Frontiers in Gynecological Endocrinology Volume 2: From Basic Science to Clinical Application

8. Hormonal Contraceptives: Progestogen and Thrombotic Risk

Adolf E. Schindler1

(1)

Institute for Medical Research and Education, University Clinic, Hufelandstrasse 55, Essen, NRW, D-45147, Germany

Adolf E. Schindler

Email: adolf.schindler@uni-due.de

Keywords

Hormonal contraceptivesProgestogen only pills (POPs)ProgestogenPartial effect patternThrombosis

8.1 Introduction

The various types of hormonal contraceptives have proven to be very effective modes of contraception [1]. However, the additional effects of hormonal contraceptives vary, and this is also true for thrombotic events that occur with the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

As progestogens are to be considered with regard to thrombotic events, it has to be taken into account that the progestogenic steroids have the progestogenic effect in common, including the conversion of the endometrium into a secretory state, which prevents abnormal estrogen stimulation of the endometrium and in this way prevents abnormal endometrial hyperplastic changes, and last but not least, endometrial cancer [2]. Progestogenic action is also mandatory for proper secretory changes of the endometrium for implantation. If this occurs, further changes of the endometrium into decidualization take place and the blood flow to the uterus increases with trophoblastic invasion and proper development of the spinal arteries .

In addition, various progestogens have other different partial biological effects that are of clinical relevance. This is also true with regard to thrombosis incidence. Therefore, the partial biological effect pattern is different for the different progestogens and this is of utmost clinical relevance, if thrombotic events are taken into consideration [3].

Therefore, one can conclude that progestogens are not the same, based upon differences in structure, differences in the partial effect pattern (action profile) and differences in organ effects.

Unfortunately, there is still a lot of confusion, even in well-known international journals such as Climacteric, where the title of an article talks about progesterone, but in the text only studies on medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) were reported. Indeed, MPA does have a vasoconstrictive effect on the arterial vessels – in this case the ophthalmic artery and retinal artery – while progesterone, in contrast, widens the arterial vessels and lowers the blood pressure, which was particularly well demonstrated in pregnant women with preeclampsia [4]. Nowadays, this can be clearly demonstrated and quantified by Doppler ultrasound measurements [56]. Indeed, with the rise of the circulating progesterone in the corpus luteum phase, the blood flow to the uterus and the ovaries increases and if pregnancy occurs, the blood flow, which is common for all progestogens, increases. If no conception and implantation occur, the blood flow decreases.

The following partial effects – besides the progestogenic effect – are present for each progestogen in a particular way, which was alluded to more than 10 years ago [3]. Thus, each progestogen is associated with a particular partial effect pattern. The following partial effects should be considered: androgenic , antiandrogenic , estrogenic , antiestrogenic , glucocorticoid and antimineralocorticoid .

How do these partial effect patterns of the progestogens determine the different thrombotic risks of estrogen/progestogen combinations (COCs), oral, vaginal and transdermal, as well as in HRT? Answering this question will be the aim of this chapter.

8.2 Hemostasis and Thrombotic Events

The hemostatic system comprises coagulation and fibrinolysis

Normally, this system is in balance [7]. It consists of procoagulation, anticoagulation as well as profibrinolysis and antifibrinolysis. There can be venous and arterial thrombotic events. Afterwards, we focus on venous thrombosis. This is an essential risk factor for using a premenopause estrogen/progestogen combination, but also in postmenopausal HRT (oral, vaginal, transdermal). Risk factors for thrombosis are listed in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1

Risk factors for thrombosis

 1. Increasing age

 2. Increasing body weight

 3. Pregnancy/post partum

 4. Hormonal contraceptive pill as estrogen/progestogen combination

   (a) Type of estrogen (EE, E2, E2V)

   (b) Estrogen dose

   (c) Type of progestogen in combination with an estrogen

   (d) Dose of progestogen

   (e) Length of use

   (f) Type of application (oral, vaginal, transdermal)

 5. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) as estrogen/progestogen combination listed as above for a, b, c, d, e, f

 6. Genetic predisposition

 7. Family/personal history of thrombosis

 8. Immobility (operation, accident)

 9. Long distance air travel

10. Smoking

8.3 The Risk of Venous Thrombosis, When Taking COCs

It has been known since the 1960s that oral estrogen/progestogen combinations are associated with an elevated risk of venous thrombosis. At first, the thrombotic risk was related to the type and dose of the estrogen component. In the 1990s the debate started that different progestogens are associated with different thrombotic risks. In general, the thrombotic risk is double compared with women of a similar age group who are not taking the pill. The number of events is highest in the first year and levels off over time. Therefore, the so-called pill pause is dangerous, as with each restart of the pill the thrombotic risk shoots up in the first year [8].

