Kurt Kraetschmer*

Department of Reproductive Health, Austrian American Medical Research Institute, Austria

*Corresponding Author: Kurt Kraetschmer, Department of Reproductive Health, Austrian American Medical Research Institute, Austria.

Received: March 13, 2023; Published: April 12, 2023

Abstract

Aim: On the background of limited access to abortion and ensuing increased interest in Emergency Contraception (EC) in post-Roe USA, the aim of the present critical analysis is to answer the question as to whether women can rely on information presented by the World Health Organization (WHO) pertaining to Emergency Contraception.

Method: The material used are documents issued by the WHO and other health agencies as well as high-ranked research publications. This material is analyzed by using a critical analytic method which assesses the accuracy of claims made and the validity of the data presented by a comparative method.

Result: The result of the critical analysis is evidence that the information by the WHO is not trustworthy and that millions of women worldwide are misled on such issues as mode of action, efficacy, and safety of EC. The WHO’s information on the mode of action denies explicitly post-fertilization effects of EC despite results of evidence-based pharmacological research and statements made by the European Medical Agencies (EMA). The WHO’s data regarding efficacy of EC are incompatible with data presented by the FDA. The WHO’s explanations on safety belittles adverse events and ignores the harm caused by the copper-bearing intrauterine device which is presently the object of ongoing lawsuits in the USA. Regarding options for EC, the WHO disseminates incomplete information by ignoring the copper intrauterine contraceptive system releasing ulipristal acetate.

Implication: As implication of the misleading information provided by the WHO the question arises whether the WHO can be considered as an agency that provides guidance and accomplishes its mission as a foremost agent of pharmacovigilance. Given that women cannot trust information contained in various publication by the WHO, governments and private donors should revise their policies of financial support for the WHO.

Keywords: Contraception; World Health Organization; Food and Drug Administration; Drug Safety, Drug Efficacy; Drug-Drug Interactions; Paragard Lawsuits

References

1. World Health Organization. “Emergency Contraception” (2021).
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021”. Sexual Assault and Abuse and STIs – Adolescents and Adults (2023).
3. Food and Drug Administration. “FDA Birth Control” (2022).
4. Keenan JA. “Ulipristal acetate: contraceptive or contragestive?” Annals of Pharmacotherapy6 (2011): 813-815.
5. Ulipristal acetate | C30H37NO4 | ChemSpider (2023).
6. Mozzanega B and Nardelli GB. “UPA and LNG in emergency contraception: the information by EMA and the scientific evidences indicate a prevalent anti-implantation effect”. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care (2019): 1-7.
7. Guerrero MJ., et al. “Effect of ulipristal acetate on gene expression profile in endometrial cells in culture and in vivo upon post-ovulatory administration in fertile women”. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care9 (2021): 1-9.
8. Package leaflet: Information for the user ellaOne 30 mg tablet. Ulipristal acetate. This leaflet was last revised in October 2022. Marketing Authorisation Holder LABORATOIRE HRA PHARMA (2023).
9. World Health Organisation. Family Planning. A Global Handbook for Providers (2018 edition) (2023).
10. Paragard IUD Lawsuits | Injuries Claimed, Settlement Amounts (consumernotice.org) (2022).
11. Paragard IUD Lawsuits Claim Devices Can Break, Perforate Organs. By Michelle Llamas, BCPA. Edited By Sophia Clifton. Last Modified: November 18, 2022 (2023).
12. “Pearl Index”. Wikipedia.
13. Händel P and Wahlstöm J. “Digital contraceptives based on basal body temperature measurements”. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 52 (2019): 141-151.
14. Gerlinger C., et al. “Recommendation for confidence interval and sample size calculation for the Pearl Index”. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care2 (2003).
15. “Family planning/contraception methods”. (2020).
16. Brache V., et al. “Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a copper intrauterine contraceptive system releasing ulipristal acetate: A randomized proof-of-concept study”. Contraception 4 (2021): 327-336.
17. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) REMS Compliance Program. Content current as of: 09/22/2022 (2023).
18. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Information about Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation” (2023).
19. S. Senator Tina Smith Introduces Legislation to Protect Access to Medication Abortions (2023).
20. Trussell J and Raymond EG. “Emergency Contraception: A last chance to prevent unintended pregnancy”. (2013).

Citation

Citation: Kurt Kraetschmer. “A Critical Analysis of Information Presented by the World Health Organization on Emergency Contraception”.Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 7.5 (2023): 96-102.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Kurt Kraetschmer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.