-
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review 2023In patients with a low AF burden and long periods of sinus rhythm, 'pill-in-the-pocket' oral anticoagulation (OAC) may, taken as needed in response to AF episodes, offer...
AIMS
In patients with a low AF burden and long periods of sinus rhythm, 'pill-in-the-pocket' oral anticoagulation (OAC) may, taken as needed in response to AF episodes, offer the same thromboembolic protection as continuous, life-long OAC, while reducing bleeding complications at the same time. The purpose of this study is to systematically summarise available evidence pertaining to the feasibility, safety and efficacy of pill-in-the-pocket OAC.
METHODS
Medline and Embase were searched from inception to July 2022 for studies adopting a pill-in-the-pocket OAC strategy in AF patients guided by daily rhythm monitoring (PROSPERO/CRD42020209564). Outcomes of interest were extracted and event rates per patient-years of follow-up were calculated. A random effects model was used for pooled estimates.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included (711 patients). Daily rhythm monitoring was continuous in six studies and intermittent in two (pulse checks or smartphone single-lead electrocardiograms were used). Anticoagulation criteria varied across studies, reflecting the uncertainty regarding the AF burden that warrants anticoagulation. The mean time from AF meeting OAC criteria to its initiation was not reported. Adopting pill-in-the-pocket OAC led to 390 (54.7%) patients stopping OAC, 85 (12.0%) patients taking pill-in-the-pocket OAC and 237 (33.3%) patients remaining on or returning to continuous OAC. Overall, annualised ischaemic stroke and major bleeding rates per patient-year of follow-up were low at 0.005 (95% CI [0.002-0.012]) and 0.024 (95% CI [0.013-0.043]), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence, although encouraging, is insufficient to inform practice. Additional studies are required to improve our understanding of the relationships between AF burden and thromboembolic risk to help define anticoagulation criteria and appropriate monitoring strategies.
PubMed: 37600156
DOI: 10.15420/aer.2022.22 -
EClinicalMedicine Sep 2023Anti-androgens and combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs) may mitigate hyperandrogenism-related symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, their efficacy...
BACKGROUND
Anti-androgens and combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs) may mitigate hyperandrogenism-related symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, their efficacy and safety in PCOS remain unclear as previous reviews have focused on non-PCOS populations. To inform the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline in PCOS, we conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of anti-androgens in the management of hormonal and clinical features of PCOS.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, All EBM reviews, and CINAHL up to 28th June 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining oral anti-androgen use, alone or in combination with metformin, COCPs, lifestyle, or other interventions, in women of any age, with PCOS diagnosed by Rotterdam, National Institutes of Health or Androgen Excess & PCOS Society criteria, and using a form of contraception. Non-English studies and studies of less than 6 months duration or which used the same anti-androgen regimen in both/all groups were excluded in order to establish efficacy for the clinical outcomes of interest. Three authors screened articles against selection criteria and assessed risk of bias and quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Critical outcomes (prioritised during guideline development for GRADE purposes) included weight, body mass index (BMI), irregular cycles, hirsutism, liver function, and quality of life. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022345640.