The frequency of venous thrombosis is as follows:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Overall, the risk of venous thrombosis in users of a low estrogen dose (<50 μg ethinyl estradiol [EE]) COCs is two- to threefold higher than for non-users of COCs. Thrombotic risk is modified using COCs or HRT by the type and dose of the estrogen (EE, estradiol [E2], estradiol valerate [E2V]) and by the progestogen used, depending on the partial effect pattern of each progestogen. Extensive comparative studies with 35 versus 50 μg EE [7] or 20 versus 30 μg EE have been carried out, demonstrating the changes in the parameters of hemostasis depending on the EE dose [10].

Hormone replacement therapy can increase the thrombotic risk by up to three times depending on the estrogen/progestogen combination used and other risk factors such as changes in body composition (particularly an increase in visceral adipose tissue), pro-atherogenic changes in lipid metabolism , worsening of the imbalance in carbohydrate metabolism and the increasing risk of climacteric women of developing a metabolic syndrome [11].

8.4 Mode of Action of Progestogens in Combination with Estrogens (Pill, HRT)

The extent of the progestogens used on the hemostatic system is dependent on the extent of the modification of the total estrogen effect on the body – mainly the liver. There can be an increase or decrease in liver protein synthesis by the action of progestogen, which is reflected by the levels of sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG) and thyroxine-binding globulin (TBG).

Indeed, SHBG levels using different EE/progestogen combinations vary when comparing the various COC preparations. In addition to the overall increase in SHBG there are differences in the extent of SHBG level elevation: ethinyl estradiol/cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA) is associated with a higher SHBG level than estradiol/drospirenone (EE/DRSP) and lower estradiol/desogestrel (EE/DSG) [12].

Progestogens induce through their different partial effect patterns (androgenic, antiandrogenic, estrogenic, antiestrogenic, glucocorticoid and antimineralocorticoid) the estrogen action of the estrogen used (EE, E2, E2V) regarding the production of proteins of the hemostatic system.

In addition, there are other risk factors such as genetically induced changes in the hemostasis inhibitors (antithrombin III , protein C and protein S ) or a hereditary resistance of factor V Leiden against activated protein C (APC resistance).

Progestogens with a partial glucocorticoid effect (i.e. MPA, CPA) regulate the thrombin receptor and stimulate the procoagulatory activity at the vessel wall [13]. Stimulatory progestogens are MPA, CPA, gestodene, 3-ketodesogestrel and DRSP. This is not the case with levonorgestrel (LNG). These events only occur when these progestogens are used together with an estrogen (EE, E2, E2Val). COCs containing DSG or gestodene (third-generation progestogens) increase the risk of thrombosis by 70 % compared with COCs with LNG (second-generation progestogen) [14]. The elevated risk of gestodene- and DSG-containing COCs is associated with a higher SHBG concentration (increased liver protein synthesis) than LNG-containing COCs [15]. This was brought up again in 2009 with two articles published in the BMJ [816]. These articles reported on the results of two retrospective epidemiological studies that assessed the risk of thrombosis using hormonal contraceptives. These studies suggested that COCs were associated with a differential risk of thrombosis caused by their progestogenic components. The risk of thrombosis was reportedly lower in women with LNG-containing COCs versus the so-called third-generation COCs and COCs containing DRSP [816]. This was further substantiated by the Australian study by Parkin et al. [17] and by the American study by Jick and Hernandez [18], as shown in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2

Comparison of indices of venous thrombosis in drospirenone (DRSP)- or levonorgestrel (LNG)-containing estrogen/progestogen combinations (COCs) per 100,000 years

 

Australian study [17]

American study [18]

Drospirenone

23.0; 95 % CI 13.4–36.9

30.8; 95 % CI 26.6–26.8

Levonorgestrel

9.1; 95 % CI 6.6–12.2

12.5; 95 % CI 9.6–15.9

Incidence ratio

2.7; 95 % CI 1.5–4.7

2.8; 95 % CI 2.1–3.8

The safest COCs with regard to thrombosis are those with LNG, norethisterone and norgestimate [1920]. Out of all this, it was recommended that women start COC use with pills containing 20 μg EE combined with norethisterone or LNG or norgestimate [21].

Data on the thrombotic risk of COCs using EE and various progestogens clearly indicate that progestogens with a more prominent androgenic partial effect pattern are more likely not to be burdened with an elevated thrombotic risk (Table 8.3).

