Progestin-only contraceptives: effects on weight.

BACKGROUND: Progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) are appropriate for many women who cannot or should not take estrogen. POCs include injectables, intrauterine contraception, implants, and oral contraceptives. Many POCs are long-acting, cost-effective methods of preventing pregnancy. However, concern about weight gain can deter the initiation of contraceptives and cause early discontinuation among users. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the association between progestin-only contraceptive use and changes in body weight. SEARCH METHODS: Until 4 August 2016, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. For the initial review, we contacted investigators to identify other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered comparative studies that examined a POC versus another contraceptive method or no contraceptive. The primary outcome was mean change in body weight or mean change in body composition. We also considered the dichotomous outcome of loss or gain of a specified amount of weight. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted the data. Non-randomized studies (NRS) need to control for confounding factors. We used adjusted measures for the primary effects in NRS or the results of matched analysis from paired samples. If the report did not provide adjusted measures for the primary analysis, we used unadjusted outcomes. For RCTs and NRS without adjusted measures, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We found 22 eligible studies that included a total of 11,450 women. With 6 NRS added to this update, the review includes 17 NRS and 5 RCTs. By contraceptive method, the review has 16 studies of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), 4 of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraception (LNG-IUC), 5 for implants, and 2 for progestin-only pills.Comparison groups did not differ significantly for weight change or other body composition measure in 15 studies. Five studies with moderate or low quality evidence showed differences between study arms. Two studies of a six-rod implant also indicated some differences, but the evidence was low quality.Three studies showed differences for DMPA users compared with women not using a hormonal method. In a retrospective study, weight gain (kg) was greater for DMPA versus copper (Cu) IUC in years one (MD 2.28, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.77), two (MD 2.71, 95% CI 2.12 to 3.30), and three (MD 3.17, 95% CI 2.51 to 3.83). A prospective study showed adolescents using DMPA had a greater increase in body fat (%) compared with a group not using a hormonal method (MD 11.00, 95% CI 2.64 to 19.36). The DMPA group also had a greater decrease in lean body mass (%) (MD -4.00, 95% CI -6.93 to -1.07). A more recent retrospective study reported greater mean increases with use of DMPA versus Cu IUC for weight (kg) at years 1 (1.3 vs 0.2), 4 (3.5 vs 1.9), and 10 (6.6 vs 4.9).Two studies reported a greater mean increase in body fat mass (%) for POC users versus women not using a hormonal method. The method was LNG-IUC in two studies (reported means 2.5 versus -1.3; P = 0.029); (MD 1.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75). One also studied a desogestrel-containing pill (MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.52). Both studies showed a greater decrease in lean body mass among POC users. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low; more than half of the studies had low quality evidence. The main reasons for downgrading were lack of randomizations (NRS) and high loss to follow-up or early discontinuation.These 22 studies showed limited evidence of change in weight or body composition with use of POCs. Mean weight gain at 6 or 12 months was less than 2 kg (4.4 lb) for most studies. Those with multiyear data showed mean weight change was approximately twice as much at two to four years than at one year, but generally the study groups did not differ significantly. Appropriate counseling about typical weight gain may help reduce discontinuation of contraceptives due to perceptions of weight gain.

Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives may be related to metabolic changes in obesity or to greater body mass or body fat. Hormonal contraceptives include oral contraceptives (OCs), injectables, implants, hormonal intrauterine contraception (IUC), the transdermal patch, and the vaginal ring. Given the prevalence of overweight and obesity, the public health impact of any effect on contraceptive efficacy could be substantial. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives in preventing pregnancy among women who are overweight or obese versus women with a lower body mass index (BMI) or weight. SEARCH METHODS: Until 4 August 2016, we searched for studies in PubMed (MEDLINE), CENTRAL, POPLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find additional published or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All study designs were eligible. The study could have examined any type of hormonal contraceptive. Reports had to contain information on the specific contraceptive methods used. The primary outcome was pregnancy. Overweight or obese women must have been identified by an analysis cutoff for weight or BMI (kg/m(2)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. The main comparisons were between overweight or obese women and women of lower weight or BMI. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Where available, we included life-table rates. We also used unadjusted pregnancy rates, relative risk (RR), or rate ratio when those were the only results provided. For dichotomous variables, we computed an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: With 8 studies added in this update, 17 met our inclusion criteria and had a total of 63,813 women. We focus here on 12 studies that provided high, moderate, or low quality evidence. Most did not show a higher pregnancy risk among overweight or obese women. Of five COC studies, two found BMI to be associated with pregnancy but in different directions. With an OC containing norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol (EE), pregnancy risk was higher for overweight women, i.e. with BMI ≥ 25 versus those with BMI < 25 (reported relative risk 2.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.13). In contrast, a trial using an OC with levonorgestrel and EE reported a Pearl Index of 0 for obese women (BMI ≥ 30) versus 5.59 for nonobese women (BMI < 30). The same trial tested a transdermal patch containing levonorgestrel and EE. Within the patch group, obese women in the "treatment-compliant" subgroup had a higher reported Pearl Index than nonobese women (4.63 versus 2.15). Of five implant studies, two that examined the six-capsule levonorgestrel implant showed differences in pregnancy by weight. One study showed higher weight was associated with higher pregnancy rate in years 6 and 7 combined (reported P < 0.05). In the other, pregnancy rates differed in year 5 among the lower weight groups only (reported P < 0.01) and did not involve women weighing 70 kg or more.Analysis of data from other contraceptive methods indicated no association of pregnancy with overweight or obesity. These included depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (subcutaneous), levonorgestrel IUC, the two-rod levonorgestrel implant, and the etonogestrel implant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence generally did not indicate an association between higher BMI or weight and effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. However, we found few studies for most contraceptive methods. Studies using BMI, rather than weight alone, can provide information about whether body composition is related to contraceptive effectiveness. The contraceptive methods examined here are among the most effective when used according to the recommended regimen.We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low for the objectives of this review. More recent reports provided evidence of varying quality, while the quality was generally low for older studies. For many trials the quality would be higher for their original purpose rather than the non-randomized comparisons here. Investigators should consider adjusting for potential confounding related to BMI or contraceptive effectiveness. Newer studies included a greater proportion of overweight or obese women, which helps in examining effectiveness and side effects of hormonal contraceptives within those groups.

Development of the follicular basement membrane during human gametogenesis and early folliculogenesis.

BACKGROUND: In society, there is a clear need to improve the success rate of techniques to restore fertility. Therefore a deeper knowledge of the dynamics of the complex molecular environment that regulates human gametogenesis and (early) folliculogenesis in vivo is necessary. Here, we have studied these processes focusing on the formation of the follicular basement membrane (BM) in vivo. RESULTS: The distribution of the main components of the extracellular matrix (ECM) collagen IV, laminin and fibronectin by week 10 of gestation (W10) in the ovarian cortex revealed the existence of ovarian cords and of a distinct mesenchymal compartment, resembling the organization in the male gonads. By W17, the first primordial follicles were assembled individually in that (cortical) mesenchymal compartment and were already encapsulated by a BM of collagen IV and laminin, but not fibronectin. In adults, in the primary and secondary follicles, collagen IV, laminin and to a lesser extent fibronectin were prominent in the follicular BM. CONCLUSIONS: The ECM-molecular niche compartimentalizes the female gonads from the time of germ cell colonization until adulthood. This knowledge may contribute to improve methods to recreate the environment needed for successful folliculogenesis in vitro and that would benefit a large number of infertility patients.

The risk of venous thrombosis in individuals with a history of superficial vein thrombosis and acquired venous thrombotic risk factors.

Superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) increases the risk of venous thrombosis fourfold to sixfold. As most individuals with SVT do not develop venous thrombosis, additional risk factors may explain the risk of developing a venous thrombosis. In the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment of risk factors for venous thrombosis study, we assessed the risk of venous thrombosis in individuals with previous SVT and a mild thrombotic risk factor (smoking or overweight/obesity), a strong risk factor (surgery, hospitalization, plaster cast immobilization, or malignancy), or a reproductive factor in women (oral contraception, postmenopausal hormone therapy, or pregnancy/puerperium). Individuals with previous SVT alone had a 5.5-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-6.8) increased risk of venous thrombosis. This was 9.3 (95% CI, 7.2-12.1) combined with a mild thrombotic risk factor, 31.4 (95% CI, 14.6-67.5) with a strong risk factor, and 34.9 (95% CI, 19.1-63.8) in women with a reproductive risk factor. The highest separate risk estimates were found for SVT with surgery (42.5; 95% CI, 10.2-177.6), hospitalization (49.8; 95% CI, 11.9-209.2), or oral contraception (43.0; 95% CI, 15.5-119.3 in women). In conclusion, the risk of venous thrombosis is markedly increased in individuals with previous SVT who have an acquired thrombotic risk factor.

Combined oral contraceptives: the risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have been associated with an increased risk of arterial thrombosis, i.e. myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke. However, as these diseases are rare in young women and as many types of combined oral contraception exist, the magnitude of the risk and the effect of different hormonal contents of COC preparations remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke in users compared with non-users of different types, doses and generations of combined oral contraception. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE (1966 to July 08, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 08, 2015), Popline (1970 to July 08, 2015) and LILACS (1985 to July 08, 2015) for eligible studies, without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included observational studies that recruited women in the reproductive age group (18 to 50 years) and compared the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke between users and non-users of COCs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected relevant studies and extracted data. We pooled relative risks ()(combined odds ratios and one incidence rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke in users versus non-users of COCs.We combined the outcomes of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke and also analysed these outcomes separately. Analyses were stratified according to estrogen dose and progestagen type. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we identified 1298 publications through the search strategy. We included 28 publications reporting on 24 studies. COC users were at increased risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke compared with non-users: relative risk (RR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-1.9).These RRs were similar for myocardial infarction (1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.1) and ischemic stroke (1.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.9). The risks did not vary clearly according to the generation of progestagen or according to progestagen type. When we stratified preparations according to estrogen dose, the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke seemed to increase with higher doses of estrogen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke was 1.6-fold increased in women using COCs . The risk was highest for pills with > 50 microgram estrogen. When combined with the results of studies on the risk of venous thrombosis in COC users, it seems that the COC pill containing levonorgestrel and 30 µg of estrogen is the safest oral form of hormonal contraception.

Steroidal contraceptives and bone fractures in women: evidence from observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Age-related decline in bone mass increases the risk of skeletal fractures, especially those of the hip, spine, and wrist. Steroidal contraceptives have been associated with changes in bone mineral density in women. Whether such changes affect the risk of fractures later in life is unclear. Hormonal contraceptives are among the most effective and most widely-used contraceptives. Concern about fractures may limit the use of these effective contraceptives. Observational studies can collect data on premenopausal contraceptive use as well as fracture incidence later in life. OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed the evidence from observational studies of hormonal contraceptive use for contraception and the risk of fracture in women. SEARCH METHODS: Through June 2015, we searched for observational studies. The databases included PubMed, POPLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched for recent clinical trials through ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. For other studies, we examined reference lists of relevant articles and wrote to investigators for additional reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cohort and case-control studies of hormonal contraceptive use. Interventions included comparisons of a hormonal contraceptive with a non-hormonal contraceptive, no contraceptive, or another hormonal contraceptive. The primary outcome was the risk of fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data. One author entered the data into RevMan, and a second author verified accuracy. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), developed for case-control and cohort studies. Sensitivity analysis included studies of moderate or high quality based on our assessment with the NOS.Given the need to control for confounding factors in observational studies, we used adjusted estimates from the models as reported by the authors. Where we did not have adjusted analyses, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to varied study designs, we did not conduct meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (7 case-control and 7 cohort studies). These examined oral contraceptives (OCs), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), and the hormonal intrauterine device (IUD). This section focuses on the sensitivity analysis with six studies that provided moderate or high quality evidence.All six studies examined oral contraceptive use. We noted few associations with fracture risk. One cohort study reported OC ever-users had increased risk for all fractures (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34). However, a case-control study with later data from a subset reported no association except for those with 10 years or more since use (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.33). Another case-control study reported increased risk only for those who had 10 or more prescriptions (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16). A cohort study of postmenopausal women found no increased fracture risk for OC use after excluding women with prior fracture. Two other studies found little evidence of association between OC use and fracture risk. A cohort study noted increased risk for subgroups, such as those with longer use or specific intervals since use. A case-control study reported increased risk for any fracture only among young women with less than average use.Two case-control studies also examined progestin-only contraceptives. One reported increased fracture risk for DMPA ever-use (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.06), more than four years of use (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.53), and women over 50 years old. The other reported increased risk for any past use, including one or two prescriptions (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29) and for current use of 3 to 9 prescriptions (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60) or 10 or more (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.78). For the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD, one study reported reduced fracture risk for ever-use (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.87) and for longer use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies do not indicate an overall association between oral contraceptive use and fracture risk. Some reported increased risk for specific user subgroups. DMPA users may have an increased fracture risk. One study indicated hormonal IUD use may be associated with decreased risk. Observational studies need adjusted analysis because the comparison groups usually differ. Investigators should be clear about the variables examined in multivariate analysis.

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2013, we searched the computerized databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). For the initial review, we also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan. A second author verified the data entered. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements using a fixed-effect model. For categorical data, such as the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We found 49 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The trials included 85 weight change comparisons for 52 distinct contraceptive pairs (or placebos). The four trials with a placebo or no intervention group did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight change. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight change did not differ between groups where this was studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

Combined oral contraceptives: venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Combined oral contraceptive (COC) use has been associated with venous thrombosis (VT) (i.e., deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism). The VT risk has been evaluated for many estrogen doses and progestagen types contained in COC but no comprehensive comparison involving commonly used COC is available. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive overview of the risk of venous thrombosis in women using different combined oral contraceptives. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and ScienceDirect) were searched in 22 April 2013 for eligible studies, without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies including healthy women taking COC with VT as outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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.Two independent reviewers extracted data from selected studies. MAIN RESULTS: 3110 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 0.19 and 0.37 per 1 000 person years, in line with previously reported incidences of 0,16 per 1 000 person 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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All 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. Risk of venous thrombosis for combined oral contraceptives with 30-35 µg ethinylestradiol and gestodene, desogestrel, cyproterone acetate and drospirenone were similar, and about 50-80% higher than with levonorgestrel. The combined oral contraceptive with the lowest possible dose of ethinylestradiol and good compliance should be prescribed-that is, 30 µg ethinylestradiol with levonorgestrel.

Hormonal contraceptive use after a first venous thrombotic event and the risk of recurrence in premenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Extensive evidence is available on hormonal contraceptive (HC) use and the risk of a first venous thromboembolism (VTE) event. Despite recommendations to discontinue combined HC (CHC) use, some women continue or start its use after a first VTE. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the VTE recurrence risk associated with HC use in premenopausal women. METHODS: Premenopausal women with a first VTE included in the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment of Venous Thrombosis study between 1999 and 2004 were followed for a recurrence until 2010. Data on HC use were available through linkage to the Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics. The risk of recurrence was assessed 1) during anticoagulant therapy and 2) after cessation of anticoagulant therapy. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs adjusted for age and body mass index at baseline and thromboprophylaxis use during follow-up. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty women were uniquely linked and followed for a total of 3538 person-years (median, 6.1 years), during which 57 VTE recurrences occurred. Five occurred (8.8%) during anticoagulation treatment, with no clear risk difference for CHC use vs nonuse (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.1-8.2). After anticoagulation cessation, CHC use was associated with a 2.4-fold higher risk of recurrence (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0) compared with nonuse. Recurrence risk for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device use was similar to that for nonuse (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.3-3.1). CONCLUSION: CHC use after a first VTE is safe during anticoagulant use but substantially increases the risk of a recurrent VTE event in absence of anticoagulant use. This study adds to the evidence regarding the use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device as a safe alternative.

Progestin-only contraceptives: effects on weight.

BACKGROUND: Progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) are appropriate for many women who cannot or should not take estrogen. Many POCs are long-acting, cost-effective methods of preventing pregnancy. However, concern about weight gain can deter the initiation of contraceptives and cause early discontinuation among users. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the association between progestin-only contraceptive use and changes in body weight. SEARCH METHODS: Through May 2013, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The 2010 search also included EMBASE. For the initial review, we contacted investigators to identify other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All comparative studies were eligible that examined a POC versus another contraceptive method or no contraceptive. The primary outcome was mean change in body weight or mean change in body composition. We also considered the dichotomous outcome of loss or gain of a specified amount of weight. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted the data. We computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables. For dichotomous outcomes, the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We found 16 studies; one examined progestin-only pills, one studied the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), four examined an implant, and 10 focused on depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Outcomes examined were changes in body weight only (14 studies), changes in both body weight and body composition (1 study), and changes in body composition only (1 study). We did not conduct meta-analysis due to the various contraceptive methods and weight change measures.Comparison groups did not differ significantly for weight change in 12 studies. However, three studies showed weight change differences for POC users compared to women not using a hormonal method. In one study, weight gain (kg) was greater for the DMPA group than the group using a non-hormonal IUD in years one through three [(MD 2.28; 95% CI 1.79 to 2.77), (MD 2.71, 95% CI 2.12 to 3.30), and (MD 3.17; 95% CI 2.51 to 3.83), respectively]. The differences were notable within the normal weight and overweight subgroups. Two implant studies also showed differences in weight change. The implant group (six-capsule) had greater weight gain (kg) compared to the group using a non-hormonal IUD in both studies [(MD 0.47 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.65); (MD 1.10; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.84)]. In one of those studies, the implant group also had greater weight gain than a group using a barrier method or no contraceptive (MD 0.74; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96).The two studies that assessed body composition change showed differences between POC users and women not using a hormonal method. Adolescents using DMPA had a greater increase in body fat (%) compared to a group not using a hormonal method (MD 11.00; 95% CI 2.64 to 19.36). The DMPA group also had a greater decrease in lean body mass (%) (MD -4.00; 95% CI -6.93 to -1.07). The other study reported differences between an LNG-IUS group and a non-hormonal IUD group in percent change in body fat mass (2.5% versus -1.3%, respectively; reported P value = 0.029) and percent change in lean body mass (-1.4% versus 1.0%, respectively; reported P value = 0.027). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low, given that the studies were evenly divided across the evidence quality groups (high, moderate, low, or very low quality). We found limited evidence of weight gain when using POCs. Mean gain was less than 2 kg for most studies up to 12 months. Weight change for the POC group generally did not differ significantly from that of the comparison group using another contraceptive. Two studies that assessed body composition showed that POC users had greater increases in body fat and decreases in lean body mass compared to users of non-hormonal methods. Appropriate counseling about typical weight gain may help reduce discontinuation of contraceptives due to perceptions of weight gain.

Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives may be related to metabolic changes in obesity or greater body mass or body fat. Hormonal contraceptives mainly include oral contraceptives, injectables and implants, the transdermal patch, and the vaginal ring. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives among overweight and obese women. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives in preventing unplanned pregnancies among women who are overweight or obese versus women of lower weight or body mass index (BMI). SEARCH METHODS: Through January 2013, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The previous search also included EMBASE. We contacted investigators to identify other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All study designs were eligible. Any type of hormonal contraceptive could have been examined. Reports had to contain information on the specific contraceptive method(s). The primary outcome was pregnancy. Overweight or obese women must have been identified by an analysis cutoff for weight or BMI (kg/m(2)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by two authors. Life-table rates were included where available. For dichotomous variables, we computed an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). We used reported pregnancy rates or relative risk (RR) when those were the only results provided. The main comparisons were between overweight or obese women and women of lower weight or BMI. We assessed the quality of evidence for this review. MAIN RESULTS: We found nine reports with data from 13 trials that included a total of 49,712 women. Five reports from 2002 to 2012 compared BMI groups; of those, one reported a higher pregnancy risk for overweight or obese women. In that trial, women assigned to an oral contraceptive containing norethindrone acetate 1.0 mg plus EE 20 µg and having a BMI at least 25 had greater pregnancy risk compared to those with BMI less than 25 (reported RR 2.49; 95% CI 1.01 to 6.13). The comparisons reported in the other four studies were not significantly different for pregnancy. These included studies of a combined oral contraceptive (COC), a transdermal patch, an implant, and an injectable. The COC study showed no trend by BMI or weight. With the transdermal patch, body weight was associated with pregnancy (reported P < 0.001) but BMI was not. The implant study had one pregnancy and the injectable study reported no pregnancies.Four studies from the 1990s used weight alone rather than BMI. Results were mixed. Studies of a vaginal ring (never marketed) and a six-rod implant showed higher pregnancy rates for women weighing at least 70 kg versus those weighing less than 70 kg (reported P values: 0.0013 and < 0.05, respectively). However, two implant studies showed no trend by body weight. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence did not generally show an association of BMI with effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. However, the evidence was limited for any individual contraceptive method. Studies using BMI (rather than weight alone) can provide more information about whether body composition is related to contraceptive effectiveness. The efficacy of subdermal implants and injectable contraceptives may be unaffected by body mass. The contraceptive methods examined here are among the most effective when the recommended regimen is followed.The overall quality of evidence was low for this review. More recent reports provided moderate quality evidence, while the older studies provided evidence of low or very low quality for our purposes. Investigators should consider adjusting for potential confounding related to BMI. Trials should be designed to include sufficient numbers of overweight or obese women to adequately examine effectiveness and side effects of hormonal contraceptives within those groups.

Oral contraceptives containing drospirenone for premenstrual syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives, which provide both progestin and estrogen, have been examined for their ability to relieve premenstrual symptoms. An oral contraceptive containing drospirenone and a low estrogen dose has been approved for treating PMDD in women who choose oral contraceptives for contraception. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized controlled trials comparing a combined oral contraceptive containing drospirenone to a placebo or another combined oral contraceptive for effect on premenstrual symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for studies of drospirenone and premenstrual syndrome in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and POPLINE (20 Dec 2011); EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization (02 Mar 2011). We also examined references lists of relevant articles and wrote to known investigators to find other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials in any language that compared a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing drospirenone with a placebo or with another COC for effect on premenstrual symptoms. The primary outcome included affective and physical premenstrual symptoms that were prospectively recorded. Adverse events related to combined oral contraceptive use were examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) was computed with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with a total of 1920 women. Two placebo-controlled trials of women with PMDD showed less severe premenstrual symptoms after three months with drospirenone 3 mg plus ethinyl estradiol 20 µg than with placebo (MD -7.92; 95% CI -11.16 to -4.67). The drospirenone group had greater mean decreases in impairment of productivity (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08), social activities (MD -0.29; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.04), and relationships (MD -0.30; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06). Side effects more common with the use of the drospirenone COC contraceptive were nausea, intermenstrual bleeding, and breast pain. The respective odds ratios were 3.15 (95% CI 1.90 to 5.22), 4.92 (95% CI 3.03 to 7.96), and 2.67 (95% CI 1.50 to 4.78). Total adverse events related to the study drug were more likely for the drospirenone COC group (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.62 to 3.44). Three trials studied the effect of drospirenone 3 mg plus ethinyl estradiol 30 µg on less severe symptoms. A placebo-controlled six-month trial had insufficient data for primary outcome analysis. Another six-month study used levonorgestrel 150 µg plus ethinyl estradiol 30 µg for the comparison group but did not provide enough data on premenstrual symptoms. In a two-year trial, the drospirenone COC group had similar premenstrual symptoms to the comparison group given desogestrel 150 µg plus ethinyl estradiol 30 µg (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22). The groups were also similar for adverse events related to treatment (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.33). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Drospirenone 3 mg plus ethinyl estradiol 20 µg may help treat premenstrual symptoms in women with severe symptoms, that is, premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The placebo also had a large effect. We do not know whether the combined oral contraceptive works after three cycles, helps women with less severe symptoms, or is better than other oral contraceptives. Larger and longer trials of higher quality are needed to address these issues. Trials should follow CONSORT guidelines.

