Use Of Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill Research Articles

P-603 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in donors could negatively affect egg donation outcomes in recipients: a multicentre retrospective study

Abstract Study question Could COCP use before COH with a progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS) in donors also negatively influence the egg donation outcomes in recipients? Summary answer Synchronization with a combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) involving progestin for pituitary suppression shows worst outcomes in egg donation treatments. What is known already It is well known that COCP leads to a long-lasting pituitary suppression, a reversible reduction in AMH and antral follicle count with higher risk of inappropriate response to COH and GnRH-agonist trigger, potentially reducing number and quality of retrieved oocytes. This is supported by the latest international guidelines on COH that strongly discourage COCP use before GnRH antagonist protocols because of a reduced efficacy of such cycles, also, in terms of ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR). They also underlie that interactions between COCP pretreatment and PPOS protocols remain inadequately explored and more research are needed to clarify discrepancies persisting in literature. Study design, size, duration Multicentre retrospective cohort study evaluating egg donation outcomes, depending on the use or not of COCP pre-treatment in donors, in terms of OPR, Live Birth Rate (LBR), and secondly of fertilization rate (FR), blastulation rate (BR), implantation rate (IR) and miscarriage rate (MR). The treatments were realized in a Private Fertility Clinic (where donors also underwent COH with PPOS protocol) and a public hospital (transnational egg donation program) between January 2022 and September 2023. Participants/materials, setting, methods 216 egg donation cycles were studied. Excluding cases of fertilization and/or embryo development failure and cases for which embryo transfer outcomes were not available at the time of data collection, the study analysed the outcomes of 90 embryo transfers (ETs). After the first analysis on total cycles, a stratification was made to evaluate whether COCP could have a different influence depending on the oocytes type used: fresh or vitrified. Main results and the role of chance COCP-No and COCP-Yes groups show similar FR and BR, after donation of same oocytes number (6,4 ± 1,1 vs 6,5± 1). Interestingly, vitrified oocytes from COCP-Yes donors produced a statistically lower yield of viable blastocysts (22,2% versus 37,9%; p = 0,007). IR was higher in the COCP-No group, (46,4% vs. 28,6%), data confirmed also in the two subgroups (fresh: 42,9% vs. 14,3%; vitrified: 48,8% vs. 35,7%). Higher MR was observed in the COCP-Yes group, achieving statistical significance both for total oocytes (66,7% vs. 9,4%; p = 0,006) and vitrified ones (60% vs. 5%; p = 0,016). Pregnancy rate was higher in the COCP-No group (46,4% vs. 28,6%), the same trend was found regardless of the type of oocytes used (fresh: 42,9% vs. 14,3%; vitrified: 48,8% vs. 35,7%). The greatest discrepancies were observed in OPR and LBR subcategories. In fact, a statistically higher OPR was obtained in the COCP-No group (42% vs. 9,5%, p = 0,008), which leads to a statistically higher LBR (30,4% vs. 0%; p = 0,004). Notably, the LBR after using both fresh and vitrified oocytes was markedly higher in the COCP-No group (fresh: 28,6% vs. 0%, p = 0,385; vitrified: 31,7% vs. 0%, p = 0,041), presenting a significant difference when vitrified oocytes were used with potential clinical relevance. Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation lies in the retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size, but the multicentre design gives greater reliability. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and better understand the specific circumstances in which COCP may or may not be beneficial. Wider implications of the findings COCP pretreatment in egg donors undergoing PPOS protocol may negatively impact embryo development and pregnancy outcomes in recipients, with increased MR, and reduced OPR, and LBR. Particularly, the worst outcomes involve vitrified oocytes, providing valuable insights to reconsider COCP use in transnational egg donation programs, but also fertility preservation ones. Trial registration number Not Applicable

P-617 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) pre-treatment and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol: a detrimental combination for the oocyte yield in egg donation programs

