How women can benefit from oral contraceptive pills

Originally posted in MedPage Today

by Nancy Walsh, MedPage Today Contributing Writer

Hormonal contraceptives have a variety of noncontraceptive uses, ranging from common problems such as dysmenorrhea to severe conditions such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder, according to a new practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

How women can benefit from oral contraceptive pills “Combined hormonal contraceptives can correct menstrual irregularities resulting from oligo-ovulation or anovulation and make menstruation more predictable,” the bulletin states.

Because many women are unaware of the potential noncontraceptive benefits associated with hormonal contraception, ACOG experts reviewed the data and made the following recommendations based on Level A (good and consistent) evidence:

* Combined oral contraceptives have been shown to treat dysmenorrhea, to regulate and reduce menstrual bleeding, to reduce premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptoms, and to ameliorate acne.
* Combined hormonal contraception has been shown to decrease the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer.
* Continuous combined hormonal contraception, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system may be considered for long-term menstrual suppression.
* Combined oral contraceptives should not be used to treat existing, functional ovarian cysts.

One cautionary note referred to a dramatic reduction in the estrogen content of oral contraceptives since their inception in 1960. The original Pill contained 150 μg of mestranol, compared with current formulations, which can contain as little as 20 μg.

“It is unclear whether the trend toward using lower doses of hormonal contraception in the past three decades has reduced any of the noncontraceptive benefits of hormonal contraception,” the bulletin states.

In addition, the following recommendations were based on Level B (limited or inconsistent) scientific evidence:

* It appears overall that combined oral contraceptives do not increase the risk of uterine leiomyomas.
* Hormonal contraception should be considered for the treatment of menorrhagia in women who may desire further pregnancies.

“Birth control pills can drastically change the nature of the menstrual cycle, helping to regulate the onset of bleeding, the duration and amount of bleeding, and the severity of menstrual pain,” said Jennifer Wu, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not involved in the guideline development.

“All of these benefits are a plus when a woman chooses oral contraceptives for pregnancy prevention and should be weighed when considering options,” Wu said.

In discussing the evidence for its recommendations, ACOG stated that combined oral contraceptives “have been shown to reduce uterine prostaglandin production and to relieve dysmenorrhea in up to 70 to 80% of women.”

The contraceptives also can reduce menstrual blood loss in most affected women by 40% to 50% “and are considered a reasonable option for initial management of menorrhagia.”

Their efficacy in this condition may be increased by the use of extended cycle and continuous formulations, ACOG added.

ACOG found oral contraceptives cost effective for menorrhagia, but only during the first year. For those who respond, a switch to a levonorgestrel device was more economical afterward.

The guidelines also discuss potential contraceptive uses for which the evidence is less clear or mixed. For example, extended cycle or continuous hormonal contraception can help some women with menstrual migraines by reducing the hormonal fluctuations thought to cause them.

However, progestin-only, intrauterine, or barrier contraceptives should be considered for women who are 35 years and older with menstrual migraine, for those who smoke, and for those whose migraines are accompanied by focal neurologic signs, the guidelines said.

Although epidemiologic evidence has clearly demonstrated a reduction in endometrial and ovarian cancer, evidence for contraceptives’ effects on colorectal cancer is less clear.

A meta-analysis found an 18% reduction, but this was primarily for current or recent use.

As to whether hormonal contraceptives have beneficial effects on bone mass and fracture risk, the data were mixed.

“Estrogen is a powerful inhibitor of bone resorption,” the bulletin states, and some reports suggest that combined oral contraceptives in the later reproductive years may be associated with greater bone mineral density.

One systematic review concluded that there was “fair evidence” that oral contraceptives increased bone mineral density, but a Cochrane review of nine studies concluded otherwise.

The practice bulletin concludes with this proposed performance measure: “Percentage of women using hormonal contraception for symptomatic relief of menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea or both who have no contraindications and wish to preserve reproductive function.”

Visit MedPageToday.com for more OB/GYN news.

email

  • http://barbellgoeswhere.blogspot.com Kipper

    I’m kind of disappointed that the bulletin (or at least this summary of it) makes no mention of hormonal contraceptives’ potential impact on insulin sensitivity, fasting glucose, blood pressure, etc. It’s not relevant to all patients, but it’s certainly relevant to some, and it has been my experience that the gyn NPs who seem to be prescribing the majority of hormonal contraceptives have very little awareness of potential metabolic side effects.

  • http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com Michael Kirsch, M.D.

    During my medical residency, we were taught that every woman should be on hormone replacement, unless there was a contraindication. Times have changed. Established care today can become bad medicine in the future. That’s why many of us don’t jump on the medical breakthrough of the month. Many treatments won’t stand the test of time.

