Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 351–355 | Cite as

Oral contraceptive use and bone mass in women aged 26–36 years

  • S. WeiEmail author
  • G. Jones
  • R. Thomson
  • T. Dwyer
  • A. Venn
Short Communication

Abstract

Introduction

The association between hormonal contraceptive use and bone mineral density remains controversial.

Hypothesis

Hormonal contraceptive use is positively associated with bone mass in young premenopausal women.

Methods

Cross-sectional analysis of data collected from women aged 26–36 years (n = 687) in the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health study—a longitudinal study investigating childhood determinants of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases in adulthood. Participants were not currently pregnant or breast-feeding. Contraceptive use was obtained by self-administered questionnaire. Women were categorized as combined oral contraceptive users (n = 219), progestogen-only contraceptive users (n = 43), and non-users of hormonal contraceptives (n = 425). Bone mass was measured by quantitative ultrasound.

Results

Compared with women who were not using any hormonal contraceptives, women using combined oral contraceptives had significantly higher values of broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA), speed of sound, and quantitative ultrasound index. These associations remained after adjustment for confounders. Progestogen-only contraceptive users had higher BUA than non-users, but the differences were not statistically significant in this small group.

Conclusion

Combined oral contraceptive use was associated with higher bone mass measured by quantitative ultrasound in this population-based sample of premenopausal women aged 26–36 while progestogen-only contraceptives appeared to have no deleterious effect on bone mass.

Keywords

Bone mass Contraceptive Oral contraceptive Population Progestogen Quantitative ultrasound Young women 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all CDAH staff and study participants for their valuable contributions to this study. The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, National Heart Foundation, Tasmanian Community Fund, and Veolia Environmental Services.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Martins SL, Curtis KM, Glasier AF (2006) Combined hormonal contraception and bone health: a systematic review. Contraception 73:445–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almstedt Shoepe H, Snow CM (2005) Oral contraceptive use in young women is associated with lower bone mineral density than that of controls. Osteoporos Int 16:1538–1544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruffing JA, Nieves JW, Zion M, Tendy S, Garrett P, Lindsay R, Cosman F (2007) The influence of lifestyle, menstrual function and oral contraceptive use on bone mass and size in female military cadets. Nutr Metab (Lond) 4:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cobb KL, Bachrach LK, Sowers M, Nieves J, Greendale GA, Kent KK, Brown BW Jr, Pettit K, Harper DM, Kelsey JL (2007) The effect of oral contraceptives on bone mass and stress fractures in female runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:1464–1473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartard M, Kleinmond C, Wiseman M, Weissenbacher ER, Felsenberg D, Erben RG (2007) Detrimental effect of oral contraceptives on parameters of bone mass and geometry in a cohort of 248 young women. Bone 40:444–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cromer BA, Bonny AE, Stager M, Lazebnik R, Rome E, Ziegler J, Camlin-Shingler K, Secic M (2008) Bone mineral density in adolescent females using injectable or oral contraceptives: a 24-month prospective study. Fertil Steril 90:2060–2067CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curtis KM, Martins SL (2006) Progestogen-only contraception and bone mineral density: a systematic review. Contraception 73:470–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dwyer T, Gibbons LE (1994) The Australian Schools Health and Fitness Survey. Physical fitness related to blood pressure but not lipoproteins. Circulation 89:1539–1544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foley S, Quinn S, Dwyer T, Venn A, Jones G (2008) Measures of childhood fitness and body mass index are associated with bone mass in adulthood: a 20-year prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 23:994–1001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidt MD, Cleland VJ, Thomson RJ, Dwyer T, Venn AJ (2008) A comparison of subjective and objective measures of physical activity and fitness in identifying associations with cardiometabolic risk factors. Ann Epidemiol 18:378–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    TD LT, Lin HM, Matthews AE, Eggli DF, Legro RS (2000) Oral contraceptive use by teenage women does not affect peak bone mass: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril 74:734–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd T, Petit MA, Lin HM, Beck TJ (2004) Lifestyle factors and the development of bone mass and bone strength in young women. J Pediatr 144:776–782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cobb KL, Kelsey JL, Sidney S, Ettinger B, Lewis CE (2002) Oral contraceptives and bone mineral density in white and black women in CARDIA. Coronary risk development in young adults. Osteoporos Int 13:893–900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petitti DB, Piaggio G, Mehta S, Cravioto MC, Meirik O (2000) Steroid hormone contraception and bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study in an international population. The WHO study of hormonal contraception and bone health. Obstet Gynecol 95:736–744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pasco JA, Kotowicz MA, Henry MJ, Panahi S, Seeman E, Nicholson GC (2000) Oral contraceptives and bone mineral density: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:265–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berenson AB, Breitkopf CR, Grady JJ, Rickert VI, Thomas A (2004) Effects of hormonal contraception on bone mineral density after 24 months of use. Obstet Gynecol 103:899–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Banks E, Berrington A, Casabonne D (2001) Overview of the relationship between use of progestogen-only contraceptives and bone mineral density. Bjog 108:1214–1221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diaz S, Reyes MV, Zepeda A, Gonzalez GB, Lopez JM, Campino C, Croxatto HB (1999) Norplant ((R)) implants and progesterone vaginal rings do not affect maternal bone turnover and density during lactation and after weaning. Hum Reprod 14:2499–2505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langton CM, Njeh CF, Hodgskinson R, Currey JD (1996) Prediction of mechanical properties of the human calcaneus by broadband ultrasonic attenuation. Bone 18:495–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marin F, Gonzalez-Macias J, Diez-Perez A, Palma S, Delgado-Rodriguez M (2006) Relationship between bone quantitative ultrasound and fractures: a meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res 21:1126–1135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Wei
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. Jones
    • 1
  • R. Thomson
    • 1
  • T. Dwyer
    • 2
  • A. Venn
    • 1
  1. 1.Menzies Research InstituteUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Murdoch Children’s Research InstituteParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations