Drug Safety

, Volume 25, Issue 13, pp 893–902

Oral Contraception and the Risk of Thromboembolism

What Does it Mean to Clinicians and Their Patients?
Current Opinion

Abstract

For four decades the oral contraceptive pill has remained popular with young women because of its convenience and effectiveness. There have, however, been continuing concerns about adverse effects. In the 1960s the risk of venous thromboembolism was linked to the dose of estrogen, which was consequently reduced. Later the risks of arterial disease were linked to progestogen dose, which was also reduced.

In 1995, three case-control studies linked the risk of venous thromboembolism, not to dose, but to the type of progestogen. Newer ‘third-generation’ progestogens appeared to carry a higher risk than older formulations. Although the contraceptive pill was already known to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism 3- to 6-fold, and the risks in the three studies were within this range, the public perception was that a new risk had been discovered. In the UK there were two consequences — a rapid change in prescribing patterns and a sharp increase in the abortion rate.

Critics suggested that the studies may have been affected by confounding — e.g. by a ‘new user’ effect and differential prescribing. Views became very polarised. Between 1995 and 2001 second- and third-generation formulations were compared in 16 studies. Thirteen found that third-generation pills carried a higher risk of venous thromboembolism.

Editorials and reviews recommended second-generation pills as the first choice for new users but official advice was that third-generation pills could still be prescribed, provided the risks were explained. Rates of thrombosis, per 100 000 women, are five for nonusers, 15 with second-generation pills and 25 for third-generation pills. The increase in mortality rates is around 1 to 2 per million.

Drug-industry sponsored studies tended to find lower risks than independent studies and it was assumed that sponsorship produces bias, conscious or unconscious. It is also possible that some ‘independent’ researchers, motivated by antipathy to multinational pharmaceutical companies, are biased in the opposite way.

Compared with the energy put into this debate, other aspects of pill prescribing remain under-researched. For example, doctors on opposite sides of the Atlantic are given different advice about whether gross obesity (a major risk factor for thromboembolism) is a contraindication to oral contraception.

Women in developing countries continue to die of pregnancy-related causes and many deaths could be prevented by effective contraception. Rather than bickering, drug manufacturers and academics should be discussing ways of providing the pill to the women who need it most.

