-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses. Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy. Women may not receive appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aims to address these issues to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 July 2021 for the latest update: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 July 2021). CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of blinded or open-label design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. We included the following types of interventions: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone, and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses. Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the two RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results for the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported a decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group that was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group. The results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in the pooled progesterone RCTs in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals were reported from the norethisterone RCTs. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life. We judged the evidence for outcomes related to the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias, and for outcomes related to the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out. Our review highlights an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those women who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Young Adult
PubMed: 34528245
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub3 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Jan 2016This systematic review summarizes research on the use of progestin and breast cancer risk. Although mainly used for contraception, progestin can help treat menstrual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review summarizes research on the use of progestin and breast cancer risk. Although mainly used for contraception, progestin can help treat menstrual disorders, and benign breast, uterine, and ovarian diseases. Breast cancer is the leading site of new, non-skin, cancers in females in the United States, and possible factors that may modulate breast cancer risk need to be identified. ProQuest (Ann Arbor, MI) and PubMed-Medline (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda MD, USA) databases were used to search for epidemiologic studies from 2000 to 2015 that examined the association between progestin and breast cancer. Search terms included epidemiologic studies + progesterone or progestin or progestogen or contraceptive or contraceptive agents + breast cancer or breast neoplasms. A total of six studies were included in the review. Five of the six studies reported no association between progestin-only formulations (including norethindrone oral contraceptives, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, injectable, levonorgestrel system users, implantable and intrauterine devices) and breast cancer risk. Duration of use was examined in a few studies with heterogeneous results. Unlike studies of other oral contraceptives, studies indicate that progestin-only formulations do not increase the risk of breast cancer, although the literature is hampered by small sample sizes. Future research is needed to corroborate these findings, as further understanding of synthetic progesterone may initiate new prescription practices or guidelines for women's health.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Female; Humans; Levonorgestrel; Odds Ratio; Progestins; Risk
PubMed: 26700034
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3663-1 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Mar 2021Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.
METHODS
PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.
RESULTS
80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Androgens; Appetite; Appetite Stimulants; Cachexia; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Agents; Ghrelin; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone; Megestrol Acetate; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terminal Care; Weight Gain
PubMed: 33246937
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002601 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jan 2023Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for decades, but there is limited evidence on response prediction with biomarkers and toxicity.
OBJECTIVES
To review the response and toxicity of progestin therapy and stratify response to progesterone receptor (PR) expression and tumour grade.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We used the search terms 'Endometrial cancer', 'Progestins', 'Disease progression', 'Recurrence' and related terms in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies on patients with advanced stage or recurrent EC treated with progestin monotherapy were included. Studies on adjuvant therapy, with fewer than ten cases and with sarcoma histology were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Evaluation for bias was performed with the Revised Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomised studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with the overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate and toxicity as primary outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (1639 patients) were included. The ORR of progestin therapy was 30% (95% CI 25-36), the clinical benefit rate was 52% (95% CI 42-61). In PR-positive EC, the ORR was 55%, compared with 12% in PR-negative disease (risk difference 43%, 95% CI 15-71). Severe toxicity occurred in 6.5%.
CONCLUSIONS
Progestin therapy is a viable treatment option in patients with advanced stage and recurrent EC with low toxicity and high ORR in PR-positive disease. The role of PR expression in relation to progression-free survival and overall survival is unclear.
Topics: Female; Humans; Progestins; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Endometrial Neoplasms
PubMed: 36264251
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17331 -
International Urogynecology Journal May 2016Hormonal contraceptive use is common practice worldwide. Although the effects of hormone treatments in the pelvic region are well established, there is no clear evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Hormonal contraceptive use is common practice worldwide. Although the effects of hormone treatments in the pelvic region are well established, there is no clear evidence regarding their effects on incontinence, bladder, bowel, vaginal and sexual symptoms in premenopausal women. We hypothesized that hormonal contraceptives affect pelvic floor function. We therefore performed a comprehensive systematic review of published studies to determine the influence of hormonal contraception on pelvic floor functions.
METHODS
Electronic literature databases were searched from database inception to March 2015. Keywords and medical subject headings searched for included terms and word variations for 'contraception', and 'bowel', 'vaginal', 'sexual' and 'urinary' symptoms. Studies were eligible if they looked at these symptoms in women taking hormonal contraception. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, and extracted data on study characteristics, quality and results. Data were combined where possible.
