Superficial venous disease and combined hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review

AbstractBackgroundSuperficial venous disease, which includes superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) and varicose veins, may be associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Use of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) has been associated with an increased risk of VTE compared with nonuse. Little is known about whether use of CHCs by women with superficial venous disease may further elevate the risk of VTE.ObjectivesTo investigate evidence regarding risk of VTE in women with SVT or varicose veins who use CHCs compared with non-CHC users.MethodsWe searched the PubMed database for all English-language articles published from database inception through September 2014. We included primary research studies that examined women with SVT or varicose veins who used CHCs compared to women with these conditions who did not use CHCs. Outcomes of interest included VTE (among women with SVT or varicose veins) and SVT (for those with varicose veins).ResultsTwo studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. One fair-quality case–control study reported an odds ratio (OR) for VTE of 43.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.5–119.3) among women with SVT using oral contraceptives (OCs) compared with nonusers without SVT. The OR for VTE was also increased for women with SVT not using OCs (OR 5.1; 95% CI 2.8–9.5) and for women without SVT using OCs (OR 4.0; 95% CI 3.3–4.7), compared with nonusers without SVT. One fair-quality cohort study demonstrated that women with varicose veins had an increased rate of VTE with use of OCs (1.85 per 1000 women-years [WY]), compared with users without varicose veins (0.84 per 1000 WY), nonusers with varicose veins (0.31 per 1000 WY) and nonusers without varicose veins (0.19 per 1000 WY). This study also demonstrated that women with varicose veins had an increased rate of SVT with use of OCs (10.63 per 1000 WY), compared with nonusers with varicose veins (7.59 per 1000 WY), users without varicose veins (1.89 per 1000 WY) and nonusers without varicose veins (0.77 per 1000 WY).ConclusionTwo studies suggest increased risk of VTE among OC users with superficial venous disease; however, no definitive conclusions can be made due to the limited number of studies and limitations in study quality. Theoretical concerns need to be clarified with further research on whether the risk of significant sequelae from superficial venous disease among CHC users is related to clinical severity of disease and underlying factors

Progestogen-only contraceptive use among breastfeeding women: a systematic review.

Background: Postpartum women need effective contraception. Concerns have been raised that use of progestogen-only contraceptives (POCs) may affect breastfeeding performance and infant health outcomes. Objectives: We investigated the clinical outcomes of breastfeeding duration, initiation of supplemental feeding and weaning, as well as infant outcomes including infant growth, health and development among breastfeeding women using POCs compared with breastfeeding women not using POCs. Search strategy: We searched the PubMed database for all articles published from database inception through December 2014. Selection criteria: We included primary research studies of breastfeeding women of any age or parity who received POCs, including progestogen-only pills, injectables, implants or hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). The main outcomes were breastfeeding performance (as measured by initiation, continuation, frequency and exclusivity of breastfeeding) and infant health (as measured by growth, development or adverse health effects). Results: Forty-nine articles reporting on 47 different studies were identified that investigated the use of POCs in breastfeeding women and reported clinically relevant outcomes of infant growth, health or breastfeeding performance. Studies ranged from poor to fair methodological quality and generally failed to show negative effects of the use of POCs on breastfeeding outcomes or on infant growth or development. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) raises concerns that immediate insertion of the levonorgestrel IUD postpartum may be associated with poorer breastfeeding performance when compared with delayed insertion, although two other RCTs evaluating early etonogestrel implants compared with delayed initiation of implants or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate failed to find such an association. Conclusion: The preponderance of evidence fails to demonstrate adverse breastfeeding outcomes or negative health outcomes in infants such as restricted growth, health problems or impaired development. Evidence newly added to this review was largely consistent with previous evidence

Drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and antiretrovirals

To summarize published evidence on drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and antiretrovirals

Expulsion of intrauterine devices after postpartum placement by timing of placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by timing of insertion, delivery type, and intrauterine device type to inform current intrauterine device insertion practices in the United States.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2019.Study eligibility criteriaWe included all studies, of any study design, that examined postpartum placement of Copper T380A (copper) or levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices that reported counts of expulsion.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsWe evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to <72 hours), "early outpatient" (72 hours to <4 weeks), and interval (≥4 weeks) time periods after delivery. We assessed study quality using the US Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of partial and complete intrauterine device expulsion separately and estimated adjusted relative risks by the timing of postpartum placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type using log-binomial multivariable regression.ResultsWe identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality that reported a total of 7661 intrauterine device placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates varied by timing of placement as follows: 10.2% (range, 0.0-26.7) for immediate; 13.2% (3.5-46.7) for early inpatient; 0% for early outpatient; and 1.8% (0.0-4.8) for interval placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates also varied by delivery type: 14.8% (range, 4.8-43.1) for vaginal and 3.8% (0.0-21.1) for cesarean deliveries. Among immediate postpartum vaginal placements, the expulsion rate for levonorgetrel intrauterine devices was 27.4% (range, 18.8-45.2) and 12.4% (4.8-43.1) for copper intrauterine devices. Compared with interval placement, immediate and early postpartum placements (inpatient and outpatient combined) were associated with greater risk of complete expulsion (adjusted risk ratio, 8.33; 95% confidence interval, 4.32-16.08, and adjusted risk ratio, 5.27; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-10.85, respectively). Among immediate postpartum placements, risk of expulsion was greater for placement after vaginal compared with cesarean deliveries (adjusted risk ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 3.49-5.99). Among immediate placements at the time of vaginal delivery, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices were associated with a greater risk of expulsion compared with copper intrauterine devices (adjusted risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.65).ConclusionAlthough intrauterine device expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, type, and mode of delivery, intrauterine device insertion can take place at any time. Understanding the risk of intrauterine device expulsion at each time period will enable women to make an informed choice about when to initiate use of an intrauterine device in the postpartum period based on their own goals and preferences

Drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and antiretrovirals

OBJECTIVE: To summarize published evidence on drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and antiretrovirals. DESIGN: Systematic review of the published literature. METHODS: We searched PubMed, POPLINE, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed publications of studies (in any language) from inception to 21 September 2015. We included studies of women using hormonal contraceptives and antiretrovirals concurrently. Outcomes of interest were effectiveness of either therapy, toxicity, or pharmacokinetics. We used standard abstraction forms to summarize and assess strengths and weaknesses. RESULTS: Fifty reports from 46 studies were included. Most antiretrovirals whether used for therapy or prevention, have limited interactions with hormonal contraceptive methods, with the exception of efavirenz. Although depot medroxyprogesterone acetate is not affected, limited data on implants and combined oral contraceptive pills suggest that efavirenz-containing combination antiretroviral therapy may compromise contraceptive effectiveness of these methods. However, implants remain very effective despite such drug interactions. Antiretroviral plasma concentrations and effectiveness are generally not affected by hormonal contraceptives. CONCLUSION: Women taking antiretrovirals, for treatment or prevention, should not be denied access to the full range of hormonal contraceptive options, but should be counseled on the expected rates of unplanned pregnancy associated with all contraceptive methods, in order to make their own informed choices