Appendix D: Classifications for Combined Hormonal Contraceptives

At a glance

This page includes recommendations for health care providers for the use of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) for persons who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. This information comes from the 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC).

Overview

Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) include combined oral contraceptives (COCs) (containing a progestin plus ethinyl estradiol [EE] ≤35 μg, estradiol valerate, or estetrol); combined transdermal patches (levonorgestrel/EE or norelgestromin/EE); and combined vaginal rings (etonogestrel/EE or segesterone acetate/EE) (Box D1) (Table D1). Limited information is available about the safety of COCs with estradiol valerate or estetrol, combined transdermal patches, and combined vaginal rings among users with specific medical conditions. Evidence indicates that estradiol valerate and estetrol COCs, combined transdermal patches, and combined vaginal rings provide comparable safety and pharmacokinetic profiles to EE-containing COCs with similar hormone formulations. [1-33] Pending further studies, the evidence available for recommendations about EE-containing COCs applies to the recommendations for estradiol valerate and estetrol COCs, the combined transdermal patch, and vaginal rings. Therefore, the estradiol valerate and estetrol COCs, the patches, and the rings should have the same categories as EE-containing COCs, except where noted. The assigned categories should be considered a preliminary best judgment, which will be reevaluated as new data become available.

COCs, patches, and rings do not protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV infection, and patients using CHCs should be counseled that consistent and correct use of external (male) latex condoms reduces the risk for STIs, including HIV infection.[34] Use of internal (female) condoms can provide protection from transmission of STIs, although data are limited.[34] Patients also should be counseled that pre-exposure prophylaxis, when taken as prescribed, is highly effective for preventing HIV infection.[35]

Box D1. Categories for classifying combined hormonal contraceptives

U.S. MEC 1
A condition for which there is no restriction for the use of the contraceptive method
U.S. MEC 2
A condition for which the advantages of using the method generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks
U.S. MEC 3
A condition for which the theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages of using the method
U.S. MEC 4
A condition that represents an unacceptable health risk if the contraceptive method is used

Abbreviation: U.S. MEC = U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use.

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring

TABLE D1 CONDITIONS

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Personal Characteristics and Reproductive History
Pregnancy NA Clarification: Use of CHCs is not required. No known harm to the patient, the course of pregnancy, or the fetus occurs if CHCs are inadvertently used during pregnancy.
Age Evidence: Evidence is inconsistent about whether CHC use affects fracture risk,[36–47] although three recent studies demonstrate no effect.[36],[37],[47] CHC use might decrease BMD in adolescents, especially in those choosing very low-dose formulations (COCs containing <30 µg ethinyl estradiol).[48–61] CHC use has little to no effect on BMD in premenopausal women[62–76] and might preserve bone mass in those who are perimenopausal.[77–85] BMD is a surrogate marker for fracture risk that might not be valid for premenopausal women and therefore might not accurately predict current or future (postmenopausal) fracture risk.[86–88]
Comment: The risk for cardiovascular disease increases with age and might increase with CHC use. In the absence of other adverse clinical conditions, CHCs can be used until menopause.
a. Menarche to <40 years 1
b. ≥40 years 2
Parity
a. Nulliparous 1 —
b. Parous 1 —
Breastfeeding
a. <21 days postpartum 4 Clarification (breastfeeding): Breastfeeding provides important health benefits for breastfeeding parent and infant. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing appropriate complementary foods for 1 year or longer[89] or up to age 2 years or longer.[90]
Evidence (breastfeeding): Clinical studies demonstrate conflicting results regarding effects on breastfeeding continuation or exclusivity in women exposed to COCs during lactation. No consistent effects on infant growth or illness have been reported. Adverse health outcomes or manifestations of exogenous estrogen in infants exposed to CHCs through breast milk have not been demonstrated; however, studies have been inadequately designed to determine whether a risk for either serious or subtle long-term effects exists.[91]
Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97]
Comment: Risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties include previous breastfeeding difficulties, certain medical conditions, certain perinatal complications, and preterm birth. For all breastfeeding persons, with or without risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties, discussions about contraception should include information about risks, benefits, and alternatives.
b. 21 to <30 days postpartum
   i. With other risk factors for VTE (e.g., age ≥35 years, previous VTE, thrombophilia, immobility, transfusion at delivery, peripartum cardiomyopathy, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, postpartum hemorrhage, postcesarean delivery, preeclampsia, or smoking) 3 Clarification: For persons with other risk factors for VTE, these risk factors might increase the classification to a category 4.
Clarification (breastfeeding): Breastfeeding provides important health benefits for breastfeeding parent and infant. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing appropriate complementary foods for 1 year or longer[89] or up to age 2 years or longer.[90]
Evidence (breastfeeding): Clinical studies demonstrate conflicting results regarding effects on breastfeeding continuation or exclusivity in women exposed to COCs during lactation. No consistent effects on infant growth or illness have been reported. Adverse health outcomes or manifestations of exogenous estrogen in infants exposed to CHCs through breast milk have not been demonstrated; however, studies have been inadequately designed to determine whether a risk for either serious or subtle long-term effects exists.[91]
Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97]
Comment: Risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties include previous breastfeeding difficulties, certain medical conditions, certain perinatal complications, and preterm birth. For all breastfeeding persons, with or without risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties, discussions about contraception should include information about risks, benefits, and alternatives.
   ii. Without other risk factors for VTE 3 Clarification (breastfeeding): Breastfeeding provides important health benefits for breastfeeding parent and infant. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing appropriate complementary foods for 1 year or longer[89] or up to age 2 years or longer.[90]
Evidence (breastfeeding): Clinical studies demonstrate conflicting results regarding effects on breastfeeding continuation or exclusivity in women exposed to COCs during lactation. No consistent effects on infant growth or illness have been reported. Adverse health outcomes or manifestations of exogenous estrogen in infants exposed to CHCs through breast milk have not been demonstrated; however, studies have been inadequately designed to determine whether a risk for either serious or subtle long-term effects exists.[91]
Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97]
Comment: Risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties include previous breastfeeding difficulties, certain medical conditions, certain perinatal complications, and preterm birth. For all breastfeeding persons, with or without breastfeeding difficulties, discussions about contraception should include information about risks, benefits, and alternatives.
c. 30–42 days postpartum
   i. With other risk factors for VTE (e.g., age ≥35 years, previous VTE, thrombophilia, immobility, transfusion at delivery, peripartum cardiomyopathy, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, postpartum hemorrhage, postcesarean delivery, preeclampsia, or smoking) 3 Clarification: For persons with other risk factors for VTE, these risk factors might increase the classification to a category 4.
Clarification (breastfeeding): Breastfeeding provides important health benefits for breastfeeding parent and infant. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing appropriate complementary foods for 1 year or longer[89] or up to age 2 years or longer.[90]
Evidence (breastfeeding): Clinical studies demonstrate conflicting results regarding effects on breastfeeding continuation or exclusivity in women exposed to COCs during lactation. No consistent effects on infant growth or illness have been reported. Adverse health outcomes or manifestations of exogenous estrogen in infants exposed to CHCs through breast milk have not been demonstrated; however, studies have been inadequately designed to determine whether a risk for either serious or subtle long-term effects exists.[91]
Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97]
Comment: Risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties include previous breastfeeding difficulties, certain medical conditions, certain perinatal complications, and preterm birth. For all breastfeeding persons, with or without breastfeeding difficulties, discussions about contraception should include information about risks, benefits, and alternatives.
   ii. Without other risk factors for VTE 2 Clarification (breastfeeding): Breastfeeding provides important health benefits for breastfeeding parent and infant. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing appropriate complementary foods for 1 year or longer[89] or up to age 2 years or longer.[90]
Evidence (breastfeeding): Clinical studies demonstrate conflicting results regarding effects on breastfeeding continuation or exclusivity in women exposed to COCs during lactation. No consistent effects on infant growth or illness have been reported. Adverse health outcomes or manifestations of exogenous estrogen in infants exposed to CHCs through breast milk have not been demonstrated; however, studies have been inadequately designed to determine whether a risk for either serious or subtle long-term effects exists.[91]
Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97]
Comment: Risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties include previous breastfeeding difficulties, certain medical conditions, certain perinatal complications, and preterm birth. For all breastfeeding persons, with or without breastfeeding difficulties, discussions about contraception should include information about risks, benefits, and alternatives.
d. >42 days postpartum 2 Clarification (breastfeeding): Breastfeeding provides important health benefits for breastfeeding parent and infant. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing appropriate complementary foods for 1 year or longer[89] or up to age 2 years or longer.[90]
Evidence: Clinical studies demonstrate conflicting results regarding effects on breastfeeding continuation or exclusivity in women exposed to COCs during lactation. No consistent effects on infant growth or illness have been reported. Adverse health outcomes or manifestations of exogenous estrogen in infants exposed to CHCs through breast milk have not been demonstrated; however, studies have been inadequately designed to determine whether a risk for either serious or subtle long-term effects exists.[91]
Comment: Risk factors for breastfeeding difficulties include previous breastfeeding difficulties, certain medical conditions, certain perinatal complications, and preterm birth. For all breastfeeding persons, with or without breastfeeding difficulties, discussions about contraception should include information about risks, benefits, and alternatives.
Postpartum (nonbreastfeeding)
a. <21 days postpartum 4 Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97] Risk for pregnancy during the first 21 days postpartum is very low but increases after that point; ovulation before first menses is common.[98]
b. 21–42 days postpartum
   i. With other risk factors for VTE (e.g., age ≥35 years, previous VTE, thrombophilia, immobility, transfusion at delivery, peripartum cardiomyopathy, BMI ≥30 kg/m2 postpartum hemorrhage, postcesarean delivery, preeclampsia, or smoking) 3 Clarification: For persons with other risk factors for VTE, these risk factors might increase the classification to a category 4.
Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97]
   ii. Without other risk factors for VTE 2 Evidence: One study examined use of CHCs during the postpartum period and found that VTE rates were higher for CHC users compared with nonusers at all time points postpartum.[92] Rates were significantly different only after 13 weeks postpartum; however, the numbers needed to harm were lowest in the first 6 weeks postpartum. VTE risk is increased during pregnancy and the postpartum period; this risk is most pronounced in the first 3 weeks after delivery, decreasing to near baseline levels by 42 days postpartum.[93–97]
c. >42 days postpartum 1 —
Postabortion (spontaneous or induced)
a. First trimester abortion Clarification: CHCs may be started immediately after abortion completion or at time of medication abortion initiation.
Evidence: Evidence suggests that there is no increased risk for adverse events when CHCs are initiated after first trimester procedural or medication abortion (immediately or delayed).[99] Immediate initiation of COCs after first trimester procedural or medication abortion did not cause clinically significant changes in coagulation parameters compared with placebo, a hormonal IUD, a nonhormonal contraceptive method, or delayed COC initiation.[100]
   i. Procedural (surgical) 1
   ii. Medication 1
   iii. Spontaneous abortion with no intervention 1
b. Second trimester abortion Clarification: CHCs may be started immediately after abortion completion or at time of medication abortion initiation.
Evidence: Limited evidence suggests that there is no increased risk for adverse events when CHCs are initiated after second trimester procedural abortion (immediately or delayed).[99]
   i. Procedural (surgical) 1
   ii. Medication 1
   iii. Spontaneous abortion with no intervention 1
c. Immediate postseptic abortion 1 Clarification: CHCs may be started immediately after abortion completion or at time of medication abortion initiation.
Past ectopic pregnancy 1 Comment: The risk for future ectopic pregnancy is increased among those who have had an ectopic pregnancy in the past. CHCs protect against pregnancy in general, including ectopic gestation.
History of pelvic surgery 1 —
Smoking Evidence: COC users who smoked were at increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial infarction, compared with those who did not smoke. Studies also demonstrated an increased risk for myocardial infarction with increasing number of cigarettes smoked per day.[101–113]
a. Age <35 years 2
b. Age ≥35 years
i. <15 cigarettes per day 3
ii. ≥15 cigarettes per day 4
Obesity Clarification: Risk for thrombosis increases with multiple risk factors, such as obesity, older age (e.g., ≥40 years), diabetes, smoking, family history of thrombosis, and dyslipidemia. When a person has multiple risk factors, any of which alone would increase risk for thrombosis, use of CHCs might increase thrombosis risk to an unacceptable level. However, a simple addition of categories for multiple risk factors is not intended; for example, a combination of two category 2 risk factors might not necessarily warrant a higher category.
Evidence: Although the absolute risk for VTE in healthy women of reproductive age is small, COC use and higher BMI independently increase risk for VTE, with the greatest relative risks among those with both risk factors. From a systematic review, COC users with obesity consistently had a relative risk for VTE of 5–8 times that of nonusers with obesity (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516). Research examining the interaction between COCs and BMI on VTE risk is limited, particularly for those in the highest BMI categories (BMI ≥35 kg/m2). Comparative studies on the risk for VTE among contraceptive patch or ring users by weight or BMI were not identified.[114–116]
Limited evidence suggests that COC users with obesity do not have a higher risk for acute myocardial infarction or stroke than do nonusers with obesity[114] (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
Limited evidence suggests that effectiveness of certain COC formulations might decrease with increasing BMI; however the observed reductions in effectiveness are minimal and evidence is conflicting.[117–124] Effectiveness of the patch might be reduced in women with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 or weight >90 kg.[125]
a. BMI ≥30 kg/m2 2
b. Menarche to <18 years and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 2
History of bariatric surgery
This condition is associated with
increased risk for adverse health events
as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).
a. Restrictive procedures: decrease storage capacity of the stomach (vertical banded gastroplasty, laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy) 1 Evidence: Limited evidence demonstrated no substantial decrease in effectiveness of oral contraceptives among women who underwent laparoscopic placement of an adjustable gastric band.[126]
b. Malabsorptive procedures: decrease absorption of nutrients and calories by shortening the functional length of the small intestine (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or biliopancreatic diversion) COCs: 3
Patch and ring: 1		 Evidence: Limited evidence demonstrated no substantial decrease in effectiveness of oral contraceptives among women who underwent a biliopancreatic diversion; however, evidence from pharmacokinetic studies reported conflicting results of oral contraceptive effectiveness among women who underwent a jejunoileal bypass.[126]
Comment: Bariatric surgical procedures involving a malabsorptive component have the potential to decrease oral contraceptive effectiveness, perhaps further decreased by postoperative complications, such as long-term diarrhea or vomiting.
Surgery
a. Minor surgery without immobilization 1 —
b. Major surgery
   i. Without prolonged immobilization 2 —
   ii. With prolonged immobilization 4 —