References

  1. 1.
    Jordan AM. Pulmonary embolism. Lancet 1961; II: 1146–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Inman WHW, Vessey MP, Westerholm MB, et al. Thromboembolic disease and the steroidal content of oral contraceptives: a report to the Committee on Safety of Drugs. BMJ 1970; 2: 203–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sensible alerts [editorial]. Lancet 1995; 346: 1569Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drife J. The third-generation pill controversy (continued). BMJ 2001; 323: 119–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weber W. Study on risks of third-generation pill ‘kept secret by industry’ [news item]. Lancet 2001; 357: 779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brock P. Wyeth responds to news story on oral contraceptives and DVT [letter]. BMJ 2001; 322: 1605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Skegg DCG. Pitfalls of pharmacoepidemiology. BMJ 2000; 321: 1171–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drife JO. The benefits of combined oral contraceptives. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 1225–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drife JO. The benefits and risks of oral contraceptives today. Carnforth: Parthenon, 1996Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edwards JE, Oldman A, Smith L, et al. Women’s knowledge of, and attitudes to, contraceptive effectiveness and adverse health effects. Br J Fam Plann 2000 26: 73–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McEwan J, Wadsworth J, Johnson AM, et al. Changes in the use of contraceptive methods in England and Wales over two decades: Margaret Bone’s surveys and the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. Br J Fam Plann 1997 23: 5–8Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ford NJ, Halliday J, Little J. Changes in the sexual lifestyle of young people in Somerset, 1990-1996. Br J Fam Plann 1999; 25: 55–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donovan B. Never underestimate the force of reproduction. BMJ 2000; 321: 461–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Office for National Statistics. Abortion statistics: legal abortions carried out under the 1967 Abortion Act in England and Wales, 1999. London: The Stationery Office, 2000Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lebow MA. The pill and the press: reporting risk. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 453–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hammond PB. Reporting pill panic: a comparative analysis of media coverage of health scares about oral contraceptives. Br J Fam Plann 1997; 23: 62–6Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flett G, Gurney E, McKessock L, et al. Impact of the October 1995 pill scare in Grampian. Br J Fam Plann 1998; 24: 18–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Heteren G. Wyeth suppresses research on pill, programme claims [news item]. BMJ 2001; 322: 571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams D, Kelly A, Carvalho M, et al. Effect of the British warning on contraceptive use in the General Medical Service in Ireland. Ir Med J 1998; 91: 202–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pike MC, Henderson BE, Krailo MD, et al. Breast cancer in young women and use of oral contraceptives: possible modifying effect of formulation and age at use. Lancet 1983 II: 926–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drife JO. Which pill? BMJ 1983; 287: 1397–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swyer GIM. Oral contraceptives and cancer [letter]. Lancet 1983; II: 1019Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thorogood M, Vessey MP. Trends in use of oral contraceptives in Britain. Br J Fam Plann 1990; 16: 41–53Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gerstman BB, Gross TP, Kennedy DL, et al. Trends in the content and use of oral contraceptives in the United States, 1964-88. Am J Public Health 1991 81: 90–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaunitz AM. Efficacy, cycle control, and safety of two triphasic oral contraceptives: Cyclessa (desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol) and Ortho-Novum 7/7/7 (norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol): a randomized clinical trial. Contraception 2000; 61: 295–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vessey MP, Lawless M. The Oxford-Family Planning Association contraceptive study. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 11: 743–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kay CR. The Royal College of General Practitioners’ oral contraception study: some recent observations. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1984; 11: 759–86Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramcharan S, Pellegrin FA, Ray R, et al. The Walnut Creek contraceptive drug study: a prospective study of the side effects of oral contraceptives. Vol. III: an interim report. A comparison of disease occurrence leading to hospitalisation or death in users and nonusers of oral contraceptives. J Reprod Med 1980; 25: 345–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thorogood M. Oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease: an epidemiologic overview. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1993; 2: 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dunn N, Thorogood M, Faragher B, et al. Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: results of the MICA case-control study. BMJ 1999; 318: 1579–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gillum LA, Mamipudi SK, Johnston SC. Ischemic stroke risk with oral contraceptives: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2000; 284: 72–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Poulter NR, Chang CL, Farley TMM, et al. Effect on stroke of different progestagens in low oestrogen dose oral contraceptives. Lancet 1999 354: 301–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gillmer MDG. Metabolic effects of combined oral contraceptives. In: Filshie M, Guillebaud J, editors. Contraception: science and practice. London: Butterworth, 1989: 11–38Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hawkins DF, Elder MG. Human fertility control: theory and practice. London: Butterworth, 1979Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    London RS. The new era in oral contraception: pills containing gestodene, norgestimate and desogestrel. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1992; 47: 777–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fotherby K, Caldwell ADS. New progestogens in oral contraception. Contraception 1994; 49: 1–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    MacRae K, Kay C. Third generation oral contraceptive pills [editorial]. BMJ 1995; 311: 1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    WHO Collaborative Study. Cardiovascular disease and use of oral contraceptives. Bull World Health Organ 1989; 67: 417–23Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Drife J. Complications of oral contraception. In: Filshie M, Guillebaud J, editors. Contraception: science and practice. London: Butterworth, 1989: 39–51Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gerstman BB, Piper JM, Tomita DK, et al. Oral contraceptive estrogen dose and the risk of deep venous thromboembolic disease. Am J Epidemiol 1991 133: 32–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    World Health Organisation Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: results of international multicentre case-control study. Lancet 1995; 346: 1575–82Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    World Health Organisation Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Effect of different progestagens in low oestrogen oral contraceptives on venous thromboembolic disease. Lancet 1995; 346: 1582–8Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jick H, Jick SS, Gurewich V, et al. Risk of idiopathic cardiovascular death and non-fatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components. Lancet 1995 Dec 16 346: 1589–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Spitzer WO, Lewis MA, Heinemann LA, et al. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolic disorders: an international case-control study. BMJ 1996 312: 83–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bloemenkamp KWM, Rosendaal FR, Helmerhorst FM, et al. Enhancement by factor V Leiden mutation of risk of deep-vein thrombosis associated with oral contraceptives containing a third-generation progestagen. Lancet 1995 346: 1593–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Guillebaud J. Advising women on which pill to take. BMJ 1995; 311: 1111–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weiss N. Third-generation oral contraceptives: how risky? [commentary]. Lancet 1995; 346: 1570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rawlins M. Combined oral contraceptives and thromboembolism [letter]. BMJ 1995; 311: 1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Farmer RDT, Williams TJ, Simpson EL, et al. Effect of 1995 pill scare on rates of venous thromboembolism among women taking combined oral contraceptives: analysis of General Practice Research Database. BMJ 2000 321: 477–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith R. Editorial footnote. BMJ 2000; 321: 1172Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vandenbroucke JP, Rosing J, Bloemenkamp KWM, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2001 344: 1527–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kemmeren JM, Algra A, Grobbee DE. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis. BMJ 2001; 323: 131–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Skegg DCG. Third generation oral contraceptives. BMJ 2000; 321: 190–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Poulter NR. Risk of fatal pulmonary embolism with oral contraceptives [commentary]. Lancet 2000; 355: 2088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. First prescription of combined oral contraception: recommendations for clinical practice. Br J Fam Plann 2000; 26: 27–38Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mayor S. Department of Health changes advice on third generation pills [news item]. BMJ 1999; 318: 1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    British National Formulary. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2001Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Parkin L, Skegg DCG, Wilson M, et al. Oral contraceptives and fatal pulmonary embolism. Lancet 2000; 355: 2133–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lewis G, editor. Why mothers die 1997-99. Fifth report of the confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the UK. London: RCOG Press, 2001Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hannaford P. Science is not a dispassionate activity [letter]. BMJ 2000; 320: 382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Seligsohn U, Lubetsky A. Thrombophilia. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 697–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Grody WW, Griffin JH, Taylor AK, et al. American College of Medical Genetics consensus statement on factor V Leiden mutation testing. Genet Med 2001 3: 139–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cosmi B, Legnani C, Bernardi F, et al. Value of family history, in identifying women at risk of venous thromboembolism during oral contraception: observational study. BMJ 2001 322: 1024–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Seligsohn U, Lubetsky A. Genetic susceptibility to venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1222–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Caplin N, Edelman L. Thrombophilia. N Engl J Med 2001;345: 697–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    World Bank. Safe motherhood and the World Bank. Lessons from 10 years of experience. Washington DC: World Bank, 1999Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Potts DM, Crane SF. Contraceptive delivery in the developing world. Br Med Bull 1993; 49: 27–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Grubb GS. Women’s perceptions of the safety of the pill: a survey in eight developing countries. J Biosoc Sci 1987; 19: 313–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Level D, Clarendon WingBelmont GroveUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations