Longitudinal profile of estrogen-related thrombotic biomarkers after cessation of combined hormonal contraceptives.

ABSTRACT: The persistence of risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs), after their cessation, is unknown but important to guide clinical practice. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to define the time until normalization of estrogen-related thrombotic biomarkers after CHC cessation. We enrolled women aged 18 to 50 years who had decided to stop their CHC, excluding those with a personal history of VTE, anticoagulation, or pregnancy. The study started before cessation of CHC, with 6 visits afterwards (at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks after cessation). Primary outcomes were normalized sensitivity ratios to activated protein C (nAPCsr) and to thrombomodulin (nTMsr), with sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) as a secondary end point. We also included control women without CHC. Among 66 CHC users, from baseline until 12 weeks, average levels of nAPCsr, nTMsr, and SHBG decreased from 4.11 (standard deviation [SD], 2.06), 2.53 (SD, 1.03), and 167 nmol/L (SD, 103) to 1.27 (SD, 0.82), 1.11 (SD, 0.58), and 55.4 nmol/L (SD, 26.7), respectively. On a relative scale, 85.8%, 81.3%, and 76.2% of the decrease from baseline until 12 weeks was achieved at 2 weeks and 86.7%, 85.5%, and 87.8% at 4 weeks after CHC cessation, respectively. Levels were not meaningfully modified throughout the study period among 28 control women. In conclusion, CHC cessation is followed by a rapid decrease in estrogen-related thrombotic biomarkers. Two to 4 weeks of cessation before planned major surgery or withdrawal of anticoagulants in patients with VTE appears sufficient for the majority of women. The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03949985.

Steroids Used to Treat Acne Vulgaris: A Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Clinical Considerations.

Acne vulgaris is prevalent among adolescents and adults worldwide and can significantly impact patients' quality of life. Steroidal molecules, including oral and intralesional corticosteroids, combined oral contraceptives (COCs), oral spironolactone, and topical clascoterone, are an important part of the acne treatment armamentarium. The recommended use, mechanism of action, and available evidence supporting the use of steroids for acne treatment are reviewed, and differences in acne clinical presentation and treatment approaches based on patient characteristics relevant to the selection of an appropriate steroid are also discussed. Steroid-based approaches target the systemic or local hormones (ie, testosterone and androgens) and inflammation that contribute to acne pathogenesis. Oral corticosteroids are primarily used as a short-term adjunctive therapy early in treatment, whereas intralesional corticosteroid injections are used for individual acne lesions. COCs and oral spironolactone are limited to female patients who wish to avoid pregnancy. Topical clascoterone can be used by female and male patients 12 years of age and older. Patients' characteristics (including age and patients with darker skin color) and preferences for the route of administration can impact treatment response and adherence, respectively. Overall, healthcare providers must be aware of the differences among steroidal acne treatments and use shared decision-making to select the optimal therapy. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(6):404-409.     doi:10.36849/JDD.7846.

Combined oral contraceptive use and obesity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a heterogenous endocrine condition and combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have been demonstrated to be the first-line treatment to women who do not intend to become pregnant. The combination of COCs and PCOS may or may not amplify the risks of cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether surrogates for obesity may be influenced by the use of COCs containing different formulations in women with PCOS. METHOD: From January 2024 a literature search was conducted in Google Scholar and Pubmed databases using PCOS, COC, and obesity terms. Hand search of randomized clinical trials in the references of obtained manuscripts was also performed. After the exclusion of reviews and articles that did not fulfill eligibility criteria, compared the results obtained before and after the use of COCs in 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Random-effects model was used to estimate the standardized mean differences (SMD) and standard errors (SE). Risk of bias was examined using the Rob2 tool. RESULT: Thirteen heterogeneous RCTs reported no difference in waist circumference with the use of different COC formulations (p = 0.714). On the contrary, body fat mass increased with the use of pill (p = 0.013). Waist triglyceride index and lipid accumulation product tended to be higher after the use of COCs (p = 0.073 and p = 0.064, respectively). CONCLUSION: Combined oral contraceptives with different formulations might increase fat mass accumulation in women with PCOS. Lipids may also be increased in PCOS users. Because some concerns about the quality and heterogeneity identified in various RCTs, caution should be taken before a definitive conclusion regarding the use of COCs and obesity.

