Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Hematology: the American Society of Hematology Education Program logoLink to Hematology: the American Society of Hematology Education Program
. 2024 Dec 6;2024(1):644-651. doi: 10.1182/hematology.2024000591

Estrogen, progestin, and beyond: thrombotic risk and contraceptive choices

Leslie Skeith 1,✉, Shannon M Bates 2
PMCID: PMC11665608  PMID: 39644023

Visual Abstract

graphic file with name hem.2024000591_s1.jpg

Open in a new tab

Abstract

Hormonal contraceptive therapy (estrogens and/or progestogens) includes different formulations associated with varying venous thromboembolism (VTE) risks. The thrombogenicity of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) is due at least in part to multiple changes in clotting factors and the vasculature and is dependent on both estrogen dose and type of progestin. Transdermal patch and vaginal ring users have similar or higher VTE risk as combined oral contraceptive users. Progestin-only agents have varying VTE risk. While depot medroxyprogesterone acetate appears to increase VTE risk, the levonorgestrel-based intrauterine system and low-dose progestin-only pills have no additional VTE risk. There are less data for the subdermal progestin-only implant. This article reviews contraceptive-related VTE risk by agent and by clinical scenario, including in patients with inherited thrombophilia, systemic lupus erythematosus with or without antiphospholipid antibodies or antiphospholipid syndrome, and sickle cell disease. Relevant clinical practice guidelines are reviewed. A multidisciplinary approach to counseling is needed for patient-focused decision-making.

Learning Objectives

  • Describe the pathophysiology and VTE risk of different hormonal contraceptive agents

  • Apply the available evidence to shared decision-making about hormonal contraceptives in patients with inherited or acquired VTE risk factors

CLINICAL CASE 1

An 18-year-old cisgender woman has been referred to review contraceptive options because a family member with heterozygous factor V Leiden (FVL) had an unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE).

CLINICAL CASE 2

A 25-year-old cisgender woman with sickle cell disease (SCD) has had an acute pain crisis requiring hospitalization, and she has noticed that her menstrual cycles are a common pain trigger. She wants to know what options are safe for hormonal therapy to reduce pain crises.

Background

Hormonal contraceptive therapy use is common, with 16% to 26% of individuals or an estimated 100 million women or more using these agents worldwide.1-3 Combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) therapy includes estrogens and/or progestogens. Estrogens develop and maintain the female reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics, and progestogens induce a secretory endometrium to support gestation.4 Progestogens include physiologic progesterone and synthetic progestins. Most progestins developed for contraception are structurally related to testosterone.4 When used for contraception, progestins inhibit ovulation via negative feedback of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis and have local cervical and uterine effects.4 Relating to contraception, estrogen helps to suppress gonadotropins, prevent follicle development, and reduce the irregular bleeding that progestin can cause.3,4

Different hormonal formulations exist and include either a combination of an estrogen and a progestin (oral contraceptives, transdermal patch, vaginal ring), or progestin-only agents (oral, injectable, intrauterine system [IUS], subdermal implant). Oral contraceptives usually include ethinyl estradiol (EE) with a different progestin, although newer estrogens exist (eg, 17-beta estradiol/nomestrol acetate, estrogen valerate/dienogest, sterols/drospirenone). Oral contraceptives are grouped by generation (ie, first, second, third, or fourth generation) according to progestin type. Drospirenone is related to spironolactone and has prominent antiandrogen and antimineralocorticoid properties.

A newer-generation oral contraceptive does not necessarily mean a lower VTE risk. For example, newer formulations contain lower EE doses (eg, 20-30  µg) that are associated with less thrombogenicity, but they may also have a more thrombogenic progestin type (eg, desogestrel, drosperinone).5

Thrombotic mechanisms

The thrombogenicity of CHCs is due, at least in part, to the combination of multiple changes seen in the clotting factor levels and the vasculature.3 CHCs increase procoagulant factors (prothrombin, factor VII, VIII, X, and fibrinogen) and decrease anticoagulant factors (protein S [PS] and antithrombin [AT]).3,6 An acquired activated protein C (APC) resistance develops, which is thought to be important to CHC thrombogenicity and is likely due to lower tissue factor pathway inhibitor and PS levels.6 Fibrinolytic system changes seen with CHC use include increased tissue plasminogen activator, reduced plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1, and decreased thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor and are of unknown clinical relevance.3,6 Once CHCs are stopped, most hemostatic changes resolve in 2 to 4 weeks.7