FINDINGS
From 1660 studies identified in the search, 27 articles comprising 20 unique studies were included. Of these, 13 studies (n = 961) were pooled in meta-analysis. Seven studies had a high risk of bias, nine moderate and four low. Anti-androgens included finasteride, flutamide, spironolactone, or bicalutamide. In meta-analysis, anti-androgens + lifestyle were superior to metformin + lifestyle for hirsutism (weighted mean difference [WMD] [95% CI]: -1.59 [-3.06, -0.12], p = 0.03; = 74%), SHBG (7.70 nmol/l [0.75, 14.66], p = 0.03; = 0%), fasting insulin and fasting insulin: glucose ratio (-2.11 μU/ml [-3.97, -0.26], p = 0.03; = 0% and -1.12 [-1.44, -0.79], p < 0.0001, = 0%, respectively), but were not superior to placebo + lifestyle for hirsutism (-0.93, [-3.37, 1.51], p = 0.45; = 76%) or SHBG (9.72 nmol/l [-0.71, 20.14], p = 0.07; = 31%). Daily use was more effective for hirsutism than use every three days (-3.48 [-4.58, -2.39], p < 0.0001, = 1%), and resulted in lower androstenedione levels (-0.30 ng/ml [-0.50, -0.10], p = 0.004; = 0%). Combination treatment with anti-androgens + metformin + lifestyle resulted in lower testosterone compared with metformin + lifestyle (-0.29 nmol/l [-0.52, -0.06], p = 0.01; = 61%), but there were no differences in hirsutism when anti-androgens + metformin + lifestyle were compared with either anti-androgens + lifestyle or metformin + lifestyle. In limited meta-analyses (n = 2 trials), combining anti-androgens with COCP resulted in poorer lipid profiles compared with COCP ± placebo, with no differences in other outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
Current evidence does not support the use of anti-androgens preferentially to COCPs to treat hyperandrogenism in PCOS. Anti-androgens could be considered to treat hirsutism in PCOS, where COCPs are contraindicated, poorly tolerated, or present a sub-optimal response after a minimum 6-month period, with consideration of clinical context and individual risk factors and characteristics.
FUNDING
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Monash University.
PubMed: 37583655
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102162 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... 2023The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of using oral contraceptive and hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Does the use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy offer protection against the formation or rupture of intracranial aneurysms in women?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of using oral contraceptive and hormone replacement therapy as a protective factor in the formation of intracranial aneurysms and subarachnoid hemorrhage.
METHODS
This is a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, using PubMed and Embase as databases and the PRISMA method. Case-control and cohort studies published until December 2022 were included in this review.
RESULTS
Four studies were included in this review; three of which were eligible for meta-analysis. Regarding the use of oral contraceptive and the development of subarachnoid hemorrhage, there was a lower risk of aneurysm rupture with an odds ratio 0.65 (confidence interval 0.5-0.85). In the analysis of patients using hormone replacement therapy and developing subarachnoid hemorrhage, there was also a lower risk of aneurysm rupture with an OR 0.54 (CI 0.39-0.74). Only one article analyzed the formation of intracranial aneurysm and the use of hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptive, and there was a protective effect with the use of these medications. oral contraceptive: OR 2.1 (CI 1.2-3.8) and hormone replacement therapy: OR 3.1 (CI 1.5-6.2).
CONCLUSION
The use of hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptive has a protective effect in intracranial aneurysm rupture and formation.
Topics: Humans; Female; Intracranial Aneurysm; Contraceptives, Oral; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Cohort Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37556637
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.2023S118 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Jan 2024Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects more than 1 in 10 women. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects more than 1 in 10 women.
OBJECTIVE
As part of the 2023 International PCOS Guidelines update, comparisons between combined oral contraceptive pills (COCP), metformin, and combination treatment were evaluated.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, All EBM, and CINAHL were searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Women with PCOS included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA EXTRACTION
We calculated mean differences and 95% CIs regarding anthropometrics, metabolic, and hyperandrogenic outcomes. Meta-analyses and quality assessment using GRADE were performed.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The search identified 1660 publications; 36 RCTs were included. For hirsutism, no differences were seen when comparing metformin vs COCP, nor when comparing COCP vs combination treatment with metformin and COCP. Metformin was inferior on free androgen index (FAI) (7.08; 95% CI 4.81, 9.36), sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) (-118.61 nmol/L; 95% CI -174.46, -62.75) and testosterone (0.48 nmol/L; 95% CI 0.32, 0.64) compared with COCP. COCP was inferior for FAI (0.58; 95% CI 0.36, 0.80) and SHBG (-16.61 nmol/L; 95% CI -28.51, -4.71) compared with combination treatment, whereas testosterone did not differ. Metformin lowered insulin (-27.12 pmol/L; 95% CI -40.65, -13.59) and triglycerides (-0.15 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.29, -0.01) compared with COCP. COCP was inferior for insulin (17.03 pmol/L; 95% CI 7.79, 26.26) and insulin resistance (0.44; 95% CI 0.17, 0.70) compared with combination treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
The choice of metformin or COCP treatment should be based on symptoms, noting some biochemical benefits from combination treatment targeting both major endocrine disturbances seen in PCOS (hyperinsulinemia and hyperandrogenism).
