Thrombotic Risks with Hormonal Contraception
Authors
INTRODUCTION
Hormonal contraception includes oral contraceptives, contraceptive patches, implants, vaginal ring, intrauterine devices, and intramuscular depot. These different routes of administration may be further subdivided into combined products with both estrogen and progestin, and progestin only products. The combined products often exist with different doses of hormones, and the time they have been used seems to modify their influence on the risk of thrombosis, at least for some combinations.
Considering thrombotic diseases, these include on the venous side deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, together venous thromboembolism, and on the arterial side myocardial infarction and thrombotic stroke. Female sex hormones (natural or artificial) have a differential influence on these clinical end points.
Therefore, it is not possible in a simple way to express the influence of hormonal contraception on the risk of developing a thrombotic disease.
Combined estrogen–progestin oral contraceptives have been linked with an increased risk of vascular disease since they were first marketed in 1960. It was quickly recognized that the vascular risks of oral contraceptives were related to the estrogen dose, and formulations were altered to lower risk.
Recently, carefully conducted studies on the influence of hormonal contraception on the risks of venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke clarify the risks of the newer products, now in widespread use worldwide. This review discusses these recently conducted studies including the effect of the progestin type in modifying the risks of vascular disease in users of hormonal contraption.
In this report we operate with three classes of products according to their influence on the risk of venous thrombosis. High risk products imply a relative risk of venous thrombosis of five or more, low risk products confer a relative risk of thrombosis of 1.5–4 and no-risk products a relative risk of less than 1.5.
Abbreviations used:
CHC = combined hormonal contraception
VTE = venous thromboembolism = deep venous thrombosis + pulmonary embolism
EE = ethinylestradiol
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
- Progestin only products (oral and non-oral) do not increase the risk of any type of thrombosis.
- Combined products influence the risk of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism more than the risk of the arterial end points myocardial infarction and thrombotic stroke.
- Products with a high dose of estrogen imply a higher risk of thrombosis than products with a low dose.
- For some combination products, the risk of venous thrombosis decreases by length of use.
- Today, after the withdrawal of high estrogen pills from the market, the progestin type in combined products is the key parameter to differentiate between products with a relative high and a low risk of venous thromboembolism, respectively.
- Combined oral products with desogestrel, gestodene, drospirenone or cyproterone acetate (high risk products) confer a six fold increased risk of venous thromboembolism as compared with non-users, and about twice the risk as compared with users of products with norethisterone, levonorgestrel or norgestimate (low risk products).
- Transdermal patches and vaginal ring contraception confer a six fold increased risk of venous thromboembolism as compared with non users and belong to high risk products.
- The risk of thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction is increased 50–100% with use of combined products, with little difference in risk between products with different progestins.
- Women with other risk factors for venous thromboembolism, such as previous thrombosis, genetic predispositions, immobilization, adiposity, polycystic ovary syndrome, and varicose veins should not use high risk products, and be careful to use low-risk products. Such women may use progestin only products (whether oral or non-oral) without increasing their risk of venous thromboembolism.
- Women with risk factors for arterial thrombosis, such as smoking, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, migraine with aura, and age above 35 years should primarily consider progestin only products, and should be careful to use combined products, oral as well as non-oral.
- The absolute risk of thrombotic complications depends first of all on age, whereas the relative risk of thrombotic complications with use of hormonal contraception generally is independent of age.
- The case–fatality rate among women with thrombotic complications is about 1% for venous thromboembolism, 1.5% for thrombotic stroke and about 10% for myocardial infarction.
- All women who are prescribed a combined hormonal contraceptive product should be informed about the risk of venous thromboembolism, and the symptoms of such a thrombosis in order to ensure an early diagnosis and treatment.
HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES
To achieve an overview of the many different types of hormonal contraceptives products, it is useful to categorize them according to three axes: (i) in combined estrogen–progestin and progestin only products, (ii) for combined products with high (50 µg ethinylestradiol (EE)), middle (30-40 µg EE), and low-dose EE (15–20 µg EE), and in those containing natural estrogen (E2), and (iii) according to the progestin type. The available combinations according to these three axes are indicated in Table 1.
Table 1 Available combined estrogen-progestin and progestin only hormonal contraception according to estrogen dose and progestin types
Estrogen | Progestin type | ||||||
| Norethisterone | Levonorgestrel | Norgestimate | Desogestrel or | Gestodene | Drospirenone | Cyproterone acetate | |
| Combined hormonal contraception | |||||||
| 50 µg EE | Withdrawn | Withdrawn | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 30–40 µg EE | Available | Available | Available | Available | Available | Available | Available |
| 20 µg EE | Available | Available | NA | Available | Available | Available | NA |
| E2 | E2V DNG | NA | NA | NA | E2 NOMAC | NA | NA |
| Non oral | NA | NA | Patch | Vaginal ring | NA | NA | NA |
| Progestin only contraception | |||||||
| Oral | Available | Available | NA | Cerazette | NA | Visanne | NA |
| Non oral | MPA-Depot | LNG-IUS | NA | Implant | NA | NA | NA |
NA, not available; E2, estradiol (natural estrogen); E2V, estradiolvalerate; DNG, dienogest; NOMAC, nomegestrol; EE, ethinylestradiol (synthetic estrogen); MPA, medroxyprogesterone acetate
VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM IN YOUNG WOMEN
The incidence of venous thromboembolism in non-pregnant women who are not using hormonal contraception increases from 0.7 per 10,000 women-years in women 15–19 years old to 5.8/10,000 women-years in women 45–49 years old, or about eight fold through fertile age.1
At the same time has the incidence has increased about 5% per calendar year over recent decades. This increase is influenced by improvements in diagnostic accuracy and the increasing proportion of adipose women. Adiposity is a well established risk factor of VTE, together with family disposition, varicose veins, coagulation disorders such as activated protein C (APC)-resistance or factor V Leiden mutation, immobilization, pregnancy and other factors causing physical pressure on pelvic or limb veins.
About two-thirds of venous thromboembolism is deep venous thrombosis, and one third pulmonary embolism (with or without detected deep venous thrombosis).
VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM AND HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION
The influence of hormonal contraception on the risk of venous thromboembolism has been continuously debated since the 1960s. The results of the most important studies assessing specific product types and specifying the applied reference group are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Relative risk of venous thromboembolism in current users of different combined hormonal contraceptives as compared with non-users unless otherwise specified
Study | Data sampling period | Venous thrombosis Number | CHCs with levonorgestrel RR (95% CI) | CHCs with desogestrel /gestodene RR (95% CI) | CHCs with RR (95% CI)drospirenone |
| Blomenkamp2 | 1988–1992 | 126 | 3.8 (1.7–8.4) | 8.7 (3.9–19.3) | — |
| WHO3, 4 | 1989–1993 | 433 | 3.6 (2.5–5.1) | 7.4 (4.2–12.9) | — |
| Jick5 | 1991–1994 | 80 | 1 (reference) | 1.8 (1.0–3.2) | — |
| Spitzer6 | 1991–1995 | 471 | 3.7 (2.2–6.2) | 6.7 (3.4–13.0) | — |
| Lewis7 | 1993–1995 | 502 | 2.9 (1.9–4.2) | 2.3 (1.5–3.5) | — |
| Farmer8 | 1991–1995 | 85 | 3.1 (2.1–4.5) | 5.0 (3.7–6.5) | — |
| Todd9 | 1992–1997 | 99 | 1 (reference) | 1.4 (0.7–2.8) | — |
| Bloemenkamp10 | 1994–1998 | 185 | 3.7 (1.9–7.2) | 5.6 (not given) | — |
| Parkin11 | 1990–1998 | 26 | 5.1 (1.2–21.4) | 14.9 (3.5–64.3) | — |
| Lidegaard12 | 1994–1998 | 987 | 2.9 (2.2–3.8) | 4.0 (3.2–4.9) | — |
| Dinger13 | 2000–2004 | 118 | 1 (reference) | 1.3 (na) | 1.0 (0.6–1.8) |
| Vlieg14 | 1999–2004 | 1524 | 3.6 (2.9–4.6) | 7.3 (5.3–10.0) | 6.3 (2.9–13.7) |