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Cardiovascular Disease
Multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (e.g., older age, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, low HDL, high LDL, or high triglyceride levels) 3/4 Clarification: When a person has multiple major risk factors, any of which alone would substantially increase risk for cardiovascular disease, use of CHCs might increase risk to an unacceptable level. However, a simple addition of categories for multiple risk factors is not intended; for example, a combination of two category 2 risk factors might not necessarily warrant a higher category.
Clarification: The recommendations apply to known pre-existing medical conditions or characteristics. Few if any screening tests are needed before initiation of contraception. See U.S. SPR (https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usspr/.[127]
Hypertension
Systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or
diastolic blood pressure ≥100 mm Hg are
associated with increased risk for adverse
health events as a result of pregnancy
(Box 3).
a. Adequately controlled hypertension 3 Clarification: For all categories of hypertension, classifications are based on the assumption that no other risk factors exist for cardiovascular disease. When multiple risk factors do exist, risk for cardiovascular disease might increase substantially. A single reading of blood pressure level is not sufficient to classify a person as hypertensive.
Clarification: Persons adequately treated for hypertension are at reduced risk for acute myocardial infarction and stroke compared with untreated persons. Although no data exist, CHC users with adequately controlled and monitored hypertension should be at reduced risk for acute myocardial infarction and stroke compared with untreated hypertensive CHC users.
Evidence: Among women with hypertension, COC users were at higher risk than nonusers for stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and peripheral arterial disease.[101],[103],[110–113],[128–142] Discontinuation of COCs in women with hypertension might improve blood pressure control.[143]
b. Elevated blood pressure levels
(properly taken measurements)		 Clarification: For all categories of hypertension, classifications are based on the assumption that no other risk factors exist for cardiovascular disease. When multiple risk factors do exist, risk for cardiovascular disease might increase substantially. A single reading of blood pressure level is not sufficient to classify a person as hypertensive.
Evidence: Among women with hypertension, COC users were at higher risk than nonusers for stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and peripheral arterial disease.[101],[103],[110–113],[128–142] Discontinuation of COCs in women with hypertension might improve blood pressure control.[143]
   i. Systolic 140–159 mm Hg or diastolic 90–99 mm Hg 3
   ii. Systolic ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic ≥100 mm Hg 4
c. Vascular disease 4
History of high blood pressure during pregnancy (when current blood pressure is measurable and normal) 2 Evidence: Women with a history of high blood pressure in pregnancy who also used COCs had a higher risk for myocardial infarction and VTE than did COC users who did not have a history of high blood pressure during pregnancy. The absolute risks for acute myocardial infarction and VTE in this population remained small.[112],[129],[141],[142],[144–150]
Deep venous thrombosis/
Pulmonary embolism
This condition is associated with increased
risk for adverse health events as a result of
pregnancy (Box 3).
a. Current or history of DVT/PE, receiving anticoagulant therapy (therapeutic dose) (e.g., acute DVT/PE or long-term therapeutic dose) 3 Clarification: Persons using anticoagulant therapy are at risk for gynecologic complications of therapy, such as heavy or prolonged bleeding and hemorrhagic ovarian cysts. CHCs can be of benefit in preventing or treating these complications. When a contraceptive method is used as a therapy, rather than solely to prevent pregnancy, the risk/benefit ratio might differ and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Clarification: When a patient discontinues therapeutic dose of anticoagulant therapy, careful consideration should be given to transitioning from CHCs to a progestin-only or nonhormonal method, if acceptable to the patient.
Evidence: Limited evidence was identified on use of CHCs among women with DVT/PE receiving anticoagulant therapy (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516). In one study among women with a history of acute VTE currently receiving therapeutic anticoagulant therapy (i.e., rivaroxaban or enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist [warfarin or acenocoumarol]), the incidence of recurrent VTE was similar among estrogen users (CHC or estrogen-only pills), POC users, and women not on hormonal therapy.[151]
b. History of DVT/PE, receiving
anticoagulant therapy (prophylactic dose)		 Clarification: Persons using anticoagulant therapy are at risk for gynecologic complications of therapy, such as heavy or prolonged bleeding and hemorrhagic ovarian cysts. CHCs can be of benefit in preventing or treating these complications. When a contraceptive method is used as a therapy, rather than solely to prevent pregnancy, the risk/benefit ratio might differ and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
i. Higher risk for recurrent DVT/PE (one or more risk factors) 4
• Thrombophilia (e.g., factor V Leiden mutation; prothrombin gene mutation; protein S, protein C, and antithrombin deficiencies; or antiphospholipid syndrome)
• Active cancer (metastatic, receiving therapy, or within 6 months after clinical remission), excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer
• History of recurrent DVT/PE
   ii. Lower risk for recurrent DVT/PE (no risk factors) 3
c. History of DVT/PE, not receiving
anticoagulant therapy
   i. Higher risk for recurrent DVT/PE (one or more risk factors) 4 —
• History of estrogen-associated DVT/PE
• Pregnancy-associated DVT/PE
• Idiopathic DVT/PE
• Thrombophilia (e.g., factor V Leiden mutation; prothrombin gene mutation; protein S, protein C, and antithrombin deficiencies; or antiphospholipid syndrome)
• Active cancer (metastatic,
receiving therapy, or within 6 months after clinical remission), excluding nonmelanoma skin
cancer
• History of recurrent DVT/PE
   ii. Lower risk for recurrent DVT/PE (no risk factors) 3 —
d. Family history (first-degree relatives) 2 Comment: Certain conditions that increase the risk for DVT/PE are heritable.
Thrombophilia (e.g., factor V Leiden mutation; prothrombin gene mutation; protein S, protein C, and antithrombin deficiencies; or antiphospholipid syndrome)
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 4 Clarification: Routine screening in the general population before contraceptive initiation is not recommended.
Clarification: If a person has current or history of DVT/PE, see recommendations for DVT/PE.
Clarification: Classification of antiphospholipid syndrome includes presence of a clinical feature (e.g., thrombosis or obstetric morbidity) and persistently abnormal antiphospholipid antibody test on two or more occasions at least 12 weeks apart.[152]
Evidence: Among women with factor V Leiden mutation, prothrombin gene mutation, antithrombin deficiency, and protein C deficiency, COC users had an increased risk for venous and arterial thrombosis compared with nonusers. Evidence was inconsistent on risk for thrombosis among women with protein S deficiency using COCs. No evidence was identified on COC use among persons with antiphospholipid syndrome (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
Superficial venous disorders
a. Varicose veins 1 Evidence: One study suggested that among women with varicose veins, the rate of VTE and superficial venous thrombosis was higher in oral contraceptive users compared with nonusers; however, statistical significance was not reported and the number of events was small.[153]
b. Superficial venous thrombosis (acute or history) 3 Clarification: Superficial venous thrombosis might be associated with an increased risk for VTE. If a person has risk factors for concurrent DVT (e.g., thrombophilia or cancer) or has current or history of DVT, see recommendations for DVT/PE. Superficial venous thrombosis associated with a peripheral intravenous catheter is less likely to be associated with additional thrombosis and use of CHCs may be considered.
Evidence: One study demonstrated that among women with superficial venous thrombosis, the risk for VTE was higher in oral contraceptive users compared with nonusers.[153]
Current and history of ischemic heart disease
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 4 —
Stroke (history of cerebrovascular accident)
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 4 —
Valvular heart disease
Complicated valvular heart disease is
associated with increased risk for adverse
health events as a result of pregnancy
(Box 3).
a. Uncomplicated 2 —
b. Complicated (pulmonary hypertension, risk for atrial fibrillation, or history of subacute bacterial endocarditis) 4 Comment: Among persons with valvular heart disease, CHC use might further increase the risk for arterial thrombosis; persons with complicated valvular heart disease are at greatest risk.
Peripartum cardiomyopathy
This condition is associated with increased
risk for adverse health events as a result of
pregnancy (Box 3).		 Evidence: No direct evidence exists about the safety of CHCs among women with peripartum cardiomyopathy. Limited indirect evidence from noncomparative studies of women with cardiac disease demonstrated few cases of hypertension and transient ischemic attack in women with cardiac disease using COCs. No cases of heart failure were reported.[154]
Comment: COCs might increase fluid retention in healthy persons; fluid retention might worsen heart failure in persons with peripartum cardiomyopathy. COCs might induce cardiac arrhythmias in healthy persons; persons with peripartum cardiomyopathy have a high incidence of cardiac arrhythmias.
a. Normal or mildly impaired cardiac
function (New York Heart Association
Functional Class I or II: no limitation of
activities or slight, mild limitation of
activity)[155]
   i. <6 months 4
   ii. ≥6 months 3
b. Moderately or severely impaired cardiac function (New York Heart Association Functional Class III or IV: marked limitation of activity or should be at complete rest)[155] 4

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Renal Disease
Chronic kidney disease
This condition is associated with increased
risk for adverse health events as a result of
pregnancy (Box 3).
a. Current nephrotic syndrome 4 Evidence: No direct evidence was identified on CHC use among persons with CKD with current nephrotic syndrome (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516). Persons with severe CKD or nephrotic syndrome are at higher risk for thrombosis than the general population.[156–158] Use of CHCs might further elevate risk for thrombosis among those with CKD with current nephrotic syndrome.
Comment: A person might have CKD without current nephrotic syndrome but might have other conditions often associated with CKD (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and SLE). See recommendations for other conditions if they apply.
b. Hemodialysis 4 Evidence: No direct evidence was identified on CHC use among persons with CKD on hemodialysis (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516). Persons with CKD on dialysis are at higher risk for thrombosis than the general population.[156–158] Use of CHCs might further elevate risk for thrombosis among those with CKD on dialysis.
Comment: A person might have CKD without hemodialysis, but might have other conditions often associated with CKD (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and SLE). See recommendations for other conditions if they apply.
c. Peritoneal dialysis 4 Evidence: No direct evidence was identified on CHC use among persons with CKD on peritoneal dialysis (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516). Persons with CKD on dialysis are at higher risk for thrombosis than the general population.[156–158] Use of CHCs might further elevate risk for thrombosis among those with CKD.
Comment: A person might have CKD without peritoneal dialysis, but might have other conditions often associated with CKD (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and SLE). See recommendations for other conditions if they apply.

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Rheumatic Diseases
Systemic lupus erythematosus
This condition is associated with increased
risk for adverse health events as a result of
pregnancy (Box 3).
a. Positive (or unknown) antiphospholipid antibodies 4 Clarification: Persons with SLE are at increased risk for ischemic heart disease, stroke, and VTE. Categories assigned to such conditions in U.S. MEC should be the same for persons with SLE who have these conditions. For all subconditions of SLE, classifications are based on the assumption that no other risk factors for cardiovascular disease are present; these classifications must be modified in the presence of such risk factors.[159–177]
Evidence: Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with a higher risk for both arterial and venous thrombosis.[178],[179]
b. Severe thrombocytopenia 2 Clarification: Persons with SLE are at increased risk for ischemic heart disease, stroke, and VTE. Categories assigned to such conditions in U.S. MEC should be the same for persons with SLE who have these conditions. For all subconditions of SLE, classifications are based on the assumption that no other risk factors for cardiovascular disease are present; these classifications must be modified in the presence of such risk factors.[159–177]
c. Immunosuppressive therapy 2 Clarification: Persons with SLE are at increased risk for ischemic heart disease, stroke, and VTE. Categories assigned to such conditions in U.S. MEC should be the same for persons with SLE who have these conditions. For all subconditions of SLE, classifications are based on the assumption that no other risk factors for cardiovascular disease are present; these classifications must be modified in the presence of such risk factors.[159–177]
d. None of the above 2 Clarification: Persons with SLE are at increased risk for ischemic heart disease, stroke, and VTE. Categories assigned to such conditions in U.S. MEC should be the same for persons with SLE who have these conditions. For all subconditions of SLE, classifications are based on the assumption that no other risk factors for cardiovascular disease are present; these classifications must be modified in the presence of such risk factors.[159–177]
Rheumatoid arthritis Evidence: Limited evidence demonstrates no consistent pattern of improvement or worsening of rheumatoid arthritis with use of oral contraceptives, progesterone, or estrogen.[180]
a. Not receiving immunosuppressive therapy 2
b. Receiving immunosuppressive therapy 2

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Neurologic Conditions
Headaches
a. Nonmigraine (mild or severe) 1 Clarification: Classification depends on accurate diagnosis of those severe headaches that are migraines and those headaches that are not, as well as diagnosis of ever experiencing aura. Aura is a specific focal neurologic symptom. For more information about headache classification see the International Headache Society’s International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd ed. (https://ichd-3.org).[181] Any new headaches or marked changes in headaches should be evaluated.
b. Migraine Clarification: Classification depends on accurate diagnosis of those severe headaches that are migraines and those headaches that are not, as well as diagnosis of ever experiencing aura. Aura is a specific focal neurologic symptom. For more information about headache classification see the International Headache Society’s International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd ed. (https://ichd-3.org).[181] Any new headaches or marked changes in headaches should be evaluated.
Clarification: Classification is for persons without any other risk factors for stroke (e.g., age, hypertension, and smoking).
Evidence: Among women with migraine, oral contraceptive use is associated with about a threefold increased risk for ischemic stroke compared with nonuse, although most studies did not specify migraine type or oral contraceptive formulation. The only study to examine migraine type found that the risk for ischemic stroke among women with migraine with aura was increased to a similar level among both oral contraceptive users and nonusers, compared with women without migraine.[182] The risk for ischemic stroke is increased among women using COCs, compared with women not using COCs.[101],[183] The risk for ischemic stroke is also increased among women with migraine with aura, compared with women without migraine.[184–186] One older meta-analysis found that migraine without aura was associated with an increased risk for ischemic stroke, while two more recent meta-analyses did not find such an association.[184–186]
Comment: Menstrual migraine is a subtype of migraine without aura. For more information, see the International Headache Society’s International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd ed. (https://ichd-3.org).[181]
   i. Without aura (includes menstrual migraine) 2
   ii. With aura 4
Epilepsy
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 1 Clarification: If a person is taking anticonvulsants, see recommendations for Drug Interactions. Certain anticonvulsants lower COC effectiveness. The extent to which patch or ring use is similar to COC use in this regard remains unclear.
Multiple sclerosis Evidence: Limited evidence suggests that use of COCs or oral contraceptives (type not specified) among women with multiple sclerosis does not worsen the clinical course of disease.[187]
Comment: No data exist that evaluate the increased risk for VTE among persons with multiple sclerosis using CHCs. However, persons with multiple sclerosis are at higher risk for VTE than those without multiple sclerosis.
a. Without prolonged immobility 1
b. With prolonged immobility 3

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Depressive Disorders
Depressive disorders 1 Clarification: If a person is receiving psychotropic medications or St. John’s wort, see recommendations for Drug Interactions.
Evidence: COC use was not associated with increased depressive symptoms in women with depression or scoring above threshold levels on a validated depression screening instrument compared with baseline or with nonusers with depression. One small study of women with bipolar disorder found that oral contraceptives did not significantly change mood across the menstrual cycle.[188]

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Reproductive Tract Infections and Disorders
Vaginal bleeding patterns
a. Irregular pattern without heavy bleeding 1 Comment: Irregular menstrual bleeding patterns are common among healthy persons.
b. Heavy or prolonged bleeding (includes regular and irregular patterns) 1 Clarification: Unusually heavy bleeding should raise the suspicion of a serious underlying condition.
Evidence: A Cochrane Collaboration Review identified one RCT evaluating the effectiveness of COC use compared with naproxen and danazol in treating menorrhagia. Women with menorrhagia did not report worsening of the condition or any adverse events related to COC use.[189]
Unexplained vaginal bleeding
(suspicious for serious condition) before evaluation		 2 Clarification: If pregnancy or an underlying pathological condition (e.g., pelvic malignancy) is suspected, it must be evaluated and the category adjusted after evaluation.
Comment: No conditions that cause vaginal bleeding will be worsened in the short-term by use of CHCs.
Endometriosis 1 Evidence: A Cochrane Collaboration Review identified one RCT evaluating the effectiveness of COC use compared with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog in treating the symptoms of endometriosis. Women with endometriosis did not report worsening of the condition or any adverse events related to COC use.[190]
Benign ovarian tumors (including cysts) 1 —
Severe dysmenorrhea 1 Evidence: Risk for side effects with COC use was not higher among women with dysmenorrhea than among women not using COCs. Certain COC users had a reduction in pain and bleeding.[191],[192]
Gestational trophoblastic disease
This condition is associated with increased
risk for adverse health events as a result of
pregnancy (Box 3).		 Clarification: For all subconditions of gestational trophoblastic disease, classifications are based on the assumption that persons are under close medical supervision because of the need for monitoring of β-hCG levels for appropriate disease surveillance.
Evidence: After molar pregnancy evacuation, the balance of evidence found COC use did not increase the risk for postmolar trophoblastic disease, and β–hCG levels regressed more rapidly in certain COC users than in nonusers.[193] Limited evidence suggests that use of COCs during chemotherapy does not significantly affect the regression or treatment of postmolar trophoblastic disease compared with women who used a nonhormonal contraceptive method or DMPA during chemotherapy.[193]
a. Suspected gestational trophoblastic
disease (immediate postevacuation)
   i. Uterine size first trimester 1
   ii. Uterine size second trimester 1
b. Confirmed gestational trophoblastic
disease (after initial evacuation and during
monitoring)
   i. Undetectable or nonpregnant β-hCG levels 1
   ii. Decreasing β-hCG levels 1
   iii. Persistently elevated β-hCG levels or malignant disease, with no evidence or suspicion of intrauterine disease 1
   iv. Persistently elevated β-hCG levels or malignant disease, with evidence or suspicion of intrauterine disease 1
Cervical ectropion 1 Comment: Cervical ectropion is not a risk factor for cervical cancer, and restriction of CHC use is unnecessary.
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 Evidence: Among women with persistent human papillomavirus infection, long-term COC use (≥5 years) might increase the risk for carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma.[194] Limited evidence on women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions found use of the vaginal ring did not worsen the condition.[9]
Cervical cancer (awaiting treatment) 2 Comment: Theoretical concern exists that CHC use might affect prognosis of the existing disease. While awaiting treatment, persons may use CHCs. In general, treatment of this condition can render a person infertile.
Breast disease
Breast cancer is associated with increased
risk for adverse health events as a result of
pregnancy (Box 3).
a. Undiagnosed mass 2 Clarification: Evaluation of mass should be pursued as early as possible.
b. Benign breast disease 1 —
c. Family history of cancer 1 Evidence: Women with breast cancer susceptibility genes (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2) have a higher baseline risk for breast cancer than women without these genes. The baseline risk for breast cancer also is higher among women with a family history of breast cancer than among those who do not have such a history. However, evidence does not suggest that the increased risk for breast cancer among women with either a family history of breast cancer or breast cancer susceptibility genes is modified by the use of COCs.[195–212]
d. Breast cancer Comment: Breast cancer is a hormonally sensitive tumor, and the prognosis for persons with current or recent breast cancer might worsen with CHC use.
   i. Current 4
   ii. Past and no evidence of current disease for 5 years 3
Endometrial hyperplasia 1 —
Endometrial cancer
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 1 Comment: COC use reduces the risk for endometrial cancer; whether patch or ring use reduces the risk for endometrial cancer is not known. While awaiting treatment, patients may use CHCs. In general, treatment of this condition can render a person infertile.
Ovarian cancer
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 1 Comment: COC use reduces the risk for ovarian cancer; whether patch or ring use reduces the risk for ovarian cancer is not known. While awaiting treatment, patients may use CHCs. In general, treatment of this condition can render a person infertile.
Uterine fibroids 1 Comment: COCs do not appear to cause growth of uterine fibroids, and patch and ring also are not expected to cause growth.
Pelvic inflammatory disease Comment: COCs might reduce the risk for PID among persons with STIs but do not protect against HIV infection or lower genital tract STIs. Whether use of patch or ring reduces the risk for PID among persons with STIs is unknown; however, they do not protect against HIV infection or lower genital tract STIs.
a. Current PID 1
b. Past PID
   i. With subsequent pregnancy 1
   ii. Without subsequent pregnancy 1
Sexually transmitted infections
a. Current purulent cervicitis or chlamydial infection or gonococcal infection 1 —
b. Vaginitis (including Trichomonas vaginalis and bacterial vaginosis) 1 —
c. Other factors related to STIs 1 —

