Mikolajczyk, R. T., & Stanford, J. B. (2007). Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action. Fertility and sterility, 88(3), 565-571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.178
Mikolajczyk RT, Stanford JB. Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):565-571. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.178
Mikolajczyk, R. T., and J. B. Stanford. "Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action." Fertility and sterility, vol. 88, no. 3, 2007, pp. 565-571.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
License
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Levonorgestrel EC trial results exceed ovulation-only model estimates
Disruption of ovulation alone could prevent about 5 out of 10 pregnancies at most, a simulation of levonorgestrel emergency contraception (EC) finds, when taken with no delay. With a 72-hour delay the modeled effect falls to fewer than 1 out of 10. The model used ultrasound data from 107 women. Trial estimates the authors cite run higher.
Key Findings
When disruption of ovulation was the only mechanism, modeled effectiveness fell from 49% with no delay to 8% with a 72-hour delay.
Under the same assumption, modeled effectiveness was 2% at a 96-hour delay and 0% at a 120-hour delay.
If levonorgestrel EC completely prevented fertilization whenever given before the day of ovulation, modeled effectiveness with a 72-hour delay was 16%.
The authors cite a trial of 976 women estimating 85% effectiveness within 72 hours, and a study of 1021 women estimating 64% overall with no trend by delay.
Recent analyses suggest trial estimates were overestimated by approximately 10% (absolute difference), which the authors say could not account for the gap.
Interpretation
This is a simulation, so no women took levonorgestrel EC in it. The authors combined published data on follicle growth, ovulation effects from one small earlier study, and daily pregnancy odds. They chose assumptions that favor ovulation effects. They could not calculate confidence limits. The model cannot separate the possible reasons for the gap. The authors think both explanations likely contribute: trial estimates that run too high, and other mechanisms, including postfertilization effects. They say ultrasound studies and precise timing data would help.
RRM Context
Restorative reproductive medicine puts the ovulatory cycle first. The odds of pregnancy from one act of sex depend on how far it falls from ovulation. Fertility awareness charting tracks body signs to time ovulation. The follicle data came from women with experience in natural family planning methods. Ultrasound of the follicle shows whether ovulation has happened.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
Objective
To model the effectiveness that can be obtained if levonorgestrel-only emergency contraception (EC) acts only through disrupting ovulation, in relation to other effects that may occur before or after fertilization and accounting for delays in administration.
Design
We modeled follicular growth as a function of follicular size, using known day-specific probabilities of conception and known disruption of ovulation by levonorgestrel-only EC, to estimate the expected effectiveness of EC.
Setting
Combined data from multiple clinical studies.
Patients
Simulation models.
Interventions
Disruption of ovulation.
Main Outcome Measures
Effectiveness in the form of proportion of pregnancies prevented.
Results
With disruption of ovulation alone, the potential effectiveness of levonorgestrel EC ranged from 49% (no delay) to 8% (72-hour delay). With complete inhibition of fertilization before the day of ovulation, the potential effectiveness of levonorgestrel EC ranged from 90% (no delay) to 16% (72-hour delay).
Conclusions
The gap between effectiveness of levonorgestrel EC estimated from clinical studies and what can be attributed to disruption of ovulation may be explained by overestimation of actual effectiveness and supplementary mechanisms of action, including postfertilization effects. Additional data with follicular ultrasound and precise measures of delay between intercourse and EC administration would yield greater insight into effectiveness and mechanisms of action.
Minjeur M et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine·Free to read
Infertility is a clinical condition that is recognized by the symptom of an inability to conceive through sexual intercourse or to sustain a pregnancy, with that symptom indicating underlying male and/or female pathology.
This definition of infertility was developed through a structured, consensus-informed process involving broad stakeholder engagement. Initially, multiple definitions currently used by various medical professional organizations were reviewed, and a definition document was drafted and submitted to the Board of Directors of the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM). All IIRRM members were invited to provide feedback on the draft. Approximately 2,500 individuals and 44 organizations from 92 countries were then invited to review the proposed document, representing clinical, scientific, patient, policy, and advocacy perspectives. Submitted comments were reviewed thematically, with suggested revisions evaluated for clarity, clinical relevance, inclusiveness, and consistency with contemporary restorative reproductive medicine. Following this review, 3 substantive changes, 18 minor changes, and 15 citation corrections were incorporated into the final draft which resulted in a revised definition intended to better reflect the medical, social, and practical realities of modern infertility evaluation and care. Final approval by the IIRRM Board of Directors was unanimous.
