EC Does Not Reduce Pregnancy Rates: Commentary & JAMA Study (1/05)

“…this study should be interpreted as telling us that emergency contraception [EC/MAP] is not of any benefit when given in advance for patients to have on hand, or when easily available from a pharmacist, compared to having to obtain a prescription to use it.  That is ALL this study can tell us.  And that, I’m sure, is not what the authors wanted to tell us.”… “In fact, they tried to tell us a lot more in their conclusion…” Direct Access to Emergency Contraception Through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancy and STIs: A Randomized Controlled Trial  JAMA. 2005; 293:54-62 [Comment: this is a new article in 1/05  JAMA by the strong proponents of OTC EC which shows that, in fact, EC does NOT reduce unwanted pregnancies (reducing unwanted pregnancies is, in fact, the only reason to consider making it OTC).  Comments by AAPLOG member Dr Nate Hoeldtke.] COMMENTARY Dr Nate Hoeldtke: “Below I’ve included the abstract and the accompanying editorial. There are several things to note: — Randomized study with three groups of 15-24 yr olds:1) pharmacy access to obtain EC (access from a pharmacist–closer toan over-the-counter model)2) given advance supplies of EC (this is what ACOG has recommended all ob/gyns do)3) clinic access only (need to come in for prescription) “They looked to see if there was any difference in pregnancy rates orsexually transmitted diseases in the three groups. With advancesupplies the women were twice as likely to use EC as the other twogroups. Interestingly, those who had access to get it from apharmacist were not more likely to use it than those had to get aprescription. But here’s the real kicker: They...