Health benefits of combined oral contraceptives - a narrative review.

PURPOSE: This review presents an update of the non-contraceptive health benefits of the combined oral contraceptive pill. METHODS: We conducted a literature search for (review) articles that discussed the health benefits of combined oral contraceptives (COCs), in the period from 1980 to 2023. RESULTS: We identified 21 subjective and/or objective health benefits of COCs related to (i) the reproductive tract, (ii) non-gynaecological benign disorders and (iii) malignancies. Reproductive tract benefits are related to menstrual bleeding(including anaemia and toxic shock syndrome), dysmenorrhoea, migraine, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), ovarian cysts, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), androgen related symptoms, ectopic pregnancy, hypoestrogenism, endometriosis and adenomyosis, uterine fibroids and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Non-gynaecological benefits are related to benign breast disease, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, asthma and porphyria. Health benefits of COCs related to cancer are lower risks of endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The use of combined oral contraceptives is accompanied with a range of health benefits, to be balanced against its side-effects and risks. Several health benefits of COCs are a reason for non-contraceptive COC prescription.

Is the multinational, surveillance PRO-E2 study informative for all countries? The Italian data on VTE and contraceptive effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the thromboembolic risk and contraceptive effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 observed in the PRO-E2 study can be extended to each participating country, as lifestyle, cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing habits may differ geographically. This analysis was performed on the PRO-E2 Italian subpopulation, where smoking habit and women over 35 years were more prevalent compared with the overall study population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from NOMAC-E2 or levonorgestrel-containing COCs (COCLNG) new users were descriptively analysed. Incidence rates of thrombosis (events/10,000 women-years [WY]) and the Pearl Index (pregnancies/100 WY) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 11,179 NOMAC-E2 and 8,504 COCLNG users were followed up to 2 years (34,869 WY). The NOMAC-E2 cohort included more women over 35 vs. COCLNG (37.7% vs. 31.8%; p = 0.001). A comparable low risk of combined deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed in NOMAC-E2 (1.7/10,000 WY; 95% CI: 0.21-6.2) and COCLNG users (6.6/10,000 WY; 95% CI: 2.4-14.4). Similar results were obtained by considering all thromboembolic events (VTE). Unintended pregnancies did not differ between NOMAC-E2 (0.12/100 WY; 95% CI: 0.06-0.21) and COCLNG (0.15/100 WY; 95% CI: 0.08-0.26) cohorts. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher age and tobacco use, findings from the Italian subpopulation were broadly consistent with overall PRO-E2 results, confirming a similar low thromboembolic risk and high contraceptive effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 and COCLNG. SHORT CONDENSATION: This subgroup analysis of the PRO-E2 study provides comprehensive epidemiological data on the use of combined oral contraceptives in a large Italian cohort, with a higher prevalence of women over 35 years and smokers. The study confirms the low thromboembolic risk and high contraceptive effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 pill.

Combined oral contraceptive use and risk for binge eating in women: Potential gene × hormone interactions.

Extant animal and human data suggest endogenous ovarian hormones increase risk for binge eating in females, possibly via gene × hormone interactions and hormonally induced increases in genetic influences. Approximately 85 % of women will take combined oral contraceptives (COCs) that mimic the riskiest hormonal milieu for binge eating (i.e., post-ovulation when both estrogen and progesterone are present). The purpose of this narrative review is to synthesize findings of binge eating risk in COC users. Few studies have been conducted, but results suggest that COCs may increase risk for binge eating and related phenotypes (e.g., craving for sweets), particularly in genetically vulnerable women. Larger, more systematic human and animal studies of COCs and binge eating are needed. The goal of this work should be to advance personalized medicine by identifying the extent of COC risk as well as the role of gene × hormone interactions in susceptibility.

Combined Oral Contraceptives As Victims of Drug Interactions.

Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are widely used in women of reproductive age in the United States. Metabolism plays an important role in the elimination of estrogens and progestins contained in COCs. It is unavoidable that a woman using COCs may need to take another drug to treat a disease. If the concurrently used drug induces enzymes responsible for the metabolism of progestins and/or estrogens, unintended pregnancy or irregular bleeding may occur. If the concurrent drug inhibits the metabolism of these exogenous hormones, there may be an increased safety risk such as thrombosis. Therefore, for an investigational drug intended to be used in women with reproductive potential, evaluating its effects on the pharmacokinetics of COCs is important to determine if additional labeling is necessary for managing drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between the concomitant product and the COCs. It is challenging to determine when this clinical drug interaction study is needed, whether an observed exposure change of progestin/estrogen is clinically meaningful, and if the results of a clinical drug interaction study with one COC can predict exposure changes of unstudied COCs to inform labeling. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of metabolic pathways of estrogens and progestins contained in commonly used COCs and known interactions of these COCs as victim drugs and we discuss possible mechanisms of interactions for unexpected results. We also discuss recent advances, knowledge gaps, and future perspectives on this important topic. The review will enhance the understanding of DDIs with COCs and improve the safe and effective use of COCs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This minireview provides an overview of the metabolic pathways of ethinyl estradiol and progestins contained in commonly used combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and significant drug interactions of these COCs as victims. It also discusses recent advances, knowledge gaps, future perspectives, and potential mechanisms for unexpected results of clinical drug interaction studies of COCs. This minireview will help the reader understand considerations when evaluating the drug interaction potential with COCs for drugs that are expected to be used concurrently.

In the thicket of fears, doubts, and murky facts: some reflections on treatment modalities for endometriosis-associated pain.

Endometriosis-associated pain can be managed by either surgery or hormonal therapy. The final decision as to which treatment modality to take is based on efficacy and possible complications of different treatment modalities, risk of recurrence, and the patient's wishes and preferences. But in the thicket of fears, doubts, and murky facts, the choice may ultimately be the trade-off between irrational fears and ignorance versus scientific evidence. We elaborate some pros and cons of the two treatment modalities and highlight some notable downsides of hormonal therapy, in particular the possible yet unquantified risk of long-term hormonal therapy for malignant transformation, perhaps with the only exception of combined oral contraceptives. Thus, when discussing with patients, we advocate the approach of discussing the advantages and disadvantages of all treatment options in detail, accounting for the known pros and cons with a full understanding of the predictive irrationality of human beings. For endometriosis-associated pain, surgery is definitely not a failure of medicine but, rather, a viable option, especially given the recently surfaced undercurrent of wariness and dissatisfaction with the current hormonal drugs among patients with endometriosis. Above all, there is a pressing need to fill the knowledge gap of perioperative interventions intended to reduce the risk of recurrence and to fulfill the demand for the development of safe and efficacious non-hormonal therapeutics.

Effects of rimegepant 75 mg daily on the pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate in healthy female participants.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of single and multiple doses of rimegepant 75 mg dose on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol (EE)/norgestimate (NGM) in healthy females of childbearing potential or non-menopausal females with tubal ligation. BACKGROUND: Females of childbearing age experience the highest prevalence of migraine and frequently inquire about the concomitant use of anti-migraine medications and contraceptives. Rimegepant, a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, demonstrated efficacy and safety for treating an acute migraine attack and preventing migraine. METHODS: This open-label, single-center, phase 1, drug-drug interaction study explored the effects of rimegepant 75 mg daily dose on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing EE/NGM 0.035 mg/0.25 mg in healthy females of childbearing potential or non-menopausal females with tubal ligation. During cycles 1 and 2, participants received EE/NGM once daily for 21 days followed by placebo tablets with inactive ingredients for 7 days. Rimegepant was administered during only cycle 2 for 8 days, from days 12 through 19. The primary endpoint was the effect of single and multiple doses of rimegepant on the pharmacokinetics of EE and norelgestromin (NGMN), an active metabolite of NGM, at steady state, including area under the concentration-time curve for 1 dosing interval (AUC0-τ,ss ) and maximum observed concentration (Css[max] ). RESULTS: The study enrolled 25 participants, with pharmacokinetic data assessed for 20 participants. A single 75 mg dose of rimegepant co-administered with EE/NGM increased exposures of EE and NGMN by ≤16% (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 1.03; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.06; and GMR, 1.16; 90% CI, 1.13-1.20, respectively). After 8 days of co-administering EE/NGM with rimegepant, EE pharmacokinetic parameters, AUC0-τ,ss and Css(max) , increased by 20% (GMR, 1.20; 90% CI, 1.16-1.25) and 34% (GMR, 1.34; 90% CI, 1.23-1.46), respectively, and NGMN pharmacokinetic parameters increased by 46% (GMR, 1.46; 90% CI, 1.39-1.52) and 40% (GMR, 1.40; 90% CI, 1.30-1.51), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified modest elevations in overall EE and NGMN exposures after multiple doses of rimegepant, but these elevations are unlikely to be clinically relevant in healthy females with migraine.