Kahn LG et al., 2026·JAMA Network Open·Free full text on PubMed Central
Increasing numbers of children are conceived using infertility treatment; concerns remain about potential effects on child neurodevelopment. To evaluate whether infertility treatment is associated with child neurodevelopment and whether such an association may be attributable to underlying subfecundity. DESIGN, SETTING, This cohort study was conducted among mother-child dyads in the National Institutes of Health Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort, with infants conceived between 1998 and 2022. Associations of subfecundity and infertility treatment with neurodevelopmental outcomes were assessed among children ages 2 to 10 years. Data were analyzed from May 14, 2025, to March 31, 2026. Subfecundity was defined as prior consultation for, treatment of, or diagnosis of infertility for either partner; at least 2 prior miscarriages; or ever having had unprotected heterosexual intercourse for 12 months without conceiving. Infertility treatment was categorized as in vitro fertilization (IVF) or non-IVF treatment. Harmonized caregiver responses to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist yielded continuous raw scores for externalizing and internalizing problems. The total raw Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) score quantified autism-like symptoms. Caregivers reported physician diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Among 15 382 mother-infant dyads, there were 14 191 unique maternal participants (mean [SD] age at delivery, 30.9 [5.33] years; 8780 parous participants [57.1%]). ASD and ADHD were diagnosed in 876 offspring (7.6%) and 819 offspring (7.1%), respectively. In generalized linear models, subfecundity was associated with higher externalizing problem and SRS scores among all pregnancies (externalizing problems: b = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.14-0.81]; SRS score: b = 1.08 [95% CI, 0.01-2.14]) and when restricted to natural conceptions (externalizing problems: b = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.07-0.83]; SRS score: b = 1.12 [95% CI, -0.09 to 2.34]). Offspring of parents with subfecundity had higher odds of ASD (overall: odds ratio [OR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.03-1.57]; natural conceptions: OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.04-1.64]). Children conceived via non-IVF treatment had higher odds of ADHD compared with those conceived via natural conception with subfecundity (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.16-2.68]) or without subfecundity (OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.05-2.25]). There were no significant associations for IVF treatment. In this large US cohort study, subfecundity was associated with elevated scores for caregiver-reported symptoms of behavioral problems and higher odds of ASD diagnosis, independent of infertility treatment. Non-IVF treatment was associated with ADHD, warranting further research into specific indications for treatment that may increase risk of offspring neurodevelopmental problems.
Stanford JB et al., 2026·Frontiers in Reproductive Health·Free full text on PubMed Central
Background The total fertility rate (TFR) in most developed countries has been declining for decades. In the United States (U.S.), the total fertility rate has remained below replacement level since 2007. Subfertility affects at least 15% of women or couples over their reproductive lifespan and contributes to reduced TFR. Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is a medically based approach to subfertility care that can be delivered in primary care settings to increase live birth rates. Objective To estimate the theoretical impact of use of RRM among subfertile couples in the United States. Methods We conducted a simulation study. Model inputs included the number of women of reproductive age in the United States by 5-year age groups; current age-specific and total fertility rates; the proportion of women in each age group with subfertility; estimated spontaneous live birth rates among women with subfertility; and age-specific crude live birth rates with RRM treatment. We evaluated fifteen scenarios including sensitivity analyses: two different varying assumptions for spontaneous conception (25% vs. 50%), two levels of RRM utilization among subfertile women (20% vs. 50%), three different estimates of the number of subfertile women who would be potentially eligible for RRM treatment, and 4 different levels of effectiveness (live birth) from RRM treatment. Results The baseline TFR in the United States was 1.77 during 2015-2019, and 13.5% of women ages 20-44 were estimated to have subfertility. In a conservative scenario (50% spontaneous births; 20% RRM utilization; married women trying to conceive for at least 12 months, 20.7% RRM live births), the TFR increased to 1.79, representing a 1.0% relative increase (absolute +0.02). In an optimistic scenario (25% spontaneous births; 50% RRM utilization; all subfertile women), the TFR increased to 2.02, a 14.5% relative increase (absolute +0.26), approaching replacement-level fertility. Conclusion Simulation results suggest that expanding access to RRM within primary care settings could meaningfully increase the U.S. TFR, by reducing unresolved subfertility. Realizing this potential would require policy and health system changes to address workforce capacity, insurance coverage, and equitable access. These findings underscore the potential contribution of non-IVF fertility care pathways in addressing population-level fertility decline.
Although widely used, the mechanisms of action of the levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill (LNG ECP) are still unclear. There are increasing data to indicate that LNG is particularly effective as an ECP by interrupting follicular development and ovulation. An important outstanding question is whether it has any effect on fertilization or implantation. Ninety-nine women participated; they were recruited at the time they presented with a request for emergency contraception. All women took LNG 1.5 mg in a single dose during the clinic consultation. A blood sample was taken immediately prior to ingestion of the ECP for estimation of serum LH, estradiol and progesterone levels to calculate the day of ovulation. The specimens were analyzed in a single batch. Based on these endocrine data, we estimated the timing of ovulation to be within a +/-24-h period with an accuracy of around 80%. Women were followed up 4-6 weeks later to ascertain pregnancy status. The effectiveness of ECP when taken before and after ovulation was determined. Three women became pregnant despite taking the ECP (pregnancy rate, 3.0%). All three women who became pregnant had unprotected intercourse between Days -1 and 0 and took the ECP on Day +2, based on endocrine data. Day 0 was taken as ovulation day. Among 17 women who had intercourse in the fertile period of the cycle and took the ECP after ovulation occurred (on Days +1 to +2), we could have expected three or four pregnancies; three were observed. Among 34 women who had intercourse on Days -5 to -2 of the fertile period and took ECP before or on the day of ovulation, four pregnancies could have been expected, but none were observed. We found major discrepancies between women's self-report of stage of the cycle and the dating calculation based on endocrine data. These data are supportive of the concept that the LNG ECP has little or no effect on postovulation events but is highly effective when taken before ovulation.
Peck R et al., 2016·Linacre Q·Free full text on PubMed Central
Recent studies have identified that levonorgestrel administered orally in emergency contraception (LNG-EC) is only efficacious when taken before ovulation. However, the drug does not consistently prevent follicular rupture or impair sperm function. The present systematic review is performed to analyze and more precisely define the extent to which pre-fertilization mechanisms of action may explain the drug's efficacy in pregnancy avoidance. We also examine the available evidence to determine if pre-ovulatory drug administration may be associated with post-fertilization effects. The mechanism of action of LNG-EC is reviewed. The drug has no ability to alter sperm function at doses used in vivo and has limited ability to suppress ovulation. Our analysis estimates that the drug's ovulatory inhibition potential could prevent less than 15 percent of potential conceptions, thus making a pre-fertilization mechanism of action significantly less likely than previously thought. Luteal effects (such as decreased progesterone, altered glycodelin levels, and shortened luteal phase) present in the literature may suggest a pre-ovulatory induced post-fertilization drug effect. Plan B is the most widely used emergency contraceptive available. It is important for patients and physicians to clearly understand the drug's mechanism of action (MOA). The drug was originally thought to work by preventing fertilization. Recent research has cast doubt on this. Our review of the research suggests that it could act in a pre-fertilization capacity, and we estimate that it could prevent ovulation in only 15 percent or less of cases. The drug has no ability to alter sperm function and limited ability to suppress ovulation. Further, data suggest that when administered pre-ovulation, it may have a post-fertilization MOA.
The contraceptive efficacy of emergency contraceptive pills containing levonorgestrel (LNG-EC) has been estimated in most previous studies by judging the day of ovulation from presumptive menstrual cycle data, thus providing poorly reliable estimates. In the present study, the efficacy of LNG-EC was determined in 393 cycles by dating ovulation on the basis of reliable hormonal and ovarian parameters validated by a database constructed in a separate study. In addition, the efficacy was determined separately for cycles in which LNG-EC was given before or after ovulation. For the 148 women who had sexual intercourse during the fertile days, the overall accumulated probability of pregnancy was 24.7, while altogether 8 pregnancies were observed. Thus, the overall contraceptive efficacy of LNG-EC was 68%. Among the 103 women who took LNG-EC before ovulation (days -5 to -1), 16 pregnancies were expected and no pregnancy occurred (p<.0001). Among the 45 women who took LNG-EC on the day of ovulation (day 0) or thereafter, 8 pregnancies occurred and 8.7 were expected (p=1.00). These findings are incompatible with the inhibition of implantation by LNG-EC in women. The same cases were also analyzed using the presumptive menstrual cycle data, and important discrepancies were detected between the two methods. The efficacy of LNG-EC has been overestimated in studies using presumptive menstrual cycle data. Our results confirm previous similar studies and demonstrate that LNG-EC does not prevent embryo implantation and therefore cannot be labeled as abortifacient.
To assess the possibility of a postfertilization effect in regard to the most common types of hormonal emergency contraception (EC) used in the US and to explore the ethical impact of this possibility. DATA A MEDLINE search (1966-November 2001) was done to identify all pertinent English-language journal articles. A review of reference sections of the major review articles was performed to identify additional articles. Search terms included emergency contraception, postcoital contraception, postfertilization effect, Yuzpe regimen, levonorgestrel, mechanism of action, Plan B. The 2 most common types of hormonal EC used in the US are the Yuzpe regimen (high-dose ethinyl estradiol with high-dose levonorgestrel) and Plan B (high-dose levonorgestrel alone). Although both methods sometimes stop ovulation, they may also act by reducing the probability of implantation, due to their adverse effect on the endometrium (a postfertilization effect). The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses.
PMID 17320877 17320877 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.178 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.178 Mikolajczyk et al. 2007, Mikolajczyk 2007
Cite this article
Mikolajczyk, R. T., & Stanford, J. B. (2007). Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action. Fertility and sterility, 88(3), 565-571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.178
Mikolajczyk RT, Stanford JB. Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):565-571. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.178
Mikolajczyk, R. T., and J. B. Stanford. "Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action." Fertility and sterility, vol. 88, no. 3, 2007, pp. 565-571.