Compared to second-generation progestins, (eg, levonorgestrel [LNG]), later-generation progestins (eg, desogestrel, gestodene, drosperinone) have greater acquired APC resistance and other markers of hypercoagulability.3,5,8,9 Why does the type of progestin have an impact on thrombosis risk? One theory is that thrombogenicity is related to the total estrogenicity from the combined estrogen-progestin compound (dose of estrogen vs strength of progestin's antiestrogen effect, which varies among progestins).6,10 The sex-binding hormone globulin has been suggested as a surrogate for total estrogenicity and correlates with the level of acquired APC resistance among CHC users,6,11 although a causal relationship between the sex-binding hormone globulin and VTE has not been demonstrated.12

One mechanism of oral estrogen's hypercoagulability is “first-pass” hepatic metabolism, which leads to the increased hepatic synthesis of coagulation proteins.3 However, this is not the only mechanism because nonoral CHCs, such as the transdermal patch or vaginal ring, do not undergo first-pass metabolism or cause liver protein changes but do induce acquired APC resistance and elevated markers of hypercoagulability despite lower systemic estrogen levels.13-18 Thrombogenicity may, at least partially, relate to the third-generation progestins used in the transdermal patch and vaginal ring.3

There is no acquired APC resistance with the LNG IUS, the low-dose progestin-only pill (POP), or the progestin subdermal implant.10,19,20 With the implant, sustained increased factor VII levels have been seen in some but not all studies, and an unexpected opposite effect was seen with increased anticoagulant factors and decreased thrombin AT complex levels (a surrogate for less thrombin generation).19,21-25 Similarly, the POPs have favorable effects on blood coagulation and may have a net antithrombotic effect.3 Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) has few coagulation changes but has other effects on endothelial function.26-28

Combined hormonal therapy and VTE risk: general population

Oral contraceptives

Most epidemiological studies report relative and not absolute VTE risk estimates with hormone exposure, which limits data interpretation and decision-making for clinicians, patients, and those involved in clinical practice guidelines. As a reference, for females aged 15 to 49 years without hormone exposure, the VTE incidence rate is 1.9 to 3.7 per 10 000 person-years (PYs).29,30 COCs have a relative risk (RR) of 3.5 (95% CI, 2.9-4.3),31,32 but this increase in VTE risk (baseline VTE risk multiplied by 3.5) is still considered low (∼0.05-0.15% PY) for most individuals. See Table 1 for differences by agent. The risk of VTE is highest in the first year of initiating COCs; however, the risk remains long-term (>5 years).33,34

Table 1.

VTE risk by hormonal type

Hormonal type Example agents Baseline risk in nonusers Adjusted RR (95%) Absolute risk
Combined hormonal contraceptives
COCsa 1.9-3.7/10 000 PY29,30 Overall: 3.5 (2.9-4.3)32 -
First generation EEb/norethindrone 1.9-3.7/10 000 PY29,30 3.2 (2.0-5.1)32 3.7-16.1/10 000 PY29
Second generation EE/LNG
EE/norgestrel		 1.9-3.7/10 000 PY29,30 2.92 (2.23-3.81)29 5-8/10 000 PY29
Third generation EE/desogestrel;
EE/gestodene		 1.9-3.7/10 000 PY29,30 6.61 (5.60-7.80)29 9-12/10,000 PY29
Fourth generation/unclassified EE/drosperinone;
EE/cytoproterone acetate		 1.9-3.7/10 000 PY29,30 6.37 (5.43-7.47)29 7-9/10 000 PY29
Transdermal patch EE/norelgestromin; EE/LNG 2.1/10 000 PY35 7.9 (3.5-17.7)35 9.7/10 000 exposure y35
Vaginal ring EE/etonogestrel; EE/nestorone 2.1/10 000 PY35 6.5 (4.7-8.9)35 7.8/10 000 exposure y35
Progestin-only contraceptives
IUS LNG 25-29 y: 2.4/10 000 PY63 0.6 (0.2-1.5)37 1.4/10 000 PYc
Low-dose POP (<5  mg) Norethindrone; desogestrel; drosperinone 25-29 y: 2.4/10 000 PY63 0.9 (0.6-1.5)37 2.2/10 000 PYc
High-dose POP for menstrual bleeding (>5-30  mg) Norethindrone acetate; medroxyprogesterone acetate 25-29 y: 2.4/10 000 PY63
45-49 y: 5.4/10 000 PY63 		5.3 (1.5-18.7)40
5.92 (1.16-30.1)41 		25-29 y: 12.7/10 000 PYc
45-49 y: 28.6/10 000 PYc
Injectable DMPA Medroxyprogesterone acetate 25-29 y: 2.4/10 000 PY 2.7 (1.3-5.5)37 6.5/10 000 PYc
Subdermal implant Etonogestrel; LNG 2.1/10 000 PY 1.4 (0.6-3.4)35 1.7/10 000 exposure y35
Open in a new tab
a

RRs reported with EE 30-40  µg when available. Lower estrogen doses carry a lower VTE risk.29

b

Norgestimate may be listed as either second or third generation, but its risk profile is similar to LNG.29

c

Calculated using the baseline VTE incidence in nonusers and the RR, when the absolute VTE risk was not reported.