Abstract Study question Could the use of combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) pre-treatment before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) have a negative effect on oocyte yield in normo-responders patients? Summary answer When COH with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol in normo-responders patients is performed, the COCP pre-treatment could have a detrimental effect on oocyte yield. What is known already COCP pre-treatment is widely used to schedule the start of COH and to organize the working week, but its usefulness and efficiency are still not clear. Most of studies on IVF outcomes have shown no effect of COCP on oocyte yield. For oocyte donation only few studies were carried out showing controversial effects on oocyte yield, but all considered short antagonist or long agonist protocols and no one PPOS protocol. COCP leads to long lasting pituitary suppression and lower LH level in follicular phase that could reduce the ability to effectively respond to GnRH-agonist trigger leading to poor oocyte yield. Study design, size, duration The egg donation cycles carried out from January to September 2022 in Next Fertility Valencia were retrospectively analyzed. Two analyses were conducted. Analysis A, comparative retrospective cohort study of 397 COH cycles: 290 with COCP and 107 without COCP. Analysis B, comparative retrospective paired study of 90 COH cycles: 45 with COCP and 45 without COCP, in which, to attempt to eliminate possible bias due to interpersonal differences, every patient was her own control. Participants/materials, setting, methods All donors underwent to COH with FSH monotherapy, PPOS protocol for pituitary suppression and a GnRH-agonist triggering. The oocyte yield was analyzed focusing on: the number of oocytes retrieved, mature (MII) oocytes and useful oocytes (good mature oocytes used for ICSI), the appropriate response to the GnRH-agonist trigger, the stimulation days, the total gonadotropins dose used and the cancellation rate (for low response or low LH level in follicular phase the first day of COH). Main results and the role of chance In both analyses, the data showed no differences in terms of stimulation days, total FSH dose, number of follicles ≥ 15 mm on the trigger day regardless of use of COCP. After conducting the analysis based on the administration or not of COCP, in the Analysis A a higher number of total oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes and useful oocytes were found in the group that did not used COCP. A significant difference in a nominal variable (Pearson's chi-square test) was observed, consisting of a higher proportion of cancellations due to low LH level (< 2,5 mUI/ml) in the group that used COCP (COCP no: 0.7% vs. COCP yes: 3.7% ). While, in the Analysis B (analysis of variance of one factor, Anova test), the variables total oocytes retrieved, total MII oocytes and total useful oocytes showed significant differences consisting of a higher number of oocytes in the group that did not received COCP. These results have statistical significance both before removing the cases in which the values were 0 due to a cancellation (p < 0.01), and after removing the cancelled cases (p < 0.05). Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation lies in the retrospective nature of the study. However, since each patient is her own control (Paired study), it gives an added value. Wider implications of the findings COCP before COH in PPOS cycles could have detrimental effects on oocyte yield, reducing the efficacy and efficiency of egg donation programs. This could be extended to social freezing programs in normo-responders patients, in which the probability of future pregnancy is closely linked to the number of good oocytes vitrified. Trial registration number Not Applicable

The Impact of Combined Oral Contraceptives on Adolescents with Macromastia.

The combined oral contraceptive pill, containing both estrogen and progestin, is commonly prescribed to adolescents for numerous health benefits. However, there is concern among patients and providers that its use may exacerbate breast growth. This retrospective, case-control study examined the association between combined oral contraceptive pill use and macromastia-related breast hypertrophy and symptoms in adolescents. A total of 378 patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty between the ages of 12 and 21 years were assessed for baseline and postoperative breast symptoms and combined oral contraceptive pill use. In addition, the medical records of 378 female controls of the same age range were retrospectively reviewed. Although a lower proportion of the macromastia cohort used any hormonal contraception compared to controls (37.8 percent versus 64.8 percent; OR, 0.33; 95 percent CI, 0.24 to 0.44; p < 0.001), they were more often prescribed combined oral contraceptive pills (82.5 percent versus 52.7 percent; OR, 1.93; 95 percent CI, 1.29 to 2.68; p < 0.001). Participants with macromastia who used combined oral contraceptive pills had a smaller median normalized amount of breast tissue resected during reduction mammaplasty than those who never used hormonal contraception (639.5 g/m 2 versus 735.9 g/m 2 ; p = 0.003). Combined oral contraceptive pills were not associated with breast-related symptoms or clinical impairment, or postoperative breast growth ( p > 0.05 for all). Combined oral contraceptive pill use during adolescence may be associated with developing less severe breast hypertrophy. Combined oral contraceptive pills do not appear to exacerbate macromastia-related symptoms or impact postoperative growth in young women following reduction mammaplasty. Although additional research is needed, providers are encouraged to consider combined oral contraceptive pills for their patients with macromastia when indicated and appropriate. Risk, III.