Combined oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs. OCP versus placebo or no treatment OCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to -0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%. Compared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence). One OCP versus another OCP Continuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 µg and ethinylestradiol 30 µg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence). OCPs versus NSAIDs There were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: OCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.

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 (COC), which provide both progestin and oestrogen, have been examined for their ability to relieve premenstrual symptoms. A combined oral contraceptive containing drospirenone and a low oestrogen dose has been approved for treating PMDD in women who choose combined oral contraceptives for contraception. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COCs containing drospirenone in women with PMS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trial register, CENTRAL (now containing output from two trials registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos on 29 June 2022. We checked included studies' reference lists and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared COCs containing drospirenone with placebo or with another COC for treatment of women with PMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were effects on premenstrual symptoms that were prospectively recorded, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included effects on mood, adverse events, and response rate to study medications. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (858 women analysed, most diagnosed with PMDD). The evidence was very low to moderate quality; the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious inconsistency and imprecision. COCs containing drospirenone and ethinylestradiol (EE) versus placebo COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve overall premenstrual symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.24; 2 RCTs, N = 514; I2 = 64%; low-quality evidence); and functional impairment due to premenstrual symptoms in terms of productivity (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I2 = 47%; low-quality evidence), social activities (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.04; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I2 = 53%; low-quality evidence), and relationships (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I2 = 45%; low-quality evidence). The effects from COCs containing drospirenone may be small to moderate. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may increase withdrawal from trials due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.78; 4 RCT, N = 776; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects from placebo is 3%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 6% and 16%. We are uncertain of the effect of drospirenone plus EE on premenstrual mood symptoms, when measured by validated tools that were not developed to assess premenstrual symptoms. COCs containing drospirenone may lead to more adverse effects in total (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.11; 3 RCT, N = 739; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of having adverse effects from placebo is 28%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 40% and 54%. It probably leads to more breast pain, and may lead to more nausea, intermenstrual bleeding, and menstrual disorder. Its effect on nervousness, headache, asthenia, and pain is uncertain. There was no report of any rare but serious adverse effects, such as venous thromboembolism in any of the included studies. COCs containing drospirenone may improve response rate (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.40; 1 RCT, N = 449; I2 not applicable; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the response rate from placebo is 36%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 39% and 58%. We did not identify any studies that compared COCs containing drospirenone with other COCs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve premenstrual symptoms that result in functional impairments in women with PMDD. The placebo also had a significant effect. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may lead to more adverse effects compared to placebo. We do not know whether it works after three cycles, helps women with less severe symptoms, or is better than other combined oral contraceptives that contain a different progestogen.

Former long-term use of combined hormonal contraception and glucose metabolism disorders in perimenopausal women: A prospective, population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Current use of combined hormonal contraceptives worsens glucose tolerance and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus at late fertile age, but the impact of their former use on the risk of glucose metabolism disorders is still controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal birth cohort study with long-term follow-up consisting of 5889 women. The cohort population has been followed at birth, and at ages of 1, 14, 31 and 46. In total, 3280 (55.7%) women were clinically examined and 2780 also underwent a 2-h oral glucose tolerance test at age 46. Glucose metabolism indices were analyzed in former combined hormonal contraceptive users (n = 1371) and former progestin-only contraceptive users (n = 52) and in women with no history of hormonal contraceptive use (n = 253). RESULTS: Compared with women with no history of hormonal contraceptive use, those who formerly used combined hormonal contraceptives for over 10 years had an increased risk of prediabetes (odds ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-9.2) but not of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Former progestin-only contraceptive use was not associated with any glucose metabolism disorders. The results persisted after adjusting for socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, parity, body mass index and use of cholesterol-lowering medication. CONCLUSIONS: Former long-term use of combined hormonal contraceptives was associated with a significantly increased risk of prediabetes in perimenopausal women, which potentially indicates a need of screening for glucose metabolism disorders in these women.

