OC Study Confirms VTE Risk of Newer Progestogens
Reported October 25, 2011
By: JENNIE SMITH, Family Practice News
Oral contraceptives containing the newer progestogen
types desogestrel, drospirenone, and gestodene have been associated with
twice the risk of venous thromboembolism as those containing levonorgestrel,
an older agent.
Women taking combination oral contraceptives (OCs) with levonorgestrel were
at a threefold increased risk for confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE),
compared with women not taking any contraceptive pills, while users of OCs
containing desogestrel, drospirenone, and gestodene saw a sixfold increased
risk. The risk for drospirenone was seen as comparable to that of
desogestrel and gestodene.
However, a lower dose of estrogen (20 mcg instead of 30 mcg) was not seen to
lessen the risk associated with drospirenone-containing pills, the
investigators found, while with desogestrel and gestodene, lower-estrogen
preparations were associated with lower risk. (The OCs with desogestrel or
gestodene and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol implied relative risks of VTE that
were 23% and 17% lower, respectively, than the risks for the same
progestogens with 30 mcg of ethinyl estradiol.)
The results, published online Oct. 25 in BMJ (doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6423),
confirm those of a previous study by the same Denmark-based team of
investigators, who in 2009 reported a significantly higher risk of VTE for
OCs containing these three progestogens than for OCs with levonorgestrel (BMJ
2009;339:b2890 [doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2890]).
Both studies were led by Dr. Øjvind Lidegaard, professor of obstetrics and
gynecology at the University of Copenhagen, and his colleagues, who used the
same registry-based cohort of all Danish women aged 15-49 years with no
history of VTE and who were not pregnant. The new study followed the women
from 2001 to 2009, 4 years longer than the previous study (though their
prescription information was collected from 1995), and the study collected
more detailed information on OC use and VTE events.
During the study period, which comprised more than 8 million woman-years of
observation, 4,246 first episodes of VTE occurred. After adjustment for age,
calendar year, education, and length of OC use, the relative risk of VTE
risk in women who used pills with desogestrel, drospirenone, or gestodene
was found to be twice that of women on levonorgestrel-containing pills.
Dr. Lidegaard and his colleagues found that, compared with women not using
hormonal contraception, the relative risk of confirmed VTE in users of OCs
containing 30-40 mcg of ethinyl estradiol with levonorgestrel was 2.9 (95%
confidence interval, 2.2-3.8), compared with 6.6 in women using OCs
containing desogestrel (95% CI, 5.6-7.8), 6.2 in users of gestodene
(5.6-7.0), and 6.4 in women taking drospirenone (5.4-7.5).
With users of OCs containing levonorgestrel as a reference, and after
adjustment for length of use, the rate ratio of confirmed VTE for users of
OCs with desogestrel was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.7-3.0), with gestodene it was 2.1
(95% CI, 1.6-2.8), and with drospirenone it was 2.1 (1.6-2.8).
To prevent one VTE per year, approximately 2,000 women would need to switch
from a pill containing desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone to one with
levonorgestrel, the researchers concluded.
Critics of Dr. Lidegaard and colleagues’ previous study, which revealed
similar differences in risk between levonorgestrel and the newer
progestogens, argued that because no declining risk was seen after the first
few months of use for women using levonorgestrel-containing pills, as would
be expected, left-censoring bias might have occurred, making the risk of VTE
associated with levonorgestrel seem artificially low compared with that seen
with drospirenone, which was introduced in 2001.
Dr. Lidegaard and his colleagues described several changes in their new
study’s design to strengthen it, noting that they had eliminated
left-censoring bias by letting the new study period begin in 2001, which
marked the introduction of drospirenone-containing OCs in Denmark, but still
collected the women’s full OC exposure history for the previous 6 years.
They also defined length of OC use more precisely than in the previous
study, stratified analyses into confirmed and unconfirmed VTE events, and
better excluded women predisposed to VTE, they said.
The investigators acknowledged as a weakness of the study that they could
not control for family disposition and body mass index. However, they noted,
other studies had not shown a strong confounding effect for those factors
even when data were available.
The study was commissioned by the European Medicines Agency. Bayer Schering
Pharma covered the expenses of the analysis with payment to Dr. Lidegaard’s
institution, though not to Dr. Lidegaard.
Dr. Lidegaard disclosed having received honoraria for speeches from Bayer
Pharma Denmark and Novo Nordisk, and ongoing work as an expert witness for
plaintiffs in a legal case in the United States. One of Dr. Lidegaard’s
coauthors, Dr. Finn Egil Skjeldestad, acknowledged receiving compensation
for his work on the steering committee of the European Medicines Agency
report.