mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) versus low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) Mid-dose mifepristone results in a slight reduction in pregnancies (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.00; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 12,358 participants) and a slight increase in delayed menses (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.50; I2 = 53%; 22 studies, 11,733 participants) compared to low-dose mifepristone, both with high-certainty evidence. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of any side effect or early menses between mid-dose and low-dose mifepristone (both outcomes with low-certainty evidence). No studies reported treatment satisfaction. Certainty and limitations The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high, with downgrading primarily due to the risk of bias for unclear reporting. Most studies were conducted in China, which may limit the generalizability of findings on side effects and satisfaction. Substantial missing data affected four risk of bias domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies at low overall risk of bias yielded similar effect estimates.

Authors' conclusions: Both mid-dose and low-dose mifepristone are probably more effective than levonorgestrel. Mifepristone is likely more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy following unprotected intercourse. Nausea and vomiting are less common with all mifepristone doses than with Yuzpe. A delay in menses is probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone; higher doses of mifepristone seem to lead to increased frequency of delayed menses than lower doses.

Funding: This Cochrane review was funded in part by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Registration: Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024591428.

米非司酮与其他干预措施预防使用紧急避孕的育龄妇女怀孕的比较
原理:紧急避孕使用药物或宫内节育器防止无保护性交后怀孕。了解各种可用方法的有效性、安全性和可接受性对生殖保健提供者及其患者至关重要。目的:评价米非司酮与其他干预措施在育龄妇女紧急避孕预防妊娠中的有效性、安全性和可接受性。检索方法:我们使用CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、其他两个数据库和两个试验注册库,同时进行参考资料检查并联系研究作者和该领域的专家,以确定纳入综述的研究。最近一次搜索日期是2025年2月28日。入选标准:我们纳入了比较米非司酮与口服紧急避孕药(左炔诺孕酮、Yuzpe方案和醋酸乌普利司酮)或铜或左炔诺孕酮宫内节育器(IUDs)的随机对照试验(rct)。我们还计划纳入用于捕获罕见不良结果和检测最小临床重要差异(MCIDs)的干预措施(NRSIs)的非随机研究。参与者是在无保护性交后五天内寻求紧急避孕的妇女。结局:关键结局是怀孕次数。重要结果包括任何副作用、月经改变和可接受性,以治疗满意度评估。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane的RoB 1工具来评估随机对照试验的偏倚风险。综合方法:在可能的情况下,我们使用固定效应和随机效应模型,采用荟萃分析对每个结果进行综合。我们使用GRADE来评估每个结果证据的确定性。纳入的研究:我们纳入了87项研究,约有36000名参与者。79项研究在中国进行,4项在英国进行,2项在古巴进行,2项是多国研究。41项研究比较了米非司酮和左炔诺孕酮;三组采用Yuzpe方案(雌激素和黄体酮);42组比较了两种或两种以上剂量的米非司酮;2例比较米非司酮与铜宫内节育器。我们排除了所有相关的nrsi,因为没有报告从纳入的rct中无法获得的其他结局数据。结果综合:中剂量米非司酮(25 ~ 50 mg)与左炔诺孕酮相比,中剂量米非司酮可能导致更少的妊娠(风险比(RR) 0.67, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.49 ~ 0.91;I2 = 0%;27项研究,6052名受试者)并可能减少任何副作用的发生(RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39至0.76;I2 = 72%; 17项研究,4350名受试者),均具有中等确定性证据。它可能导致更少的早期月经(RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49至1.03;7项研究,1324名受试者),但更高的延迟月经的风险(RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01至1.64;I2 = 25%; 17项研究,3615名受试者),两者都有中等确定性的证据。没有关于可接受性的研究报告。低剂量米非司酮与左炔诺孕酮相比降低妊娠(RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 ~ 0.90; I2 = 0%; 14项研究,8752名受试者;高确定性证据)。它可能导致任何副作用的大幅减少(RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17至0.38;I2 = 0%; 3项研究,609名参与者;中等确定性证据)。低剂量米非司酮降低了治疗后早期月经的风险(RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 ~ 0.58; I2 = 0%; 6项研究,1898名受试者),但稍微增加了月经延迟的风险(RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 ~ 2.08; I2 = 50%; 10项研究,7618名受试者),均有高确定性证据。低剂量米非司酮可能导致稍高的治疗满意度(RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 - 1.07; 1项研究,724名受试者;中等确定性证据)。米非司酮与Yuzpe方案相比,米非司酮(任何剂量)可能导致怀孕减少(RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05至0.41;I2 = 0%; 3项研究,2144名受试者),可能导致任何副作用的大幅减少(RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83至0.95;I2 = 97%; 2项研究,1693名受试者),两者都有中等确定性的证据。米非司酮增加月经延迟的风险(RR 2.83, 95% CI 2.31 - 3.47; I2 = 85%; 3项研究,1912名受试者;高确定性证据)。它可能提高治疗满意度(RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.10 - 1.25; 1项研究,615名参与者;中等确定性证据)。没有关于早期月经的研究报道。米非司酮与铜宫内节育器我们纳入了两项研究。没有报告任何副作用和治疗满意度的数据。由于存在偏倚、不精确和事件少的风险,关于怀孕数量和月经改变的证据的确定性非常低。中剂量米非司酮(25mg ~ 50mg)与低剂量米非司酮(< 25mg)相比,中剂量米非司酮导致妊娠率略有降低(RR = 0)。 77, 95% CI 0.59 ~ 1.00;I2 = 0%;26项研究,12,358名受试者),与低剂量米非司酮相比,延迟月经略有增加(RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15至1.50;I2 = 53%; 22项研究,11,733名受试者),均有高确定性证据。中剂量米非司酮和低剂量米非司酮在任何副作用或早期月经方面的发生可能几乎没有差异(这两种结果都具有低确定性证据)。没有研究报告治疗满意度。证据的确定性从极低到高不等,降级主要是由于报告不明确存在偏倚风险。大多数研究是在中国进行的,这可能限制了副作用和满意度研究结果的普遍性。大量缺失的数据影响了四个偏倚风险域:随机序列生成、分配隐藏、盲化和不完整的结果数据。敏感性分析仅限于低总体偏倚风险的研究,得出了类似的效果估计。作者的结论是:中剂量和低剂量米非司酮可能比左炔诺孕酮更有效。在预防无保护性交后怀孕方面,米非司酮可能比Yuzpe方案更有效。与Yuzpe相比,所有米非司酮剂量的恶心和呕吐都不常见。月经延迟可能是米非司酮的主要副作用;高剂量的米非司酮似乎比低剂量导致月经延迟的频率增加。资助:本Cochrane综述部分由世界卫生组织(WHO)资助。注册:注册号:PROSPERO CRD42024591428。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书