  • Anonymous

    Fascinating that ACOG is medicalizing dysmenorrhea (aka cramps) and “unpredictable” cycles. While I don’t doubt some women suffer from miserable cramps or wide variation in cycles, most can manage their menstrual cycles just fine without hormonal therapy (or maybe my friends and family are atypical?). There are plenty of alternatives, and I think reassuring women that occasional variation is perfectly normal is just as helpful as prescribing a drug of any kind.

    In my opinion, this is just another way in which ACOG is communicating to women there’s something “wrong” with our bodies that needs “fixing”. For myself, I’ll never use hormonal birth control, and I don’t plan on using hormone replacement therapy, either. This is how my body is designed to work!

  • Sarahw

    Anonymous, not all women operate within normal limits, as it were. And even should one presume that misery is indeed within normal limits, not every woman wants to put up with “normal”, if it means being shut up at home, or even if for just a day or a few days out of the month, crumpled up in a heap of laboring crampy agony – they want relief from “normal.”

    If you aren’t experiencing any misery, then why fix what isn’t broken? If you are, why should you choose your natural state over a less miserable one?

    Irregular bleeding is inconvenient. Heavy bleeding can lead to anemia, even severe anemia – with a potential cascade of systemic effects. Cramping is pain, which by many accounts won’t kill you, but some women have very intense pain – and they can’t think straight – to the point where they can’t take care of regular obligations and people depending on them.

    Regulating cycles with hormones is one option, and I’m glad women have it.

  • Anonymous

    >>not all women operate within normal limits

    I suggest that you re-read what I wrote, as I never said otherwise. Most women do, however, operate within normal limits… hence the phrase “normal limits”.

    >>they want relief from “normal.”

    There are alternatives to suffering that do not include daily hormone administration, such as acetaminophen or NSAIDs as needed for a few days a month. Again, most women with “normal” cycles do just fine with OTC remedies.

    >>Irregular bleeding is inconvenient. Heavy bleeding can lead to anemia…some women have very intense pain>>

    Again, I suggest you re-read my initial post, which discussed prescribing hormonal birth control for “normal” women, not those with actual medical problems.

    >>Regulating cycles with hormones is one option, and I’m glad women have it.>>

    Okay. I find it alarming, however, that ACOG issued a recommendation advocating the prescription of hormonal birth control for non-contraceptive purposes in “normal” women without any mention of the many known side effects which must be considered: (nausea, weight gain, spotting, breast tenderness, decreased libido, depression, headaches, high blood pressure, acne, etc.). These side effects can certainly outweigh any benefit in “normal” women who do not use hormonal birth control as a method of contraception.

    Of course, women who choose to use hormonal birth control as contraception or those who have actual medical conditions that cannot be controlled otherwise should be prescribed hormonal birth control. But those are not the only women being discussed by ACOG. The phrase, “when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail” comes to mind, actually.

  • joe

    Also anon, one must consider more serious issues such as DVT and pulmonary embolus especially in the setting of later generation BC’s such as yaz and ocella. I find that these possible issues get minimized, or not even discussed until AFTER they appear.

  • Anonymous

    Joe:

    Precisely.

  • Sarahw

    Anonymous, you sound very defensive and upset that any woman within some very broad standard of normal should, instead of putting up with bleeding and pain, use hormones to alter their bleeding and pain.

    Where do you draw the line at normal? I draw it at the line where NSAIDS aren’t helping and a woman is having trouble living normally on the days she has her period.

    I guess I’d go farther – women who find their periods a hassle have no obligation to have them to please me. They aren’t stupid, and can’t make a choice based on their own circumstances, preferences, and risk tolerance.

  • Anonymous

    >>you sound very defensive and upset…

    No, not particularly.

    >>…that any woman within some very broad standard of normal…>>

    What percentage of women do you estimate should be considered “normal” in this context?

    >>…should, instead of putting up with bleeding and pain, use hormones to alter their bleeding and pain.>>

    Actually, I’m more concerned about ACOG recommending hormones when effective alternatives exist for most “normal” women who are not using hormones as a method of birth control. Furthermore, I’d be interested to know how frequently hormonal birth control prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes is being prescribed in the absence of a label claim. Off-label use of hormonal birth control has certainly landed both pharmaceutical companies and OB/Gyns in trouble in the past, for good reason (see Joe’s post). Blanket recommendations by ACOG certainly aren’t helpful.

    >>…Where do you draw the line at normal? I draw it at the line where NSAIDS aren’t helping and a woman is having trouble living normally on the days she has her period.>>

    Yes, I’d consider that to be “normal”, and I’ve never said otherwise. But I also don’t think that group represents a majority of women.

Trending