| Lidegaard15 | 1995–2005 | 4213 | 2.0 (1.8–2.3) | 3.6 (3.3–3.8) | 4.0 (3.3–4.9) |
| Dinger16 | 2002–2008 | 680 | 1 (reference) | na | 1.0 (0.6–1.8) |
| Parkin17 | 2002–2009 | 61 | 1 (reference) | na | 2.7 (1.5–4.7) |
| Jick18 | 2002–2008 | 186 | 1 (reference) | na | 2.8 (2.1–3.8) |
| Lidegaard1 | 2001–2009 | 4246 | 2.2 (1.7–2.8) | 4.2 (3.6–4.9) | 4.5 (3.9–5.1) |
| Confirmed only | 2001–2009 | 2707 | 2.9 (2.2–3.8) | 6.8 (5.7–8.1) | 6.3 (5.4–7.5) |
| FDA Kaiser19 | 2001–2007 | 625 | 1 (reference) | na | 1.5 (1.2–1.9) |
| Gronich20 | 2002–2008 | 518 | 1 (reference) | 1.4 (0.9–2.1) | 1.7 (1.0–2.7) |
| Lidegaard21 | 2001–2010 | 5287 | 3.2 (2.7–3.8) | 6.5 (4.7–8.9)* | na |
| Dinger22 | 2005–2010 | 162 | 1 (reference) | na | 0.8 (0.5–1.6) |
| Vinogradova23 | 2001–2013 | 10,562 | 1 (reference) | 6.2 (5.0–7.7) | 6.1 (4.7–7.8) |
* Vaginal ring with the third generation progestin etonogestrel.
In all these 22 studies an increased risk of VTE was found with use of CHC. The risk has only decreased slightly over recent decades, despite the reduction in the dose of estrogen used in the pills (Table 2). The relative risk of VTE with use of CHC with levonorgestrel has been found to be about three in newer studies when compared with non-users.
Of 15 studies specifically assessing the risk in users of CHC with desogestrel or gestodene, 14 found a higher risk with use of these products when compared with use of CHC with levonorgestrel. The difference was significant in 10 of the 14 studies. Of five studies not demonstrating a significant difference, two were re-analyses7, 10 of primary studies demonstrating a significant difference,6, 8 while one study by Dinger et al. did not find any difference.13 The two re-analyses do not appear more statistically robust than the analyses in the primary studies. In a large study with validated end-points, the rate ratio between CHC with desogestrel versus levonorgestrel was 2.2 (1.7–2.8)1 and 1.8 (1.5–2.1).23
Similarly, of 11 studies specifically assessing the risk of VTE in users of CHC with drospirenone versus users of CHC with levonorgestrel, seven found significant differences, three (all by Dinger et al.) showed no difference.13, 16, 22 In all eight studies demonstrating a difference, the rate ratio of VTE between users of CHC with drospirenone vs. levonorgestrel was 1.5–2.8, and the relative risk as compared with non-users was 6.3 in both the large Dutch14 and the Danish1 studies, and 6.1 in the new large British study.23
The studies demonstrating risk differences between CHC with different progestins are generally methodologically more transparent and more robust than those demonstrating no difference, especially concerning exclusion of women with predispositions for VTE.24
All studies except one agree that the risk of VTE in users of CHC with desogestrel or gestodene is the same as in users of CHC with drospirenone.1, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 Gronich et al. found a 43% (1.2–1.8) higher risk of VTE in users of CHC with drospirenone compared with users of CHC with desogestrel, and a rate ratio of 1.7 (1.0–2.7) when compared to CHC with levonorgestrel.20
The reason for the differential influence on the risk of VTE from different CHC seems to be explained by a direct influence on the coagulation process, and is also indicated by a differential influence on sex hormone binding globulin, a surrogate marker of VTE. 25, 26, 27
Table 3 summarizes the results for different specific product groups, stratified according to estrogen dose, progestin type and route of administration.
Table 3 The relative risk of venous thromboembolism in current users of different types of hormonal contraception according to estrogen dose, progestin type and route of administration
Estrogen | Norethisterone | Levonorgestrel | Norgestimate | Desogestrel or | Gestodene | Drospirenone | Cyproterone acetate |
| Combined hormonal contraception | |||||||
| 50 µg EE | High risk | High risk | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30–40 µg EE | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | High risk | High risk | High risk |
| 20 µg EE | Low risk | Low risk | — | High risk | High risk | High risk | — |
| E2 | Limited data – E2V DNG | — | — | — | E2 NOMAC | — | — |
| Non oral | — | — | High risk – patch | High risk – vaginal ring | — | — | — |
| Progestin only contraception | |||||||
| Oral | No risk | No risk | NA | No risk – desogestrel | — | — | — |
| Non oral | No risk – MPA--Depot | No risk – LNG-IUS | NA | No risk – implant | — | — | — |
— no data available
No risk, RR<1.5; Low risk, RR 1.5–4; High risk, RR ≥5
E2, estradiol (natural estrogen); E2V, estradiolvalerate; DNG, dienogest; NOMAC, nomegestrol; EE, ethinylestradiol (synthetic estrogen); MPA, medroxyprogesterone acetate
The relative risk during the first year is about 50% higher than after the first year. After 3 years, the relative risk is stable and increased with the figures indicated.
Women at risk of venous thromboembolism
About 10% of women (and men) are genetically predisposed for VTE. The most frequent condition is resistance to the anti-clotting effect of activated protein C (APC resistance), which increases the risk of VTE about eight times. This condition is caused by a mutation, the so called Leiden factor V mutation.
Most often, the combination of risk factors confer a relative risk of VTE corresponding to a multiplication of the relative risk of each risk factor. Thus, if a low risk CHC increases the risk of VTE three times, and this product is used by a women with a genetic APC-resistance, such a women will have a relative risk of VTE of 3 x 8 = 24, as compared with non-users without such a genetic predisposition.
A woman at 20 years has a baseline risk of VTE of 1 in 10,000 years. If she uses a low-risk hormonal contraceptive product, her absolute risk will be 3 per 10,000 years. If she at the same time has a Leiden factor V mutation, her absolute risk will be 24 per 10,000 years, and if she uses the product for 10 years, the absolute risk will be not 240 per 10,000 years, but about 300 per 10,000 years, because the risk increases for each year she gets older. An absolute risk of 300 per 10,000 years is 3 per 100 years. An absolute risk of a VTE of 3% will be a too high risk for a majority of women. If she was 30 years instead, her absolute risk after 10 years use would be about 6%.
Therefore, women with known risk factors of VTE are advised to be reluctant to use CHC. The relative risk of VTE with different dispositions is as follows: previous thrombosis: >5; Leiden factor V mutation (heterozygous): 6; pregnancy with delivery on average: 8; adiposity: 2–3; varicose veins: 2; and immobilization 2–5 depending on how long time you are immobilized. Family disposition (first degree relatives with VTE before their 50th year) doubles your risk of VTE. Women with such dispositions are generally recommended to use progestin only contraception, which does not increase the risk of VTE.
THROMBOTIC STROKE AND MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION IN YOUNG WOMEN
The overall incidence rate of a first thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction in women of reproductive age is 3 and 1 per 10,000 years, respectively. Both arterial end points have a steep increasing incidence rate with increasing age: thrombotic stroke thus increases from 0.3 per 10,000 years in women 15–19 years old, to 6.4 per 10,000 years in women 45–49 years old, more than a 20 fold increased risk with increasing age.28
The incidence rate of myocardial infarction increases from 0.04 per 10,000 years in women 15–19 years old to 3.8 per 10,000 years in women 45–49 years old, a 100 fold exponential increase with increasing age.
Thus, in women below 30 years, venous thromboembolism is more frequent than the arterial end points, whereas among women above 30 years, thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction are more frequent than the venous complications.
The mortality in young women with a first thrombotic stroke is about 1.5%, and after a first myocardial infarction about 10%, but the survivors have more often lasting repercussions after their arterial thrombosis than after a venous thromboembolism.