Transdermal patch

In a database study, the adjusted RR for the transdermal patch was 7.9 (95% CI, 3.5-17.7) relative to nonusers and 2.5 (95% CI, 1.1-5.6) relative to the LNG COC.35 This corresponds to a VTE incidence of 9.7 per 10 000 exposure years, which is similar to third-generation COCs (Table 1).29,35 In a systematic review that identified 5 additional studies, VTE risk was either the same or higher than LNG or norgestimate-based COCs.36

Vaginal ring

In the same database study, the adjusted RR was 6.5 (95% CI, 4.7-8.9) compared to nonusers and 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4-2.9) compared to the LNG oral contraceptive pill (Table 1).35 In the systematic review, 2 additional studies evaluated the vaginal ring and found it had a similar risk to the LNG oral contraceptive pill.36

Progestin-only agents and VTE risk: general population

LNG intrauterine system

There is no VTE risk with the LNG IUS compared to individuals without hormone exposure (RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-1.5).35,37,38 Advantages for the LNG IUS include an improved uterine bleeding profile over time and adherence, and disadvantages include cost and procedure-related risks.

Low-dose POPs

Users of low-dose POPs have no increased VTE risk compared to nonusers (RR 0.9; 95% CI, 0.57-1.45).37 This risk estimate did not include users of the drosperinone POP. Because the drosperinone POP is newer, less data and clinical experience information are available, and the progestin type is one of the more thrombogenic progestogens. In a literature review, there were no VTE events out of more than 20 000 cycle exposures, including in individuals with VTE risk factors.39 One disadvantage of POPs is that the medication must be taken consistently every day, and there is decreased effectiveness if a dose is late or missed, although the drosperinone POP reports a longer missed pill safety window of 24 hours.39 Progestin-only oral medications for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding carry a higher thrombotic risk of 5-6-fold,40,41 which likely relates to higher doses used and possibly the population under study (eg, older age, possible inflammation present).

Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate

Among 3 studies, 2 identified an increase in VTE risk (RR 2.67; 95% CI, 1.29-5.53).37,38 This risk may be explained by the higher peak hormone plasma concentrations, compared to the LNG IUS or progestin-only contraceptives.37 One advantage is adherence, and disadvantages include reduced bone mineral density and possible metabolic changes.

Implants

Less VTE data are available for the implants. In a database study evaluating the etonogestrel implant, the adjusted RR was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.6-3.4) compared to nonusers, with 5 confirmed VTE events over 29 497 PY, which corresponds to an incidence rate of 1.7 per 10 000 PY.35 In a case-control study that grouped subdermal implants into a “medium-dose” category with certain POPs, the odds ratio (OR) of VTE was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5-1.6) compared to nonusers.34 Last, in a database study of 8369 individuals with the etonogestrel implant inserted immediately postpartum, the adjusted OR of VTE requiring readmission within 30 days was 1.81 (95% CI, 0.44-7.45) compared to nonusers.42 One advantage is adherence, and disadvantages include procedure risks and more variable vaginal bleeding.

It should be noted that variable vaginal bleeding can be a disadvantage of all progestin-only methods, particularly for the first few cycles after initiation. Rates of amenorrhea are higher with LNG IUS and DMPA.

Contraceptive hormonal therapy considerations for patients at VTE risk

Even if a patient may be at increased risk of VTE, the contraceptive choice remains a patient-centered decision based on factors that include indication and side effect profile, cost, mode of administration, duration, VTE risk based on both the patient and contraceptive agent, and the risks and benefits of alternative options. While the focus of this article is on VTE risk, we must acknowledge the important benefits of CHCs that include avoiding unwanted pregnancy; menstrual suppression, including treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and other gynecological disorders; and other indications that may outweigh the potential risks. No one health care provider may have all this information, so a multidisciplinary decision is often made between the patient and their primary care provider, gynecologist, and/or hematologist/thrombosis specialist (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Multidisciplinary care for hormonal contraceptive therapy.

Table 2 contains a summary of guideline recommendations for contraceptive therapy in individuals with underlying conditions associated with increased VTE risk. Below are VTE risk information and the authors' approach to a number of these conditions. Additional VTE risk factors, such as increased age, smoking, and elevated body mass index (BMI), may also influence decision-making.43

Table 2.

