Breastfeeding is a process for not only nourishing infants but also for building a unique emotional bond between mother and child. Therefore, the ideal contraception during lactation should not affect lactation (milk composition, milk volume) and offspring development.

This study aims to analyze the literature on the safety of progestogen hormonal contraceptive methods during lactation.

We conducted a thorough search across various databases, including the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and the Cochrane Database, Drugs and Lactation Database (LactMed). Our search utilized specific phrases such as: "lactation" and "breastfeeding" and "oral contraception" with "drospirenone" or "desogestrel", with "subcutaneous etonogestrel implant" or "etonogestrel implant", with "levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system", and "emergency contraception", with "levonorgestrel" or "ulipristal acetate".

Based on published scientific reports, progestogen hormonal contraceptives can be considered a relatively safe solution for women desiring to continue feeding their infant with their milk while using hormonal contraception. It is important to seek guidance on selecting the best contraception method based on the latest medical knowledge, tailored to the individual needs and clinical circumstances of each woman and place of residence. A woman should always be informed of the potential risks of such a treatment and then allowed to make her own decision based on the knowledge received from a specialist.

The aim of this non-randomized control study was to assess the effect of Drospirenone (DRSP) only pill (DOP) 4 mg, in a 24 active/4 placebo regimen, on the mood of postpartum women who wanted to use a hormonal contraceptive.

Seventy-one women in the study group, and 78 in the control group, were included in intention-to-treat analyses. The depression score was assessed using the self-administrated Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) at the childbirth preparation course (T0), and at 2 (T1), 12 (T2), and 24 (T3) weeks postpartum follow-ups.

From T0 to T1 an increase in the scores was observed in both groups: in the study group from 9.2 ± 2.5 to 10.1 ± 2.4 (p = 0.02), and in the control group from 8.7 ± 2.7 to 10.3 ± 2.2 (p < 0.001). At the T2 follow-up, the EPDS score reduction was statistically significant in the study group (p < 0.001) but not in the control group (p = 0.16). Similarly, at the T3 follow-up, the score was statistically reduced in the study (p < 0.01), but not in the control group (p = 0.35). The intergroup statistical analysis showed no differences between groups at T0 (p = 0.19) and at T1 (p = 0.55). Instead, they were statistically significant at T2 and T3 (p < 0.001). EPDS scores had no significant correlation with the mode of delivery (r = 0.2; p > 0.05) and with the mode of breastfeeding (r = 0.3; p > 0.05). On the other hand, EPDS scores demonstrated a positive correlation with the social status of single (r = 0.99; p < 0.002) and low education level (r = 0.82; p < 0.004).

Postpartum mood disorders may have persistent effects that compromise the mother's health and newborn development. DRSP, used as DOP, could modulate mood disorders of the postpartum period in women with individual sensitivity to steroid levels.

Background: Postpartum contraceptive use can help prevent short-interval pregnancies, which have been associated with adverse neonatal and maternal health outcomes. Many contraceptive methods are safe for postpartum use, but patients and providers may be confused as to what impact hormonal contraception has on lactation. We performed a scoping review of the most recent U.S.-based guidelines regarding hormonal contraception on lactation to provide synthesis and recommendations to aid providers in counseling their patients. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by identifying the most recent clinical recommendations and guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and three maternal and child health professional associations (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine [SMFM], and Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine [ABM]). We also reviewed the citations in these guidelines used in their development. We then conducted an updated literature review to capture studies published since the most recent systematic reviews were conducted. Results: We reviewed 1 clinical guideline from the CDC and 2 systematic reviews cited in its references, 6 professional association recommendations, and 28 publications identified through the updated literature review. Progestin-only contraceptive methods continue to demonstrate safety in breastfeeding patients, while low-quality evidence supports concerns of decreased milk supply with combined hormonal contraception. Discussion: Organizations should consider updating counseling recommendations regarding progestin-only contraceptives and lactation. Further research is needed to examine new contraceptive methods as well as the effect of hormonal contraception on lactation in the setting of preterm birth.

The levonorgestrel oral emergency contraceptive is well tolerated and effective, however its use is still limited, mainly due to safety concerns.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize current evidence regarding the adverse events, and their prevalence, reported during the use of oral levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives.

Four electronic databases and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Public Dashboard were searched. Studies that reported or investigated safety outcomes or adverse reactions during the use of levonorgestrel as an emergency oral contraceptive were included. Data on study design, demographics of levonorgestrel and the control cohort, and reported adverse effects were extracted.

A total of 47 articles were included in this systematic review, from which it was shown that most of the adverse reactions were common and not serious. Uncommon adverse reactions identified included anorexia, ectopic pregnancy, exanthema, chloasma, miscarriage, and weight gain. Multiple serious adverse events, including convulsion, ectopic pregnancy, febrile neutropenia, stroke, abdominal hernia, anaphylaxis, cancer, ovarian cyst rupture, serious infections, and suicidal ideation, were reported. In addition, the prevalence of adverse events after a levonorgestrel 0.75 mg two-dose regimen and a levonorgestrel 1.5 mg single-dose regimen were not statistically different (p > 0.05).

The most common adverse effects of levonorgestrel were not serious. This systematic review shows that data regarding the adverse reactions of repeated use of levonorgestrel are scarce. Studies on the multiple uses of levonorgestrel emergency contraception are still required to ensure its safety.

The current study aims to evaluate the effect of the use of single packet of levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills (LNG-ECPs) during breastfeeding on the health and development of the nursing infant.

The current study was an ancillary observational cohort study carried out in a university hospital. We counseled all women delivered and planning birth-space and breastfeed for at least 1 year for participation during postpartum hospital stay. Eligible participants for inclusion in the randomized controlled trial (NCT01111929) were allocated to receive adequate Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM) counseling (LAM-only group) or the LAM counseling in addition to counseling about LNG-ECPs use (LAM + emergency contraception (EC) group). These pills were to be used once if unprotected intercourse did occur after expiry of any of the LAM prerequisites and before the couples started to use a reliable method of contraception. We included the first 100 women in the LAM + EC who did use the pills and the first 100 women in the control group who completed the follow-up visits for 6 months to draw the infants' outcome. The primary outcome was the difference of anthropometric measurements of the infants at 3 and 6 months postpartum. Secondary outcome was the difference in the Psycho-social, fine and gross motor, and language development using Denver development screening test.

There were no statistical significant differences between both the groups regarding the infants' weight, length, head circumference, chest circumference, and mid-arm circumference at each visit (p > .05). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences regarding all items (psycho-social, fine and gross motor, and language) of Denver development screening test between the infants in LAM-only and LAM + EC groups (p = .081).

The use of single packet of LNG-ECPs during breastfeeding not objectively affects health and development of nursing infants or subjectively affects the quantity of breast milk.

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence).Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I2 = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I2 = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA may be more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency. Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence). Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I2 = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I2 = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA was more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Emergency contraception (EC) is a way to significantly reduce the chance of becoming pregnant after an episode of unprotected intercourse. Considerable data support the safety of all available and emerging options for EC. Areas covered: This review presents a comprehensive summary of the literature regarding the safety of EC as well as directions for further study. PubMed was searched for all relevant studies published prior to June 2017. Expertopinion: All available methods of EC (i.e., ulipristal acetate pills, levonorgestrel pills, and the copper-IUD), carry only mild side effects and serious adverse events are essentially unknown. The copper IUD has the highest efficacy of EC methods. Given the excellent safety profiles of mifepristone and the levonorgestrel IUD, research is ongoing related to use of these products for EC.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide recommendations for use of emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), including levonorgestrel (LNG) and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). A new ECP formulation, ulipristal acetate (UPA), is now available worldwide. To determine whether LNG, UPA or COC (Yuzpe) ECPs are safe for women with certain characteristics or medical conditions, we searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published from date of inception until May 2015 pertaining to the safety of LNG, UPA or Yuzpe ECP use. For direct evidence, we considered studies that looked at safety outcomes among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics taking ECPs compared with women not taking ECPs. For indirect evidence, we considered studies that reported pharmacokinetic (PK) data for ECP use among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics and studies that reported safety outcomes among healthy women taking ECPs. Five studies provided direct evidence; of these five studies, four examined LNG or Yuzpe use among pregnant or breastfeeding women, and one reported risk of ectopic pregnancy among women repeatedly using LNG ECPs. Poor pregnancy outcomes were rare among pregnant women who used LNG or Yuzpe ECPs during the conception cycle or early pregnancy. Breastfeeding outcomes did not differ between women exposed to LNG ECP and those unexposed, and there was no increased risk of ectopic pregnancy versus intrauterine pregnancy after repeated use of LNG ECPs compared with nonuse. Forty-five studies provided indirect evidence. One PK study demonstrated that LNG passes into breastmilk but in minimal quantities. In addition, nine studies examined pregnancy outcomes following ECP failure among healthy women, and 35 articles reported adverse events. Studies suggest that serious adverse events are rare among women taking any of these ECP formulations.

Evidence on safety of ECPs among women with characteristics or medical conditions listed within WHO and CDC family planning guidance is limited. However, both direct and indirect evidence for our study question did not suggest any special safety concerns for the use of ECPs among women with particular medical conditions or personal characteristics, such as pregnancy, lactation or frequent ECP use.

A central goal of The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.

The emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) containing levonorgestrel is dispensed without a prescription in Spain since 2009. An easy access could diminish unwanted pregnancies; however, there is a risk of misuse and, in any case, of developing some adverse events. The aim of the present study is to further learn the adverse effects of this ECP.

An ad hoc follow-up study was carried out in three community pharmacies in a city of Central Spain; the sample was composed of those women asking for the ECP; they were interviewed by telephone after at least a month since the last menses. We completed the safety profile obtained with that coming from spontaneous reporting in Spain.

Out of 139 women surveyed, 113 developed any adverse event--two considered as severe; the most frequently reported events were menstrual disturbances, which accounted for 21% of all events. Through spontaneous reporting, 36 cases of whatever adverse events related to levonorgestrel as ECP were identified. Twenty-five cases were considered as severe. Both types of reaction and severity were significantly different in the follow-up study and in the spontaneous reporting. Some of the reactions identified, such as miscarriage, febrile neutropenia, and porphyria, are not included in the Summary of Product Characteristics.

Levonorgestrel as an ECP is mostly safe. Attention should be paid to some severe events and particularly to those risk factors for them to appear. Combining spontaneous reporting with an ad hoc follow-up study, the whole safety profile of a given medication can be obtained.