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
HIV
High risk for HIV infection 1 Evidence: Low-to-moderate-quality evidence from 11 observational studies suggested no association between COC use (it was assumed that studies that did not specify oral contraceptive type examined mostly, if not exclusively, COC use) and HIV acquisition. No studies of patch or ring were identified.[213],[214]
HIV infection
For persons with HIV infection who are not clinically well or not receiving ARV therapy, this condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 1 Clarification: Drug interactions might exist between hormonal contraceptives and ARV drugs; see recommendations for Drug Interactions.
Evidence: Overall, evidence does not support an association between COC use and progression of HIV. Limited direct evidence does not support an association between COC use and transmission of HIV to noninfected partners; studies measuring genital viral shedding as a proxy for infectivity have had mixed results. Studies measuring whether hormonal contraceptive methods affect plasma HIV viral load generally have found no effect.[215–217]

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Other Infections
Schistosomiasis
Schistosomiasis with fibrosis of the liver is
associated with increased risk for adverse
health events as a result of pregnancy
(Box 3).
a. Uncomplicated 1 Evidence: Among women with uncomplicated schistosomiasis, COC use had no adverse effects on liver function.[218–224]
b. Fibrosis of the liver (if severe, see recommendations for Cirrhosis) 1 —
Tuberculosis
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 Clarification: If a person is taking rifampin, see recommendations for Drug Interactions. Rifampin is likely to decrease COC effectiveness. The extent to which patch or ring use is similar to COC use in this regard remains unclear.
a. Nonpelvic 1
b. Pelvic 1
Malaria 1 —

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Endocrine Conditions
Diabetes
Insulin-dependent diabetes; diabetes
with nephropathy, retinopathy, or
neuropathy; diabetes with other vascular
disease; or diabetes of >20 years’
duration are associated with increased
risk for adverse health events as a result
of pregnancy (Box 3).
a. History of gestational disease 1 Evidence: The development of non–insulin-dependent diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes is not increased by use of COCs.[225–232] Likewise, lipid levels appear to be unaffected by COC use.[233–235]
b. Nonvascular disease Evidence: Among women with insulin-dependent or non–insulin-dependent diabetes, COC use had limited effect on daily insulin requirements and no effect on long-term diabetes control (e.g., glycosylated hemoglobin levels) or progression to retinopathy. Changes in lipid profile and hemostatic markers were limited, and most changes remained within normal values.[236–245]
   i. Non-insulin dependent 2 —
   ii. Insulin dependent 2 —
c. Nephropathy, retinopathy, or neuropathy 3/4 Clarification: The category should be assessed according to the severity of the condition.
d. Other vascular disease or diabetes of >20 years’ duration 3/4 Clarification: The category should be assessed according to the severity of the condition.
Thyroid disorders
a. Simple goiter 1 —
b. Hyperthyroid 1 —
c. Hypothyroid 1 —

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Gastrointestinal Conditions
Inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease) 2/3 Clarification: For persons with mild IBD and with no other risk factor for VTE, the benefits of CHC use generally outweigh the risks (category 2). However, for persons with IBD who are at increased risk for VTE (e.g., those with active or extensive disease, surgery, immobilization, corticosteroid use, vitamin deficiencies, or fluid depletion), the risks of CHC use generally outweigh the benefits (category 3).
Evidence: Risk for disease relapse was not significantly higher among women with IBD using oral contraceptives (most studies did not specify type) than among nonusers.[246] Absorption of COCs among women with mild ulcerative colitis and no or small ileal resections was similar to the absorption among healthy women.[246] Findings might not apply to women with Crohn’s disease or more extensive bowel resections. No data exist that evaluate the increased risk for VTE among women with IBD using CHCs. However, women with IBD are at higher risk than unaffected women for VTE.[246]
Gallbladder disease Comment: CHCs might cause a small increased risk for gallbladder disease. CHCs might worsen existing gallbladder disease.
a. Asymptomatic 2
b. Symptomatic
   i. Current 3
   ii. Treated by cholecystectomy 2
   iii. Medically treated 3
History of cholestasis
a. Pregnancy related 2 Comment: History of pregnancy-related cholestasis might predict an increased risk for COC-related cholestasis.
b. Past COC related 3 Comment: History of COC-related cholestasis predicts an increased risk with subsequent COC use.
Viral hepatitis Initiation Continuation —
a. Acute or flare 3/4 2 Clarification (initiation): The category should be assessed according to the severity of the condition.
Evidence: Limited evidence was identified on COC use among persons with acute viral hepatitis. Data suggest that in women with chronic viral hepatitis, COC use does not increase the risk or severity of fibrosis, nor does it increase the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. For women with chronic viral hepatitis, COC use does not appear to trigger severe liver dysfunction (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
Comment: Hepatic metabolism of exogenous hormones might be impaired in persons with liver dysfunction, which could lead to increased estrogen levels in circulation and estrogen-related side effects and adverse events (e.g., thrombosis).
b. Chronic 1 1 Evidence: Data suggest that in women with chronic viral hepatitis, COC use does not increase the risk or severity of fibrosis, nor does it increase the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. For women with chronic viral hepatitis, COC use does not appear to trigger severe liver dysfunction (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
Cirrhosis
Decompensated cirrhosis is associated
with increased risk for adverse health
events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).
a. Compensated (normal liver function) 1 Evidence: No direct evidence was identified on CHC use among persons with compensated cirrhosis (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
b. Decompensated (impaired liver function) 4 Evidence: No direct evidence was identified on CHC use among persons with decompensated cirrhosis (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
Comment: Hepatic metabolism of exogenous hormones might be impaired in persons with liver dysfunction, which could lead to increased estrogen levels in circulation and estrogen-related side effects and adverse events (e.g., thrombosis). Any estrogen-related hepatotoxicity might be less tolerated in persons with existing liver dysfunction.
Liver tumors
Hepatocellular adenoma and malignant
liver tumors are associated with increased
risk for adverse health events
as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).
a. Benign
   i. Focal nodular hyperplasia 2 Evidence: Limited evidence suggests that COC use does not influence either progression or regression of focal nodular hyperplasia (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
   ii. Hepatocellular adenoma 4 Evidence: Evidence suggests that COC use is associated with progression of hepatocellular adenoma growth, while COC discontinuation is associated with stability or regression (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
b. Malignant (hepatocellular carcinoma) 4 Evidence: No direct evidence was identified on CHC use among persons with hepatocellular carcinoma (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Respiratory Conditions
Cystic fibrosis
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 1 Clarification: Persons with cystic fibrosis are at increased risk for diabetes, liver disease, gallbladder disease, and VTE (particularly related to use of central venous catheters) and are frequently prescribed antibiotics. Categories assigned to such conditions in U.S. MEC should be the same for persons with cystic fibrosis who have these conditions. For cystic fibrosis, classifications are based on the assumption that no other conditions are present; these classifications must be modified in the presence of such conditions.
Clarification: Certain drugs to treat cystic fibrosis (e.g., lumacaftor) might reduce effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives, including oral, injectable, transdermal, and implantable contraceptives.
Evidence: Limited evidence suggests that use of COCs or oral contraceptives (type not specified) among women with cystic fibrosis is not associated with worsening of disease severity. Very limited evidence suggests that cystic fibrosis does not impair the effectiveness of hormonal contraception.[247]

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Hematologic Conditions
Thalassemia 1 Comment: Anecdotal evidence from countries where thalassemia is prevalent indicates that COC use does not worsen the condition.
Sickle cell disease
This condition is associated with increased risk for adverse health events as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).		 4 Evidence: Persons with sickle cell disease are at higher risk for stroke and venous thrombosis than the general population.[248–251] CHC use might further elevate risk for thrombosis among persons with sickle cell disease, but evidence is limited (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
Iron deficiency anemia 1 Comment: CHC use might decrease menstrual blood loss.

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Solid Organ Transplantation
Solid organ transplantation
This condition is associated with
increased risk for adverse health events
as a result of pregnancy (Box 3).
a. No graft failure 2 Clarification: Persons with transplant due to Budd-Chiari syndrome should not use CHCs because of the increased risk for thrombosis.
Evidence: Limited evidence among CHC users indicated no adverse events and no overall changes in biochemical parameters (e.g., blood pressure, cholesterol) and no pregnancies (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516). However, one study reported discontinuations of COC use in two (8%) of 26 women as a result of serious medical complications, including acute graft rejection (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).
b. Graft failure 4 Evidence: Limited evidence among CHC users indicated no adverse events and no overall changes in biochemical parameters (e.g., blood pressure, cholesterol) and no pregnancies (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516). However, one study reported discontinuations of COC use in two (8%) of 26 women as a result of serious medical complications, including acute graft rejection (Supplementary Appendix, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156516).

Back to Top

Table D1. Classifications for combined hormonal contraceptives, including pill, patch, and ring
Condition CHC Clarification/Evidence/Comment
Drug Interactions
Antiretrovirals used for prevention
(PrEP) or treatment of HIV infection		 Comment: These recommendations generally are for ARV agents used alone. However, most persons receiving ARV therapy are using multiple drugs in combination. In general, whether interactions between ARVs and hormonal contraceptives differ when ARVs are given alone or in combination is unknown.
See the following guidelines for the most up-to-date recommendations on drug-drug interactions between hormonal contraception and ARVs: 1) Recommendations for the Use of Antiretroviral Drugs During Pregnancy and Interventions to Reduce Perinatal HIV Transmission in the United States (https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/guidelines/perinatal/prepregnancy-counseling-childbearing-age-overview?view=full#table-3).[252] and 2) Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Adults and Adolescents with HIV (https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/guidelines/hiv-clinical-guidelines-adult-and-adolescent-arv/drug-interactions-overview?view=full).[253]
a. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase
inhibitors (NRTIs)
   i. Abacavir (ABC) 1 Evidence: NRTIs do not appear to have significant risk for interactions with hormonal contraceptive methods.[254–259]
   ii. Tenofovir (TDF) 1
   iii. Zidovudine (AZT) 1
   iv. Lamivudine (3TC) 1
   v. Didanosine (DDI) 1
   vi. Emtricitabine (FTC) 1
   vii. Stavudine (D4T) 1
b. Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase
inhibitors (NNRTIs)
   i. Efavirenz (EFV) 2 Clarification: Evidence suggests drug interactions between EFV and certain hormonal contraceptives. These interactions might reduce the effectiveness of the hormonal contraceptive.
Evidence: Two studies suggested that pregnancy rates might be higher among women using COCs and EFV compared with COCs alone, although one study found no difference in pregnancy rates.[260–262] Two studies found conflicting results on ovulations in women receiving COCs and EFV compared with EFV alone.[263],[264] Two pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated decreases in ethinyl estradiol and progestin concentrations in women receiving COCs and EFV compared with COCs alone.[264],[265] Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated generally no changes in EFV concentrations with concomitant COC use.[264–266]
   ii. Etravirine (ETR) 1 Evidence: One study demonstrated no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic changes in women using COCs and ETR compared with COCs alone.[267]
   iii. Nevirapine (NVP) 1 Evidence: Five studies found no significant differences in pregnancy rates among women using COCs and NVP compared with women using COCs alone.[260—262],[266],[268] Three studies reported no ovulations among women receiving COCs and NVP.[263],[268],[269] Two pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated decreased concentrations of ethinyl estradiol and progestin among women using COCs and NVP compared with COCs alone, and one study found no change in contraceptive hormone concentrations.[263],[269],[270] Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated generally no changes in NVP concentrations with concomitant COC use.[263],[270],[271]
   iv. Rilpivirine (RPV) 1 Evidence: One study demonstrated no clinical significant pharmacokinetic changes or adverse events in women using COCs and RPV compared with COCs alone.[272]
c. Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors
   i. Ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) 2 Clarification: Theoretically, drug interactions might occur between certain ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors and certain hormonal contraceptives that might reduce the effectiveness of the hormonal contraceptive.
Evidence: One pharmacokinetic study demonstrated decreased estrogen but increased progestin concentrations in women using COCs and ATV/r compared with COCs alone.[273]
   ii. Ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r) 2 Clarification: Theoretically, drug interactions might occur between certain ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors and certain hormonal contraceptives that might reduce the effectiveness of the hormonal contraceptive.
Evidence: One pharmacokinetic study demonstrated no change in follicle-stimulating hormone or luteinizing hormone but decreases in ethinyl estradiol and norethindrone in women using COCs with DRV/r compared with COCs alone.[274]
   iii. Ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir (FPV/r) 2 Clarification: Theoretically, drug interactions might occur between certain ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors and certain hormonal contraceptives that might reduce the effectiveness of the hormonal contraceptive.
Evidence: Information from the package label states that both ethinyl estradiol and norethindrone concentrations decreased with concurrent administration of COCs and FPV/r.[275]
   iv. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) 1 Evidence: One study demonstrated a nonsignificant increase in pregnancy rates among women using COCs and LPV/r compared with COCs alone.[260] One study demonstrated no ovulations in women using the combined hormonal patch and LPV/r compared with combined hormonal patch alone; ethinyl estradiol concentrations for COC and patch users decreased but norelgestromin concentrations increased with use of the patch.[276]
   v. Ritonavir-boosted saquinavir (SQV/r) 2 Clarification: Theoretically, drug interactions might occur between certain ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors and certain hormonal contraceptives that might reduce the effectiveness of the hormonal contraceptive.
Evidence: One pharmacokinetic study demonstrated no change in SQV concentrations in women using COC and SQV compared with COCs alone.[277]
   vi. Ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) 2 Clarification: Theoretically, drug interactions might occur between certain ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors and certain hormonal contraceptives that might reduce the effectiveness of the hormonal contraceptive.
Evidence: Information from the package label states that ethinyl estradiol concentrations decrease but norethindrone concentrations increased with concurrent administration of COCs and TPV/r.[278]
d. Protease inhibitors without ritonavir
  i. Atazanavir (ATV) 2 Clarification: Theoretical concern exists that increased levels of ethinyl estradiol because of interactions with ATV might increase the risk for adverse events.
Evidence: Information from the package label states that there are inconsistent changes in ethinyl estradiol concentrations and increases in progestin concentrations with concurrent administration of two different COCs and ATV.[279]
Comment: When ATV is administered with cobicistat, theoretical concern exists for a drug interaction with hormonal contraceptives. Cobicistat is an inhibitor of CYP3A and CYP2D6 and could theoretically increase contraceptive hormone levels. However, its effects on CYP enzymes and drug levels might vary when combined with other ARVs.
  ii. Fosamprenavir (FPV) 3 Clarification: Concern exists that interactions between FPV and hormonal contraceptives leading to decreased levels of FPV might diminish effectiveness of the ARV drug.
Evidence: Information from the package label states that amprenavir concentrations decreased with concurrent administration of COCs and amprenavir. Norethindrone concentrations increased and ethinyl estradiol concentrations did not change.[275]
  iii. Indinavir (IDV) 1 Evidence: One small study found no pregnancies in women using COCs and IDV.[262]
  iv. Nelfinavir (NFV) 2 Clarification: Evidence suggests drug interactions between certain protease inhibitors and certain hormonal contraceptives. These interactions might reduce the effectiveness of the hormonal contraceptive.
Evidence: One small study suggested that women using COCs and NFV might have had higher pregnancy rates than those using COCs alone.[262]
e. CCR5 co-receptor antagonists
   i. Maraviroc (MVC) 1 Evidence: COC concentrations were not altered by co-administration with MVC.[280]
f. HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitors
  i. Raltegravir (RAL) 1 Evidence: One pharmacokinetic study demonstrated increased concentrations of norgestimate and no change in ethinyl estradiol among women using COCs and RAL compared with COCs alone.[281]
  ii. Dolutegravir (DTG) 1 Evidence: One study demonstrated no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic changes in women using COCs and DTG compared with COCs alone.[282]
  iii. Elvitegravir (EVG) 1 Evidence: Information from the package label states that ethinyl estradiol concentrations decreased and norgestimate concentrations increased with concurrent administration of COCs and EVG.[283]
Comment: When EVG is administered with cobicistat, theoretical concern exists for a drug interaction with hormonal contraceptives. Cobicistat is an inhibitor of CYP3A and CYP2D6 and could theoretically increase contraceptive hormone levels. However, its effects on CYP enzymes and drug levels might vary when combined with other ARVs.
g. Fusion inhibitors
  i. Enfuvirtide 1 —
Anticonvulsant therapy
a. Certain anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, topiramate, oxcarbazepine) 3 Clarification: Although the interaction of certain anticonvulsants with CHCs is not harmful, it is likely to reduce the effectiveness of CHCs. Use of other contraceptives should be encouraged for persons who are long-term users of any of these drugs. When a COC is chosen, a preparation containing a minimum of 30 μg ethinyl estradiol should be used.
Evidence: Use of certain anticonvulsants might decrease the effectiveness of COCs.[284–288]
b. Lamotrigine 3 Clarification: The recommendation for lamotrigine applies only for situations where lamotrigine monotherapy is taken concurrently with COCs. Anticonvulsant treatment regimens that combine lamotrigine and non–enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (e.g., sodium valproate) do not interact with COCs.
Evidence: Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrate levels of lamotrigine decrease significantly during COC use.[288–293] Certain women who used both COCs and lamotrigine experienced increased seizure activity in one trial.[289]
Antimicrobial therapy
a. Broad-spectrum antibiotics 1 Evidence: Most broad-spectrum antibiotics do not affect the contraceptive effectiveness of COCs,[294–330] patch,[331] or ring.[332]
b. Antifungals 1 Evidence: Studies of antifungal agents have demonstrated no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions with COCs[333–342] or ring.[343]
c. Antiparasitics 1 Evidence: Studies of antiparasitic agents have demonstrated no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions with COCs.[218],[344–348]
d. Rifampin or rifabutin therapy 3 Clarification: Although the interaction of rifampin or rifabutin therapy with CHCs is not harmful, it is likely to reduce the effectiveness of CHCs. Use of other contraceptives should be encouraged for persons who are long-term users of either of these drugs. When a COC is chosen, a preparation containing a minimum of 30 μg ethinyl estradiol should be used.
Evidence: The balance of the evidence suggests that rifampin reduces the effectiveness of COCs.[349–363] Data on rifabutin are limited, but effects on metabolism of COCs are less than with rifampin, and small studies have not demonstrated evidence of ovulation.[351],[357]
Psychotropic medications Comment: For many common psychotropic agents, limited or no theoretical concern exists for clinically significant drug interactions when co-administered with hormonal contraceptives. However, either no or very limited data exist examining potential interactions for these classes of medications. For psychotropic agents that are CYP1A2 substrates (e.g., duloxetine, mirtazapine, ziprasidone, olanzapine, clomipramine, imipramine, and amitriptyline), co-administration with CHCs could theoretically yield increased concentrations of the psychotropic drug. For agents with narrow therapeutic windows (e.g., tricyclic antidepressants), increased drug concentrations might pose safety concerns that could necessitate closer monitoring.
a. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) 1 Evidence: Limited clinical and pharmacokinetic data do not demonstrate concern for SSRIs decreasing the effectiveness of oral contraceptives. Limited evidence suggests that for women taking SSRIs, the use of hormonal contraceptives was not associated with differences in effectiveness of the SSRI for treatment or in adverse events when compared with women not taking hormonal contraceptives.[364]
Comment: Drugs that are inhibitors of CYP3A4 or CYP2C9 theoretically have the potential to increase levels of contraceptive steroids which might increase adverse events. Fluvoxamine is an SSRI known to be a moderate inhibitor of both CYP3A4 and CYP2C9; however, no clinical or pharmacokinetic studies were identified to explore potential drug-drug interactions.
St. John’s wort 2 Evidence: Although clinical data are limited, studies with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics outcomes raise concern that St. John’s wort might decrease effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives, including increased risk for breakthrough bleeding and ovulation and increased metabolism of estrogen and progestins. Any interactions might be dependent on the dose of St. John’s wort, and the concentration of active ingredients across types of St. John’s wort preparations might vary.[365]