Topics: Female; Humans; Metformin; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Hypoglycemic Agents; Testosterone; Insulins
PubMed: 37554096
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgad465 -
Heliyon Jun 2023To systematically review and summarize the existing evidence related to the influence of the menstrual cycle (MC) and hormonal contraceptive (HC) use on O in physically...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarize the existing evidence related to the influence of the menstrual cycle (MC) and hormonal contraceptive (HC) use on O in physically active women.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis conforms to the PRISMA statement guidelines. Four (sub-)meta-analyses were performed. Two focused on longitudinal studies examining the same women several times to compare the O during the different menstrual phases or oral contraceptive (OC) use and withdrawal. Two meta-analyses examined if there is a difference in O between OC users and normally menstruating women by analyzing cross-sectional studies assigning physically active women to one of these two groups as well as intervention-based studies (cross-over studies, randomized controlled trials considering only the data of the intervention group) comparing women intra-individually with and without OCs.
RESULTS
Nine of the included studies (107 women) evaluated the influence of the MC, five studies (69 women) the impact of OCs on O, and six studies investigated both topics (88 women). A mean difference of O -0.03 ml/kg/min (95%CI -1.06 to 1.01) between the early follicular and luteal menstrual phase was observed. Between the active and inactive phases of OCs, a mean difference of -0.11 ml/kg/min (95%CI -2.32 to 2.10) was found. The inter-individual comparison of naturally menstruating women and OC users showed a mean difference in O of 0.23 ml/kg/min (95% CI -2.33 to 2.79) in favor of OC use. The intra-individual comparison of the same women showed a mean decrease in O of -0.84 ml/kg/min (95% CI -2.38 to 0.70) after a new start with OCs.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analyses showed no effects of the MC or the OCs on O. More high-quality studies are needed determining the MC phases more precisely, including OCs with the current standard formulations and comparing the influence of different progestins.
PubMed: 37484400
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17049 -
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine... Aug 2023To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Angong Niuhuang pill (, ANP) in the treatment of acute stroke. This can provide ideas and basis for the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Angong Niuhuang pill (, ANP) in the treatment of acute stroke. This can provide ideas and basis for the treatment of this disease with integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the establishment to March 2022. Two researchers screened the literature and extracted the data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 28 RCTs were included, including 2745 patients in the acute stage of stroke (1375 in the experimental group and 1370 in the control group). Meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional treatment, combined treatment with ANP could improve the effective rate of acute stroke patients [relative risk () = 1.26, 95% confidence interval () (1.21, 1.31)], Glasgow Coma Scale scores [mean difference () = 2.01, 95% (1.04, 2.98)], Mini-mental State Examination scores [ = 4.79, 95% (2.22, 7.37)], Activities of Daily Living scores [ = 15.70, 95% (14.05, 17.36)] and the Barthel index scores [ = 13.89, 95% (12.12, 15.65)], reduce National Institute of Health stroke scale scores [ = -3.90, 95% (-4.96, -2.84)] and serum brain natriuretic peptide [ = -38.50, 95% (-46.85, -30.15)]. In terms of safety, the incidence of adverse reactions showed no statistical differences between the two groups [ = 0.71, 95% (0.43, 1.15), = 0.16], and no serious adverse reactions/events were observed, indicating a good safety.
CONCLUSIONS
Existing clinical research evidence shows that ANP has good efficacy and safety in the treatment of acute stroke, which can provide a basis for the treatment of integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine. However, the quality of included research methodology needs to be improved, and the above conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.
Topics: Humans; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Stroke; China
PubMed: 37454249
DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20230526.002 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Sep 2023The application of orthodontic forces causes root resorption of variable severity with potentially severe clinical ramifications.
BACKGROUND
The application of orthodontic forces causes root resorption of variable severity with potentially severe clinical ramifications.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review reports on the pathophysiological mechanisms of orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and the associated risk factors based on in vitro, experimental, and in vivo studies.
