Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Jeanet M Kemmeren Julius
Centre for General Practice and Patient Oriented Research, University
Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands
Correspondence to: A Algra A.Algra{at}neuro.azu.nl
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective:
To evaluate quantitatively articles that
compared effects of second and third generation oral contraceptives on risk of venous thrombosis.
Design:
Meta-analysis.
Studies:
Cohort and case-control studies assessing risk of venous thromboembolism among women using oral contraceptives before October 1995.
Main outcome measures:
Pooled adjusted odds ratios
calculated by a general variance based random effects method. When
possible, two by two tables were extracted and combined by the
Mantel-Haenszel method.
Results:
The overall adjusted odds ratio for third versus second generation oral contraceptives was 1.7 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 2.0; seven studies). Similar risks were found when oral
contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene were compared with
those containing levonorgestrel. Among first time users, the odds ratio
for third versus second generation preparations was 3.1 (2.0 to 4.6;
four studies). The odds ratio was 2.5 (1.6 to 4.1; five studies) for
short term users compared with 2.0 (1.4 to 2.7; five studies) for
longer term users. The odds ratio was 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) in studies
funded by the pharmaceutical industry and 2.3 (1.7 to 3.2) in other
studies. Differences in age and certainty of diagnosis of venous
thrombosis did not affect the results.
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis supports the view that third generation oral contraceptives are associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis compared with second generation oral contraceptives. The increase cannot be explained by several potential biases.
|
What is already known on this topic
What this study adds
|
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In 1995-6 increased risks of venous thrombosis were reported among
women using so called third generation oral contraceptives compared
with second generation products, with odds ratios ranging from 1.5 to
2.2.1-4 Other investigators suggested that confounding, bias, or both, accounted for the findings.5-8 In 1999, Farley et al reported a meta-analysis and found an increased risk of 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.2).9 However, their
aim was to review qualitatively the arguments claiming that the
difference in risk for different oral contraceptives is not real. They
did not formally consider characteristics of the included studies that
might affect their results. In the present meta-analysis we quantified
these aspects.
| |
Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We searched Medline for articles published from October 1995 to December 2000 using the terms third generation oral contraceptives, desogestrel, and gestodene combined with thromboembolism and venous thrombosis. We retrieved additional references from reviews, other articles of interest, and experts in the field. We reviewed all English language articles containing original data on third generation oral contraceptives and venous thrombosis. Inclusion criteria were (a) cohort or case-control design, (b) cases defined as women with venous thrombosis or thromboembolism, (c) sufficient data provided to reconstruct two by two tables or determine relative risk and confidence intervals, (d) data collected before November 1995, and (e) data collected in Western countries. We chose October 1995 as the end date because at that time four studies were published relating third generation oral contraceptives to venous thrombosis.1-4 Consequently, changes in prescription of oral contraceptives may have potentially affected the results of later studies. To avoid heterogeneity, we included studies in only Western countries.
Cases were considered confirmed when venous thrombosis was objectively diagnosed (by ultrasound examination, plethysmography, or venography). A study was included only once if there were multiple publications.
We performed an overall analysis based on the adjusted odds ratios and on the two by two tables separately. We calculated adjusted odds ratios by pooling adjusted odds ratios from individual studies using a general variance based random effects method, weighting individual study results by the inverse of their variance.10 Results were considered heterogeneous when homogeneity was unlikely (P<0.10). To determine the stability of the overall risk estimate, we did a sensitivity analysis in which each study was successively eliminated.
If possible we also extracted or recalculated two by two tables. We
combined the odds ratios from the individual studies using the
Mantel-Haenszel method,10 providing a crude odds ratio. For subgroup analyses, we pooled adjusted and unadjusted results because of the limited number of studies with subgroup data, resulting in a pooled odds ratio.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Of 114 studies identified, nine case-control 1-5 7 11-13 and three cohort studies 2 5 14 examined use of oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis. Three studies provided additional analyses on earlier reported results, 6 15 16 and were included in our stratified analysis.
Overall analysis
The overall adjusted odds ratio for third versus second generation
oral contraceptives for the risk of venous thrombosis was 1.7 (95%
confidence interval 1.4 to 2.0), with no heterogeneity (P=0.78). In a
sensitivity analysis, the adjusted odds ratio varied between 1.6 and
1.8, and the 95% confidence interval never included 1. The crude odds
ratio was similar to the adjusted odds ratio (crude odds ratio=1.6,
95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.9). The overall results were not
materially dependent on definitions of oral contraceptives (fig 1). For
all subgroups, crude odds ratios, based on the two by two tables were similar to adjusted odds ratios.
|
Stratified analyses
Figure 2 shows that the pooled odds ratios for third versus
second generation preparations were always increased between 1.7 and
3.1. Source of funding modified the estimates: the odds ratio was 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) in studies directly financed by pharmaceutical industries
and 2.3 (1.7 to 3.2) in other studies. Differences in age and certainty
of diagnosis of venous thrombosis did not affect the results, nor did
excluding the cohort study by Herings et
al.14
|
Extended studies
The odds ratio remained essentially the same when the original
studies
2 5
were replaced by reports updated after October
1995.17-20
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our meta-analysis shows that third generation oral contraceptives are associated with a 1.7-fold increased risk of venous thrombosis compared with second generation oral contraceptives. After stratifying by various factors and examining selected subgroups, the increased risk remained.
A meta-analysis depends on the quality of the studies included. Observational studies are susceptible to bias because other risk factors of venous thrombosis may be unbalanced across users of second and third generation oral contraceptives. We did not give quality scores to included studies because of their inherent subjectivity and potential to result in diverging summary estimates.21 However, the key elements affecting internal validity (ascertainment, diagnostic and inclusion criteria, exposure assessment, matching, and control factors),22 were listed in the tables (see BMJ 's website) and investigated in the stratified and sensitivity analyses.
Quality issues
We believe three issues are important for the quality of our
meta-analysis. Firstly, we assessed reliability of outcome by subgroup
analysis with confirmed cases only. Secondly, we assessed appropriate
adjustment for confounding by comparing adjusted and unadjusted odds
ratios and by presenting stratified analyses. The presence of
confounding is unlikely because the pooled crude odds ratios were
almost equal to the pooled adjusted odds ratios. Source of funding
modified the estimates. Some studies provided stratified data only for
specific subgroups of women (for example, age in first time
users).
6 14
Nevertheless, these studies were included. In
addition, the sensitivity analysis showed that the overall risk
estimates were stable.
Source of funding
The pooled odds ratio of studies without explicitly mentioned
industry sponsoring was higher than that of studies without such
support, although the increased risk was significant in both groups.
Different results for industry and non-industry sponsored studies have
also been reported for calcium channel antagonists and non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs.
26 27
Absolute risks
To appreciate the importance of increases in relative risk,
knowledge of absolute risks is required. We estimated that the excess
risk for users of third generation oral contraceptives over second
generation preparations was 1.5 per 10 000 woman years. This may be an
underestimation, because the estimate from the study by Jick et al was
confined to cases that met a very strict definition.2
Among new users the incidence is much higher (6.6 per 10 000 woman years).
Conclusion
Our meta-analysis supports the view that third generation oral
contraceptives are associated with a 1.7-fold increased risk of venous
thrombosis compared with second generation oral contraceptives. The
risk is highest in first time users. Although confounding can never be
excluded with certainty in observational studies, it seems that the
biases that have been suggested and examined are not sufficient to
account for the results.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Contributors: JMK participated in the design, execution, and analysis of the study and writing the paper. AA and DEG initiated the study, participated in designing, analysing, and reporting the study, and supervised all aspects of the study. DEG is the guarantor
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: None.
Competing interests: JMK has worked on a study into second and third generation contraceptives sponsored by the Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation.
The full version of this paper is
available on the BMJ's website
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
World Health Organization 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:
1575-1582 |
| 2. |
Jick H, Jick SS, Gurewich V, Myers MW, Vasilakis C.
Risk of idiopathic cardiovascular death and nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components.
Lancet
1995;
346:
1589-1593 |
| 3. |
Bloemenkamp KW, Rosendaal FR, Helmerhorst FM, Buller HR, Vandenbroucke JP.
Enhancement by factor V Leiden mutation of risk of deep-vein thrombosis associated with oral contraceptives containing a third-generation progestagen.
Lancet
1995;
346:
1593-1596 |
| 4. |
Spitzer WO, Lewis MA, Heinemann LA, Thorogood M, MacRae KD.
Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolic disorders: an international case-control study.
BMJ
1996;
312:
83-88 |
| 5. |
Farmer RD, Lawrenson RA, Thompson CR, Kennedy JG, Hambleton IR.
