Dataset Information

Combined Oral Contraceptives and Venous Thromboembolism: Review and Perspective to Mitigate the Risk.

ABSTRACT: Many factors must be considered and discussed with women when initiating a contraceptive method and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of them. In this review, we discuss the numerous strategies that have been implemented to reduce the thrombotic risk associated with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) from their arrival on the market until today. Evidences suggesting that COCs were associated with an increased risk of VTE appeared rapidly after their marketing. Identified as the main contributor of this risk, the dosage of the estrogen, i.e., ethinylestradiol (EE), was significantly reduced. New progestins were also synthetized (e.g., desogestrel or gestodene) but their weak androgenic activity did not permit to counterbalance the effect of EE as did the initial progestins such as levonorgestrel. Numerous studies assessed the impact of estroprogestative combinations on hemostasis and demonstrated that women under COC suffered from resistance towards activated protein C (APC). Subsequently, the European Medicines Agency updated its guidelines on clinical investigation of steroid contraceptives in which they recommended to assess this biological marker. In 2009, estradiol-containing COCs were marketed and the use of this natural form of estrogen was found to exert a weaker effect on the synthesis of hepatic proteins compared to EE. In this year 2021, a novel COC based on a native estrogen, i.e., estetrol, will be introduced on the market. Associated with drospirenone, this preparation demonstrated minor effects on coagulation proteins as compared with other drospirenone-containing COCs. At the present time, the standard of care when starting a contraception, consists of identifying the presence of hereditary thrombophilia solely on the basis of familial history of VTE. This strategy has however been reported as poorly predictive of hereditary thrombophilia. One rationale and affordable perspective which has already been considered in the past could be the implementation of a baseline screening of the prothrombotic state to provide health care professionals with objective data to support the prescription of the more appropriate contraceptive method. While this strategy was judged too expensive due to limited laboratory solutions, the endogenous thrombin potential-based APC resistance assay could now represent an interesting alternative.

SUBMITTER: Morimont L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8697849 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between use of combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolism, taking the type of progestogen into account.DesignTwo nested case-control studies.SettingGeneral practices in the United Kingdom contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD; 618 practices) and QResearch primary care database (722 practices).ParticipantsWomen aged 15-49 years with a first diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in 2001-13, each matched with up to five controls by age, practice, and calendar year.Main outcome measuresOdds ratios for incident venous thromboembolism and use of combined oral contraceptives in the previous year, adjusted for smoking status, alcohol consumption, ethnic group, body mass index, comorbidities, and other contraceptive drugs. Results were combined across the two datasets.Results5062 cases of venous thromboembolism from CPRD and 5500 from QResearch were analysed. Current exposure to any combined oral contraceptive was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (adjusted odds ratio 2.97, 95% confidence interval 2.78 to 3.17) compared with no exposure in the previous year. Corresponding risks associated with current exposure to desogestrel (4.28, 3.66 to 5.01), gestodene (3.64, 3.00 to 4.43), drospirenone (4.12, 3.43 to 4.96), and cyproterone (4.27, 3.57 to 5.11) were significantly higher than those for second generation contraceptives levonorgestrel (2.38, 2.18 to 2.59) and norethisterone (2.56, 2.15 to 3.06), and for norgestimate (2.53, 2.17 to 2.96). The number of extra cases of venous thromboembolism per year per 10,000 treated women was lowest for levonorgestrel (6, 95% confidence interval 5 to 7) and norgestimate (6, 5 to 8), and highest for desogestrel (14, 11 to 17) and cyproterone (14, 11 to 17).ConclusionsIn these population based, case-control studies using two large primary care databases, risks of venous thromboembolism associated with combined oral contraceptives were, with the exception of norgestimate, higher for newer drug preparations than for second generation drugs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive overview of the risk of venous thrombosis in women using different combined oral contraceptives.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Academic Search Premier, and ScienceDirect up to 22 April 2013.Review methodsObservational studies that assessed the effect of combined oral contraceptives on venous thrombosis in healthy women. The primary outcome of interest was a fatal or non-fatal first event of venous thrombosis with the main focus on deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Publications with at least 10 events in total were eligible. The network meta-analysis was performed using an extension of frequentist random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. Unadjusted relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were reported. The requirement for crude numbers did not allow adjustment for potential confounding variables.Results3110 publications were retrieved through a search strategy; 25 publications reporting on 26 studies were included. Incidence of venous thrombosis in non-users from two included cohorts was 1.9 and 3.7 per 10,000 woman years, in line with previously reported incidences of 1-6 per 10,000 woman years. Use of combined oral contraceptives increased the risk of venous thrombosis compared with non-use (relative risk 3.5, 95% confidence interval 2.9 to 4.3). The relative risk of venous thrombosis for combined oral contraceptives with 30-35 µg ethinylestradiol and gestodene, desogestrel, cyproterone acetate, or drospirenone were similar and about 50-80% higher than for combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel. A dose related effect of ethinylestradiol was observed for gestodene, desogestrel, and levonorgestrel, with higher doses being associated with higher thrombosis risk.ConclusionAll combined oral contraceptives investigated in this analysis were associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis. The effect size depended both on the progestogen used and the dose of ethinylestradiol.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many studies have found an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with the use of combined hormonal contraceptives, but various methodologies have been used in the study design relating to definition of VTE event and the selection of appropriate cases for analysis. This study will focus on common oral hormonal contraceptives, including compositions with cyproterone because of their contraceptive effect and will perform a number of sensitivity analyses to compare findings with previous studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:2 nested case-control studies will be based on the general population using records from UK general practices within the QResearch and Clinical Practice Research Datalink databases. Cases will be female patients aged 15-49 with primary VTE diagnosed between 2001 and 2013. Each case will be matched by age, year of birth and practice to five female controls, who are alive and registered with the practice at the time of diagnosis of the case (index date). Exposure to different hormonal contraceptives will be defined as at least one prescription for that contraceptive in the year before the index date. The effects of duration and the length of any gap since last use will also be investigated. Conditional logistic regression will be applied to calculate ORs adjusted for smoking, ethnicity, comorbidities and use of other medications. Possible indications for prescribing hormonal contraceptives, such as menstrual disorders, acne or hirsutism will be included in the analyses as confounding factors. A number of sensitivity analyses will be carried out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The initial protocol has been reviewed and approved by ISAC (Independent Scientific Advisory Committee) for Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Database Research. The project has also been reviewed by QResearch and meets the requirements of the Trent Research Ethics Committee. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:ImportanceContinuous/extended cyclic estrogen use (84/7 or 365/0 days cycles) in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) could potentially expose women to an increased cumulative dose of estrogen, compared with traditional cyclic regimens (21/7 days cycle), and may increase the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectiveTo determine, while holding the progestogen type constant, whether the risk for VTE is higher with use of continuous/extended COCs than with cyclic COCs among women who initiated a COC containing ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel.Design, setting, and participantsIncident user retrospective cohort study of primarily commercially insured US population identified from the Sentinel Distributed Database. Participants were women aged 18 to 50 years at the time of initiating a study COC between May 2007 and September 2015. Using a propensity score approach and Cox proportional hazards regression models, we estimated the hazard ratios of VTE overall and separately by ethinyl estradiol dose and age groups.ExposuresInitiation of continuous/extended or traditional cyclic COCs containing ethinyl estradiol or levonorgestrel of any dose.Main outcomes and measuresFirst VTE hospitalization that occurred during the study follow-up, identified by an inpatient International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code of 415.1, 415.1x, 453, 453.x, or 453.xx.ResultsWe identified 210?691 initiators of continuous/extended COCs (mean [SD] age, 30.4 [8.6] years) and 522?316 initiators of cyclic COCs (mean [SD] age, 28.8 [8.3] years), with a mean of 0.7 person-years at risk among continuous/extended and cyclic users. Baseline cardiovascular and metabolic conditions (7.2% vs 4.7%), gynecological conditions (39.7% vs 32.3%), and health services utilization were slightly higher among continuous/extended cyclic than cyclic COC users. Propensity score matching decreased the hazard ratio estimates from 1.84 (95% CI, 1.53-2.21) to 1.32 (95% CI, 1.07-1.64) for continuous/extended use compared with cyclic COC use. The absolute risk difference (0.27 per 1000 persons) and the incidence rate difference (0.35 cases per 1000 person-years [1.44 vs 1.09 cases per 1000 person-years]) between the 2 propensity score-matched cohorts remained low, which may not translate into a clinically significant risk differences between cyclic and noncyclic estrogen use.Conclusions and relevanceHolding the progestogen type constant (levonorgestrel), we observed a slightly elevated VTE risk in association with continuous/extended COC use when compared with cyclic COC use. However, due to the small absolute risk difference and potential residual confounding, our findings did not show strong evidence supporting a VTE risk difference between continuous/extended and cyclic COC use.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the risk of venous thromboembolism from use of combined oral contraceptives according to progestogen type and oestrogen dose.DesignNational historical registry based cohort study.SettingFour registries in Denmark.ParticipantsNon-pregnant Danish women aged 15-49 with no history of thrombotic disease and followed from January 2001 to December 2009.Main outcome measuresRelative and absolute risks of first time venous thromboembolism.ResultsWithin 8,010,290 women years of observation, 4307 first ever venous thromboembolic events were recorded and 4246 included, among which 2847 (67%) events were confirmed as certain. Compared with non-users of hormonal contraception, the relative risk of confirmed venous thromboembolism in users of oral contraceptives containing 30-40 µg ethinylestradiol with levonorgestrel was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 3.8), with desogestrel was 6.6 (5.6 to 7.8), with gestodene was 6.2 (5.6 to 7.0), and with drospirenone was 6.4 (5.4 to 7.5). With users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel as reference and after adjusting for length of use, the rate ratio of confirmed venous thromboembolism for users of oral contraceptives with desogestrel was 2.2 (1.7 to 3.0), with gestodene was 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8), and with drospirenone was 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8). The risk of confirmed venous thromboembolism was not increased with use of progestogen only pills or hormone releasing intrauterine devices. If oral contraceptives with desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone are anticipated to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism sixfold and those with levonorgestrel threefold, and the absolute risk of venous thromboembolism in current users of the former group is on average 10 per 10,000 women years, then 2000 women would need to shift from using oral contraceptives with desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone to those with levonorgestrel to prevent one event of venous thromboembolism in one year.ConclusionAfter adjustment for length of use, users of oral contraceptives with desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone were at least at twice the risk of venous thromboembolism compared with users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OCs) has undergone changes since it was recognized that their chemical structure can influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. METHODS: The objective of this review was to evaluate currently available low-dose OCs containing ethinylestradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion and were assessed for methodological quality and validity. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials were included in the review. Eighteen were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and in only 5 there was an attempt for blinding. Most comparisons between different interventions included one to three trials, involving usually less than 500 women. Discontinuation was less with second-generation progestogens compared to first-generation (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91). Cycle control appeared to be better with second-compared to first-generation progestogens for both, mono-and triphasic preparations (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.91) and (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.85), respectively. Intermenstrual bleeding was less with third- compared to second-generation pills (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.91).Contraceptive effectiveness of gestodene (GSD) was comparable to that of levonorgestrel (LNG), and had similar pattern of spotting, breakthrough bleeding and absence of withdrawal bleeding). Drospirenone (DRSP) was similar compared to desogestrel (DSG) regarding contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control and side effects. CONCLUSION: The third- and second-generation progestogens are preferred over first generation in all indices of acceptability. Current evidence suggests that GSD is comparable to LNG in terms of contraceptive effectiveness and for most cycle control indices. GSD is also comparable to DSG. DRSP is comparable to DSG. Future research should focus on independently conducted well designed randomized trials comparing particularly the third- with second-generation progestogens.

Dataset Information

Combined Oral Contraceptives and Venous Thromboembolism: Review and Perspective to Mitigate the Risk.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets