| TOPICS | CLINICAL STUDY | METHODOLOGY | SAMPLE | MESSAGE AND RESULTS |
| DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM | Wilcox1 | Prospective cohort study | 221 healthy women whowere planning a pregnancy | The timing of their fertile window can be highly unpredictable so unprotected sex carries a risk at any time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MECHANISM OF ACTION | Brache2 | Analysis of pooled data from three randomised trials of emergency contraception regimes2 | 163 women2 | 1° UPA postpones ovulation2 2° UPA delays ovulation for at least 5 days in a higher proportion of women than LNG (p=0.0001) even when given in the advance follicular phase2 |
| EFFICACY | Creinin3 | Randomised, double blind, comparative study of UPA vs LNG contraception with pregnancy as a primary outcome measure3 | 1546 women3 | UPA is at least as effective as LNG in prevening pregnancies3,4 |
| Glasier4 | Randomised single blind comparative EC trial of UPA vs LNG4 | 1696 women received EC within 72h of sexual intercourse4 | ||
| Glasier, Crenin4 | Pooled analysis4 | 3445 women4 | More pregnancies are prevented with UPA than LNG when taken in the first 72h (p=0.046)4 | |
| SAFETY | Glasier4 | Randomised single blind comparative EC trial of UPA vs LNG4 | 1696 women received EC within 72h of sexual intercourse4 | UPA is well tolerated in more than 1000 women treated. Similar adverse event profile as LNG3 |
| Epidemiology study to be published |