Table 8.3

Thrombotic risk with COCs with different progestogens compared with COCs containing LNG

Progestogen

Relative risk

Levonorgestrel

1.00

Norethisterone

0.98

Norgestimate

1.19

Desogestrel

1.82

Gestodene

1.86

Drospirenone

1.64

Cyproterone acetate

1.88

Thrombotic risk is dependent upon the partial androgenic effect of the progestogen, which counteracts the protein synthesis in the liver by EE or E2/E2Val. This is reflected in a more subtle increase in SHBG that means decreased protein synthesis and therefore decreased activation of the hemostatic system. Indeed, treatment with tibolone, with the androgenic action of its metabolites, was found to induce a substantial risk reduction of venous thrombosis of 0.27 [22].

In addition to the reduction in protein synthesis (see SHBG) progestogens with an androgenic partial effect pattern are of importance for this favorable action on the hemostasis of COCs, but also of HRT by reduction of fibrinolytic inhibition by PAI-1 and Lp(a) [23].

Changing not only the dose of the estrogens but also the estrogen component in COCs or HRT reduces the risk of thrombosis. It could be demonstrated that when combining E2Val with dienogest (DNG) or DRSP the risk of thrombosis is similar or even lower than with LNG COCs such as Microgynon® [24]. A recent thorough evaluation concluded that the non-oral route of EE administration seems to be more thrombogenic than the oral route [25]. In contrast, low-dose oral progestogen-only contraceptives (POPs) as well as LNG IUS appear to be safe with regard to risk of thrombosis. Overall, newer progestogen formulations of estrogen/progestogen combination contraceptives in addition to non-oral COCs seem to be more thrombogenic than the second-generation COCs.

A similar risk pattern seems to prevail with HRT. There is a relationship with the progestogen used. The relative risk (RR) of HRT with MPA was 2.67; 95 % CI 2.25–3.17, while HRT with other progestogens had an RR of 1.91; 95 % CI 1.67–2.1. This difference is statistically highly significant (p < 0.0007; Table 8.4) [26].

Table 8.4

Ratio between thrombosis and HRT used over 5 years according to Sweet et al. [26]

Type of treatment

Thrombotic risk

No medication

1:650

Oral estrogen alone

1:475

Estradiol/progestogen combination (norethisterone, norgestrel)

1:390

Estrogen/progestogen combination (MPA)

1:250

MPA medroxyprogesterone acetate

In contrast, progesterone and dydrogesterone appear not to increase the RR in combination with estradiol (E2) in postmenopausal women [27]. As shown by Lideguard et al. [8] progestogen-only contraceptives do not increase the risk of thrombosis: LNG/NET RR 0.59, DSG RR 1.12, LNG-IUS RR 0.90 [25].

8.5 Conclusion

Estrogen/progestogen combinations carry a higher risk of venous thrombosis. This depends on the type of estrogen (EE, E2, E2V) and the daily dose. At present EE as low as 20 μg/day or replacement with E2 or E2V appear to be mandatory in significantly reducing the risk of venous thrombosis independently of other venous thrombosis risk factors. It also depends on the type of the progestogen used. COCs with progestogens with a partial androgenic effect carry a lower or no thrombotic risk. The second-generation progestogen LNG, in combination with estrogens, has a potentially lower risk of thrombosis than third-generation progestogens (DSG, gestodene, DRSP) or antiandrogenic progestogens such as CPA. Non-oral routes of COCs with EE seem to be more thrombogenic. Progestogen-only pills and LNG-IUS are not associated with risk of thrombosis. The common denominator appears to be the effect on liver protein synthesis as expression of the partial androgenic effect pattern, as expressed for instance by SHBG and profibrinolytic activity.

References

1.

Schindler AE (2010) Non-contraceptive benefits of hormonal contraceptives. Minerva Ginecol 62:319–329PubMed

2.

Schindler AE (2009) Progestogen deficiency and endometrial cancer risk. Maturitas 62:334–337PubMedCrossRef

3.

Schindler AE, Campagnoli C, Druckmann R et al (2003) Classification of progestogens. Maturitas 146(S1):S7–S16CrossRef

4.

Sammour MB, El-Makhzangy MN, Gazzi MN et al (1982) Progesterone therapy in pregnancy induced hypertension therapeutic value and hormonal profile. Clin Exp Hypertens B 1:455–478PubMed

5.

Leible S, Cumsille F, Walton R et al (1998) Discordant uterine artery velocity waveforms as a predictor of subsequent miscarriage in early viable pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1587–1593PubMedCrossRef

6.