Hyperprolactinaemia and galactorrhoea with combined oral contraceptive pill use: A refresher.

Hyperprolactinaemia and galactorrhoea with combined oral contraceptive pill use: A refresher.

Mortality in COVID-19 among women on hormone replacement therapy: a retrospective cohort study.

BackgroundLimited recent observational data have suggested that there may be a protective effect of oestrogen on the severity of COVID-19 disease. Our aim was to investigate the association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) use and the likelihood of death in women with COVID-19.MethodsWe undertook a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected computerized medical records from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. We identified a cohort of 1,863,478 women over 18 years of age from 465 general practices in England. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to quantify the association between HRT or COCP use and all-cause mortality among women diagnosed with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in unadjusted and adjusted models.ResultsThere were 5,451 COVID-19 cases within the cohort. HRT was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94). There were no reported events for all-cause mortality in women prescribed COCPs. This prevented further examination of the impact of COCP.ConclusionsWe found that HRT prescription within 6 months of a recorded diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. Further work is needed in larger cohorts to examine the association of COCP in COVID-19, and to further investigate the hypothesis that oestrogens may contribute a protective effect against COVID-19 severity.

Effect of hormonal supplementation on pain tolerance in women– A comparative study

Gonadal hormones (oestrogen and progesterone) influences pain sensitivity, the former strongly influences nociceptive actions, whereas the latter prevents neuropathic pain. However, there is only little evidence on direct effect of hormonal based drugs on experimental pain response. Therefore the aim of the present study is to the difference in response to pain stimulus in terms of - pain threshold, pain tolerance, pain intensity, pain unpleasantness between women on OCP pills, normal menstruating women and age matched men using cold pressor test.Total of 50 females (20-35 years age group) on COCP pills, 50 controls (normal menstruating women of 20-35 years age group) and 50 healthy males (20-35 years age group) were enrolled in the study as per the eligibility criteria. Cold pressor test was used as a stimulus source. The participants were instructed to hold their least dominant hand in the water bath (maintained between between 0°C and 2°C) as long as possible and were requested to inform the first sensation of pain which denoted the participants’ pain threshold. Time from pain threshold to the point where participants could no longer cope with pain and indicate stop, was recorded as pain tolerance. At this point participants were directed to note pain intensity and unpleasantness on the visual analogue scale.Statistical analysis of data was done using standard SPSS software. Data was represented as mean standard deviation. Chi-square test was done and p values &amp;#60;0.05 were considered significant. Average pain tolerance was significantly (p&amp;#60;0.00) higher in women on COCP (combined oral contraceptive pill) therapy compared to naturally menstruating women. But men and women on COCP pill therapy do not differ significantly in average pain tolerance. The average pain threshold did not differ significantly between any age groups. The average pain unpleasantness was less in females taking hormonal pills compared to men and naturally menstruating women establishing the role of increased levels of sex hormones in reducing the discomfort and unpleasantness. There was no significant difference in average pain intensity between men and normal women but it differed significantly between normal women and women on COCP therapy.The use of COCP affects the pain reporting of subjects.

Estrogen and COVID-19 symptoms: Associations in women from the COVID Symptom Study.

It has been widely observed that adult men of all ages are at higher risk of developing serious complications from COVID-19 when compared with women. This study aimed to investigate the association of COVID-19 positivity and severity with estrogen exposure in women, in a population based matched cohort study of female users of the COVID Symptom Study application in the UK. Analyses included 152,637 women for menopausal status, 295,689 women for exogenous estrogen intake in the form of the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP), and 151,193 menopausal women for hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Data were collected using the COVID Symptom Study in May-June 2020. Analyses investigated associations between predicted or tested COVID-19 status and menopausal status, COCP use, and HRT use, adjusting for age, smoking and BMI, with follow-up age sensitivity analysis, and validation in a subset of participants from the TwinsUK cohort. Menopausal women had higher rates of predicted COVID-19 (P = 0.003). COCP-users had lower rates of predicted COVID-19 (P = 8.03E-05), with reduction in hospital attendance (P = 0.023). Menopausal women using HRT or hormonal therapies did not exhibit consistent associations, including increased rates of predicted COVID-19 (P = 2.22E-05) for HRT users alone. The findings support a protective effect of estrogen exposure on COVID-19, based on positive association between predicted COVID-19 with menopausal status, and negative association with COCP use. HRT use was positively associated with COVID-19, but the results should be considered with caution due to lack of data on HRT type, route of administration, duration of treatment, and potential unaccounted for confounders and comorbidities.