Selected guideline recommendations for contraception for individuals with blood conditions

Centres for Disease Control and Prevention Medical Eligibility Criteria 202446 ASH guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: thrombophilia testing (2023)48 EULAR recommendations for the management of family planning, assisted reproduction, pregnancy, and menopause in patients with SLE and/or APS (2017)51 British Society for Haematology guideline for management of SCD in pregnancy (2021)62 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute evidence-based management of SCD (2014)61
General counseling - For women from the general population who are considering
using COCs, the ASH guideline panel recommends not per-
forming thrombophilia testing to guide the use of COCs.		 Women with SLE should be counseled about the use of effective contraceptive measures (oral contraceptives, subcutaneous implants, IUD), based on their disease activity and thrombotic risk (particularly aPL status). Pregnancy and conception should be discussed with women of childbearing age with SCD as part of their annual review.
Contraceptive advice should be given and conveyed to the woman's primary care team.		 As a part of primary care visits, provide risk assessment and educational and health promotion counseling (or refer to individuals with expertise in these disciplines) to all women and men of childbearing age to reduce reproductive risk and improve pregnancy outcomes. Provide contraceptive counseling, if desired, to prevent unintended pregnancy, and if pregnancy is desired, provide preconception counseling.
Contraceptive therapy guidance Family history (1st- degree relative): no restriction (method can be used) for LNG IUD, implant, DMPA, POP; for CHC advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks.
For known thrombogenic mutations: For LNG IUD, Implant, POP advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks; DMPA theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh advantages; CHC unacceptable health risk (method not to be used).
SLE with positive (or unknown) aPLs: For LNG IUD, Implant, POP advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks; DMPA theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh advantages; CHC unacceptable health risk (method not to be used).
SLE with thrombocytopenia: All method's advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks except for initiation of DMPA as theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages.
SLE on immunosuppressive therapy: All methods advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks.
SLE and none of the above: All method's advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks.
SCD: no restriction (method can be used) for LNG IUD, Implant, POP; DMPA may be either advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks OR theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh advantages (category should be assessed according to the severity of the condition and risk of thrombosis); CHC unacceptable health risk (should not be used).		 For women with a family history of VTE and unknown thrombophilia status in the family who are considering using COCs, the ASH guideline panel suggests not testing for hereditary
thrombophilia (using a panel of tests) to guide the use of COCs.
For women with a family history of VTE and known FVL or PGM in the family (low-risk thrombophilia), the ASH guideline panel suggests not testing for the known familial thrombophilia to guide the use of COCs.
For women with a family history of VTE and known AT, PC, or PS deficiency in the family (high-risk thrombophilia), the ASH guideline panel suggests testing for the known familial thrombophilia. The panel suggests avoidance of COCs for women with high-risk thrombophilia		 IUD can be offered to all the patients with SLE and/or APS free of any gynecological contraindication. The choice of contraception should be individualized but methods that eliminate user failure, such as LNG IUS and intramuscular DMPA, are preferred.
There is some evidence for reduction in sickle pain associated with progesterone-only preparations.
CHCs are an option for women with SCD but cardiovascular risk factors should be minimized to mitigate potential risk.		 Progestin-only contraceptives (pills, injections, and implants), LNG IUDs, and barrier methods have no restrictions or concerns for use in women with SCD.
If the benefits are considered to outweigh the risks, CHCs (pills, patches, and rings) may be used in women with SCD.
Open in a new tab

aPLs, antiphospholipid antibodies; EULAR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.

When the added VTE risk exceeds tolerable thresholds, a progestin-only IUS or POP may be suggested. In a systematic review that included 8 studies of women with medical conditions (hypertension, smoking, thrombophilia, or prior VTE), there was no additional VTE risk among those receiving progestin-only contraception, except for DMPA in 2 studies.38 Similarly, in an older cohort study evaluating the oral progestin chlormadinone acetate in individuals with older age, elevated BMI, inherited thrombophilia, or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) there was no increase in VTE risk compared to a matched cohort of nonusers after adjusting for age, BMI, and thrombophilia (RR 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-3.9).44 For those with VTE risk factors, there may be an added VTE risk with DMPA,38 but likely not with the subdermal implant.34 These statements, however, are based on little data.

