Cited by 79Reproductive Health and ContraceptionVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Hormonal contraception and thrombosis

Open access
Sitruk-Ware, Regine·2016·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

The safety of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) has been documented by years of follow-up, and the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) possibly related to their use is rare in the young population exposed to these agents. The balance between the benefits and risks of contraceptive steroids is generally positive, in particular when compared with pregnancy's risks. Epidemiological studies led to different results showing either no difference in VTE risk between CHCs (active surveillance prospective studies) or an increase in risk (observational or database studies). The discrepancy may be explained by different study designs and the fact that important risk factors such as overweight, family history of thrombosis, and smoking were not adjusted for in some observational studies. To improve the safety of CHC, modifying the estrogen dose and type, selecting newer progestins, and alternative routes of delivery were implemented. Ethinyl- E 2 (EE) exerts a stronger effect than E 2 on estrogen-dependent markers such as liver proteins and coagulation factors. To circumvent the metabolic changes induced by EE, more natural compounds such as E 2 and E 2 valerate (E 2 V) were developed, as well as new progestins structurally closer to P. Progestins when given alone do not increase VTE risk, and their risks and benefits depend upon their chemical structure, the type and dose of combined estrogen, and the delivery route. The lower impact of E 2-based CHCs on metabolic markers may result in an improved safety profile. A recent study on clinical outcomes supports this hypothesis. In conclusion, CHCs remain a safe and effective choice to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and the risk of VTE is in general low. Careful consideration of individual risk factors should be given before prescribing to avoid cumulative risks and minimize the occurrence of unwanted events.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.039

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sitruk-Ware, R.
Affiliations
Population Council (US)
Corresponding author
Sitruk-Ware, Regine
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
106
Issue
6
Pages
1289-1294
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2521336064
Cited by
79
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Keywords
combined hormonal contraceptives, venous thromboembolism, thrombosis risk, estrogen dose, progestins, route of administration, risk factors, contraceptive safety
MeSH terms
Blood Coagulation, Contraception, Contraceptives, Oral, Combined, Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal, Family Planning Services, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pulmonary Embolism, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Venous Thrombosis, Venous Thromboembolism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review