RESULTS
Of the 429 citations identified, 13 studies were included in the review. Data were meta-analysed where possible and presented as prevalence. The results indicate statistically significant links between interstitial cystitis and oral contraceptive use at any point (ever) (OR 2.31, 95 % CI 1.03 - 5.16; p = 0.04) and vulvar vestibulitis and current oral contraceptive use (OR 2.10, 95 % CI 1.26 - 3.49; p = 0.004). The evidence is unclear in other areas.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that oral contraceptives may have an effect on pelvic floor function. They could increase the risk of painful bladder and vulvar vestibulitis, but their effect on dyspareunia is inconsistent. However, robustly collected prospective data to establish causal associations are needed.
Topics: Contraceptive Agents, Female; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Cystitis, Interstitial; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dyspareunia; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Pelvic Floor; Premenopause; Vulvodynia
PubMed: 26407563
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2833-3 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Apr 2024Short-acting progestin-only injectables containing depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) are a safe method of contraception. Although DMPA has been available for... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Short-acting progestin-only injectables containing depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) are a safe method of contraception. Although DMPA has been available for several decades, there is little data on its influence on the risk of breast cancer. Hence, the aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the existing studies and create clarity regarding a possible association with breast cancer.
METHODS
Literature searches were executed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Search terms were related to DMPA and breast cancer. After elimination of duplicates, 3'850 studies were identified and assessed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, ten studies were selected and included in this review.
RESULTS
All the selected papers were case-control-studies, except for one pooled analysis and one study comparing observed and expected number of cancer cases. Most of the included studies found no overall elevated breast cancer incidence in DMPA users, only one study found a slightly increased risk and two studies concluded with a significant increase for the overall breast cancer risk.
CONCLUSION
There is little evidence that DMPA may increase the overall risk for breast cancer. However, the incidence of breast cancer is possibly increased in current and more recent users, especially in women younger than 35 years. Long-term use did not result in any risk increase. Nevertheless, further studies will be necessary to confirm these findings and weigh up the individual risks and benefits of this contraceptive method.
Topics: Female; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Delayed-Action Preparations; Breast Neoplasms; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Progestins
PubMed: 37966517
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-07265-5 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Feb 2019Counseling about potential side effects and health benefits of contraceptive methods could facilitate continued method use and method satisfaction, yet no evidence-based...
OBJECTIVE
Counseling about potential side effects and health benefits of contraceptive methods could facilitate continued method use and method satisfaction, yet no evidence-based compilation of side effects and benefits exists to aid such counseling. Among contraceptive methods in the United States, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injectables have the highest discontinuation rates, and most discontinuation is attributable to side effects. This review examines the side effects and health benefits of DMPA to inform counseling.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, POPLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We included English-language studies published from 1985 to 2016 that enrolled healthy, nonbreastfeeding females aged 13-49 years at risk of unintended pregnancy, compared intramuscular or subcutaneous progestin-only injectables to a contemporaneous comparison group, and addressed at least one key question: 1) What side effects are associated with progestin-only injectable contraceptive use? 2) What health benefits are associated with progestin-only injectable contraceptive use? Study quality was assessed using criteria from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria. None were randomized controlled trials. There were 13 prospective cohort, five retrospective cohort, four case-control, and two cross-sectional studies. Studies of moderate or high risk of bias suggest an association between DMPA use and weight gain, increased body fat mass, irregular bleeding, and amenorrhea. Inconsistent evidence exists for an association between DMPA use and mood or libido changes. Limited evidence exists for an association between DMPA use and decreased risk of cancers and tubal infertility.
CONCLUSION
Higher-quality research is needed to clarify DMPA's side effects and benefits. In absence of such evidence, patient-centered counseling should incorporate the available evidence while acknowledging its limitations and recognizing the value of women's lived experiences.
Topics: Contraceptive Agents, Female; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Humans; Long-Acting Reversible Contraception; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate
PubMed: 30633132
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003089 -
Open Access Journal of Contraception 2018Evidence on the association between contraceptive use and risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and bacterial vaginosis (BV) is lacking, with few prospective... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Evidence on the association between contraceptive use and risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and bacterial vaginosis (BV) is lacking, with few prospective studies. We systematically reviewed the last 10 years' evidence on the association between contraception and STI/BV, building on the most recent systematic reviews published in 2006 and 2009.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE and POPLINE databases for peer-reviewed articles p ublished between January 1, 2008 and January 31, 2018 reporting prospective studies that assessed the association between contraceptive use and incident STI and/or incident or recurrent BV.
