You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letters to the editor
LNG may still be the most cost-effective oral emergency contraception method
  1. Rudger Pittrof, MSc, MRCOG1,
  2. Ulrike Sauer, DRCOG2 and
  3. Palwasha Ikram, MBBS3
  1. Consultant, Enfield Community Services, RASH, London, UK; rudiger.pittrof@enfield.nhs.uk
  2. Enfield Community Services, RASH, London, UK; ulrike.sauer@enfield.nhs.uk
  3. Enfield Community Services, RASH, London, UK; Palwasha.Ikram@enfield.nhs.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc.2011.0070

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    It was with great interest that we read the economic analysis of Thomas et al.1 We know now if several assumptions are made, oral emergency contraception (EC) with ulipristal acetate (UPA) is the cheapest option for the health service. The assumptions implicit to the analysis were:

    • ▶ Meta-analysis of two underpowered randomised controlled trials (RCTs)2 using slightly different drug regimes is an acceptable method to determine the effectiveness of UPA and levonorgestrel (LNG) in the real world.

    • ▶ If pregnancy occurs following UPA exposure, outcomes are the same as for that observed in two RCTs following UPA or LNG exposure.

    • ▶ Pregnancy following exposure to UPA will incur average costs.

    • ▶ Neonatal costs do not differ between LNG and UPA and can thus …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.