Anti-Müllerian hormone levels among contraceptive users: evidence from a cross-sectional cohort of 27,125 individuals

Anti-Müllerian hormone has become the clinical biomarker-based standard to assess ovarian reserve. As anti-Müllerian hormone testing becomes more common, more individuals are seeking to interpret the values obtained while using contraceptives. To appropriately counsel women, a better understanding of anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women using different contraceptives is needed. To study the association between different forms of contraceptives and anti-Müllerian levels in women of reproductive age. This is a cross-sectional study including 27,125 US-based women aged 20 to 46 years, accessing reproductive hormone results through Modern Fertility and who provided informed consent to participate in the research. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels were collected through dried blood spot card (95.9%) or venipuncture (4.1%), and previous work has shown high correlation between hormone levels collected by these 2 methods. Multiple linear regressions were run to compare anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women using contraceptives with women not on any contraceptive, controlling for age, age of menarche, body mass index, smoking, sample collection method, cycle day, and self-reported polycystic ovary syndrome diagnosis. We also analyzed whether duration of contraceptive use predicted anti-Müllerian hormone levels in users of the hormonal intrauterine device and combined oral contraceptive pill, given the size of these contraceptive groups. Mean anti-Müllerian hormone levels were statistically significantly lower in women using the combined oral contraceptive pill (23.68% lower; coefficient, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81; P<.001), vaginal ring (22.07% lower; coefficient, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.86; P<.001), hormonal intrauterine device (6.73% lower; coefficient, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.99; P=.014), implant (23.44% lower; coefficient, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.85; P<.001), or progestin-only pill (14.80% lower; coefficient, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.96; P=.007) than women not on any contraceptive when controlling for covariates. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels were not significantly different when comparing women not using any contraceptives to those using the copper intrauterine device (1.57% lower; coefficient, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.05, P=.600). Associations between contraceptive use and anti-Müllerian hormone levels did not differ based on self-reported polycystic ovary syndrome diagnosis. Duration of hormonal intrauterine device use, but not of combined oral contraceptive pill use, was slightly positively associated with anti-Müllerian hormone levels, although this small magnitude effect is likely not clinically meaningful (coefficient, 1.002; 95% confidence interval, 1.0005-1.003; P=.007). Current hormonal contraceptive use is associated with a lower mean anti-Müllerian hormone level than that of women who are not on contraceptives, with variability in the percent difference across contraceptive methods. These data provide guidance for clinicians on how to interpret anti-Müllerian hormone levels assessed while on contraceptives and may facilitate more patients to continue contraceptive use while being evaluated for their ovarian reserve.

Combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL.To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR.We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles.All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi-objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level.We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision.COCP versus placeboCOCP, with a step-down oestrogen and step-up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I2 = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment.COCP versus other medical treatmentsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events.Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS)The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatmentsCOCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.ProgestogensCVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events.Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.

Oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis.

Oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis.

Clinical behavior of a cohort of adult women with facial acne treated with combined oral contraceptive: ethinylestradiol 20 µg/dienogest 2 mg.

Acne vulgaris is the most common skin disease. It affects the young adult female population and generates great impact on physical and mental health. One of the treatments with good results for affected women is combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs). The aim of this study was to determine the clinical effect of facial acne management with ethinylestradiol 20 µg/dienogest 2 mg in a cohort of Colombian adult women. A cohort of 120 female university students was followed for 12 months. These participants were enrolled in the Sexual and Reproductive Health Program of the Santiago de Cali University. This cohort admitted women between 18 and 30 years old who had chosen to start birth control with ethinylestradiol 20 µg/dienogest 2 mg COCPs, did not have contraindi cations to the use of COCPs, and had been diagnosed with acne. Monthly monitoring of facial acne lesion count was performed. Relative changes in facial lesion count were identified. At the end of follow-up, the percentage of reduction of lesions was 94% and 23% of women had a 100% reduction in acne lesions. In conclusion, the continued use of the ethinylestradiol 20 µg/dienogest 2 mg COCPs reduced inflammatory and non-inflammatory acne lesions in reproductive-age women between 18 and 30 years of age with no severe acne.

P050 The uptake of larc’s in addressing subsequent unplanned pregnancies in young women

IntroductionTo decrease the number of subsequent unplanned pregnancies in young women presenting to one regional public health service and to note the barriers to the overall uptake of contraceptive options.MethodsYoung...

Differential Effects of Estrogen on Corticosteroid-Binding Globulin Forms Suggests Reduced Cleavage in Pregnancy.

Corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG) is secreted as high-affinity CBG (haCBG), which may be cleaved by tissue proteases to low-affinity CBG (laCBG), releasing free cortisol. Pregnancy and the estrogen-based combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) increase CBG concentrations twofold to threefold. The relative effects of these two hyperestrogenic states on the CBG affinity forms are unknown. We performed an observational study in 30 pregnant women, 27 COCP takers and 23 controls. We analyzed circulating total CBG, haCBG, laCBG, and free and total cortisol concentrations. In pregnancy, total CBG and haCBG were increased compared to controls (both P < 0.0001); however, laCBG concentrations were similar. In COCP takers, total CBG and haCBG were increased [802 ± 41 vs compared to controls (both P < 0.0001)], but laCBG was also increased (P = 0.03). Pregnancy and use of COCP were associated with a comparable rise in haCBG, but laCBG was lower in pregnancy (P < 0.0001). These results were consistent with an estrogen-mediated increase in CBG synthesis in both hyperestrogenemic states but with reduced CBG cleavage in pregnancy relative to the COCP, perhaps due to pregnancy-induced CBG glycosylation. Speculatively, increased circulating haCBG concentrations in pregnancy may provide an increased reservoir of CBG-bound cortisol to prepare for the risk of puerperal infection or allow for cortisol binding in the face of competition from increased circulating progesterone concentrations.

Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in a Female Football Player with Calf Pain

Although many health professionals believe that exercise protects the athletes against thrombosis, it is discussed whether elite athletes are exposed to many thrombogenic acquired risk factors such as: dehydration, hemoconcentration, repeated microtraumas and extended periods of immobilization during travel or injury. Additionally, the use of combined oral contraceptive (COC) may increases the risk of venous thrombosis fourfold in healthy women. We report a case of a 21-years-old professional female football athlete who developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) followed by pulmonary embolism (PE). The outpatient hypercoagulability workup was negative and the case was associated to the use of COC pills. The patient was treated with rivaroxaban for 5 months, with complete resolution of the symptoms. There are a few cases in the literature of venous thromboembolism (VTE) involving athletes. Cases of VTE attributable to the use of COC are extremely rare in this population. The diagnosis of VTE in athletes is a challenge for physicians, because the symptoms may erroneously be confused with musculoskeletal complaints. Team physicians who work with female athletes should be alert to modifiable risk factors for VTE, as well as able to perform the early diagnosis and initial clinical management of this condition. DVT should be considered as a differential diagnosis of calf pain in women, especially in athletes, due to the well-defined increase on the risk of thrombosis with the use of COC pills.

Effects of hormonal contraception on systemic metabolism: cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence.

