Drug-Company CEO: Top Morning-After Pill May Not Work Over 165 Pounds, Regardless of BMI

Plus: How the Plan B controversy could affect the “Hobby Lobby” Obamacare case before the Supreme Court.

Courtesy of <a href="http://www.norlevo.se/patient-information-in-english">Norlevo</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Since Mother Jones broke the news on Monday that a European drugmaker, HRA Pharma, found that its popular morning-after pill may not work in heavier women, many readers have asked why the company chose to update its product labels with a hard weight limit—instead of a limit on BMI, an obesity measurement that relies on a height-to-weight ratio.

HRA Pharma was prompted to rethink its labels after University of Edinburgh Professor Anna Glasier linked emergency contraceptive failures and an obese body mass index (or BMI) in a 2011 analysis. The new label for the drug, Norlevo—a brand of emergency contraceptive pills which uses levonorgestrel to prevent pregnancy, and is identical to several US drugs, including Plan B—says it is not recommended for women who weigh 165 pounds or more, no matter their height.

Glasier, analyzing data from one study sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health and another sponsored by HRA Pharma, found that the risk of pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel pills increased significantly if a woman had a body mass index of 30 or higher—which the US Centers for Disease Control considers obese.

On Tuesday, HRA Pharma CEO Erin Gainer explained the company’s decision further to Mother Jones. When HRA statisticians reviewed the data Glasier used for her analysis, Gainer says, they confirmed Glasier’s findings about BMI—but they also found that their products’ failure correlated even more strongly with weight, regardless of a woman’s height.

“We were surprised,” Gainer says. “But the findings were really quite striking from a statistical point of view.” She adds that weight is easier for health care providers to discuss with their patients. “People don’t walk down the street knowing what their body mass index is,” she says.

HRA Pharma has not made its analysis public. But based on the media uproar after I first revealed Norlevo’s new guidelines, Gainer says, “We’re thinking now about how best to publish these findings.”

A New York Times article highlights another change HRA Pharma will make to the leaflets included with Norlevo: the new leaflets will say that Norlevo “cannot stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb.” This is significant because it contradicts assertions made by abortion opponents in their lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate—the so-called “Hobby Lobby” cases that the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear this spring. The Times’ Pam Belluck explains:

The cases coming before the Supreme Court involve corporations that object on religious grounds to the health care law’s requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraception, including emergency contraception. The cases are based on the claim that some types of contraception, including Plan B One-Step, prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, tantamount to an abortion.

While labels of Plan B One-Step and related pills, which contain the drug levonorgestrel, say they work mostly by blocking the release of eggs before fertilization, they also say the drugs may inhibit fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.

Last year, the New York Times reported on new evidence that emergency contraceptive pills do not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and the FDA now tentatively agrees with their assessment. But HRA Pharma appears to be the first drug company to adjust its labels accordingly—a significant data point against the abortion foes appearing before the Supreme Court.

In her research, Glasier did not determine why the effects of levonorgestrel diminished as BMI or weight increased. She published her research in the international peer-reviewed journal Contraception.

The FDA is investigating whether US emergency contraceptives that use levonorgestrel must change their labels.

Diana Blithe, a contraceptive researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and an author of one of the studies Glasier analyzed, told NPR on Tuesday that she supports such a change. “I think it is incumbent upon American manufacturers to put that information on the label now that they’re aware of it,” she said.

But Glasier told CNN that she was still skeptical of warning heavier women not to use Norlevo or similar drugs. “You are probably better to take [levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills] after unprotected sex than just to leave it to chance even if you are obese,” she said.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate