Incidence rate of venous thrombosis in women switching combined oral contraceptives: a cohort study.

Background: The incidence rate of venous thrombosis (VT) in women switching combined oral contraceptives (COCs) is unknown. Objectives: We hypothesize that women switching COCs may have a similar increased incidence rate of VT as women who start COCs. Switching means starting with a new COC, which may biologically approximate starting. Methods: We conducted a cohort study with data from the Netherlands and Denmark. First, we identified starters who were defined as women who did not use COCs in the 2 years prior to the start of their first COC prescription within the study period. Switchers were a subset of COC starters who redeemed a COC formulation different from their initial COC during follow-up but not longer than 12 months after starting. We estimated incidence rate ratios (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]) of VT with 95% CIs among COC switchers as compared with COC starters using Poisson regression adjusted for age, COC progestogen generation, and preexisting obesity. Results: In both countries, we found an increased risk of VT among switchers as compared with starters during the first 3 months of the follow-up (aIRR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22-2.56 in the Netherlands and aIRR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.16 in Denmark). Conclusion: Switchers, particularly in the first 3 months after switching, may experience a renewed starter effect thereby increasing the risk of VT.

Venous thrombosis with oral postmenopausal hormone therapy: Roles of activated protein C resistance and tissue factor pathway inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Oral postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) increases the risk of venous thrombosis (VT). We postulated that activated protein C (APC) resistance induced by HT is one of the mechanisms causing VT, and also assessed the role of one of the main determinants of APC resistance (i.e., tissue factor pathway inhibitor [TFPI]). METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study embedded within two Women's Health Initiative hormone trials. Women were randomized to hormone therapy or placebo. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and after 1 year in 217 cases and 817 controls. RESULTS: Increased APC resistance and decreased TFPI at baseline were associated with VT (odds ratio 1.20-2.06). However, women with such prothrombotic profile at baseline did not have further increased risk of VT when randomized to HT compared with placebo. Although there was no change in APC resistance or TFPI in placebo group after 1 year, HT group showed prothrombotic changes in the biomarkers (i.e., an increase in APC resistance) (mean [standard deviation] 0.39 [0.54]) and decrease in TFPI (-0.21 [0.50]: free TFPI, -0.24 [0.22]: TFPI activity -0.22 [0.20]: total TFPI). However, HT induced prothrombotic change in biomarkers did not increase risk of VT. CONCLUSION: Women with prothrombotic levels of APC resistance and TFPI at baseline were not at increased risk of VT when randomized to HT compared with placebo. This suggests that testing for these biomarkers before starting HT is not required. HT led to prothrombotic change in these biomarkers after one year, but this did not relate to increased risk of VT.

Hormonal Contraceptives and the Risk of Venous Thrombosis.

The risk of venous thrombosis (VT) varies according to the type of progestogen that is found in combined oral contraceptives (COCs). When combined with the estrogen component ethinylestradiol (EE), the androgenic progestogens are better able to counteract the EE-induced stimulation of liver proteins and hence are associated with a twofold decreased risk of VT compared with non- or antiandrogenic progestogens, which exert limited counteraction of EE. Because EE is responsible for the increased risk, novel estrogens such as estradiol were developed and seem to have a lower risk of VT than EE. Besides COCs, there are other methods of hormonal contraceptives, such as progestogen-only contraceptives, which do not increase VT risk, except for injectables. Other nonoral contraceptives are combined vaginal rings and patches. There is insufficient evidence regarding the risk of VT associated with these two methods compared with COCs. The increased risk associated with COCs is more pronounced in women with inherited thrombophilia. In these women, the progestogen levonorgestrel seems to be associated with the lowest risk of VT. Currently, there are no studies that have investigated the risk of VT in women who switch COCs. We hypothesize that switching COCs, even when switching from a high- to a low-risk COC, increases the risk of VT. Finally, risk prediction models in women who use COCs are lacking. Since there is a large number of VT cases associated with COC use, it is important to identify women at risk of VT and advise them on alternative contraception methods.

Combined hormonal contraceptive use in Europe before and after the European Commission mandated changes in product information.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) prescribing patterns (focusing on combined oral contraceptives; COC) in three countries (Netherlands, Denmark, United Kingdom) in a time period preceding and in a time period following the European Commission's decision to update product information, and we estimated changes in incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) between the two periods. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a drug utilization analysis and a cohort study using routinely collected data. We calculated number, proportion and incidence rate of new users, switchers, and stoppers of COC in both time periods. VTE incidence was calculated in new users of COC and in all women aged 18-49 years. RESULTS: In all countries, the largest proportion (> 75%) of new users used COC containing levonorgestrel, norethisterone, or norgestimate, (i.e., indicated by European Medicines Agency (EMA) as the safest preparations) in both time periods. Switching did not demonstrate a clear pattern towards these types of COC and distribution of stoppers was similar in both time periods. While the proportion of new users initiating COC containing levonorgestrel, norethisterone, or norgestimate increased slightly, this did not translate to a decrease in the overall VTE incidence. CONCLUSION: All three countries had the greatest proportion of women initiating a COC containing levonorgestrel, norethisterone, or norgestimate, and this proportion increased in the period after the European Commission decision albeit the increase was small due to the high percentage of use before the decision. This did not translate into a measureable change in the incidence of VTE. IMPLICATIONS: Both before and after the European Commission's decision, the largest proportion of new users started with combined oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, norethisterone, or norgestimate. Earlier studies had already indicated an increased risk of VTE associated with COC containing other progestogens compared with these preparations, so it is possible that physicians were already preferentially prescribing COC containing levonorgestrel, norethisterone, or norgestimate to new users.

The joint effect of genetic risk factors and different types of combined oral contraceptives on venous thrombosis risk.

It is not known whether the synergistic effect of genetic markers, increasing the risk of venous thrombosis (VT), and combined oral contraceptives (COC) use varies between different types of progestogens in these preparations. We investigated the joint effect of genetic risk factor, that is, F5 rs6025, F2 rs1799963, and FGG rs2066865 mutations, and different progestogens on the risk of VT. The constrained maximum likelihood estimation (CMLE) method was used to calculate joint effects, expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals [CI]. As the dose of estrogen is known to be a risk factor for VT, analyses were restricted to COC with 30 µg estrogen and each progestogen. Overall, the joint effect of COC and genetic variants was lowest for COC containing the progestogen levonorgestrel, albeit CIs were wide. The OR (95% CI) of the four different analyses (i.e. joint effect with F5 rs6025, F2 rs1799963, F5 rs6025 or F2 rs1799963 and FGG rs2066865) ranged between 7·4 (5·4-10·2) and 24·8 (12·3-50·0) for levonorgestrel. For gestodene the joint effect ranged between 11·7 (7·2-19·1) and 30·9 (10·6-89·9). Desogestrel and cyproterone acetate had the highest risk estimates: 14·6 (9·7-21·9) and 32·6 (13·2-80·6) and 15·5 (9·7-24·9) and 44·4 (16·9-116·3) respectively. In women with inherited thrombophilia, COC containing levonorgestrel were associated with the lowest risk of VT, albeit the CIs were wide.