Population-based study of risk of venous thromboembolism associated with various oral contraceptives.
Lancet
1997;
349:
83-88 |
| 6. |
Suissa S, Blais L, Spitzer WO, Cusson J, Lewis M, Heinemann L.
First-time use of newer oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism.
Contraception
1997;
56:
141-146 |
| 7. |
Lidegaard O, Edstrom B, Kreiner S.
Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism. A case-control study.
Contraception
1998;
57:
291-301 |
| 8. |
Spitzer WO.
The aftermath of a pill scare: regression to reassurance.
Hum Reprod Update
1999;
5:
736-745 |
| 9. |
Farley TM, Meirik O, Collins J.
Cardiovascular disease and combined oral contraceptives: reviewing the evidence and balancing the risks.
Hum Reprod Update
1999;
5:
721-735 |
| 10. | Petitti DB. Statistical methods in meta-analysis. In: Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994:106-110. |
| 11. |
Bloemenkamp KW, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, Helmerhorst FM, Colly LP, Vandenbroucke JP.
Risk of venous thrombosis with use of current low-dose oral contraceptives is not explained by diagnostic suspicion and referral bias.
Arch Intern Med
1999;
159:
65-70 |
| 12. |
World Health Organization 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:
1582-1588 |
| 13. |
Farmer RD, Todd JC, Lewis MA, MacRae KD, Williams TJ.
The risks of venous thromboembolic disease among German women using oral contraceptives: a database study.
Contraception
1998;
57:
67-70 |
| 14. |
Herings RM, Urquhart J, Leufkens HG.
Venous thromboembolism among new users of different oral contraceptives.
Lancet
1999;
354:
127-128 |
| 15. |
Lewis MA, MacRae KD, Kuhl-Habichl D, Bruppacher R, Heinemann LA, Spitzer WO.
The differential risk of oral contraceptives: the impact of full exposure history.
Hum Reprod
1999;
14:
1493-1499 |
| 16. |
Farley TM, Meirik O, Poulter NR, Chang CL, Marmot MG.
Oral contraceptives and thrombotic diseases: impact of new epidemiological studies.
Contraception
1996;
54:
193-198 |
| 17. |
Todd J, Lawrenson R, Farmer RD, Williams TJ, Leydon GM.
Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: a reanalysis of the MediPlus database.
Hum Reprod
1999;
14:
1500-1505 |
| 18. |
Farmer RD, Lawrenson RA, Todd JC, Williams TJ, MacRae KD, Tyrer F, et al.
A comparison of the risks of venous thromboembolic disease in association with different combined oral contraceptives.
Br J Clin Pharmacol
2000;
49:
580-590 |
| 19. |
Jick H, Kaye JA, Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, Jick SS.
Risk of venous thromboembolism among users of third generation oral contraceptives compared with users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel before and after 1995: cohort and case-control analysis.
BMJ
2000;
321:
1190-1195 |
| 20. |
Vasilakis C, Jick SS, Jick H.
The risk of venous thromboembolism in users of postcoital contraceptive pills.
Contraception
1999;
59:
79-83 |
| 21. |
Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M.
The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.
JAMA
1999;
282:
1054-1060 |
| 22. |
Vandenbroucke JP.
Scoring the quality of clinical trials.
JAMA
2000;
283:
1422-1423 |
| 23. |
Weber W.
Study on risks of third generation pill "kept secret by industry."
Lancet
2001;
357:
779 |
| 24. |
Vandenbroucke JP, Helmerhorst FM, Bloemenkamp KW, Rosendaal FR.
Third-generation oral contraceptive and deep venous thrombosis: from epidemiologic controversy to new insight in coagulation.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
1997;
177:
887-891 |
| 25. |
Walker AM.
Newer oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism.
Contraception
1998;
57:
169-181 |
| 26. |
Stelfox HT, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS.
Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.
N Engl J Med
1998;
338:
101-106 |
| 27. |
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL, et al.
A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis.
Arch Intern Med
1994;
154:
157-163 |
| 28. |
Farmer RD, Lawrenson RA, Todd JC, Williams TJ, MacRae K.
Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolic disease. Analyses of the UK General Practice Research Database and the UK Mediplus database.
Hum Reprod Update
1999;
5:
688-706 |
(Accepted 7 June 2001)
Read all Rapid Responses