Abbreviations: ARV = antiretroviral; BMD = bone mineral density; BMI = body mass index; CHC = combined hormonal contraceptive; CKD = chronic kidney disease; COC = combined oral contraceptive; Cu-IUD = copper intrauterine device; CYP = cytochrome P450; DMPA = depot medroxyprogesterone acetate; DRSP = drospirenone; DVT = deep venous thrombosis; hCG = human chorionic gonadotropin; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; IBD = inflammatory bowel disease; IM = intramuscular; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; LNG = levonorgestrel; LNG-IUD = levonorgestrel intrauterine device; NA = not applicable; PE = pulmonary embolism; PID = pelvic inflammatory disease; POC = progestin-only contraceptive; POP = progestin-only pill; PrEP = pre-exposure prophylaxis; RCT = randomized clinical trial; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus; STI = sexually transmitted infection; U.S. MEC = U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use; U.S. SPR = U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use; VTE = venous thromboembolism.

Back to Top

References

  1. Abrams LS, Skee DM, Natarajan J, Wong FA, Lasseter KC. Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of a contraceptive patch in healthy women participants. Contraception 2001;64:287–94. PMID:11777488 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00273-6
  2. Ahrendt HJ, Nisand I, Bastianelli C, et al. Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 microg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. Contraception 2006;74:451–7. PMID:17157101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.07.004
  3. Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD, et al.; ORTHO EVRA/EVRA 004 Study Group. Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;285:2347–54. PMID:11343482 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.18.2347
  4. Bjarnadóttir RI, Tuppurainen M, Killick SR. Comparison of cycle control with a combined contraceptive vaginal ring and oral levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:389–95. PMID:11904596 https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.121103
  5. Boonyarangkul A, Taneepanichskul S. Comparison of cycle control and side effects between transdermal contraceptive patch and an oral contraceptive in women older than 35 years. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:1715–9. PMID:17957909
  6. Burkman RT. The transdermal contraceptive patch: a new approach to hormonal contraception. Int J Fertil Womens Med 2002;47:69–76. PMID:11991433
  7. Cole JA, Norman H, Doherty M, Walker AM. Venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke among transdermal contraceptive system users. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:339–46. PMID:17267834 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000250968.82370.04
  8. Devineni D, Skee D, Vaccaro N, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a transdermal contraceptive patch and an oral contraceptive. J Clin Pharmacol 2007;47:497–509. PMID:17389559 https://doi.org/10.1177/0091270006297919
  9. Dieben TOM, Roumen FJME, Apter D. Efficacy, cycle control, and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:585–93. PMID:12220783
  10. Dittrich R, Parker L, Rosen JB, Shangold G, Creasy GW, Fisher AC; Ortho Evra/Evra 001 Study Group. Transdermal contraception: evaluation of three transdermal norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol doses in a randomized, multicenter, dose-response study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:15–20. PMID:11810078 https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.118844

    11. Back to Top

  11. Duijkers I, Killick S, Bigrigg A, Dieben TOM. A comparative study on the effects of a contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing and an oral contraceptive on carbohydrate metabolism and adrenal and thyroid function. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2004;9:131–40. PMID:15697102 https://doi.org/10.1080/13625180400007199
  12. Duijkers IJ, Klipping C, Verhoeven CH, Dieben TOM. Ovarian function with the contraceptive vaginal ring or an oral contraceptive: a randomized study. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2668–73. PMID:15333593 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh493
  13. Elkind-Hirsch KE, Darensbourg C, Ogden B, Ogden LF, Hindelang P. Contraceptive vaginal ring use for women has less adverse metabolic effects than an oral contraceptive. Contraception 2007;76:348–56. PMID:17963858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.08.001
  14. Hedon B, Helmerhorst FM, Cronje HS, et al.; The EVRA 003 Study Group. Comparison of efficacy, cycle control, compliance and safety in users of a contraceptive patch versus an oral contraceptive. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000;70:78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(00)85161-9
  15. Jick S, Kaye JA, Li L, Jick H. Further results on the risk of nonfatal venous thromboembolism in users of the contraceptive transdermal patch compared to users of oral contraceptives containing norgestimate and 35 microg of ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 2007;76:4–7. PMID:17586129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.03.003
  16. Jick SS, Jick H. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in users of four hormonal contraceptives: levonorgestrel-containing oral contraceptives, norgestimate-containing oral contraceptives, desogestrel-containing oral contraceptives and the contraceptive patch. Contraception 2006;74:290–2. PMID:16982227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.05.071
  17. Jick SS, Jick H. The contraceptive patch in relation to ischemic stroke and acute myocardial infarction. Pharmacotherapy 2007;27:218–20. PMID:17253912 https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.27.2.218
  18. Jick SS, Kaye JA, Russmann S, Jick H. Risk of nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using a contraceptive transdermal patch and oral contraceptives containing norgestimate and 35 microg of ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 2006;73:223–8. PMID:16472560 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.01.001
  19. Magnusdóttir EM, Bjarnadóttir RI, Onundarson PT, et al. The contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) and hemostasis: a comparative study. Contraception 2004;69:461–7. PMID:15157790 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2003.12.010
  20. Massai R, Mäkäräinen L, Kuukankorpi A, Klipping C, Duijkers I, Dieben T. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring and bone mineral density in healthy pre-menopausal women. Hum Reprod 2005;20:2764–8. PMID:15980008 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei117

    21. Back to Top

  21. Milsom I, Lete I, Bjertnaes A, et al. Effects on cycle control and bodyweight of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, versus an oral contraceptive containing 30 microg ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg drospirenone. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2304–11. PMID:16763008 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del162
  22. Oddsson K, Leifels-Fischer B, de Melo NR, et al. Efficacy and safety of a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with a combined oral contraceptive: a 1-year randomized trial. Contraception 2005;71:176–82. PMID:15722066 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2004.09.001
  23. Pierson RA, Archer DF, Moreau M, Shangold GA, Fisher AC, Creasy GW. Ortho Evra/Evra versus oral contraceptives: follicular development and ovulation in normal cycles and after an intentional dosing error. Fertil Steril 2003;80:34–42. PMID:12849799 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00556-9
  24. Radowicki S, Skórzewska K, Szlendak K. [Safety evaluation of a transdermal contraceptive system with an oral contraceptive]. Ginekol Pol 2005;76:884–9. PMID:16566363
  25. Sabatini R, Cagiano R. Comparison profiles of cycle control, side effects and sexual satisfaction of three hormonal contraceptives. Contraception 2006;74:220–3. PMID:16904415 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.03.022
  26. Smallwood GH, Meador ML, Lenihan JP Jr, Shangold GA, Fisher AC, Creasy GW; ORTHO EVRA/EVRA 002 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of a transdermal contraceptive system. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:799–805. PMID:11704172 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200111000-00016
  27. Timmer CJ, Mulders TM. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol released from a combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000;39:233–42. PMID:11020137 https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200039030-00005
  28. Tuppurainen M, Klimscheffskij R, Venhola M, Dieben TOM. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) and lipid metabolism: a comparative study. Contraception 2004;69:389–94. PMID:15105061 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2004.01.004
  29. Urdl W, Apter D, Alperstein A, et al.; ORTHO EVRA/EVRA 003 Study Group. Contraceptive efficacy, compliance and beyond: factors related to satisfaction with once-weekly transdermal compared with oral contraception. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;121:202–10. PMID:16054963 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.01.021
  30. van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJM, Alnabawy AKM, Kaptein MCJ. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception 2005;72:168–74. PMID:16102549 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2005.03.005

    31. Back to Top

  31. Veres S, Miller L, Burington B. A comparison between the vaginal ring and oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:555–63. PMID:15339769 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000136082.59644.13
  32. White T, Ozel B, Jain JK, Stanczyk FZ. Effects of transdermal and oral contraceptives on estrogen-sensitive hepatic proteins. Contraception 2006;74:293–6. PMID:16982228 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.04.005
  33. Zieman M, Guillebaud J, Weisberg E, Shangold GA, Fisher AC, Creasy GW. Contraceptive efficacy and cycle control with the Ortho Evra/Evra transdermal system: the analysis of pooled data. Fertil Steril 2002;77(Suppl 2):S13–8. PMID:11849631 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)03275-7
  34. Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70(No. RR-4):1–187. PMID:34292926 https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1
  35. CDC. US Public Health Service preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2021 update: a clinical practice guideline. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2021.pdf
  36. Memon S, Iversen L, Hannaford PC. Is the oral contraceptive pill associated with fracture in later life? New evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners Oral Contraception Study. Contraception 2011;84:40–7. PMID:21664509 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.11.019
  37. Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Fracture risk in very young women using combined oral contraceptives. Contraception 2008;78:358–64. PMID:18929731 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.06.010
  38. Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Oral contraceptive use and risk of fractures. Contraception 2006;73:571–6. PMID:16730486 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.01.006
  39. Barad D, Kooperberg C, Wactawski-Wende J, Liu J, Hendrix SL, Watts NB. Prior oral contraception and postmenopausal fracture: a Women’s Health Initiative observational cohort study. Fertil Steril 2005;84:374–83. PMID:16084878 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.132
  40. Michaëlsson K, Baron JA, Farahmand BY, Ljunghall S. Influence of parity and lactation on hip fracture risk. Am J Epidemiol 2001;153:1166–72. PMID:11415951 https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/153.12.1166

    41. Back to Top

  41. Michaëlsson K, Baron JA, Farahmand BY, Persson I, Ljunghall S. Oral-contraceptive use and risk of hip fracture: a case-control study. Lancet 1999;353:1481–4. PMID:10232314 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09044-8
  42. La Vecchia C, Tavani A, Gallus S. Oral contraceptives and risk of hip fractures. Lancet 1999;354:335–6. PMID:10440332 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)75239-9
  43. Vessey M, Mant J, Painter R. Oral contraception and other factors in relation to hospital referral for fracture. Findings in a large cohort study. Contraception 1998;57:231–5. PMID:9649913 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00026-2
  44. O’Neill TW, Marsden D, Adams JE, Silman AJ. Risk factors, falls, and fracture of the distal forearm in Manchester, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:288–92. PMID:8935460 https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.50.3.288
  45. Mallmin H, Ljunghall S, Persson I, Bergström R. Risk factors for fractures of the distal forearm: a population-based case-control study. Osteoporos Int 1994;4:298–304. PMID:7696821 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01622186
  46. Cooper C, Hannaford P, Croft P, Kay CR. Oral contraceptive pill use and fractures in women: a prospective study. Bone 1993;14:41–5. PMID:8443001 https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(93)90254-8
  47. Meier C, Brauchli YB, Jick SS, Kraenzlin ME, Meier CR. Use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and fracture risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95:4909–16. PMID:20685865 https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-0032
  48. Cibula D, Skrenkova J, Hill M, Stepan JJ. Low-dose estrogen combined oral contraceptives may negatively influence physiological bone mineral density acquisition during adolescence. Eur J Endocrinol 2012;166:1003–11. PMID:22436400 https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-11-1047
  49. Gai L, Jia Y, Zhang M, et al. Effect of two kinds of different combined oral contraceptives use on bone mineral density in adolescent women. Contraception 2012;86:332–6. PMID:22364818 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.01.009
  50. Scholes D, Hubbard RA, Ichikawa LE, et al. Oral contraceptive use and bone density change in adolescent and young adult women: a prospective study of age, hormone dose, and discontinuation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:E1380–7. PMID:21752879 https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-3027

