General practice p 1190

Three months ago a paper in the BMJ analysed the incidence of venous thromboembolism before and after the warning from the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines about third generation oral contraceptives.1 Using computer records of general practitioners, Farmer et al found that the incidence among pill users had not dropped, and they concluded that their findings were not compatible with a doubling of risk in women using third generation contraceptives (compared with older preparations). Their paper received wide publicity because it called into question an emerging consensus about this issue.2

This week's BMJ contains another analysis of computer records from British general practice, conducted by a group in Boston (p 1190).3 Jick et al found that, both before and after the warning in October 1995, the risk of venous thromboembolism in women using third generation oral contraceptives was about twice that in users of preparations containing levonorgestrel. Moreover, fewer cases occurred after the warning than would have been expected if the prescribing of oral contraceptives had not changed.

What is remarkable is that these two studies, reporting opposite conclusions, both used the same General Practice Research Database.4 …