Risk factors for arterial thrombosis include previous arterial thrombosis, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, heart arrhythmia, and shorter duration of education.28
For thrombotic stroke each of the risk factors roughly doubles the risk, while for myocardial infarction smoking implies a relative risk of four, even more with heavy smoking, and diabetes a relative risk of five.
In case of exposure for several risk factors, one has to multiply the relative risk of each risk factor to achieve the combined effect.
HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION, THROMBOTIC STROKE AND MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION
Table 4 lists newer studies assessing the risk of thrombotic stroke in users of different types of hormonal contraceptives, and Table 5 the corresponding studies on myocardial infarction.
It appears that CHC in general confer less risk of the arterial complications than of VTE.
Table 4 Relative risk (RR) of thrombotic stroke in recent studies according to exposure to different types of combined hormonal contraceptives. Reference: Non-users of hormonal contraception.
| First author year (ref) | Sampling | Design | N | CHC type | RR | 95% CI | |
| period | EE dose/progestin type | ||||||
| Poulter, WHO, 199929 | 1989–1993 | Case–control | 489 | 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 2.7 | 1.8 | 4.1 |
|
|
|
| 30 µg/3rd generation | 1.8 | 0.6 | 5.2 | |
| Heinemann, 199830 | 1993–1996 | Case–control | 220 | 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 2.7 | 1.5 | 4.6 |
|
| 30 µg /3rd generation | 3.4 | 1.9 | 6.4 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 3rd versus levonorgestrel | 1.3 | 0.7 | 2.4 |
| Swartz,199831 | 1991–1995 | Case–control | 171 | 20–30 µg/norethindrone | 1.1 | 0.5 | 2.3 |
|
|
|
|
| 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 1.0 | 0.3 | 3.6 |
| Lidegaard, 200232 | 1994–1998 | Case–control | 626 | 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 2.2 | 1.6 | 3.0 |
|
|
|
| 30 µg/3rd generation | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.9 | |
| Lidegaard, | 1995–2009 | Cohort | 3311 | 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
| 35 µg/norgestimate | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.9 | ||||
| 30 µg/desogestrel | 2.2 | 1.8 | 2.7 | ||||
| 20 µg/desogestrel | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.9 | ||||
| 30 µg/gestodene | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.0 | ||||
| 20 µg/gestodene | 1.7 | 1.4 | 2.2 | ||||
| 30 µg/drospirenone | 1.7 | 1.3 | 2.2 | ||||
|
|
|
|
| 20 µg/drospirenone | 0.9 | 0.2 | 3.6 |
| Gronich, 201120 | 2002–2008 | Cohort | 499 | 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 1 | Reference | |
|
| 20–30 µg/3rd generation | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.4 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 20–30 µg/drospirenone | 0.9 | 0.6 | 1.3 |
3rd generation, CHC with desogestrel or gestodene; EE, ethinylestradiol
The more recent studies have found less influence on thrombotic stroke than the earlier studies, perhaps owing to a more effective exclusion of predisposed users by time. While middle dose CHC with desogestrel or gestodene may double the risk, the other combinations and all the low-dose combinations (20 µg estrogen) increases the risk about 50%, with no consistent difference according to the progestin type.
For myocardial infarction (Table 5) similar results were demonstrated, with relative risks among current users of CHC of between 1.5 and 2.0 for low and middle dose products, and again with no consistent difference according to progestin type.
Table 5 Relative risk (RR) of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease (CVD) in users of different combined hormonal contraceptives in newer studies. Reference non-users.
| First author Year (ref) | End point | Design | N | CHC type | RR | 95% CI | |
| EE dose / progestin type | |||||||
| Stampfer, 198833 | CVD death, MI non-fatal | Cohort | 485 | Current, all types | 2.5 | 1.3 | 4.9 |
| Lewis, 199734 | Non-fatal MI | Case–control | 182 | Current all types | 2.2 | 1.3 | 3.8 |
|
| 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 3.0 | 1.5 | 14.3 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 30–40 µg/3rd generation | 0.8 | 0.3 | 2.4 |
| WHO, 199735 | Non-fatal MI | Case–control | 368 | Current, all types | 5.0 | 2.5 | 9.9 |
|
| 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 1.6 | 0.5 | 5.5 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 30–40 µg/3rd generation | 1.0 | 0.1 | 7 |
| Sidney, 199836 | Non-fatal MI | Case–control | 271 | Current (all types) | 0.9 | 0.4 | 2.2 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Dunn, 199937 | Non-fatal MI | Case–control | 448 | Current, all types | 1.4 | 0.8 | 2.5 |
|
| 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 1.1 | 0.5 | 2.3 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 20–30 µg/3rd generation | 2.0 | 0.9 | 4.4 |
| Dunn, 200138 | Fatal MI | Case–control | 110 | 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 2.9 | 1.2 | 6.8 |
|
|
|
| 20–30 µg/3rd generation | 0.8 | 0.3 | 2.8 | |
| Rosenberg, 200139 | Non-fatal MI | Case–control | 627 | Current, all types | 1.3 | 0.8 | 2.2 |
|
| 30–40 µg/norethindrone | 2.5 | 1.1 | 5.5 | |||
|
| 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 1.6 | 0.5 | 5.2 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 20–30 µg/3rd generation* | 1.5 | 0.3 | 7.7 |
| Tanis, 200140 | Non-fatal MI | Case–control | 248 | Current, all types | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.8 |
|
| 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 2.5 | 1.5 | 4.1 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 20–30 µg/3rd generation | 1.3 | 0.7 | 2.5 |
| Margolis, 200741 | All MI | Cohort | 214 | Current, all types | 0.7 | 0.4 | 1.4 |
| Lidegaard, 201228 | Fatal and | Cohort | 1,725 | 30–40 µg/levonorgestrel | 1.9 | 1.5 | 2.4 |
| non-fatal MI |
| 35 µg/norgestimate | 1.3 | 0.9 | 1.9 | ||
|
| 30 µg/desogestrel | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.7 | |||
|
| 20 µg/desogestrel | 1.6 | 1.2 | 2.2 | |||
|
| 30 µg/gestodene | 1.9 | 1.6 | 2.3 | |||
|
| 20 µg/gestodene | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1.9 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 30 µg/drospirenone | 1.7 | 1.0 | 2.7 |
3rd generation, CHC with desogestrel or gestodene; *Including also norgestimate; EE, ethinylestradiol
None of the progestogen only products conferred significantly increased risks of thrombotic stroke or of myocardial infarction.
Women at an increased risk of arterial thrombosis
Age is the most important risk factor of arterial thrombosis. In young women the baseline frequency of thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction is so low, that a 1.5–2 fold increased risk is not a major concern. In women past 35 years, on the other hand, no other risk factors for arterial thrombosis should be present. Smoking in particular confers a significant contribution to myocardial infarctions in women of reproductive age. Therefore smokers, especially heavy smokers, should not use CHC after 35 years. Women with diabetic vascular complications should also avoid CHC.
In young women below 35 years, several risk factors at the same time may also contraindicate use of CHC.
For women at an increased risk of arterial thrombosis, progestin only contraception may be a good alternative, because these products have not been found to increase the risk of neither thrombotic stroke nor myocardial infarction.
Previous thrombosis of any kind contraindicates CHC, but not necessarily progestin only products.
CONCLUSION
Besides an effective contraception, CHC offers several important non-contraceptive benefits, such as regular menstruation, diminished dysmenorrhea, less menstrual bleeding, and decreased risk of ovarian, endometrial and colorectal cancer. The thrombotic complications are the most important risk aspects. A large majority of women with VTE will survive their thrombosis, but a timely diagnosis and treatment is crucial for the prognosis. Therefore all efforts should be undertaken to ensure that women with contraindications against CHC are not prescribed such products, and that those who use these products are informed about the symptoms of especially VTE.
Previously, women with risk factors of thrombosis were told not to use any type of hormonal contraception. With newer large-scale studies, we now have sufficient scientific information to conclude, that progestin only contraception, such as levonorgestrel intrauterine system, progestin only pills, and implants do not significantly increase the risk of venous or arterial thrombosis, and that these products therefore, are not contraindicated for such women. Some of these products may even protect against VTE.