    51. Back to Top

  1. Lattakova M, Borovsky M, Payer J, Killinger Z. Oral contraception usage in relation to bone mineral density and bone turnover in adolescent girls. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2009;14:207–14. PMID:19565418 https://doi.org/10.1080/13625180902838828
  2. Beksinska ME, Kleinschmidt I, Smit JA, Farley TMM. Bone mineral density in a cohort of adolescents during use of norethisterone enanthate, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate or combined oral contraceptives and after discontinuation of norethisterone enanthate. Contraception 2009;79:345–9. PMID:19341845 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.009
  3. Pikkarainen E, Lehtonen-Veromaa M, Möttönen T, Kautiainen H, Viikari J. Estrogen-progestin contraceptive use during adolescence prevents bone mass acquisition: a 4-year follow-up study. Contraception 2008;78:226–31. PMID:18692613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.05.002
  4. Cromer BA, Bonny AE, Stager M, et al. Bone mineral density in adolescent females using injectable or oral contraceptives: a 24-month prospective study. Fertil Steril 2008;90:2060–7. PMID:18222431 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.070
  5. Berenson AB, Rahman M, Breitkopf CR, Bi LX. Effects of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and 20-microgram oral contraceptives on bone mineral density. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:788–99. PMID:18827121 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181875b78
  6. Harel Z, Riggs S, Vaz R, Flanagan P, Harel D, Machan JT. Bone accretion in adolescents using the combined estrogen and progestin transdermal contraceptive method Ortho Evra: a pilot study. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2010;23:23–31. PMID:19647454 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2009.04.008
  7. Cobb KL, Bachrach LK, Sowers M, et al. The effect of oral contraceptives on bone mass and stress fractures in female runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39:1464–73. PMID:17805075 https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e318074e532
  8. Beksinska ME, Kleinschmidt I, Smit JA, Farley TMM. Bone mineral density in adolescents using norethisterone enanthate, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate or combined oral contraceptives for contraception. Contraception 2007;75:438–43. PMID:17519149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.02.001
  9. Lara-Torre E, Edwards CP, Perlman S, Hertweck SP. Bone mineral density in adolescent females using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2004;17:17–21. PMID:15010034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2003.11.017
  10. Cromer BA, Blair JM, Mahan JD, Zibners L, Naumovski Z. A prospective comparison of bone density in adolescent girls receiving depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera), levonorgestrel (Norplant), or oral contraceptives. J Pediatr 1996;129:671–6. PMID:8917232 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(96)70148-8

    11. Back to Top

  11. Polatti F, Perotti F, Filippa N, Gallina D, Nappi RE. Bone mass and long-term monophasic oral contraceptive treatment in young women. Contraception 1995;51:221–4. PMID:7796586 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(95)00036-A
  12. Sørdal T, Grob P, Verhoeven C. Effects on bone mineral density of a monophasic combined oral contraceptive containing nomegestrol acetate/17β-estradiol in comparison to levonorgestrel/ethinylestradiol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:1279–85. PMID:22762147 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01498.x
  13. Gargano V, Massaro M, Morra I, Formisano C, Di Carlo C, Nappi C. Effects of two low-dose combined oral contraceptives containing drospirenone on bone turnover and bone mineral density in young fertile women: a prospective controlled randomized study. Contraception 2008;78:10–5. PMID:18555812 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.01.016
  14. Nappi C, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Greco E, Tommaselli GA, Giordano E, Guida M. Effects of an oral contraceptive containing drospirenone on bone turnover and bone mineral density. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:53–60. PMID:15625142 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000148344.26475.fc
  15. Berenson AB, Radecki CM, Grady JJ, Rickert VI, Thomas A. A prospective, controlled study of the effects of hormonal contraception on bone mineral density. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:576–82. PMID:11576570 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01495-8
  16. Berenson AB, Breitkopf CR, Grady JJ, Rickert VI, Thomas A. Effects of hormonal contraception on bone mineral density after 24 months of use. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:899–906. PMID:15121563 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000117082.49490.d5
  17. Elgán C, Samsioe G, Dykes AK. Influence of smoking and oral contraceptives on bone mineral density and bone remodeling in young women: a 2-year study. Contraception 2003;67:439–47. PMID:12814812 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00048-9
  18. Elgán C, Dykes AK, Samsioe G. Bone mineral density changes in young women: a two year study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2004;19:169–77. PMID:15724798 https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590400012119
  19. Endrikat J, Mih E, Düsterberg B, et al. A 3-year double-blind, randomized, controlled study on the influence of two oral contraceptives containing either 20 microg or 30 microg ethinylestradiol in combination with levonorgestrel on bone mineral density. Contraception 2004;69:179–87. PMID:14969664 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2003.10.002
  20. Paoletti AM, Orrù M, Lello S, et al. Short-term variations in bone remodeling markers of an oral contraception formulation containing 3 mg of drospirenone plus 30 microg of ethinyl estradiol: observational study in young postadolescent women. Contraception 2004;70:293–8. PMID:15451333 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2004.04.004

    21. Back to Top

  21. Nappi C, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Acunzo G, et al. Effects of a low-dose and ultra-low-dose combined oral contraceptive use on bone turnover and bone mineral density in young fertile women: a prospective controlled randomized study. Contraception 2003;67:355–9. PMID:12742557 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00025-8
  22. Reed SD, Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Ichikawa LE, Barlow WE, Ott SM. Longitudinal changes in bone density in relation to oral contraceptive use. Contraception 2003;68:177–82. PMID:14561537 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00147-1
  23. Cobb KL, Kelsey JL, Sidney S, Ettinger B, Lewis CE. Oral contraceptives and bone mineral density in white and black women in CARDIA. Coronary Risk Development in Young Adults. Osteoporos Int 2002;13:893–900. PMID:12415437 https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980200123
  24. Burr DB, Yoshikawa T, Teegarden D, et al. Exercise and oral contraceptive use suppress the normal age-related increase in bone mass and strength of the femoral neck in women 18–31 years of age. Bone 2000;27:855–63. PMID:11113398 https://doi.org/10.1016/S8756-3282(00)00403-8
  25. Recker RR, Davies KM, Hinders SM, Heaney RP, Stegman MR, Kimmel DB. Bone gain in young adult women. JAMA 1992;268:2403–8. PMID:1404797 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03490170075028
  26. Mazess RB, Barden HS. Bone density in premenopausal women: effects of age, dietary intake, physical activity, smoking, and birth-control pills. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;53:132–42. PMID:1984338 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/53.1.132
  27. Gambacciani M, Cappagli B, Lazzarini V, Ciaponi M, Fruzzetti F, Genazzani AR. Longitudinal evaluation of perimenopausal bone loss: effects of different low dose oral contraceptive preparations on bone mineral density. Maturitas 2006;54:176–80. PMID:16332417 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2005.10.007
  28. Gambacciani M, Spinetti A, Taponeco F, Cappagli B, Piaggesi L, Fioretti P. Longitudinal evaluation of perimenopausal vertebral bone loss: effects of a low-dose oral contraceptive preparation on bone mineral density and metabolism. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:392–6. PMID:8127531
  29. Gambacciani M, Spinetti A, Cappagli B, et al. Hormone replacement therapy in perimenopausal women with a low dose oral contraceptive preparation: effects on bone mineral density and metabolism. Maturitas 1994;19:125–31. PMID:7968645 https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5122(94)90062-0
  30. Gambacciani M, Cappagli B, Ciaponi M, Benussi C, Genazzani AR. Hormone replacement therapy in perimenopause: effect of a low dose oral contraceptive preparation on bone quantitative ultrasound characteristics. Menopause 1999;6:43–8. PMID:10100179 https://doi.org/10.1097/00042192-199906010-00009

    31. Back to Top

  31. Volpe A, Malmusi S, Zanni AL, Landi S, Cagnacci A. Oral contraceptives and bone metabolism. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1997;2:225–8. PMID:9678077 https://doi.org/10.3109/13625189709165298
  32. Hansen MA, Overgaard K, Riis BJ, Christiansen C. Potential risk factors for development of postmenopausal osteoporosis—examined over a 12-year period. Osteoporos Int 1991;1:95–102. PMID:1790399 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880450
  33. Shargil AA. Hormone replacement therapy in perimenopausal women with a triphasic contraceptive compound: a three-year prospective study. Int J Fertil 1985;30:15–18–28, 18–28. PMID:2862116
  34. Taechakraichana N, Limpaphayom K, Ninlagarn T, Panyakhamlerd K, Chaikittisilpa S, Dusitsin N. A randomized trial of oral contraceptive and hormone replacement therapy on bone mineral density and coronary heart disease risk factors in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:87–94. PMID:10636509
  35. Taechakraichana N, Jaisamrarn U, Panyakhamlerd K, Chaikittisilpa S, Limpaphayom K. Difference in bone acquisition among hormonally treated postmenopausal women with normal and low bone mass. J Med Assoc Thai 2001;84(Suppl 2):S586–92. PMID:11853286
  36. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Surrogate end points in clinical research: hazardous to your health. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:1114–8. PMID:15863552 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000157445.67309.19
  37. Schönau E. The peak bone mass concept: is it still relevant? Pediatr Nephrol 2004;19:825–31. PMID:15197638 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-004-1465-5
  38. Cohen A, Shane E. Treatment of premenopausal women with low bone mineral density. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2008;6:39–46. PMID:18430399 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-008-0007-7
  39. US Department of Agriculture; US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services; 2020. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf
  40. Meek JY, Noble L; Section on Breastfeeding. Policy statement: breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics 2022;150:e2022057988. PMID:35921640 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-057988

    41. Back to Top

  41. Tepper NK, Phillips SJ, Kapp N, Gaffield ME, Curtis KM. Combined hormonal contraceptive use among breastfeeding women: an updated systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:262–74. PMID:26002804 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.05.006
  42. Petersen JF, Bergholt T, Nielsen AK, Paidas MJ, Løkkegaard EC. Combined hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism within the first year following pregnancy. Danish nationwide historical cohort 1995–2009. Thromb Haemost 2014;112:73–8. PMID:24499991 https://doi.org/10.1160/TH13-09-0797
  43. Jackson E, Curtis KM, Gaffield ME. Risk of venous thromboembolism during the postpartum period: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:691–703. PMID:21343773 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ce2db
  44. Kamel H, Navi BB, Sriram N, Hovsepian DA, Devereux RB, Elkind MS. Risk of a thrombotic event after the 6-week postpartum period. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1307–15. PMID:24524551 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1311485
  45. Sultan AA, Tata LJ, West J, et al. Risk factors for first venous thromboembolism around pregnancy: a population-based cohort study from the United Kingdom. Blood 2013;121:3953–61. PMID:23550034 https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-11-469551
  46. Sultan AA, West J, Tata LJ, Fleming KM, Nelson-Piercy C, Grainge MJ. Risk of first venous thromboembolism in and around pregnancy: a population-based cohort study. Br J Haematol 2012;156:366–73. PMID:22145820 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08956.x
  47. Tepper NK, Boulet SL, Whiteman MK, et al. Postpartum venous thromboembolism: incidence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:987–96. PMID:24785851 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000230
  48. Jackson E, Glasier A. Return of ovulation and menses in postpartum nonlactating women: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:657–62. PMID:21343770 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ce18c
  49. Kim C, Nguyen AT, Berry-Bibee E, Ermias Y, Gaffield ME, Kapp N. Systemic hormonal contraception initiation after abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contraception 2021;103:291–304. PMID:33548267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.01.017
  50. Gaffield ME, Kapp N, Ravi A. Use of combined oral contraceptives post abortion. Contraception 2009;80:355–62. PMID:19751858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2009.04.005

    51. Back to Top

  1. Gillum LA, Mamidipudi SK, Johnston SC. Ischemic stroke risk with oral contraceptives: A meta-analysis. JAMA 2000;284:72–8. PMID:10872016 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.1.72
  2. Jick SS, Walker AM, Stergachis A, Jick H. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1989;59:618–21. PMID:2713248 https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1989.125
  3. Khader YS, Rice J, John L, Abueita O. Oral contraceptives use and the risk of myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Contraception 2003;68:11–7. PMID:12878281 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00073-8
  4. Lawson DH, Davidson JF, Jick H. Oral contraceptive use and venous thromboembolism: absence of an effect of smoking. BMJ 1977;2:729–30. PMID:334332 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.6089.729
  5. Lidegaard O, Edström B, Kreiner S. Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism. A case-control study. Contraception 1998;57:291–301. PMID:9673836 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00033-X
  6. Nightingale AL, Lawrenson RA, Simpson EL, Williams TJ, MacRae KD, Farmer RD. The effects of age, body mass index, smoking and general health on the risk of venous thromboembolism in users of combined oral contraceptives. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000;5:265–74. PMID:11245554 https://doi.org/10.1080/13625180008500402
  7. Petitti DB, Wingerd J, Pellegrin F, Ramcharan S. Risk of vascular disease in women. Smoking, oral contraceptives, noncontraceptive estrogens, and other factors. JAMA 1979;242:1150–4. PMID:470067 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1979.03300110022020
  8. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Rao RS, Shapiro S. Low-dose oral contraceptive use and the risk of myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1065–70. PMID:11322840 https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.8.1065
  9. Straneva P, Hinderliter A, Wells E, Lenahan H, Girdler S. Smoking, oral contraceptives, and cardiovascular reactivity to stress. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:78–83. PMID:10636507 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00497-4
  10. Tanis BC, van den Bosch MA, Kemmeren JM, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1787–93. PMID:11752354 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa003216

    11. Back to Top

  11. Van den bosch MAAJ, Kemmeren JM, Tanis BC, et al. The RATIO study: oral contraceptives and the risk of peripheral arterial disease in young women. J Thromb Hemost 2003;1:439–44. PMID:12871447 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1538-7836.2003.00079.x
  12. 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;346:1575–82. PMID:7500748 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91926-0
  13. Collaborative Group for the Study of Stroke in Young Women. Oral contraceptives and stroke in young women. Associated risk factors. JAMA 1975;231:718–22. PMID:1172861 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1975.03240190022010
  14. Horton LG, Simmons KB, Curtis KM. Combined hormonal contraceptive use among obese women and risk for cardiovascular events: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:590–604. PMID:27263039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.014
  15. Schink T, Princk C, Braitmaier M, Haug U. Use of combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolism in young women: a nested case-control analysis using German claims data. BJOG 2022;129:2107–16. PMID:35876787 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17268
  16. Traven SA, McGurk KM, Althoff AD, et al. Resident level involvement affects operative time and surgical complications in lower extremity fracture care. J Surg Educ 2021;78:1755–61. PMID:33903063 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.03.004
  17. Brunner Huber LR, Hogue CJ, Stein AD, Drews C, Zieman M. Body mass index and risk for oral contraceptive failure: a case-cohort study in South Carolina. Ann Epidemiol 2006;16:637–43. PMID:16516489 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.01.001
  18. Brunner Huber LR, Toth JL. Obesity and oral contraceptive failure: findings from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:1306–11. PMID:17785712 https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm221
  19. Brunner LR, Hogue CJ. The role of body weight in oral contraceptive failure: results from the 1995 national survey of family growth. Ann Epidemiol 2005;15:492–9. PMID:16029841 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2004.10.009
  20. Holt VL, Cushing-Haugen KL, Daling JR. Body weight and risk of oral contraceptive failure. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:820–7. PMID:11978293 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(02)01939-7

    21. Back to Top

  21. Holt VL, Scholes D, Wicklund KG, Cushing-Haugen KL, Daling JR. Body mass index, weight, and oral contraceptive failure risk. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:46–52. PMID:15625141 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000149155.11912.52
  22. Trussell J, Schwarz EB, Guthrie K. Obesity and oral contraceptive pill failure. Contraception 2009;79:334–8. PMID:19341843 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.017
  23. Vessey M. Oral contraceptive failures and body weight: findings in a large cohort study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2001;27:90–1. PMID:12457519 https://doi.org/10.1783/147118901101195092
  24. Yamazaki M, Dwyer K, Sobhan M, et al. Effect of obesity on the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Contraception 2015;92:445–52. PMID:26247330 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.07.016
  25. Dragoman MV, Simmons KB, Paulen ME, Curtis KM. Combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) use among obese women and contraceptive effectiveness: a systematic review. Contraception 2017;95:117–29. PMID:27823942 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.10.010
  26. Paulen ME, Zapata LB, Cansino C, Curtis KM, Jamieson DJ. Contraceptive use among women with a history of bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Contraception 2010;82:86–94. PMID:20682146 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.008
  27. Curtis KM, Nguyen AT, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2024. MMWR Recomm Rep 2024;73(No. RR-3):1–77.
  28. Lidegaard Ø, Edström B, Kreiner S. Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism: a five-year national case-control study. Contraception 2002;65:187–96. PMID:11929640 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00307-9
  29. Croft P, Hannaford PC. Risk factors for acute myocardial infarction in women: evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners’ oral contraception study. BMJ 1989;298:165–8. PMID:2493841 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.298.6667.165
  30. D’Avanzo B, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Parazzini F, Franceschi S. Oral contraceptive use and risk of myocardial infarction: an Italian case-control study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994;48:324–5. PMID:8051537 https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.48.3.324