RESULTS
We identified 33 articles that evaluated combined oral contraceptives (COC), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), the copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD), the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and other methods. The strength of the evidence for many specific contraceptive method/STI associations is limited by few prospective studies with comparably defined exposures and outcomes. Available data suggest no association of COCs and , , HSV-2 or syphilis, and mixed evidence on the association with HPV, , and BV. For DMPA, none of the studies identified found an association with or syphilis, and data on HPV and BV were mixed. Two large studies showed a highly clinically significant increased risk of HSV-2 infection with DMPA use. Data on the effect of Cu-IUD and the LNG-IUS on the acquisition of , and s are sparse, and data on HPV and BV are mixed.
CONCLUSION
Few data are available from prospective studies, including randomized trials, to draw strong conclusions about the relationships between contraceptive methods and specific STIs. The overall evidence on the association between contraceptive use and STI/BV risk is limited by the lack of any randomized trials, few published prospective studies designed to analyze these associations, wide variability in exposure definitions and comparator groups, potential for confounding due to inaccurate sexual behavior data, differential confounder adjustment and differences in study populations and sizes. Despite these limitations, new evidence is supportive of a significantly increased risk of HSV-2 infection among DMPA users which warrants additional research to better understand this association.
PubMed: 30519127
DOI: 10.2147/OAJC.S135439 -
BMC Women's Health Oct 2021Subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate is an easy-to-use injectable contraceptive. A trained person can administer it, including women through self-injection.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate is an easy-to-use injectable contraceptive. A trained person can administer it, including women through self-injection. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness and safety of self-injection versus provider-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for improving continuation of contraceptive use.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials on November 1, 2020 in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Open Grey, clinical trials registries, and reference lists of relevant studies. We did not impose any search restrictions. We included randomized trials comparing self- versus provider-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS
We identified 3 randomized trials (9 reports; 1264 participants). The risk of bias in the included studies was low except for performance bias and detection bias of participant-reported outcomes in unmasked trials. Self-administration, compared to provider-administration, increased continuation of contraceptive use (risk ratio 1.35; 95% confidence intervals 1.10-1.66); moderate-certainty evidence). Self-injection appears to be making more of an impact on continuation for younger women compared to women 25 years and older and on women living in low and middle income compared to high income countries. There was no subgroup difference by the type of care provider (community health worker vs. clinic-based provider).
CONCLUSIONS
Self-injection of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate probably improves continuation of contraceptive use. The effects on other outcomes remain uncertain because of the very low certainty of evidence.
Topics: Community Health Workers; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Female; Humans; Injections; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Self Administration
PubMed: 34627229
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-021-01495-y -
The Linacre Quarterly Nov 2018Hormonal contraception (HC) is widely used throughout the world and has been associated with venous thrombosis (VT) such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary emboli, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hormonal contraception (HC) is widely used throughout the world and has been associated with venous thrombosis (VT) such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary emboli, and cerebral VT.
OBJECTIVES
To provide a current comprehensive overview of the risk of objectively confirmed VT with HC in healthy women compared to nonusers.
SEARCH METHODS
PubMed was searched from inception to April 2018 for eligible studies in the English language, with hand searching from past systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected original research evaluating risk of objectively confirmed VT in healthy women taking oral or nonoral HC compared with nonusers.
DATA COLLECTION
The primary outcome of interest was a fatal or nonfatal VT in users of HC compared to nonusers or past users. Studies with at least twenty events were eligible. Adjusted relative risks with 95 percent confidence intervals were reported. Three independent reviewers extracted data from selected studies.
RESULTS
1,962 publications were retrieved through the search strategy, with 15 publications included. Users of oral contraception with levonorgesterol had increased risk of VT by a range of 2.79-4.07, while other oral hormonal preparations increased risk by 4.0-48.6. Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices did not increase risk. Etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol vaginal rings increased the risk of VT by 6.5. Norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol patches increased risk of VT by 7.9. Etonogestrel subcutaneous implants by 1.4 and depot-medroxyprogesterone by 3.6. The risk of fatal VT was increased in women aged fifteen to twenty-four by 18.8-fold.
CONCLUSION
Users of HC have a significant increased risk of VT compared to nonusers. Current risks would project at least 300-400 healthy young women dying yearly in the United States due to HC. Women should be informed of these risks and offered education in fertility-awareness-based methods with comparable efficacy for family planning.
SUMMARY
HC is widely used throughout the world and has been associated with blood clots in the legs and lungs. We searched the literature and found the risks of currently used forms of birth control increased between three- and ninefold for blood clots for healthy women. The risks found would project 300-400 women dying from using HC each year in the United States.
PubMed: 32431379
DOI: 10.1177/0024363918816683