Donaghay M, Lessey BA (2007) Uterine receptivity: alterations associated with benign gynaecological disease. Semin Reprod Med 25:461–475PubMedCrossRef

7.

Winkler UH, Koslowski S, Oberhoff C et al (1991) Changes of the dynamic equilibrium of hemostasis associated with the use of low-dose oral contraceptives: a controlled study of cyproterone acetate containing contraceptives combined with either 35 or 50 μg ethinylestradiol. Adv Contracept 7(Suppl B):273–284

8.

Lideguard E, Lokkeguard E, Svendsen AL et al (2009) Hormonal contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism: a national-follow-up study. BMJ 39:b2890CrossRef

9.

Dinger JC, Heinemann LA, Kühl-Habich D et al (2007) The safety of a drospirenone containing contraceptive: results from a European Active Surveillance Study on oral contraceptives based on 1.424.750 women-years observations. Contraception 75:344–354PubMedCrossRef

10.

Winkler UH, Hölscher T, Schulte H et al (1996) Ethinylestradiol 20 versus 30 μg combined with 150 μg desogestrel: a large comparative study of the effects of two low-dose oral contraceptives on the hemostatic system. Gynecol Endocrinol 10:265–271PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gaspard U (2012) How old is too old for the combined oral contraceptive? Gynaecol Forum 17(3):17–21

12.

Bhattacharya SM, Jha A (2012) Comparative study of the therapeutic effect of oral contraceptive pills containing desogestrel, cyproterone acetate and drospirenone in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 98:1053–1059PubMedCrossRef

13.

Herkert O, Kuhl H, Sandow J et al (2001) Sex steroids used in hormonal treatment increases vascular procoagulant activity by inducing thrombin receptor (PAR-1) expression. Circulation 104:2826–2831PubMedCrossRef

14.

Mueck AO, Neulen J, Thaler C et al (2009) Kontrazeption in Problemfällen. Ther Umsch 66:117–128PubMedCrossRef

15.

Van Viet A, Frohlich M, Christelke M et al (2005) Association between se hormone binding globulin levels and activated protein C resistance in explaining the risk of thrombosis in users of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens. Hum Reprod 20:563–568

16.

Van Hylckama Vlig A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP et al (2009) Effects of estrogen dose and progestogen type on venous thrombotic risk associated with oral contraceptives: results of the MEGA case-control study. BMJ 39:b2921CrossRef

17.

Parkin L, Shaples K, Hernandez RK et al (2011) Risk of venous thromboembolism in users of oral contraceptives containing drospirenone or levonorgestrel: nested case-control study based on UK General Practice Research Database. BMJ 342:d2139PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Jick SS, Hernandez RK (2011) Risk of non-fatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives containing drospirenone compared with women using oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel: Case control study using United States Claims Data. BMJ 342:d2151PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Martinez F, Ramirez I, Perez-Campos E et al (2012) Venous and pulmonary thromboembolism and combined hormonal contraceptives. Systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 17:7–28PubMedCrossRef

20.

Rott H (2012) Thrombotic risk of oral contraceptives. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 24:235–240PubMedCrossRef

21.

Lideguard O, Milson I, Geiersson RT et al (2012) Hormonal contraception and venous thrombosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91:165–175

22.

MacLennan AH (2011) HRT in difficult circumstances: are there any absolute contraindications. Climacteric 14:409–417PubMedCrossRef

23.

Winkler UH (1996) Effect of androgens on hemostasis. Maturitas 24:147–155PubMedCrossRef

24.

Klipping C, Duijkers I, Parker S et al (2011) Hemostatic effect of a novel estradiol based contraceptive. Drugs 11:159–170

25.

Plu-Bureau G, Mertrot-Mandelet L, Hugou-Rodin J et al (2013) Hormonal contraceptives and venous thromboembolism: an epidemiological update. Br Prac Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 27:25–34CrossRef

26.

Sweet S, Beral V, Balkwill H et al (2012) The Million Women Study Collaborators: Venous thromboembolism risk in relation to use different types of postmenopausal hormone therapy in a large prospective study. J Thromb Haemost 10:2277–2286. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04919.xCrossRef

27.

Canonico M, Oger E, Plu-Bureau G et al (2007) Hormone therapy and venous thromboembolism among postmenopausal women: impact of the route of estrogen administration and progestogens: the ESTHER study. Circulation 115:840–845PubMedCrossRef



If you find an error or have any questions, please email us at admin@doctorlib.info. Thank you!