左炔诺孕酮紧急避孕与体重:目前的建议与历史数据一致吗?

IF 2.4 Journal of Drug Assessment Pub Date : 2020-02-10 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/21556660.2020.1725524
László Kardos
{"title":"左炔诺孕酮紧急避孕与体重:目前的建议与历史数据一致吗?","authors":"László Kardos","doi":"10.1080/21556660.2020.1725524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To assess the consistency between current recommendations that women of body weight (BW) or body mass index (BMI) above a defined threshold should use a double dose of levonorgestrel (LNG) for emergency contraception (EC) and observed frequency of pregnancy in historic studies of single-dose LNG for EC. <b>Methods:</b> We applied double dose recommendation criteria to individual participant level data from three historic studies of the WHO's Human Reproductive Program to categorize subjects into single dose-recommended (SDR) and double dose-recommended (DDR) groups and compared the latter to the former using pregnancy risk ratios (RR). <b>Results:</b> A total of 5859 subjects with 59 pregnancies made up the full dataset. Depending on the recommendation source (USA or UK) and inclusion or exclusion of heavy outlier data, DDR criteria were satisfied by 3.7% to 18.9% of subjects. Pregnancy proportions were mostly lower in DDR than in SDR subjects, with risk ratio estimates ranging from zero to 1.17, exceeding unity only when the USA criterion was used with outliers included. DDR subjects had a significantly lower relative frequency of pregnancy than SDR subjects when the UK criteria were used and outliers excluded (RR = 0.17 [95% CI: 0.04; 0.70], <i>p</i> = .0024). <b>Conclusions:</b> Our findings are consistent with the notion that there is no real loss of pregnancy control with single-dose LNG-EC in high-BMI and/or high-BW users, and today's double dose recommendations were prematurely issued and remain questionable.</p>","PeriodicalId":15631,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21556660.2020.1725524","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Levonorgestrel emergency contraception and bodyweight: are current recommendations consistent with historic data?\",\"authors\":\"László Kardos\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21556660.2020.1725524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To assess the consistency between current recommendations that women of body weight (BW) or body mass index (BMI) above a defined threshold should use a double dose of levonorgestrel (LNG) for emergency contraception (EC) and observed frequency of pregnancy in historic studies of single-dose LNG for EC. <b>Methods:</b> We applied double dose recommendation criteria to individual participant level data from three historic studies of the WHO's Human Reproductive Program to categorize subjects into single dose-recommended (SDR) and double dose-recommended (DDR) groups and compared the latter to the former using pregnancy risk ratios (RR). <b>Results:</b> A total of 5859 subjects with 59 pregnancies made up the full dataset. Depending on the recommendation source (USA or UK) and inclusion or exclusion of heavy outlier data, DDR criteria were satisfied by 3.7% to 18.9% of subjects. Pregnancy proportions were mostly lower in DDR than in SDR subjects, with risk ratio estimates ranging from zero to 1.17, exceeding unity only when the USA criterion was used with outliers included. DDR subjects had a significantly lower relative frequency of pregnancy than SDR subjects when the UK criteria were used and outliers excluded (RR = 0.17 [95% CI: 0.04; 0.70], <i>p</i> = .0024). <b>Conclusions:</b> Our findings are consistent with the notion that there is no real loss of pregnancy control with single-dose LNG-EC in high-BMI and/or high-BW users, and today's double dose recommendations were prematurely issued and remain questionable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Drug Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21556660.2020.1725524\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Drug Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21556660.2020.1725524\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drug Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21556660.2020.1725524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的:评估目前关于体重(BW)或体重指数(BMI)高于规定阈值的女性应使用双剂量左炔诺孕酮(LNG)进行紧急避孕(EC)的建议与单剂量LNG用于EC的历史研究中观察到的妊娠频率之间的一致性。方法:我们对来自世界卫生组织人类生殖规划的三个历史研究的个体参与者水平数据应用双剂量推荐标准,将受试者分为单剂量推荐(SDR)组和双剂量推荐(DDR)组,并使用妊娠风险比(RR)将后者与前者进行比较。结果:5859名怀孕的受试者组成了完整的数据集。根据推荐来源(美国或英国)和纳入或排除大量异常数据,3.7%至18.9%的受试者满足DDR标准。与SDR受试者相比,DDR受试者的怀孕比例大多较低,风险比估计值在0到1.17之间,只有在使用美国标准并包含异常值时才超过统一。当使用英国标准并排除异常值时,DDR受试者的妊娠相对频率显著低于SDR受试者(RR = 0.17 [95% CI: 0.04;0.70], p = .0024)。结论:我们的研究结果与单剂量LNG-EC在高bmi和/或高体重用户中没有真正失去妊娠控制的观点是一致的,今天的双剂量建议过早发布,仍然值得怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Levonorgestrel emergency contraception and bodyweight: are current recommendations consistent with historic data?

Objective: To assess the consistency between current recommendations that women of body weight (BW) or body mass index (BMI) above a defined threshold should use a double dose of levonorgestrel (LNG) for emergency contraception (EC) and observed frequency of pregnancy in historic studies of single-dose LNG for EC. Methods: We applied double dose recommendation criteria to individual participant level data from three historic studies of the WHO's Human Reproductive Program to categorize subjects into single dose-recommended (SDR) and double dose-recommended (DDR) groups and compared the latter to the former using pregnancy risk ratios (RR). Results: A total of 5859 subjects with 59 pregnancies made up the full dataset. Depending on the recommendation source (USA or UK) and inclusion or exclusion of heavy outlier data, DDR criteria were satisfied by 3.7% to 18.9% of subjects. Pregnancy proportions were mostly lower in DDR than in SDR subjects, with risk ratio estimates ranging from zero to 1.17, exceeding unity only when the USA criterion was used with outliers included. DDR subjects had a significantly lower relative frequency of pregnancy than SDR subjects when the UK criteria were used and outliers excluded (RR = 0.17 [95% CI: 0.04; 0.70], p = .0024). Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with the notion that there is no real loss of pregnancy control with single-dose LNG-EC in high-BMI and/or high-BW users, and today's double dose recommendations were prematurely issued and remain questionable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Drug Assessment
Journal of Drug Assessment PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Treatment and comorbidity burden among people living with HIV: a review of systematic literature reviews. Investigation of potential substandard dry powder inhalers on EU and North African markets - evaluation of the delivered and fine particle doses. Real world evidence study on treatment patterns and health resource utilization in patients with HR+/HER2- locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Korea. A review of the risks of long-term consequences associated with components of the CHOP chemotherapy regimen. Real-world experience of ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis in an Arab population.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1