Combined oral contraceptives: update recommendations of the Latin American contraceptive association.

Background: In recent years, new combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have become available, representing an advance in terms of individualization and compliance by users.Objective: To provide recommendations regarding COCs: formulations, use, efficacy, benefits and safety.Method: For these recommendations, we have used the modified Delphi methodology and carried out a systematic review of studies found in the literature and reviews performed in humans, published in English and Spanish in Pubmed, Medline and advanced medicine and computer networks until the year 2021, using the combination of terms: 'oral contraceptives', 'estroprogestins' and 'combined oral contraceptives'.Results: Regarding the estrogen component, initially switching from mestranol (the pro-drug of ethinylestradiol) to ethinylestradiol (EE) and then reducing the EE dose helped reduce side effects and associated adverse events. Natural estradiol and estradiol valerate are already available and represent a valid alternative to EE. The use of more potent 19-nortestosterone-derived progestins, in order to lower the dose and then the appearance of non-androgenic progestins with different endocrine and metabolic characteristics, has made it possible to individualize the prescription of COC according to the profile of each woman.Conclusion: Advances in the provision of new COCs have improved the risk/benefit ratio by increasing benefits and reducing risks. Currently, the challenge is to tailor contraceptives to individual needs in terms of safety, efficacy, and protection of female reproductive health.

NOMAC-E2 compares to LNG combined oral contraceptives in women over forty: real-world PRO-E2 study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate safety and effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 and levonorgestrel-containing COCs (COCLNG) in users over 40. METHODS: In this large, observational study, new users1 of NOMAC-E2 and COCLNG were recruited in Europe, Australia, and Latin America and followed-up via questionnaires. Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was expressed as incidence rate (IR; events/104 women-years [WY]). Unintended pregnancy was expressed by the Pearl Index (PI; contraceptive failures/100 WY). Mood and weight changes were defined as mean changes in mood score and percentage of body weight. RESULTS: Overall, 7,762 NOMAC-E2 and 6,059 COCLNG users over 40 were followed-up. NOMAC-E2 showed no increased VTE risk compared to COCLNG; confirmed events: 5 NOMAC-E2 (IR 5.9; 95% CI, 1.9-13.7) vs 4 COCLNG (IR 5.9; 95% CI, 1.6-15.1). Unintended pregnancy did not differ substantially between cohorts; confirmed events: 4 NOMAC-E2 (PI 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13) vs 5 COCLNG (PI 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). No differential effect on mood and weight was observed between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: NOMAC-E2 can be considered a valid alternative to COCLNG in perimenopausal women.

A new progestin-only pill (POP): the impact of drospirenone-only pill 4 mg 24 + 4 on coagulation markers and bleeding patterns.

PURPOSE: Progestin-only pills (POPs), compared to combined, are not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, but are associated with a poor cycle control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new POP [4 mg drospirenone (DRSP) for 24 days with a 4-day hormone-free interval] on some coagulation markers (both procoagulant and fibrinolytic) and to describe its impact on bleeding patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective trial, based on serum evaluation of following coagulation markers and tests: Factor (F) X, F VIII, F V, INR, aPTT, Protein S and antithrombin III. A 'bleeding diary' was used to categorise women as having (1) unscheduled bleeding, (2) scheduled bleeding and (3) amenorrhoea. Thirty patients were followed for six 28-day intake cycles, with a follow-up at the end of the 3rd and 6th cycles. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease of F X (p = 0.03) (-5.7% at cycle 6). No significant changes have been observed for F VII, F V and INR. A significant increase in aPTT (p = 0.01 at 3 cycles), Protein S (p = 0.0006 at 3 cycles) and antithrombin III (p < 0.0001 at 3 cycles) was recorded. This non-deteriorating coagulation impact was associated with a significant and progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding in users between cycles 4 and 6 (from 1.3 ± 0.2 days at cycle 4 to 0.8 ± 0.1 days at cycle 6 and from 2.6 ± 0.4 days at cycle 4 to 0.6 ± 0.2 days at cycle 6, respectively, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DRSP 24 + 4 use was associated with a non-deteriorating effect on coagulation markers and a significant progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding.