Steroidal contraceptives and bone fractures in women: evidence from observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Age-related decline in bone mass increases the risk of skeletal fractures, especially those of the hip, spine, and wrist. Steroidal contraceptives have been associated with changes in bone mineral density in women. Whether such changes affect the risk of fractures later in life is unclear. Hormonal contraceptives are among the most effective and most widely-used contraceptives. Concern about fractures may limit the use of these effective contraceptives. Observational studies can collect data on premenopausal contraceptive use as well as fracture incidence later in life. OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed the evidence from observational studies of hormonal contraceptive use for contraception and the risk of fracture in women. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2012, we searched for observational studies. The databases included MEDLINE, POPLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched for recent clinical trials through ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. For other studies, we examined reference lists of relevant articles and wrote to investigators for additional reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cohort and case-control studies of hormonal contraceptive use. Interventions included comparisons of a hormonal contraceptive with a nonhormonal contraceptive, no contraceptive, or another hormonal contraceptive. The primary outcome was the risk of fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data. One author entered the data into RevMan, and a second author verified accuracy. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), developed for case-control and cohort studies. Sensitivity analysis included studies of moderate or high quality based on our assessment with the NOS.Given the need to control for confounding factors in observational studies, we used adjusted estimates from the models as reported by the authors. Where we did not have adjusted analyses, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to varied study designs, we did not conduct meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (7 case-control and 7 cohort studies). These examined oral contraceptives (OCs) (N=12), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) (N=4), and the hormonal intrauterine device (IUD) (N=1). This section focuses on evidence from the six studies with moderate or high quality evidence that we included in the sensitivity analysis.All six studies examined oral contraceptive use. We noted few associations with fracture risk. One cohort study found OC ever-users had increased risk for all fractures (reported RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34). However, a case-control study with later data from a subset reported no association except for those with 10 years or more since use (reported OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.33). Another case-control study reported increased risk only for those who had 10 or more prescriptions (reported OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16). A cohort study of postmenopausal women found no increased fracture risk for OC use after excluding women with prior fracture. Two other studies found little evidence of association between OC use and fracture risk. A cohort study noted increased risk for subgroups, such as those with longer use or specific intervals since use. A case-control study reported increased risk for any fracture only among young women with less than average use.Two case-control studies in the sensitivity analysis also examined progestin-only contraceptives. One reported increased fracture risk for DMPA ever-use (reported OR 1.44 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.06), more than four years of use (reported OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.32 to 3.53), and women over 50 years old. The other noted increased risk for any past use, including one or two prescriptions (reported OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29), and for current use of 3 to 9 or 10 or more prescriptions. In addition, one study reported reduced fracture risk for ever-use of the hormonal IUD (reported OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.87) and longer use of that IUD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies do not indicate an overall association between OC use and fracture risk. Some reported increased risk for specific user subgroups. DMPA users may have an increased fracture risk. One study indicated hormonal IUD use may be associated with decreased risk. Observational studies need adjusted analysis because the comparison groups usually differ. Researchers should be clear about the variables examined in multivariate analysis.

The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are high, which is partly due to the use of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). FSH is usually administered in a standard dose. However, due to differences in ovarian reserve between women, ovarian response also differs with potential negative consequences on pregnancy rates. A Markov decision-analytic model showed that FSH dose individualisation according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost-effective in women who are eligible for IVF. However, this has never been confirmed in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present study is to assess whether an individualised FSH dose regime based on an ovarian reserve test (ORT) is more cost-effective than a standard dose regime. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre RCT in subfertile women indicated for a first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle, who are aged < 44 years, have a regular menstrual cycle and no major abnormalities at transvaginal sonography. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities and women undergoing IVF with oocyte donation, will not be included. Ovarian reserve will be assessed by measuring the antral follicle count. Women with a predicted poor response or hyperresponse will be randomised for a standard versus an individualised FSH regime (150 IU/day, 225-450 IU/day and 100 IU/day, respectively). Participants will undergo a maximum of three stimulation cycles during maximally 18 months. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are parameters for ovarian response, multiple pregnancies, number of cycles needed per live birth, total IU of FSH per stimulation cycle, and costs. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess whether the health and associated economic benefits of individualised treatment of subfertile women outweigh the additional costs of an ORT. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will be integrated into a decision model that compares cost-effectiveness of the three dose-adjustment strategies to a standard dose strategy. The study outcomes will provide scientific foundation for national and international guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2657.

Vaginal misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device: an RCT.

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol is an agent that may ripen the cervix in nonpregnant women. Here, we investigate whether vaginal misoprostol administered prior to intrauterine device (IUD) insertion reduces the number of failed insertions, insertion-related complications and pain during insertion. METHODS: We conducted a double-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial among patients requesting an IUD. Nulli- and multi-parous women were included, and both copper-containing and levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs were used. Participants were allocated to either 400 µg misoprostol or placebo (administered 3h prior to IUD insertion). The primary outcome measure was failed insertion. Secondary outcome measures were insertion-related complications, pain, difficulty of insertion and side-effects. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy participants were randomized. After drop out for various reasons (mainly no show), 199 participants had an IUD inserted; 102 received misoprostol and 97 received placebo. Only three insertions failed; two in the misoprostol group and one in the placebo group [P = 0.59, relative risk (RR) 1.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-20.6]. The overall incidence of insertion-related complications was 21.8% in the misoprostol versus 19.1% in the placebo group (mainly vasovagal-like reactions) and did not differ between groups (P = 0.65, RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-2.0). No difference in pain scores between groups was found. Side-effects were more common in the misoprostol group (P = 0.05, RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.7). CONCLUSION: The study showed no benefit for use of misoprostol prior to IUD insertion. However, there is a tendency of possible harm regarding side-effects. Therefore, we would not recommend standard pretreatment with misoprostol. The trial was registered in the European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT 2006-006897-60.

The risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with injectable depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate contraceptives or a levonorgestrel intrauterine device.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of venous thrombosis associated with nonoral contraceptives (ie, injectable depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate contraceptives, hormone [levonorgestrel]-releasing intrauterine devices, a contraceptive patch, or a contraceptive implant). METHODS AND RESULTS: Analyses were performed in the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment study, a large case-control study on risk factors for venous thrombosis. For the current analyses, we selected premenopausal women, aged 18 to 50 years, who were not pregnant nor within 4 weeks postpartum and were not using oral contraceptives; 446 patients and 1146 controls were included. Injectable depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate contraceptives were associated with a 3.6-fold (95% CI, 1.8- to 7.1-fold) increased risk of venous thrombosis compared with nonusers of hormonal contraceptives. The use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device was not associated with an increased risk (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.1). Unfortunately, the few women using a contraceptive patch or an implant prevented a reliable estimate of the risk of thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of venous thrombosis was increased for injectable depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate contraceptive users, while we were able to reliably exclude an increased risk associated with levonorgestrel intrauterine device use. Therefore, the latter seems to be the safest option regarding the risk of venous thrombosis.

Screening for unrecognized coeliac disease in subfertile couples.

OBJECTIVE: Subfertility has been reported as a long-term complication of unrecognized and/or untreated coeliac disease (CD); however, the results from studies on this topic are ambiguous. We aimed to determine the prevalence of unrecognized CD in subfertile male-female couples visiting a fertility clinic compared with the general population. METHODS: Subjects included 1038 male-female couples (n = 2076) who visited the fertility clinic of the Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands between 2003 and 2009. All consecutive patients were routinely, serologically screened, and those with positive test results for antibodies against IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase type 2 and IgA endomysial antibodies were considered to have unrecognized CD. Clinical data on gender, age, height, weight, diagnosis of subfertility, and previously diagnosed CD were collected from the clinical files. Subsequently, after serological screening, all patients were anonymized. The prevalence of unrecognized CD was compared with the one in the general adult population in the Netherlands (0.35%). RESULTS: The prevalence of unrecognized CD in subfertile male-female couples was 0.48% (10/2076; 6 females and 4 males) and was not significantly more frequent compared with the general population. Compared with the control group, similar CD prevalences were found within the different subfertility categories separately: unexplained subfertility, anovulation, tubal pathology, and male factor (p = NS). CONCLUSION: In our large study cohort of subfertile male-female couples, the prevalence of unrecognized CD is comparable to the general population in the Netherlands. No association was observed between CD and subfertility in the different subfertility categories and genders.

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Searches were conducted from January to May 2011. We also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan. A second author verified the data entered. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements using a fixed-effect model. For categorical data, such as the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We found 49 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The trials included 85 weight change comparisons for 52 distinct contraceptive pairs (or placebos). The four trials with a placebo or no intervention group did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight change. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight change did not differ between groups where this was studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

Quadriphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Quadriphasic oral contraceptives have been developed to reduce the adverse effects of oral contraceptives and are presented as more physiological since they mimic the natural cycle. However, suggested disadvantages of quadriphasic oral contraceptives include a possible increased risk of pill-taking errors caused by the array of different color pills, complicated directions for catching up when a pill is missed, the higher price and potential inferiority in terms of side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the contraceptive effectiveness, bleeding pattern, minor side effects and acceptability of quadriphasic contraceptive pills versus monophasic contraceptive pills. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP for trials comparing quadriphasic pills with monophasic pills. We contacted researchers and manufacturers of quadriphasic oral contraceptives to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing quadriphasic with monophasic oral contraceptives . Trials had to report on contraceptive effectiveness, bleeding patterns, minor side effects, ease of use or trial discontinuation. We excluded studies where the intervention was primarily used as a treatment for disorders or was administered for fewer than three consecutive cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: T wo authors abstracted and entered data into RevMan. We critically appraised the methodological quality of the included trials. For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the risk ratio with 95% CI using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We included one double-blind, double-dummy RCT comparing a quadriphasic oral contraceptive composed of dienogest and estradiol valerate with a monophasic oral contraceptive composed of levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol. Contraceptive effectiveness, intracyclic bleeding and discontinuation due to side effects were similar for quadriphasic and monophasic pills. The number of women experiencing withdrawal bleeding was higher in the monophasic group compared to the quadriphasic group. Users of quadriphasic pills reported fewer bleeding/spotting days and fewer bleeding/spotting episodes than users of monophasic pills but the report did not specify whether the bleeding/spotting was scheduled or unscheduled. More women using quadriphasic oral contraceptives reported breast pain compared to women using monophasic oral contraceptives. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether quadriphasic differ from monophasic oral contraceptives in contraceptive effectiveness, bleeding pattern, minor side effects and acceptability. Studies that compare quadriphasic and monophasic oral contraceptives with an identical progestogen and estrogen type are needed to determine whether the quadriphasic approach differs from the monophasic approach. Studies that compare quadriphasic pills with monophasic pills containing 30 µg ethinylestradiol are indicated to determine whether quadriphasic oral contraceptives have an advantage over the current, first choice oral contraceptive . Until then, we recommend monophasic pills containing 30 µg estrogen as the first choice for women starting oral contraceptive use.

Progestin-only contraceptives: effects on weight.

BACKGROUND: Progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) are appropriate for many women who cannot or should not take estrogen. Many POCs are long-acting, cost-effective methods of preventing pregnancy. However, concern about weight gain can deter the initiation of contraceptives and cause early discontinuation among users. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the association between progestin-only contraceptive use and changes in body weight. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP, and contacted investigators to identify other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All comparative studies were eligible that examined a POC versus another method or no contraceptive. The primary outcome was mean change in body weight or body composition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted the data. We computed the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables and odds ratio with 95% CI for dichotomous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We did not conduct meta-analysis due to the various contraceptive methods and weight change measures. Fifteen studies examined progestin-only pills (N=1), Norplant (N=4), and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) (N=10). Comparison groups were similar for weight change in 11 studies. Four studies showed differences in weight or body composition change for POCs compared to no hormonal method. Adolescents using DMPA had a greater increase in body fat (%) versus a group using no hormonal method (mean difference 11.00; 95% CI 2.64 to 19.36). The DMPA group also had a greater decrease in lean body mass (%) (mean difference -4.00; 95% CI -6.93 to -1.07). In another study, weight gain (kg) was greater for the DMPA group than an IUD group (mean difference 2.28, 2.71, 3.17, respectively). The differences were notable within the normal weight and overweight subgroups. One study showed the Norplant (six-capsule) group had greater weight gain (kg) than a non-hormonal IUD group (mean difference 0.47 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.65) and a group using non-hormonal or no method (mean difference 0.74; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). Another study also showed a Norplant group also had greater weight gain (kg) than an IUD group (mean difference 1.10; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.84). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence of weight gain when using POCs. Mean gain was less than 2 kg for most studies up to 12 months, and usually similar for the comparison group using another contraceptive. Appropriate counseling about typical weight gain may help reduce discontinuation of contraceptives due to perceptions of weight gain.