SEARCH METHODS
We undertook an electronic search of four databases and a separate hand-search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies reporting on the effect of orthodontic forces with/without the addition of potential risk factors on OIIRR, including (1) gene expression in in-vitro studies, the incidence root resorption in (2) animal studies, and (3) human studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Potential hits underwent a two-step selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and systematic appraisal performed by duplicate examiners.
RESULTS
One hundred and eighteen articles met the eligibility criteria. Studies varied considerably in methodology, reporting of results, and variable risk of bias judgements.In summary, the variable evidence identified supports the notion that the application of orthodontic forces leads to (1) characteristic alterations of molecular expression profiles in vitro, (2) an increased rate of OIIRR in animal models, as well as (3) in human studies. Importantly, the additional presence of risk factors such as malocclusion, previous trauma, and medications like corticosteroids increased the severity of OIIRR, whilst other factors decreased its severity, including oral contraceptives, baicalin, and high caffeine.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the systematically reviewed evidence, OIIRR seems to be an inevitable consequence of the application of orthodontic forces-with different risk factors modifying its severity. Our review has identified several molecular mechanisms that can help explain this link between orthodontic forces and OIIRR. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the available eligible literature was in part significantly confounded by bias and was characterized by substantial methodological heterogeneity, suggesting that the results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021243431).
Topics: Animals; Humans; Root Resorption; Risk Factors; Malocclusion; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 37366151
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjad011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC),... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC), which provide both progestin and oestrogen, have been examined for their ability to relieve premenstrual symptoms. A combined oral contraceptive containing drospirenone and a low oestrogen dose has been approved for treating PMDD in women who choose combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COCs containing drospirenone in women with PMS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trial register, CENTRAL (now containing output from two trials registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos on 29 June 2022. We checked included studies' reference lists and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared COCs containing drospirenone with placebo or with another COC for treatment of women with PMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were effects on premenstrual symptoms that were prospectively recorded, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included effects on mood, adverse events, and response rate to study medications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (858 women analysed, most diagnosed with PMDD). The evidence was very low to moderate quality; the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious inconsistency and imprecision. COCs containing drospirenone and ethinylestradiol (EE) versus placebo COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve overall premenstrual symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.24; 2 RCTs, N = 514; I = 64%; low-quality evidence); and functional impairment due to premenstrual symptoms in terms of productivity (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 47%; low-quality evidence), social activities (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.04; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 53%; low-quality evidence), and relationships (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 45%; low-quality evidence). The effects from COCs containing drospirenone may be small to moderate. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may increase withdrawal from trials due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.78; 4 RCT, N = 776; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects from placebo is 3%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 6% and 16%. We are uncertain of the effect of drospirenone plus EE on premenstrual mood symptoms, when measured by validated tools that were not developed to assess premenstrual symptoms. COCs containing drospirenone may lead to more adverse effects in total (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.11; 3 RCT, N = 739; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of having adverse effects from placebo is 28%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 40% and 54%. It probably leads to more breast pain, and may lead to more nausea, intermenstrual bleeding, and menstrual disorder. Its effect on nervousness, headache, asthenia, and pain is uncertain. There was no report of any rare but serious adverse effects, such as venous thromboembolism in any of the included studies. COCs containing drospirenone may improve response rate (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.40; 1 RCT, N = 449; I not applicable; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the response rate from placebo is 36%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 39% and 58%. We did not identify any studies that compared COCs containing drospirenone with other COCs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve premenstrual symptoms that result in functional impairments in women with PMDD. The placebo also had a significant effect. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may lead to more adverse effects compared to placebo. We do not know whether it works after three cycles, helps women with less severe symptoms, or is better than other combined oral contraceptives that contain a different progestogen.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Estrogens; Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder; Premenstrual Syndrome; Progestins
PubMed: 37365881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006586.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.
Topics: Child; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Contraceptive Agents; COVID-19; Estrogens; Hormonal Contraception; Pandemics; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37184292
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014908.pub3