Oral Contraception and the Risk of Thromboembolism

What Does it Mean to Clinicians and Their Patients?

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Jordan AM. Pulmonary embolism. Lancet 1961; II: 1146–7

    Article  Google 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: 203–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sensible alerts [editorial]. Lancet 1995; 346: 1569

  4. 4.

    Drife J. The third-generation pill controversy (continued). BMJ 2001; 323: 119–20

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Weber W. Study on risks of third-generation pill ‘kept secret by industry’ [news item]. Lancet 2001; 357: 779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Brock P. Wyeth responds to news story on oral contraceptives and DVT [letter]. BMJ 2001; 322: 1605

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Skegg DCG. Pitfalls of pharmacoepidemiology. BMJ 2000; 321: 1171–2

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Drife JO. The benefits of combined oral contraceptives. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 1225–8

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Drife JO. The benefits and risks of oral contraceptives today. Carnforth: Parthenon, 1996

    Google 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: 73–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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: 5–8

    Google 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: 55–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Donovan B. Never underestimate the force of reproduction. BMJ 2000; 321: 461–2

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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, 2000

  15. 15.

    Lebow MA. The pill and the press: reporting risk. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 453–6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 62–6

    Google 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: 18–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Van Heteren G. Wyeth suppresses research on pill, programme claims [news item]. BMJ 2001; 322: 571

    PubMed  Article  Google 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: 202–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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: 926–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Drife JO. Which pill? BMJ 1983; 287: 1397–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Swyer GIM. Oral contraceptives and cancer [letter]. Lancet 1983; II: 1019

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Thorogood M, Vessey MP. Trends in use of oral contraceptives in Britain. Br J Fam Plann 1990; 16: 41–53

    Google 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: 90–6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 295–302

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Vessey MP, Lawless M. The Oxford-Family Planning Association contraceptive study. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 11: 743–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kay CR. The Royal College of General Practitioners’ oral contraception study: some recent observations. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1984; 11: 759–86

    CAS  Google 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: 345–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Thorogood M. Oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease: an epidemiologic overview. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1993; 2: 3–16

    Article  Google 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: 1579–83

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gillum LA, Mamipudi SK, Johnston SC. Ischemic stroke risk with oral contraceptives: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2000; 284: 72–8

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 301–3

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gillmer MDG. Metabolic effects of combined oral contraceptives. In: Filshie M, Guillebaud J, editors. Contraception: science and practice. London: Butterworth, 1989: 11–38

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hawkins DF, Elder MG. Human fertility control: theory and practice. London: Butterworth, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    London RS. The new era in oral contraception: pills containing gestodene, norgestimate and desogestrel. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1992; 47: 777–82

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Fotherby K, Caldwell ADS. New progestogens in oral contraception. Contraception 1994; 49: 1–32

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    MacRae K, Kay C. Third generation oral contraceptive pills [editorial]. BMJ 1995; 311: 1112

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    WHO Collaborative Study. Cardiovascular disease and use of oral contraceptives. Bull World Health Organ 1989; 67: 417–23

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Drife J. Complications of oral contraception. In: Filshie M, Guillebaud J, editors. Contraception: science and practice. London: Butterworth, 1989: 39–51

    Google 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: 32–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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: 1575–82

    Google 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: 1582–8

    Google 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: 1589–93

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 83–8

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 1593–6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Guillebaud J. Advising women on which pill to take. BMJ 1995; 311: 1111–2

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Weiss N. Third-generation oral contraceptives: how risky? [commentary]. Lancet 1995; 346: 1570

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Rawlins M. Combined oral contraceptives and thromboembolism [letter]. BMJ 1995; 311: 1232

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 477–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Smith R. Editorial footnote. BMJ 2000; 321: 1172

    Google 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: 1527–35

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Kemmeren JM, Algra A, Grobbee DE. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis. BMJ 2001; 323: 131–4

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Skegg DCG. Third generation oral contraceptives. BMJ 2000; 321: 190–1

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Poulter NR. Risk of fatal pulmonary embolism with oral contraceptives [commentary]. Lancet 2000; 355: 2088

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 27–38

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Mayor S. Department of Health changes advice on third generation pills [news item]. BMJ 1999; 318: 1026

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    British National Formulary. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2001

  58. 58.

    Parkin L, Skegg DCG, Wilson M, et al. Oral contraceptives and fatal pulmonary embolism. Lancet 2000; 355: 2133–4

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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, 2001

  60. 60.

    Hannaford P. Science is not a dispassionate activity [letter]. BMJ 2000; 320: 382

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Seligsohn U, Lubetsky A. Thrombophilia. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 697–9

    Article  Google 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: 139–48

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 1024–5

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Seligsohn U, Lubetsky A. Genetic susceptibility to venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1222–31

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Caplin N, Edelman L. Thrombophilia. N Engl J Med 2001;345: 697–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    World Bank. Safe motherhood and the World Bank. Lessons from 10 years of experience. Washington DC: World Bank, 1999

  67. 67.

    Potts DM, Crane SF. Contraceptive delivery in the developing world. Br Med Bull 1993; 49: 27–39

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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: 313–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author has in the past received research funding from Schering UK, an oral contraceptive manufacturer, though the research was not on contraception.

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Professor James Drife.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drife, J. Oral Contraception and the Risk of Thromboembolism. Drug-Safety 25, 893–902 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200225130-00001

Download citation

Keywords

  • Oral Contraceptive
  • Venous Thromboembolism
  • Levonorgestrel
  • Oral Contraceptive Pill
  • Ethinylestradiol