Response to Letter to the Editor

摘要: We thank Raymond et al. for their interest in our recent article on the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) versus single-dose levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC). agree that no study has yet demonstrated a meaningful population-level reduction pregnancy rates with LNG EC use even advanced provision. However studies provided response have own significant limitations and none definitely evaluates at population level. Nevertheless safety efficacy prevention individual women is well established. All models assumptions limitations. Our decision tree model based correct timely utilization EC. recognize there are additional confounding factors when used real life. For example decreased among who further acts unprotected intercourse same cycle. In addition possibly UPA appear to body mass index >or=30 kg/m2 . These confounders others present evaluating When comparing will prevent significantly more pregnancies after or inadequately protected intercourse. This translates cost savings level we modeled potential believe over-the-counter status should be pursued as it decrease unintended associated downstream outcomes health care costs. Reduction critical both society. an underutilized option reduce especially UPA. Policy changes barriers likely helpful promoting effective use. await future well-designed can examine these questions (full-text) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. rights reserved.