REFERENCES
Lidegaard Ø, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, Skjeldestad FE, Løkkegaard E. Risk of venous thromboembolism from use of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens and estrogen doses: Danish cohort study 2001-9. BMJ 2011; 343: d6423. |
|
Bloemenkamp KWM, Rosendaal FR, Helmerhorst FM, Büller HR, Vanden¬broucke JP. Enhancement by factor V Leiden mutation of risk of deep-vein thrombosis associated with oral contraceptives containing a third-generation progestagen. Lancet 1995; 346: 1593-6. |
|
World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: results of international multicentre case-control study. Lancet 1995; 346: 1575-82. |
|
World Health Organisation Collaborative Study on cardiovascular disease and steroid hormone contraception. Effect of different progestogens in low estrogen oral contraceptives on venous thromboembolic disease. Lancet 1995; 346: 1582-8. |
|
Jick H, Jick SS, Gurewich V, Myers MW, Vasilakis C. Risk of idiopathic cardiovascular death and nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components. Lancet 1995; 346: 1589-93. |
|
Spitzer WO, Lewis MA, Heinemann LAJ, Thorogood M, MacRae KD. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolic disorders: an international case-control study. BMJ 1996; 312: 83-8. |
|
Lewis MA, MacRae KD, Kühl-Habich D, Bruppacher R, Heinemann LAJ, Spitzer WO. The differential risk of oral contraceptives: the impact of full exposure history. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1493-9. |
|
Farmer RDT, Lawrenson RA, Thompson CR, Kennedy JG, Hambleton IR. Population-based study of risk of venous thromboembolism associated with various oral contraceptives. Lancet 1997; 349: 83-8. |
|
Todd J-C, Lawrenson R, Farmer RDT, Williams TJ, Leydon GM. Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: A re-analysis of the MediPlus database. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1500-5. |
|
Bloemenkamp KWM, Rosendaal FR, Büller HR, Helmerhorst FM, Colly LP, Vandenbroucke JP. Risk of venous thrombosis with use of current low-dose oral contraceptives is not explained by diagnostic suspicion and referral bias. Arch Int Med 1999; 159: 65-70. |
|
Parkin L, Skegg DCG, Wilson M, Herbison GP, Paul C. Oral contraceptives and fatal pulmonary embolism. Lancet 2000; 355: 2133-4 |
|
Lidegaard Ø, Edström B, Kreiner S. Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism. A five-year national case-control study. Contraception 2002; 65: 187-96. |
|
Dinger JC, Heinemann LAJ, Kühl-Habich D. The safety of a drospirenone-containing oral contraceptive: Final results from the European Active Surveillance study on oral contraceptives based on 142,475 women years of observation. Contraception 2007; 75: 344-54 |
|
Vlieg AVH, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJ, Rosendaal FR. The venous thrombotic risk of oral contraceptives, effects of estrogen dose and progestagen type: results of the MEGA case-control study. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2921. |
|
Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Svendsen AL, Agger C. Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2890. |
|
Dinger J, Assmann A, Möhner S, Minh TD. Risk of venous thromboembolism and the use of dienogest- and drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives: Results from a German case-control study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2010; 36: 123-9. |
|
Parkin L, Sharples K, Hernandez RK, Jick SS. Risk of venous thromboembolism in users of oral contraceptives containing drospirenone or levonorgestrel: Nested case-control study based on UK General Practice Research Database. BMJ 2011: 340: d2139. |
|
Jick SS, Hernandez RK. Risk of non-fatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives containing drospirenone compared with women using oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel: case-control study using United States claims data. BMJ 2011; 340: d2151. |
|
Food and Drug Administration, Office of surveillance and epidemiology. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) and the risk of cardiovascular disease endpoints. FDA 2011: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM277384.pdf. |
|
Gronich N, Lavi I, Rennert G. Higther risk of venous thrombosis associated with drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2011; DOI:10.1503/cmaj.110463. |
|
Lidegaard Ø, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, Løkkegaard E. Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10, BMJ 2012;344:e2990. |