Contraception with DRSP 24 + 4 was associated with a non-deteriorating effect on coagulation markers and a significant progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding.

Evaluation of choroidal thickness and choroidal vascular index in patients using combined oral contraceptive pills.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the choroidal thickness and choroidal vascular index (CVI) in healthy women using the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCp). METHODS: This prospective study included 30 women using COCp (3 mg drospirenone/0.03 mg ethinylestradiol) for contraception for at least 1 year and 30 healthy women who did not use COCp. Intraocular pressure (IOP), axial length (AL) and body mass index (BMI) values of all participants were recorded. Subfoveal choroidal thickness (SCT) and choroidal thickness at 1500 micron distance in nasal and temporal regions (NCT, TCT) were measured through optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. Luminal, stromal and total choroidal area values were evaluated by binarization method. The ratio of the luminal choroidal area to the total choroidal area was determined as the CVI value. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in IOP and AL values between the two groups at no significant difference in age and BMI index (p > 0.05, for all). SCT, NCT and TCT values were no significant difference in the two groups (p > 0.05, for all). Luminal and stromal choroidal area values were found to be lower in the group using COCp (p = 0.01, p = 0.02 respectively). The CVI value was 62.1 ± 3.6% in the COCp group and 65.6 ± 4.3% in the control group. There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of CVI value (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate CVI in women using COCp, and CVI was found to be lower in individuals using COCp. Therefore, CVI can be used in the follow-up of possible ocular pathologies that may develop in individuals using COCp.

Recurrence after stopping anticoagulants in women with combined oral contraceptive-associated venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The risk of recurrence after discontinuation of anticoagulation for a combined oral contraceptive (COC)-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of recurrent VTE among women with COC-associated VTE, unprovoked VTE and to compare the incidence of recurrent VTE between the two groups. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase Classic +Embase and Medline ALL to July 2020 and citations from included studies were searched. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses of these study types were selected. The analysis was conducted by random-effects model. Nineteen studies were identified including 1537 women [5828 person-years (PY)] with COC-associated VTE and 1974 women (7798 PY) with unprovoked VTE. Studies were at low risk of bias. The incidence rate of VTE recurrence was 1.22/100 PY [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.62, I2  = 6%] in women with COC-associated VTE, 3.89/100 PY (95% CI 2.93-5.17, I2  = 74%) in women with unprovoked VTE and the unadjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.34 (95% CI 0.26-0.46, I2  = 3%). The recurrence risk in women after COC-associated VTE is low and lower than after an unprovoked VTE.

Do oral combined contraceptive pills modify body image and sexual function?

BACKGROUND: The effect of hormonal contraceptives on sexual function and body image is still controversial. Existing studies have not come to definite conclusions on the association between hormonal contraceptive use and sexual function/presence of sexual dysfunction or changes in body image perception. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of sexual problems/dysfunction in Polish women of reproductive age (18-45 years) and to assess to what extent oral combined contraceptive pills (OCCP) impact body image, sexual function and the prevalence of female sexual dysfunction (FSD). METHODS: A total of 495 women were included in this cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. Sexual function was assessed by the Changes in Sexual Function Questionnaire (CSFQ), the prevalence of FSD was assessed by DSM-5 criteria, and body image was assessed by the Body Exposure during Sexual Activity Questionnaire (BESAQ). A total of 237 women using OCCP were the study group (HC), and the rest were controls (CG). A regression model was used to evaluate the influence of the selected variables on sexual function and the presence of FSD. RESULTS: The prevalence of FSD was 7.5% in HC and 2.6% in CG, and 22% compared to 14% of women in HC and CG, respectively, reported sexual problems (CSFQ). The demographic characteristics of those using other contraception methods or not using any contraception (control group) were similar. The contraceptive group was characterized by significantly higher importance of sex (4.03 vs. 3.79), worse partner's attitude toward sex (4.35 vs. 4.47), worse self-attitude toward sex (4.35 vs. 4.47), and worse body image (BESAQ) compared to controls. Among all of the variables, a lower level of anxiety (t = -1.99), positive attitudes toward sex (t = 2.05), watching erotic videos (t = 5.58) and a higher importance of sex (t = 5.66) were predictive of better sexual function (R2-0.38, F = 28.9, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Sexual behaviors and function are different in those using OCCP compared to nonusers. The prevalence of sexual problems and dysfunction was higher in those using this hormonal method of contraception; however, using OCCP was not a risk factor for either worse sexual function or sexual dysfunction. Partners' attitudes toward sex and general anxiety level were factors contributing to sexual function and the risk of sexual dysfunction in the population of women of reproductive age and should be routinely evaluated in clinical practice, especially before prescribing hormonal contraceptives.

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between the HIV-1 maturation inhibitor GSK3640254 and combination oral contraceptives in healthy women.

AIMS: GSK3640254 is a next-generation maturation inhibitor likely to be coadministered with combined oral contraceptives in HIV-positive women. METHODS: This phase I, open-label, 1-way study assessed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of GSK3640254 200 mg and ethinyl oestradiol 0.03 mg/levonorgestrel 0.15 mg once daily in healthy female participants who received ethinyl oestradiol/levonorgestrel for 10 days with a moderate-fat meal after which GSK3640254 was added from Days 11 to 21. Primary endpoints were area under the plasma concentration-time curve to the end of the dosing interval (AUC0-t ), maximum observed concentration (Cmax ) and plasma concentration at the end of the dosing interval (Cτ ) for ethinyl oestradiol and levonorgestrel. Serum follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone and progesterone concentrations were determined. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Among 23 enrolled participants, 17 completed the study. Geometric least squares mean ratios (with vs. without GSK3640254) of AUC0-t , Cmax and Cτ were 0.974, 0.970 and 1.050 for ethinyl oestradiol and 1.069, 1.032 and 1.083 for levonorgestrel, respectively. Three participants had elevated progesterone levels, which occurred before GSK3640254 administration in 2 participants. No participants had elevated follicle-stimulating hormone or luteinizing hormone values. Fourteen participants (61%) reported adverse events. Four participants reported asymptomatic elevated transaminase levels meeting liver-stopping criteria; of these, 3 events occurred before GSK3640254 administration and led to study withdrawal. CONCLUSION: Ethinyl oestradiol/levonorgestrel plus GSK3640254 coadministration did not affect steady-state pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of ethinyl oestradiol and levonorgestrel in healthy female participants. No major tolerability findings were reported. Elevated liver transaminase levels were probably due to ethinyl oestradiol/levonorgestrel.

Use of combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolism in young women: a nested case-control analysis using German claims data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among young women for nine combined oral contraceptives (COCs), including progestogens with an as yet unclear risk of VTE such as chlormadinone and nomegestrol, using COCs containing levonorgestrel with low ethinylestradiol (<50 µg) as a reference. DESIGN: Case-control study nested in a cohort of new users of COCs. SETTING: German claims data. POPULATION: A total of 1166 cases of VTE matched to 11 660 controls nested in a cohort of 677 331 girls and young women aged 10-19 years with one or more COCs dispensed between 2005 and 2017 after a 1-year period without any COCs. METHODS: Confounder-adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of VTE associated with current use of the respective COCs were calculated using conditional logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. RESULTS: Compared with levonorgestrel with low ethinylestradiol (<50 µg), the risk of VTE was increased two-fold for COCs containing dienogest (aOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.77-2.80), cyproterone (aOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.25), chlormadinone (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.58-2.68), desogestrel (aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.44-2.61) and drospirenone (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.41-2.55), and increased five-fold for gestodene (aOR 5.05, 95% CI 1.23-20.74). For norgestimate and nomegestrol, the point estimates suggest a two-fold increased risk (aOR 1.90, 95% CI 0.62-5.81) and 40% increased risk (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 0.52-3.81), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that levonorgestrel with low ethinylestradiol (<50 µg) is the COC associated with the lowest risk of VTE and suggests that for chlormadinone the risk of VTE is two times higher, and thus in the same range as for desogestrel and drospirenone.