Background: Hormonal contraception is commonly used worldwide, but its systemic effects across lipoprotein subclasses, fatty acids, circulating metabolites and cytokines remain poorly understood. Methods: A comprehensive molecular profile (75 metabolic measures and 37 cytokines) was measured for up to 5841 women (age range 24–49 years) from three population-based cohorts. Women using combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs) or progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) were compared with those who did not use hormonal contraception. Metabolomics profiles were reassessed for 869 women after 6 years to uncover the metabolic effects of starting, stopping and persistently using hormonal contraception. Results: The comprehensive molecular profiling allowed multiple new findings on the metabolic associations with the use of COCPs. They were positively associated with lipoprotein subclasses, including all high-density lipoprotein (HDL) subclasses. The associations with fatty acids and amino acids were strong and variable in direction. COCP use was negatively associated with albumin and positively associated with creatinine and inflammatory markers, including glycoprotein acetyls and several growth factors and interleukins. Our findings also confirmed previous results e.g. for increased circulating triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. Starting COCPs caused similar metabolic changes to those observed cross-sectionally: the changes were maintained in consistent users and normalized in those who stopped using. In contrast, POCs were only weakly associated with metabolic and inflammatory markers. Results were consistent across all cohorts and for different COCP preparations and different types of POC delivery. Conclusions: Use of COCPs causes widespread metabolic and inflammatory effects. However, persistent use does not appear to accumulate the effects over time and the metabolic perturbations are reversed upon discontinuation. POCs have little effect on systemic metabolism and inflammation.

Cancers in Australia in 2010 attributable to and prevented by the use of combined oral contraceptives

Objectives:To estimate the proportion and number of cancers occurring in Australia in 2010 attributable to combined oral contraceptive pill (OCP) use. Methods:We estimated the population attributable fraction (PAF) for cancers causally associated with combined OCP use (breast, cervix), and the proportion of endometrial and ovarian cancers prevented (prevented fraction [PF]). We used standard formulae incorporating prevalence of combined OCP use in the Australian population, relative risks of cancer associated with this exposure and cancer incidence. Results:An estimated 105 breast and 52 cervical cancers (0.7% and 6.4% of each cancer, respectively) in Australia in 2010 were attributable to current use of combined OCP. Past combined OCP use was estimated to have prevented 1,032 endometrial and 308 ovarian cancers in 2010, reducing the number of cancers that would otherwise have occurred by 31% and 19%, respectively. Conclusions:A small proportion of breast and cervical cancers is attributable to combined OCP use; OCP use is likely to have prevented larger numbers of endometrial and ovarian cancers. Implications:Women seeking contraceptive advice should be told of potential adverse effects, but should also be told that – along with reproductive health benefits – combined OCP use can reduce long‐term risks of ovarian and endometrial cancers.

The impact of using the combined oral contraceptive pill for cycle scheduling on gene expression related to endometrial receptivity

Does the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) change endometrial gene expression when used for cycle programming? COCP used for scheduling purposes does not have a significant impact on endometrial gene expression related to endometrial receptivity. Controversy exists around COCP pretreatment for IVF cycle programming, as some authors claim that it might be detrimental to the live birth rate. Microarray technology applied to the study of tissue gene expression has previously revealed the behavior of genes related to endometrial receptivity under different conditions. Proof-of-concept study of 10 young healthy oocyte donors undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) recruited between June 2012 and February 2013. Microarray data were obtained from endometrial biopsies from 10 young healthy oocyte donors undergoing COS with GnRH antagonists and recombinant FSH. In group A (n = 5), COCP pretreatment was used for 12-16 days, and stimulation began after a 5-day pill-free interval. Stimulation in group B (n = 5) was initiated on cycle day 3 after a spontaneous menses. Endometrial biopsies were collected 7 days after triggering with hCG. No individual genes exhibited increased or decreased expression (fold change (FC) >2) in patients with prior COCP treatment (group A) compared with controls (group B). However, the results of the functional analysis showed a total of 11 biological processes that were significantly enriched in group A compared with group B (non-COCP). The Endometrial Receptivity Array (ERA) has only been validated on endometrial samples obtained in natural cycles and after hormonal replacement treatment (HRT). Therefore, it was not possible in this study to classify the endometrial samples as receptive or non-receptive. We used the ERA to focus on 238 genes that are intimately related to endometrial receptivity, thus simplifying the analysis and understanding of the data. Cycle scheduling is common in IVF units and is used to avoid weekend retrievals and/or to distribute evenly the workload for better efficiency. Our failure to detect any relevant changes in the genes related to the window of implantation when cycles were programmed with COCP pretreatment suggests that, despite controversial clinical results in previous studies, the use of COCPs in this way does not affect uterine receptivity adversely. Funding for this study was provided by an unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme. C.S. and A.P. are co-inventors (with Patricia Diaz-Gimeno) of the Endometrial Receptivity Array and hold the patent. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. EudraCT registration number is 2011-003250-34.

Risk of Acute Thromboembolic Events With Oral Contraceptive Use

To estimate the risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) associated with the use of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and to describe how these risks vary by dose or formulation. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published from January 1995 through June 2012 that evaluated the association between OCP use and risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or MI. We reviewed 6,476 citations. We included English-language, controlled studies with human participants reporting a quantitative association between exposure to OCPs and outcomes of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or MI. Two investigators independently reviewed articles for inclusion or exclusion; discordant decisions were resolved by team review and consensus. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate summary odds ratios (ORs). Fifty studies met inclusion criteria. There were no randomized clinical trials. We found threefold increased odds of venous thromboembolism among current compared with noncurrent OCP users (14 studies; OR 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.46-3.59). We found twofold increased odds of ischemic stroke (seven studies; OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24-2.91). There was no evidence of increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (four studies; OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71-1.49) or MI (eight studies; OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.87-2.08). Current use of combined OCPs is associated with increased odds of venous thromboembolism and ischemic stroke but not hemorrhagic stroke or MI.

Women's experiences with tailored use of a combined oral contraceptive: a qualitative study

What are women's experiences with tailored use of combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs)? Some women reported very positive experiences with tailored use of COCPs, others did not like the unpredictability about when they would bleed and some women reported increased anxiety about possible pregnancy. While many studies have investigated views toward extended use of COCPs, little research has examined women's actual experiences with these regimens. This was a semi-structured qualitative interview study that was part of a larger randomized trial of a standard (21 daily pills followed by a 7-day pill-free interval) versus a tailored regimen (daily pills until 3-consecutive-day bleeding triggers a 3-day pill-free interval) of Microgynon 30® mcg (Ethinyl estradiol 30 mcg, Levonorgestrel 150 mcg). Interviews were conducted with 26 women (17 in the tailored group and 9 who switched their assigned treatment group) . Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Women discussed positive changes associated with tailored use of COCPs, as well as some negative consequences. The major themes identified in the interview data were: ease of tailored regimen; changes in cycle-related symptoms; adjustment to reduced/absent bleeding and unpredictability about bleeding. The sample comprised mainly young, nulliparous women. The majority of women were using COCPs at the start of the study. Clinicians discussing extended-use regimes with patients should mention that women may need time to adjust to an extended-use regime. Future research should attempt to identify predictors of response to extended use of COCPs.

Effect of Long-Term Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill Use on Endometrial Thickness

To estimate whether there is any association of long-term use of combined oral contraceptive pills (OCP) with adverse endometrial growth. We reviewed the charts of 137 patients with history of OCP use undergoing endometrial preparation with estrogen for frozen embryo transfer. Endometrial thickness was measured by transvaginal ultrasonography on day 10 after menses and patients were divided into two groups (less than 7 mm and 7 mm or more). Thirty patients had endometrial thickness less than 7 mm and 107 had thickness of 7 mm or more. Mean years of combined OCP use in each group were 9.8±4.54 and 5.8±4.52, respectively (P<.001). With 10 years of combined OCP use as the threshold, the difference between the two groups (63.35% users in less than 7 mm group compared with 28.04% in the 7 mm or more thickness group) was highly significant (P<.001 by Fisher exact test), with an odds ratio of 4.43 (95% confidence interval 1.89-10.41). Past use of 5 years of OCPs was also associated with a significant (P=.002) difference in endometrial thickness. The mean endometrial thicknesses on cycle day 10 in patients using combined OCP for less than 10 years and 10 years or more were 9.54±1.88 mm and 8.48±2.33 mm, respectively, with P=.007. The mean endometrial thickness was 9.72±1.69 mm in less than 5 years and 8.81±2.23 mm in 5 or more years of use, respectively (P=.008). Cycle cancellation rates in the less than 7 mm group and 7 mm or greater endometrial thickness group were 23% and 4%, respectively (P=.002), but there was no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups (13% compared with 27%, respectively; P=.15). Long-term combined OCP use (5 years or more) can potentially affect optimal endometrial growth, leading to a higher cancellation rate and longer stimulation in frozen embryo transfer cycles. These findings suggest a previously unidentified adverse effect of long-term combined OCP use in women who are anticipating future fertility. II.