    31. Back to Top

  31. Dunn NR, Faragher B, Thorogood M, et al. Risk of myocardial infarction in young female smokers. Heart 1999;82:581–3. PMID:10525513 https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.82.5.581
  32. Hannaford PC, Croft PR, Kay CR. Oral contraception and stroke. Evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners’ Oral Contraception Study. Stroke 1994;25:935–42. PMID:8165687 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.25.5.935
  33. Heinemann LA, Lewis MA, Spitzer WO, Thorogood M, Guggenmoos-Holzmann I, Bruppacher R; Transnational Research Group on Oral Contraceptives and the Health of Young Women. Thromboembolic stroke in young women. A European case-control study on oral contraceptives. Contraception 1998;57:29–37. PMID:9554248 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(97)00204-7
  34. Kemmeren JM, Tanis BC, van den Bosch MA, et al. Risk of Arterial Thrombosis in Relation to Oral Contraceptives (RATIO) study: oral contraceptives and the risk of ischemic stroke. Stroke 2002;33:1202–8. PMID:11988591 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000015345.61324.3F
  35. Lewis MA, Heinemann LA, Spitzer WO, MacRae KD, Bruppacher R. The use of oral contraceptives and the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction in young women. Results from the Transnational Study on Oral Contraceptives and the Health of Young Women. Contraception 1997;56:129–40. PMID:9347202 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(97)00118-2
  36. Lidegaard O. Oral contraception and risk of a cerebral thromboembolic attack: results of a case-control study. BMJ 1993;306:956–63. PMID:8490470 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6883.956
  37. Lidegaard O. Oral contraceptives, pregnancy and the risk of cerebral thromboembolism: the influence of diabetes, hypertension, migraine and previous thrombotic disease. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:153–9. PMID:7756208 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb09070.x
  38. Lubianca JN, Faccin CS, Fuchs FD. Oral contraceptives: a risk factor for uncontrolled blood pressure among hypertensive women. Contraception 2003;67:19–24. PMID:12521653 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00429-8
  39. Narkiewicz K, Graniero GR, D’Este D, Mattarei M, Zonzin P, Palatini P. Ambulatory blood pressure in mild hypertensive women taking oral contraceptives. A case-control study. Am J Hypertens 1995;8:249–53. PMID:7794573 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7061(95)96212-3
  40. Siritho S, Thrift AG, McNeil JJ, You RX, Davis SM, Donnan GA; Melbourne Risk Factor Study (MERFS) Group. Risk of ischemic stroke among users of the oral contraceptive pill: The Melbourne Risk Factor Study (MERFS) Group. Stroke 2003;34:1575–80. PMID:12805499 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000077925.16041.6B

    41. Back to Top

  41. WHO Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Ischaemic stroke and combined oral contraceptives: results of an international, multicentre, case-control study. Lancet 1996;348:498–505. PMID:8757151 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)12393-8
  42. WHO Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Acute myocardial infarction and combined oral contraceptives: results of an international multicentre case-control study. Lancet 1997;349:1202–9. PMID:9130941 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02358-1
  43. Lubianca JN, Moreira LB, Gus M, Fuchs FD. Stopping oral contraceptives: an effective blood pressure-lowering intervention in women with hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2005;19:451–5. PMID:15759027 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001841
  44. Aberg H, Karlsson L, Melander S. Studies on toxaemia of pregnancy with special reference to blood pressure. II. Results after 6-11 years’ follow-up. Ups J Med Sci 1978;83:97–102. PMID:664120 https://doi.org/10.3109/03009737809179119
  45. Carmichael SM, Taylor MM, Ayers CR. Oral contraceptives, hypertension, and toxemia. Obstet Gynecol 1970;35:371–6. PMID:4190423
  46. Meinel H, Ihle R, Laschinski M. [Effect of hormonal contraceptives on blood pressure following pregnancy-induced hypertension]. Zentralbl Gynakol 1987;109:527–31. PMID:3604495
  47. Pritchard JA, Pritchard SA. Blood pressure response to estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive after pregnancy-induced hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1977;129:733–9. PMID:607805 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(77)90390-8
  48. Sibai BM, Taslimi MM, el-Nazer A, Amon E, Mabie BC, Ryan GM. Maternal-perinatal outcome associated with the syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets in severe preeclampsia-eclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:501–9. PMID:3529964 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(86)90266-8
  49. Sibai BM, Ramadan MK, Chari RS, Friedman SA. Pregnancies complicated by HELLP syndrome (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets): subsequent pregnancy outcome and long-term prognosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:125–9. PMID:7847520 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(95)90099-3
  50. WHO Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Haemorrhagic stroke, overall stroke risk, and combined oral contraceptives: results of an international, multicentre, case-control study. Lancet 1996;348:505–10. PMID:8757152 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)12394-6

    51. Back to Top

  1. Martinelli I, Lensing AW, Middeldorp S, et al. Recurrent venous thromboembolism and abnormal uterine bleeding with anticoagulant and hormone therapy use. Blood 2016;127:1417–25. PMID:26696010 https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2015-08-665927
  2. Barbhaiya M, Zuily S, Naden R, et al.; ACR/EULAR APS Classification Criteria Collaborators. The 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria. Arthritis Rheumatol 2023;75:1687–702. PMID:37635643 https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42624
  3. Tepper NK, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Superficial venous disease and combined hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:275–9. PMID:25835269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.03.010
  4. Tepper NK, Paulen ME, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Safety of contraceptive use among women with peripartum cardiomyopathy: a systematic review. Contraception 2010;82:95–101. PMID:20682147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.004
  5. The Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association. Nomenclature and criteria for diagnosis of diseases of the heart and great vessels. 9th ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co; 1994.
  6. Molnar AO, Bota SE, McArthur E, et al. Risk and complications of venous thromboembolism in dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2018;33:874–80. PMID:28992258 https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfx212
  7. Tveit DP, Hypolite IO, Hshieh P, et al. Chronic dialysis patients have high risk for pulmonary embolism. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39:1011–7. PMID:11979344 https://doi.org/10.1053/ajkd.2002.32774
  8. Wang IK, Shen TC, Muo CH, Yen TH, Sung FC. Risk of pulmonary embolism in patients with end-stage renal disease receiving long-term dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017;32:1386–93. PMID:27448674
  9. Bernatsky S, Clarke A, Ramsey-Goldman R, et al. Hormonal exposures and breast cancer in a sample of women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:1178–81. PMID:15226516 https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh282
  10. Bernatsky S, Ramsey-Goldman R, Gordon C, et al. Factors associated with abnormal Pap results in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:1386–9. PMID:15280571 https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh331

    11. Back to Top

  11. Chopra N, Koren S, Greer WL, et al. Factor V Leiden, prothrombin gene mutation, and thrombosis risk in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. J Rheumatol 2002;29:1683–8. PMID:12180730
  12. Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Grodzicky T, et al. Traditional Framingham risk factors fail to fully account for accelerated atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:2331–7. PMID:11665973 https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200110)44:10<2331::AID-ART395>3.0.CO;2-I
  13. Julkunen HA. Oral contraceptives in systemic lupus erythematosus: side-effects and influence on the activity of SLE. Scand J Rheumatol 1991;20:427–33. PMID:1771400 https://doi.org/10.3109/03009749109096822
  14. Julkunen HA, Kaaja R, Friman C. Contraceptive practice in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Br J Rheumatol 1993;32:227–30. PMID:8448613 https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/32.3.227
  15. Jungers P, Dougados M, Pélissier C, et al. Influence of oral contraceptive therapy on the activity of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1982;25:618–23. PMID:7092961 https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780250603
  16. Manzi S, Meilahn EN, Rairie JE, et al. Age-specific incidence rates of myocardial infarction and angina in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: comparison with the Framingham Study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:408–15. PMID:9048514 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009122
  17. McAlindon T, Giannotta L, Taub N, D’Cruz D, Hughes G. Environmental factors predicting nephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 1993;52:720–4. PMID:8257208 https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.52.10.720
  18. McDonald J, Stewart J, Urowitz MB, Gladman DD. Peripheral vascular disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 1992;51:56–60. PMID:1540039 https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.51.1.56
  19. Mintz G, Gutiérrez G, Delezé M, Rodríguez E. Contraception with progestagens in systemic lupus erythematosus. Contraception 1984;30:29–38. PMID:6434228 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(84)90076-3
  20. Petri M. Musculoskeletal complications of systemic lupus erythematosus in the Hopkins Lupus Cohort: an update. Arthritis Care Res 1995;8:137–45. PMID:7654797 https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1790080305

    21. Back to Top

  21. Petri M. Lupus in Baltimore: evidence-based ‘clinical pearls’ from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort. Lupus 2005;14:970–3. PMID:16425579 https://doi.org/10.1191/0961203305lu2230xx
  22. Petri M, Kim MY, Kalunian KC, et al.; OC-SELENA Trial. Combined oral contraceptives in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2550–8. PMID:16354891 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa051135
  23. Sánchez-Guerrero J, Uribe AG, Jiménez-Santana L, et al. A trial of contraceptive methods in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2539–49. PMID:16354890 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050817
  24. Sarabi ZS, Chang E, Bobba R, et al. Incidence rates of arterial and venous thrombosis after diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53:609–12. PMID:16082635 https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21314
  25. Schaedel ZE, Dolan G, Powell MC. The use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in the management of menorrhagia in women with hemostatic disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1361–3. PMID:16202726 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.002
  26. Somers E, Magder LS, Petri M. Antiphospholipid antibodies and incidence of venous thrombosis in a cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2002;29:2531–6. PMID:12465147
  27. Urowitz MB, Bookman AA, Koehler BE, Gordon DA, Smythe HA, Ogryzlo MA. The bimodal mortality pattern of systemic lupus erythematosus. Am J Med 1976;60:221–5. PMID:1251849 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(76)90431-9
  28. Choojitarom K, Verasertniyom O, Totemchokchyakarn K, Nantiruj K, Sumethkul V, Janwityanujit S. Lupus nephritis and Raynaud’s phenomenon are significant risk factors for vascular thrombosis in SLE patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies. Clin Rheumatol 2008;27:345–51. PMID:17805483 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-007-0721-z
  29. Wahl DG, Guillemin F, de Maistre E, Perret C, Lecompte T, Thibaut G. Risk for venous thrombosis related to antiphospholipid antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus—a meta-analysis. Lupus 1997;6:467–73. PMID:9229367 https://doi.org/10.1177/096120339700600510
  30. Farr SL, Folger SG, Paulen ME, Curtis KM. Safety of contraceptive methods for women with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Contraception 2010;82:64–71. PMID:20682144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.003

    31. Back to Top

  31. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders. 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018;38:1–211. https://www.ichd-3.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/The-International-Classification-of-Headache-Disorders-3rd-Edition-2018.pdf
  32. Tepper NK, Whiteman MK, Zapata LB, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Safety of hormonal contraceptives among women with migraine: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:630–40. PMID:27153744 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.016
  33. Xu Z, Li Y, Tang S, Huang X, Chen T. Current use of oral contraceptives and the risk of first-ever ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Thromb Res 2015;136:52–60. PMID:25936231 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2015.04.021
  34. Etminan M, Takkouche B, Isorna FC, Samii A. Risk of ischaemic stroke in people with migraine: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 2005;330:63. PMID:15596418 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38302.504063.8F
  35. Schürks M, Rist PM, Bigal ME, Buring JE, Lipton RB, Kurth T. Migraine and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2009;339(oct27 1):b3914. PMID:19861375 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3914
  36. Spector JT, Kahn SR, Jones MR, Jayakumar M, Dalal D, Nazarian S. Migraine headache and ischemic stroke risk: an updated meta-analysis. Am J Med 2010;123:612–24. PMID:20493462 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.12.021
  37. Zapata LB, Oduyebo T, Whiteman MK, Houtchens MK, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Contraceptive use among women with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:612–20. PMID:27452316 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.013
  38. Pagano HP, Zapata LB, Berry-Bibee EN, Nanda K, Curtis KM. Safety of hormonal contraception and intrauterine devices among women with depressive and bipolar disorders: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:641–9. PMID:27364100 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.012
  39. Iyer V, Farquhar C, Jepson R. Oral contraceptive pills for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD000154. PMID:10796696 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000154
  40. Davis L, Kennedy SS, Moore J, Prentice A. Oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(3):CD001019. PMID:17636650 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001019.pub2

    41. Back to Top

  41. Hendrix SL, Alexander NJ. Primary dysmenorrhea treatment with a desogestrel-containing low-dose oral contraceptive. Contraception 2002;66:393–9. PMID:12499030 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00414-6
  42. Wong CL, Farquhar C, Roberts H. Oral contraceptive pills for primary dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002120.pub3
  43. Gaffield ME, Kapp N, Curtis KM. Combined oral contraceptive and intrauterine device use among women with gestational trophoblastic disease. Contraception 2009;80:363–71. PMID:19751859 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2009.03.022
  44. Smith JS, Green J, Berrington de Gonzalez A, et al. Cervical cancer and use of hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Lancet 2003;361:1159–67. PMID:12686037 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12949-2
  45. Black MM, Barclay THC, Polednak A, Kwon CS, Leis HP Jr, Pilnik S. Family history, oral contraceptive usage, and breast cancer. Cancer 1983;51:2147–51. PMID:6839302 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19830601)51:11<2147::AID-CNCR2820511133>3.0.CO;2-X
  46. Brinton LA, Hoover R, Szklo M, Fraumeni JF Jr. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1982;11:316–22. PMID:7152784 https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/11.4.316
  47. Brohet RM, Goldgar DE, Easton DF, et al. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk in the international BRCA1/2 carrier cohort study: a report from EMBRACE, GENEPSO, GEO-HEBON, and the IBCCS Collaborating Group. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3831–6. PMID:17635951 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.11.1179
  48. Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D. Oral contraceptives and the risk of ductal breast carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;81:129–36. PMID:14572155 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025728524310
  49. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Familial breast cancer: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58,209 women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet 2001;358:1389–99. PMID:11705483 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06524-2
  50. Grabrick DM, Hartmann LC, Cerhan JR, et al. Risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptive use in women with a family history of breast cancer. JAMA 2000;284:1791–8. PMID:11025831 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.14.1791

    51. Back to Top

  1. Gronwald J, Byrski T, Huzarski T, et al. Influence of selected lifestyle factors on breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers from Poland. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;95:105–9. PMID:16261399 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-9051-5
  2. Haile RW, Thomas DC, McGuire V, et al.; kConFab Investigators; Ontario Cancer Genetics Network Investigators. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, oral contraceptive use, and breast cancer before age 50. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1863–70. PMID:17021353 https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0258
  3. Harris NV, Weiss NS, Francis AM, Polissar L. Breast cancer in relation to patterns of oral contraceptive use. Am J Epidemiol 1982;116:643–51. PMID:7137151 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113447
  4. Hennekens CH, Speizer FE, Lipnick RJ, et al. A case-control study of oral contraceptive use and breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1984;72:39–42. PMID:6363789 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/72.1.39
  5. Jernström H, Loman N, Johannsson OT, Borg A, Olsson H. Impact of teenage oral contraceptive use in a population-based series of early-onset breast cancer cases who have undergone BRCA mutation testing. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2312–20. PMID:16118051 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.03.035
  6. Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;346:2025–32. PMID:12087137 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa013202
  7. Milne RL, Knight JA, John EM, et al. Oral contraceptive use and risk of early-onset breast cancer in carriers and noncarriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:350–6. PMID:15734957 https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0376
  8. Narod SA, Dubé MP, Klijn J, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1773–9. PMID:12464649 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.23.1773
  9. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Rao RS, et al. Case-control study of oral contraceptive use and risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:25–37. PMID:8533744 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008654
  10. Silvera SAN, Miller AB, Rohan TE. Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast cancer among women with a family history of breast cancer: a prospective cohort study. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:1059–63. PMID:16184471 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-005-0343-1

    11. Back to Top

  11. Ursin G, Henderson BE, Haile RW, et al. Does oral contraceptive use increase the risk of breast cancer in women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations more than in other women? Cancer Res 1997;57:3678–81. PMID:9288771
  12. Ursin G, Ross RK, Sullivan-Halley J, Hanisch R, Henderson B, Bernstein L. Use of oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in young women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;50:175–84. PMID:9822222 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006037823178
  13. Curtis KM, Hannaford PC, Rodriguez MI, Chipato T, Steyn PS, Kiarie JN. Hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition among women: an updated systematic review. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2020;46:8–16. PMID:31919239 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200509
  14. Tepper NK, Curtis KM, Cox S, Whiteman MK. Update to U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016: updated recommendations for the use of contraception among women at high risk for HIV infection. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:405–10. PMID:32271729 https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6914a3
  15. Polis CB, Phillips SJ, Curtis KM. Hormonal contraceptive use and female-to-male HIV transmission: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. AIDS 2013;27:493–505. PMID:23079808 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835ad539
  16. Phillips SJ, Polis CB, Curtis KM. The safety of hormonal contraceptives for women living with HIV and their sexual partners. Contraception 2016;93:11–6. PMID:26515194 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.10.002
  17. Phillips SJ, Curtis KM, Polis CB. Effect of hormonal contraceptive methods on HIV disease progression: a systematic review. AIDS 2013;27:787–94. PMID:23135169 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835bb672
  18. el-Raghy I, Back DJ, Osman F, Orme ML, Fathalla M. Contraceptive steroid concentrations in women with early active schistosomiasis: lack of effect of antischistosomal drugs. Contraception 1986;33:373–7. PMID:3089682 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(86)90099-5
  19. Gad-el-Mawla N, Abdallah A. Liver function in bilharzial females receiving contraceptive pills. Acta Hepatosplenol 1969;16:308–10. PMID:5358869
  20. Gad-el-Mawla N, el-Roubi O, Sabet S, Abdallah A. Plasma lipids and lipoproteins in bilharzial females during oral contraceptive therapy. J Egypt Med Assoc 1972;55:137–47. PMID:5051373

    21. Back to Top

  21. Shaaban MM, Hammad WA, Falthalla MF, et al. Effects of oral contraception on liver function tests and serum proteins in women with active schistosomiasis. Contraception 1982;26:75–82. PMID:7128137 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(82)90174-3
  22. Shaaban MM, Ghaneimah SA, Mohamed MA, Abdel-Chani S, Mostafa SA. Effect of oral contraception on serum bile acid. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1984;22:111–5. PMID:6145634 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(84)90023-7
  23. Sy FS, Osteria TS, Opiniano V, Gler S. Effect of oral contraceptive on liver function tests of women with schistosomiasis in the Philippines. Contraception 1986;34:283–94. PMID:3098499 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(86)90009-0
  24. Tagy AH, Saker ME, Moussa AA, Kolgah A. The effect of low-dose combined oral contraceptive pills versus injectable contraceptive (Depot Provera) on liver function tests of women with compensated bilharzial liver fibrosis. Contraception 2001;64:173–6. PMID:11704097 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00248-7
  25. Beck P, Wells SA. Comparison of the mechanisms underlying carbohydrate intolerance in subclinical diabetic women during pregnancy and during post-partum oral contraceptive steroid treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1969;29:807–18. PMID:4978229 https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-29-6-807
  26. Kjos SL, Peters RK, Xiang A, Thomas D, Schaefer U, Buchanan TA. Contraception and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Latina women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1998;280:533–8. PMID:9707143 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.6.533
  27. Kung AW, Ma JT, Wong VC, et al. Glucose and lipid metabolism with triphasic oral contraceptives in women with history of gestational diabetes. Contraception 1987;35:257–69. PMID:3111786 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(87)90027-8
  28. Rådberg T, Gustafson A, Skryten A, Karlsson K. Metabolic studies in gestational diabetic women during contraceptive treatment: effects on glucose tolerance and fatty acid composition of serum lipids. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1982;13:17–29. PMID:7035304 https://doi.org/10.1159/000299480
  29. Skouby SO, Andersen O, Kühl C. Oral contraceptives and insulin receptor binding in normal women and those with previous gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:802–7. PMID:3766633 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(86)80024-2
  30. Skouby SO, Andersen O, Saurbrey N, Kühl C. Oral contraception and insulin sensitivity: in vivo assessment in normal women and women with previous gestational diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1987;64:519–23. PMID:3102539 https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-64-3-519

    31. Back to Top

  31. Skouby SO, Mølsted-Pedersen L, Kühl C. Low dosage oral contraception in women with previous gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:325–8. PMID:6804901
  32. Xiang AH, Kawakubo M, Kjos SL, Buchanan TA. Long-acting injectable progestin contraception and risk of type 2 diabetes in Latino women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2006;29:613–7. PMID:16505515 https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.29.03.06.dc05-1940
  33. Kjos SL, Shoupe D, Douyan S, et al. Effect of low-dose oral contraceptives on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in women with recent gestational diabetes: results of a controlled, randomized, prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:1822–7. PMID:2256489 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(90)90757-X
  34. Rådberg T, Gustafson A, Skryten A, Karlsson K. Metabolic studies in women with previous gestational diabetes during contraceptive treatment: effects on serum lipids and high density lipoproteins. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh) 1982;101:134–9. PMID:7124287 https://doi.org/10.1530/acta.0.1010134
  35. Skouby SO, Kühl C, Mølsted-Pedersen L, Petersen K, Christensen MS. Triphasic oral contraception: metabolic effects in normal women and those with previous gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153:495–500. PMID:3933351 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(85)90460-0
  36. Beck P, Arnett DM, Alsever RN, Eaton RP. Effect of contraceptive steroids on arginine-stimulated glucagon and insulin secretion in women. II. Carbohydrate and lipid physiology in insulin-dependent diabetics. Metabolism 1976;25:23–31. PMID:1246206 https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0495(76)90156-6
  37. Diab KM, Zaki MM. Contraception in diabetic women: comparative metabolic study of Norplant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, low dose oral contraceptive pill and CuT380A. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2000;26:17–26. PMID:10761326 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2000.tb01195.x
  38. Garg SK, Chase HP, Marshall G, Hoops SL, Holmes DL, Jackson WE. Oral contraceptives and renal and retinal complications in young women with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1994;271:1099–102. PMID:8151852 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510380055037
  39. Grigoryan OR, Grodnitskaya EE, Andreeva EN, Shestakova MV, Melnichenko GA, Dedov II. Contraception in perimenopausal women with diabetes mellitus. Gynecol Endocrinol 2006;22:198–206. PMID:16723306 https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590600624317
  40. Margolis KL, Adami H-O, Luo J, Ye W, Weiderpass E. A prospective study of oral contraceptive use and risk of myocardial infarction among Swedish women. Fertil Steril 2007;88:310–6. PMID:17624338 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.206

    41. Back to Top

  41. Petersen KR, Skouby SO, Jespersen J. Balance of coagulation activity with fibrinolysis during use of oral contraceptives in women with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1995;40(Suppl 2):105–11. PMID:8574252
  42. Petersen KR, Skouby SO, Sidelmann J, Jespersen J. Assessment of endothelial function during oral contraception in women with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 1994;43:1379–83. PMID:7968593 https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0495(94)90031-0
  43. Rådberg T, Gustafson A, Skryten A, Karlsson K. Oral contraception in diabetic women. A cross-over study on serum and high density lipoprotein (HDL) lipids and diabetes control during progestogen and combined estrogen/progestogen contraception. Horm Metab Res 1982;14:61–5. PMID:7040192
  44. Skouby SO, Jensen BM, Kühl C, Mølsted-Pedersen L, Svenstrup B, Nielsen J. Hormonal contraception in diabetic women: acceptability and influence on diabetes control and ovarian function of a nonalkylated estrogen/progestogen compound. Contraception 1985;32:23–31. PMID:4053603 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(85)90113-1
  45. Skouby SO, Mølsted-Pedersen L, Kühl C, Bennet P. Oral contraceptives in diabetic women: metabolic effects of four compounds with different estrogen/progestogen profiles. Fertil Steril 1986;46:858–64. PMID:3781003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)49825-0
  46. Zapata LB, Paulen ME, Cansino C, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Contraceptive use among women with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review. Contraception 2010;82:72–85. PMID:20682145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.012
  47. Whiteman MK, Oduyebo T, Zapata LB, Walker S, Curtis KM. Contraceptive safety among women with cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:621–9. PMID:27287694 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.016
  48. Brunson A, Keegan T, Mahajan A, White R, Wun T. High incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with sickle cell disease. Am J Hematol 2019;94:862–70. PMID:31074115 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25508
  49. Naik RP, Streiff MB, Haywood C Jr, Segal JB, Lanzkron S. Venous thromboembolism incidence in the Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease. J Thromb Haemost 2014;12:2010–6. PMID:25280124 https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12744
  50. Noubiap JJ, Temgoua MN, Tankeu R, Tochie JN, Wonkam A, Bigna JJ. Sickle cell disease, sickle trait and the risk for venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb J 2018;16:27. PMID:30305805 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-018-0179-z

    51. Back to Top

  1. Ohene-Frempong K, Weiner SJ, Sleeper LA, et al. Cerebrovascular accidents in sickle cell disease: rates and risk factors. Blood 1998;91:288–94. PMID:9414296
  2. Panel on Treatment of HIV During Pregnancy and Prevention of Perinatal Transmission. Recommendations for the use of antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy and interventions to reduce perinatal HIV transmission in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2023. https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/guidelines/perinatal/recommendations-arv-drugs-pregnancy-overview
  3. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in adults and adolescents with HIV. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2023. https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/guidelines/documents/adult-adolescent-arv/guidelines-adult-adolescent-arv.pdf
  4. Aweeka FT, Rosenkranz SL, Segal Y, et al.; NIAID AIDS Clinical Trials Group. The impact of sex and contraceptive therapy on the plasma and intracellular pharmacokinetics of zidovudine. AIDS 2006;20:1833–41. PMID:16954724 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000244202.18629.36
  5. Kearney BP, Mathias A. Lack of effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on pharmacokinetics of hormonal contraceptives. Pharmacotherapy 2009;29:924–9. PMID:19637945 https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.29.8.924
  6. Todd CS, Deese J, Wang M, et al.; FEM-PrEP Study Group. Sino-implant (II) continuation and effect of concomitant tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine use on plasma levonorgestrel concentrations among women in Bondo, Kenya. Contraception 2015;91:248–52. PMID:25459097 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.10.008
  7. Murnane PM, Heffron R, Ronald A, et al.; Partners PrEP Study Team. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention does not diminish the pregnancy prevention effectiveness of hormonal contraception. AIDS 2014;28:1825–30. PMID:24785951 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000290
  8. Kasonde M, Niska RW, Rose C, et al. Bone mineral density changes among HIV-uninfected young adults in a randomised trial of pre-exposure prophylaxis with tenofovir-emtricitabine or placebo in Botswana. PLoS One 2014;9:e90111. PMID:24625530 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090111
  9. Callahan R, Nanda K, Kapiga S, et al.; FEM-PrEP Study Group. Pregnancy and contraceptive use among women participating in the FEM-PrEP trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015;68:196–203. PMID:25590272 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000413
  10. Patel RC, Onono M, Gandhi M, et al. Pregnancy rates in HIV-positive women using contraceptives and efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in Kenya: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet HIV 2015;2:e474–82. PMID:26520927 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(15)00184-8

    11. Back to Top

  11. Pyra M, Heffron R, Mugo NR, et al.; Partners in Prevention HSVHIV Transmission Study and Partners PrEP Study Teams. Effectiveness of hormonal contraception in HIV-infected women using antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2015;29:2353–9. PMID:26544706 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000827
  12. Clark RA, Theall K. Population-based study evaluating association between selected antiretroviral therapies and potential oral contraceptive failure. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004;37:1219–20. PMID:15319685 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.qai.0000136724.15758.ae
  13. Landolt NK, Phanuphak N, Ubolyam S, et al. Efavirenz, in contrast to nevirapine, is associated with unfavorable progesterone and antiretroviral levels when coadministered with combined oral contraceptives. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013;62:534–9. PMID:23187949 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e31827e8f98
  14. Sevinsky H, Eley T, Persson A, et al. The effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate in healthy HIV-negative women. Antivir Ther 2011;16:149–56. PMID:21447863 https://doi.org/10.3851/IMP1725
  15. Landolt NK, Phanuphak N, Ubolyam S, et al. Significant decrease of ethinylestradiol with nevirapine, and of etonogestrel with efavirenz in HIV-positive women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2014;66:e50–2. PMID:24608892 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000134
  16. Myer L, Carter RJ, Katyal M, Toro P, El-Sadr WM, Abrams EJ. Impact of antiretroviral therapy on incidence of pregnancy among HIV-infected women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a cohort study. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000229. PMID:20161723 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000229
  17. Schöller-Gyüre M, Kakuda TN, Woodfall B, et al. Effect of steady-state etravirine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ethinylestradiol and norethindrone. Contraception 2009;80:44–52. PMID:19501215 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2009.01.009
  18. Nanda K, Delany-Moretlwe S, Dubé K, et al. Nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy does not reduce oral contraceptive effectiveness. AIDS 2013;27(Suppl 1):S17–25. PMID:24088680 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000050
  19. Stuart GS, Moses A, Corbett A, et al. Combined oral contraceptives and antiretroviral PK/PD in Malawian women: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a combined oral contraceptive and a generic combined formulation antiretroviral in Malawi. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011;58:e40–3. PMID:21921726 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e31822b8bf8
  20. Mildvan D, Yarrish R, Marshak A, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between nevirapine and ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone when administered concurrently to HIV-infected women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002;29:471–7. PMID:11981363 https://doi.org/10.1097/00042560-200204150-00007

    21. Back to Top

  21. Muro E, Droste JAH, Hofstede HT, Bosch M, Dolmans W, Burger DM. Nevirapine plasma concentrations are still detectable after more than 2 weeks in the majority of women receiving single-dose nevirapine: implications for intervention studies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005;39:419–21. PMID:16010163 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.qai.0000167154.37357.f9
  22. Crauwels HM, van Heeswijk RP, Buelens A, Stevens M, Hoetelmans RM. Lack of an effect of rilpivirine on the pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol and norethindrone in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;52:118–28. PMID:24161160 https://doi.org/10.5414/CP201943
  23. Zhang J, Chung E, Yones C, et al. The effect of atazanavir/ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate in healthy women. Antivir Ther 2011;16:157–64. PMID:21447864 https://doi.org/10.3851/IMP1724
  24. Sekar VJ, Lefebvre E, Guzman SS, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone and darunavir with low-dose ritonavir in healthy women. Antivir Ther 2008;13:563–9. PMID:18672535 https://doi.org/10.1177/135965350801300415
  25. Glaxo Smith Kline. Lexiva (fosamprenavir calcium) [Package insert]. Research Triangle Park, NC:Glaxo Smith Kline; 2015.
  26. Vogler MA, Patterson K, Kamemoto L, et al. Contraceptive efficacy of oral and transdermal hormones when co-administered with protease inhibitors in HIV-1-infected women: pharmacokinetic results of ACTG trial A5188. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010;55:473–82. PMID:20842042 https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181eb5ff5
  27. Fröhlich M, Burhenne J, Martin-Facklam M, et al. Oral contraception does not alter single dose saquinavir pharmacokinetics in women. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004;57:244–52. PMID:14998420 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2003.01983.x
  28. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Aptivus (tipranavir) [Package insert]. Ridgefield, CT: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals; 2005.
  29. Bristol-Myers Squibb. Reyataz (atazanavir sulfate) [Package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb; 2003.
  30. Abel S, Russell D, Whitlock LA, Ridgway CE, Muirhead GJ. Effect of maraviroc on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, lamivudine/zidovudine, and ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65(Suppl 1):19–26. PMID:18333862 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2008.03132.x

    31. Back to Top

  31. Anderson MS, Hanley WD, Moreau AR, et al. Effect of raltegravir on estradiol and norgestimate plasma pharmacokinetics following oral contraceptive administration in healthy women. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011;71:616–20. PMID:21395656 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03885.x
  32. Song IH, Borland J, Chen S, Wajima T, Peppercorn AF, Piscitelli SC. Dolutegravir has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptives with norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol. Ann Pharmacother 2015;49:784–9. PMID:25862012 https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028015580637
  33. Gilead Sciences. Vitekta (elvitegravir) [Package insert]. Foster City, CA: Gilead Sciences; 2012.
  34. Back DJ, Bates M, Bowden A, et al. The interaction of phenobarbital and other anticonvulsants with oral contraceptive steroid therapy. Contraception 1980;22:495–503. PMID:7471739 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(80)90102-X
  35. Doose DR, Wang SS, Padmanabhan M, Schwabe S, Jacobs D, Bialer M. Effect of topiramate or carbamazepine on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing norethindrone and ethinyl estradiol in healthy obese and nonobese female subjects. Epilepsia 2003;44:540–9. PMID:12681003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.55602.x
  36. Fattore C, Cipolla G, Gatti G, et al. Induction of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel metabolism by oxcarbazepine in healthy women. Epilepsia 1999;40:783–7. PMID:10368079 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1999.tb00779.x
  37. Rosenfeld WE, Doose DR, Walker SA, Nayak RK. Effect of topiramate on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing norethindrone and ethinyl estradiol in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia 1997;38:317–23. PMID:9070594 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1997.tb01123.x
  38. Gaffield ME, Culwell KR, Lee CR. The use of hormonal contraception among women taking anticonvulsant therapy. Contraception 2011;83:16–29. PMID:21134499 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.06.013
  39. Christensen J, Petrenaite V, Atterman J, et al. Oral contraceptives induce lamotrigine metabolism: evidence from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Epilepsia 2007;48:484–9. PMID:17346247 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.00997.x
  40. Contin M, Albani F, Ambrosetto G, et al. Variation in lamotrigine plasma concentrations with hormonal contraceptive monthly cycles in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia 2006;47:1573–5. PMID:16981875 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00558.x

    41. Back to Top

  41. Reimers A, Helde G, Brodtkorb E. Ethinyl estradiol, not progestogens, reduces lamotrigine serum concentrations. Epilepsia 2005;46:1414–7. PMID:16146436 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.10105.x
  42. Sabers A, Buchholt JM, Uldall P, Hansen EL. Lamotrigine plasma levels reduced by oral contraceptives. Epilepsy Res 2001;47:151–4. PMID:11673029 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-1211(01)00305-9
  43. Sabers A, Ohman I, Christensen J, Tomson T. Oral contraceptives reduce lamotrigine plasma levels. Neurology 2003;61:570–1. PMID:12939444 https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000076485.09353.7A
  44. Back DJ, Breckenridge AM, MacIver M, et al. The effects of ampicillin on oral contraceptive steroids in women. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1982;14:43–8. PMID:6809025 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1982.tb04932.x
  45. Back DJ, Grimmer SF, Orme ML, Proudlove C, Mann RD, Breckenridge AM. Evaluation of Committee on Safety of Medicines yellow card reports on oral contraceptive-drug interactions with anticonvulsants and antibiotics. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988;25:527–32. PMID:3408633 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1988.tb03341.x
  46. Back DJ, Tjia J, Martin C, et al. The lack of interaction between temafloxacin and combined oral contraceptive steroids. Contraception 1991;43:317–23. PMID:1906791 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(91)90070-V
  47. Bacon JF, Shenfield GM. Pregnancy attributable to interaction between tetracycline and oral contraceptives. BMJ 1980;280:293. PMID:7357347 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.280.6210.293
  48. Bainton R. Interaction between antibiotic therapy and contraceptive medication. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986;61:453–5. PMID:3459119 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(86)90385-3
  49. Bollen M. Use of antibiotics when taking the oral contraceptive pill. [comment]. Aust Fam Physician 1995;24:928–9. PMID:7794163
  50. Bromham DR, Cartmill RS. Knowledge and use of secondary contraception among patients requesting termination of pregnancy. BMJ 1993;306:556–7. PMID:8461770 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6877.556

    51. Back to Top

  1. Côté J. Interaction of griseofulvin and oral contraceptives. [Comment]. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990;22:124–5. PMID:2298948 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-9622(08)80010-2
  2. Csemiczky G, Alvendal C, Landgren BM. Risk for ovulation in women taking a low-dose oral contraceptive (Microgynon) when receiving antibacterial treatment with a fluoroquinolone (ofloxacin). Adv Contracept 1996;12:101–9. PMID:8863905 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01849631
  3. de Groot AC, Eshuis H, Stricker BH. [Inefficacy of oral contraception during use of minocycline]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1990;134:1227–9. PMID:2143563
  4. DeSano EA Jr, Hurley SC. Possible interactions of antihistamines and antibiotics with oral contraceptive effectiveness. Fertil Steril 1982;37:853–4. PMID:6123451 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)46350-8
  5. Donley TG, Smith RF, Roy B. Reduced oral contraceptive effectiveness with concurrent antibiotic use: a protocol for prescribing antibiotics to women of childbearing age. Compendium 1990;11:392–6. PMID:2083416
  6. Friedman CI, Huneke AL, Kim MH, Powell J. The effect of ampicillin on oral contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol 1980;55:33–7. PMID:7188714
  7. Grimmer SF, Allen WL, Back DJ, Breckenridge AM, Orme M, Tjia J. The effect of cotrimoxazole on oral contraceptive steroids in women. Contraception 1983;28:53–9. PMID:6414761 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(83)80005-5
  8. Helms SE, Bredle DL, Zajic J, Jarjoura D, Brodell RT, Krishnarao I. Oral contraceptive failure rates and oral antibiotics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997;36:705–10. PMID:9146531 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-9622(97)80322-2
  9. Hempel E, Böhm W, Carol W, Klinger G. [Enzyme induction by drugs and hormonal contraception]. Zentralbl Gynakol 1973;95:1451–7. PMID:4129505
  10. Hempel E, Zorn C, Graf K. [Effect of chemotherapy agents and antibiotics on hormonal contraception]. Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena) 1978;72:924–6. PMID:726527

    11. Back to Top

  11. Hetényi G. Possible interactions between antibiotics and oral contraceptives. Ther Hung 1989;37:86–9. PMID:2686086
  12. Hughes BR, Cunliffe WJ. Interactions between the oral contraceptive pill and antibiotics. [Comment]. Br J Dermatol 1990;122:717–8. PMID:2141276 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1990.tb07299.x
  13. Joshi JV, Joshi UM, Sankholi GM, et al. A study of interaction of low-dose combination oral contraceptive with ampicillin and metronidazole. Contraception 1980;22:643–52. PMID:7214911 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(80)90089-X
  14. Kakouris H, Kovacs GT. Pill failure and nonuse of secondary precautions. Br J Fam Plann 1992;18:41–4.
  15. Kakouris H, Kovacs GT. How common are predisposing factors to pill failure among pill users? Br J Fam Plann 1994;20:33–5.
  16. Kovacs GT, Riddoch G, Duncombe P, et al. Inadvertent pregnancies in oral contraceptive users. Med J Aust 1989;150:549–51. PMID:2716563 https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1989.tb136691.x
  17. Lequeux A. [Pregnancy under oral contraceptives after treatment with tetracycline]. Louv Med 1980;99:413–4. PMID:12336602
  18. London BM, Lookingbill DP. Frequency of pregnancy in acne patients taking oral antibiotics and oral contraceptives. Arch Dermatol 1994;130:392–3. PMID:8129425 https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1994.01690030128027
  19. Maggiolo F, Puricelli G, Dottorini M, Caprioli S, Bianchi W, Suter F. The effect of ciprofloxacin on oral contraceptive steroid treatments. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1991;17:451–4. PMID:1822438
  20. Murphy AA, Zacur HA, Charache P, Burkman RT. The effect of tetracycline on levels of oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164:28–33. PMID:1986620 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(91)90617-Z

    21. Back to Top

  21. Neely JL, Abate M, Swinker M, D’Angio R. The effect of doxycycline on serum levels of ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone, and endogenous progesterone. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:416–20. PMID:1992409
  22. Pillans PI, Sparrow MJ. Pregnancy associated with a combined oral contraceptive and itraconazole. [Comment]. N Z Med J 1993;106:436. PMID:8414287
  23. Scholten PC, Droppert RM, Zwinkels MG, Moesker HL, Nauta JJ, Hoepelman IM. No interaction between ciprofloxacin and an oral contraceptive. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42:3266–8. PMID:9835524 https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.42.12.3266
  24. Silber TJ. Apparent oral contraceptive failure associated with antibiotic administration. J Adolesc Health Care 1983;4:287–9. PMID:6643209 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-0070(83)80014-X
  25. Sparrow MJ. Pill method failures. N Z Med J 1987;100:102–5. PMID:3470667
  26. Sparrow MJ. Pregnancies in reliable pill takers. N Z Med J 1989;102:575–7. PMID:2812591
  27. Sparrow MJ. Pill method failures in women seeking abortion: fourteen years experience. N Z Med J 1998;111:386–8. PMID:9830420
  28. van Dijke CP, Weber JC. Interaction between oral contraceptives and griseofulvin. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984;288:1125–6. PMID:6424759 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.288.6424.1125-a
  29. Wermeling DP, Chandler MH, Sides GD, Collins D, Muse KN. Dirithromycin increases ethinyl estradiol clearance without allowing ovulation. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:78–84. PMID:7784027 https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00075-3
  30. Young LK, Farquhar CM, McCowan LM, Roberts HE, Taylor J. The contraceptive practices of women seeking termination of pregnancy in an Auckland clinic. N Z Med J 1994;107:189–92. PMID:8196861

    31. Back to Top

  31. Abrams LS, Skee D, Natarajan J, Wong FA. Pharmacokinetic overview of Ortho Evra/Evra. Fertil Steril 2002;77(Suppl 2):S3–12. PMID:11849630 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)03261-7
  32. Dogterom P, van den Heuvel MW, Thomsen T. Absence of pharmacokinetic interactions of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing with oral amoxicillin or doxycycline in two randomised trials. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005;44:429–38. PMID:15828855 https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200544040-00007
  33. Devenport MH, Crook D, Wynn V, Lees LJ. Metabolic effects of low-dose fluconazole in healthy female users and non-users of oral contraceptives. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1989;27:851–9. PMID:2547410 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1989.tb03449.x
  34. Hilbert J, Messig M, Kuye O, Friedman H. Evaluation of interaction between fluconazole and an oral contraceptive in healthy women. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:218–23. PMID:11506836
  35. Kovács I, Somos P, Hámori M. Examination of the potential interaction between ketoconazole (Nizoral) and oral contraceptives with special regard to products of low hormone content (Rigevidon, Anteovin). Ther Hung 1986;34:167–70. PMID:3441880
  36. Lunell NO, Pschera H, Zador G, Carlström K. Evaluation of the possible interaction of the antifungal triazole SCH 39304 with oral contraceptives in normal healthy women. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1991;32:91–7. PMID:1748330 https://doi.org/10.1159/000293003
  37. McDaniel PA, Caldroney RD. Oral contraceptives and griseofulvin interactions. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1986;20:384. PMID:3709350 https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808602000511
  38. Meyboom RH, van Puijenbroek EP, Vinks MH, Lastdrager CJ. Disturbance of withdrawal bleeding during concomitant use of itraconazole and oral contraceptives. N Z Med J 1997;110:300. PMID:9293288
  39. Rieth H, Sauerbrey N. [Interaction studies with fluconazole, a new triazole antifungal drug]. Wien Med Wochenschr 1989;139:370–4. PMID:2556861
  40. Sinofsky FE, Pasquale SA. The effect of fluconazole on circulating ethinyl estradiol levels in women taking oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:300–4. PMID:9500490 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(98)80016-1

    41. Back to Top

  41. van Puijenbroek EP, Feenstra J, Meyboom RH. [Pill cycle disturbance in simultaneous use of itraconazole and oral contraceptives]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998;142:146–9. PMID:9557015
  42. Van Puijenbroek EP, Egberts AC, Meyboom RH, Leufkens HG. Signalling possible drug-drug interactions in a spontaneous reporting system: delay of withdrawal bleeding during concomitant use of oral contraceptives and itraconazole. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999;47:689–93. PMID:10383548 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00957.x
  43. Verhoeven CH, van den Heuvel MW, Mulders TM, Dieben TO. The contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing, and antimycotic co-medication. Contraception 2004;69:129–32. PMID:14759617 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2003.10.001
  44. Back DJ, Breckenridge AM, Grimmer SF, Orme ML, Purba HS. Pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptive steroids following the administration of the antimalarial drugs primaquine and chloroquine. Contraception 1984;30:289–95. PMID:6439467 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(84)90092-1
  45. Croft AM, Herxheimer A. Adverse effects of the antimalaria drug, mefloquine: due to primary liver damage with secondary thyroid involvement? BMC Public Health 2002;2:6. PMID:11914150 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-2-6
  46. Karbwang J, Looareesuwan S, Back DJ, Migasana S, Bunnag D, Breckenridge AM. Effect of oral contraceptive steroids on the clinical course of malaria infection and on the pharmacokinetics of mefloquine in Thai women. Bull World Health Organ 1988;66:763–7. PMID:3266115
  47. McGready R, Stepniewska K, Seaton E, et al. Pregnancy and use of oral contraceptives reduces the biotransformation of proguanil to cycloguanil. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003;59:553–7. PMID:12955370 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-003-0651-x
  48. Wanwimolruk S, Kaewvichit S, Tanthayaphinant O, Suwannarach C, Oranratnachai A. Lack of effect of oral contraceptive use on the pharmacokinetics of quinine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991;31:179–81. PMID:2049234 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1991.tb05509.x
  49. Back DJ, Breckenridge AM, Crawford F, et al. The effect of rifampicin on norethisterone pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1979;15:193–7. PMID:37091 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00563105
  50. Back DJ, Breckenridge AM, Crawford FE, et al. The effect of rifampicin on the pharmacokinetics of ethynylestradiol in women. Contraception 1980;21:135–43. PMID:7189454 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(80)90125-0

    51. Back to Top

  51. Barditch-Crovo P, Trapnell CB, Ette E, et al. The effects of rifampin and rifabutin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a combination oral contraceptive. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999;65:428–38. PMID:10223781 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9236(99)70138-4
  52. Bolt HM, Bolt M, Kappus H. Interaction of rifampicin treatment with pharmacokinetics and metabolism of ethinyloestradiol in man. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh) 1977;85:189–97. PMID:577076 https://doi.org/10.1530/acta.0.0850189
  53. Gupta KC, Ali MY. Failure of oral contraceptive with rifampicin. Med J Zambia 1980;15:23. PMID:7269801
  54. Hirsch A, Tillement JP, Chretien J. Effets contrariants de la rifampicine sur les contraceptifs oraux: a propos de trois grossesses non desiree chez trois malades. Rev Fr Mal Respir 1975;2:174–82.
  55. Joshi JV, Joshi UM, Sankolli GM, et al. A study of interaction of a low-dose combination oral contraceptive with anti-tubercular drugs. Contraception 1980;21:617–29. PMID:7428368 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(80)90034-7
  56. Kropp R. [Rifampicin and oral contraceptives (author’s transl)]. Prax Pneumol 1974;28:270–2. PMID:4839951
  57. LeBel M, Masson E, Guilbert E, et al. Effects of rifabutin and rifampicin on the pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol and norethindrone. J Clin Pharmacol 1998;38:1042–50. PMID:9824786 https://doi.org/10.1177/009127009803801109
  58. Meyer B, Müller F, Wessels P, Maree J. A model to detect interactions between roxithromycin and oral contraceptives. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990;47:671–4. PMID:2113449 https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.1990.92
  59. Nocke-Finke L, Breuer H, Reimers D. [Effects of rifampicin on the menstrual cycle and on oestrogen excretion in patients taking oral contraceptives]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1973;98:1521–3. PMID:4580141 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1107071
  60. Piguet B, Muglioni JF, Chaline G. [Letter: Oral contraception and rifampicin]. Nouv Presse Med 1975;04:115–6. PMID:1138226

    61. Back to Top

  61. Reimers D, Jezek A. [The simultaneous use of rifampicin and other antitubercular agents with oral contraceptives]. Prax Pneumol 1971;25:255–62. PMID:5556355
  62. Skolnick JL, Stoler BS, Katz DB, Anderson WH. Rifampin, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy. JAMA 1976;236:1382. PMID:989097 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1976.03270130044027
  63. Szoka PR, Edgren RA. Drug interactions with oral contraceptives: compilation and analysis of an adverse experience report database. Fertil Steril 1988;49(Suppl 2):31S–8S. PMID:3282933
  64. Berry-Bibee EN, Kim MJ, Simmons KB, et al. Drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and psychotropic drugs: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:650–67. PMID:27444984 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.011
  65. Berry-Bibee EN, Kim MJ, Tepper NK, Riley HEM, Curtis KM. Co-administration of St. John’s wort and hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:668–77. PMID:27444983 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.010

    66. Back to Top

Print
Content Source:
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP); Division of Reproductive Health