|
Dinger J, Bardenheuer K, Heinemann K. Cardiovascular and general safety of a 24-day regimen of drospirenone-containing combined oral contraceptives: final results from the International Active surveillance Study of Women Taking Oral Contraceptives. Contraception 2014; doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception. 2014.01.023. |
|
Vinogradova Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J. Use of combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolism: nested case-control studies using the QResearch and CPRD databases. BMJ 2015 350: h2135 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2135 |
|
Lidegaard Ø, Milsom I, Geirsson RT, Skjeldestad FE. Hormonal contraception and venous thrombosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012; 91: 769-78. |
|
Odlind V, Milsom I, Persson I, Victor A. Can changes in sex hormone binding globulin predict the risk of venous thromboembolism with combined oral contraceptive pills? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002; 81: 482-90. |
|
Raps M, Helmerhorst F, Fleischer K, Thomassen S, Rosendaal F, Rosing J, Balleux B, Vliet Hv. Sex hormone-binding globulin as a marker for the thrombotic risk of hormonal contraceptives. J Thromb Haemost 2012; Doi 10.1111. |
|
Van Vliet HAAM, Winkel TA, Noort I, Rosing J, Rosendaal FR. Prothrombotic changes in users of combined oral contraceptives containing drospirenone and cyproteroneacetate. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2: 2060–2 |
|
Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Jensen A, Skovlund CW, Keiding N. Thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction with hormonal contraception. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2257-66 |
|
Poulter NR, Chang CL, Farley TMM, Marmot MG, Meirik O. WHO Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Effect on stroke of different progestagens in low estrogen dose oral contraceptives. Lancet 1999; 354: 301-2. |
|
Heinemann LAJ, Lewis MA, Spitzer WO, Thorogood M, Guggenmoss-Holzmann I, Bruppacher R. Thromboembolic stroke in young women. Contraception 1998; 57: 29-37. |
|
Schwartz SM, Petitti DB, Siscovick DS, et al. Stroke and use of low-dose oral contraceptives in young women. A pooled analysis of two US studies. Stroke 1998; 29: 2277-2284. |
|
Lidegaard Ø, Kreiner S. Oral contraceptives and cerebral thrombosis. A five-year national case-control study. Contraception 2002; 65: 197-205. |
|
Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Speizer FE, Hennekens CH. A prospective study of past use of oral contraceptive agents and risk of cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1313-7. |
|
Lewis MA, Heinemann LAJ, Spitzer WO, MacRae KD, Bruppacher R. The use of oral contraceptives and the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction in young women. Contraception 1997; 56: 129-40. |
|
Poulter NR, Chang CL, Farley TMM, Kelaghan J, Meirik O, Marmot MG. WHO collaborative study of cardiovascular disease and steroid hormone contraception. Acute myocardial infarction and combined oral contraceptives: Results of an international multicentre case-control study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1202-9. |
|
Sidney S, Siscovick DS, Petitti DB, Schwartz SM, Quesenberry CP, Psaty BM, et al. Myocardial infarction and use of low-dose oral contraceptives: A pooled analysis of 2 US studies. Circulation 1998; 98: 1058-63 |
|
Dunn N, Thorogood M, Faragher B, de Caestecker L, MacDonald TM, McCollum C, et al. Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: Results of the MICA case-control study. BMJ 1999; 318: 1579-83. |
|
Dunn NR, Arscott A, Thorogood M. The relationship between use of oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction in young women with fatal outcome, compared to those who survive: Results from the MICA case-control study. Contraception 2001; 63: 65-9. |
|
Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Rao RS, Shapiro S. Low-dose oral contraceptive use and the risk of myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161: 1065-70. |
|
Tanis BC, van den Bosch MA, Kemmeren JM, Cats VM, Helmerhorst FM, Algra A, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1787-93. |
|
Margolis KL, Adami HO, Luo J, Ye W, Weiderpass E. A prospective study of oral contraceptive use and risk of myocardial infarction among Swedish women. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 310-6. |