Inherited thrombophilia and family history of VTE

Among CHC users, having an inherited thrombophilia increases VTE risk to varying degrees based on the thrombophilia type. In a systematic review, AT, PC, or PS deficiency was associated with an absolute VTE risk of 4.3 to 4.6 per 100 pill-years.45 In patients with heterozygous FVL or prothrombin gene mutation (PGM), the absolute VTE risk was lower, at 0.49 to 2.0 per 100 pill-years.45 Despite this difference in reported VTE risk, the US Medical Criteria for Contraceptive Use treats all thrombophilia types the same and states that CHCs are an unacceptable health risk and should not be used (Table 2).46 The authors of this article disagree and consider mild thrombophilia more of a relative and not absolute contraindication, where there is room for a patient-centered decision with all impacting factors considered, including management of menstrual disorders or prevention of unwanted pregnancy, especially as pregnancy carries a higher thrombotic risk.47

The 2023 American Society of Hematology (ASH) thrombophilia guidelines have a similar stance, suggesting CHCs are not strictly contraindicated for those with heterozygous FVL or PGM based on a smaller associated VTE risk. For women with a family history of a low-risk thrombophilia (heterozygous FVL or PGM) and VTE, the ASH panel suggested no testing for the known thrombophilia to guide contraceptive use.48 In contrast, the panel suggested testing for the known thrombophilia if there was a family history of high-risk thrombophilia (PC, PS, or AT deficiency) and VTE to guide contraceptive use (Table 2).48 However, the panel also acknowledged the importance of patient values and preferences and differing risk and benefit trade-offs, so an individualized discussion is needed.48

Having a family history of VTE, regardless of thrombophilia status, increases the VTE risk by 2-4-fold.49 For patients with a low tolerable threshold for VTE risk, a family VTE history alone may be enough to avoid contraceptives with increased VTE risk, whereas other individuals may accept a small increased absolute VTE risk. For those with a family history of VTE, the estimated number needed to test to prevent 1 VTE is shown in Table 3.50 The 2023 ASH guidelines recommend no testing for thrombophilia for contraceptive decision-making among individuals with a family history of VTE and no known thrombophilia.48

Table 3.

VTE risk by condition type and COC use

Condition type Baseline VTE incidence (95% CI) RR with COC (95% CI)a Absolute risk with COC (95% CI)
Low-risk thrombophilia
 Heterozygous FVL 0.5% (0.1-1.3%)/y50
By age 45: 12%64 		RR 5.89 (4.21-8.23)45 0.49 (0.18-1.07) to 2.0
(0.07-0.41) per 100 pill-years45
 Heterozygous PGM 0.4% (0.1-1.1%)/y RR 5.24 (2.69-10.20)45
High-risk thrombophilia
 Homozygosity of FVL or PGM or double heterozygosityb FVL: 1.8% (0.1-4.0%)/y50 RR 7.15 (2.93-17.45)45 0.86 (0.10-3.11) per 100 pill-years45
 AT, PC, or PS deficiency 1.5% (0.7-2.8%)/y50
By age 45: AT: 41%, PC: 26%, PS: 21%64 		4.3 (1.4-9.7) to 4.62 (2.5-7.9) per 100 pill-years45
Antiphospholipid antibodies Overall: 0.8-1.02 per 100 PY65,66
LAC: 1.3% per year; 5.9% (1.2-10.6%) at 10 y67
Triple positivec: 9.8% at 2 y; 37.1% at 10 y68 		- -
Sickle cell trait Overall: 0.438 (0.324-0.720)/100 PY
<70 y: 0.265 (0.139-0.469)/100 PY69 		OR 6.7 (1.0-43)60 -
Sickle cell disease 3.58 (0.04-25.4)/100 PY69;
11.3% (8.3-15.3%) by age 4070 		- -
Open in a new tab
a

RR estimates derived from case-control studies without a family history of VTE.

b

The majority of the data in this group comes from patients with homozygous FVL.

c

Triple positive: LAC, anticardiolipin antibody, and beta-2 glycoprotein antibody positivity.

Systematic lupus erythematosus and/or aPLs

Contraception counseling is important for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune diseases to decrease the risk of immunosuppressant teratogenicity or a high-risk pregnancy if their disease is not adequately controlled.51 Combined or progestin-only oral contraceptives do not increase the risk of flare among SLE patients with stable disease, but trials excluded patients with aPLs.52,53 Drosperinone can increase potassium levels and should be used with caution in patients with SLE nephritis on angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor blocker inhibitors. DMPA decreases bone mineral density and has a metabolic risk; this may be important for patients on chronic steroids. In patients with active SLE or autoimmune disease, a progestin-only hormonal contraceptive that does not carry thrombotic risk, such as the LNG IUS, should be considered.51

There are minimal data on the risk of hormonal contraception in patients with aPLs or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).54 In a case-control study of 378 women aged under 50 years presenting with ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction, the OR of stroke was higher with a positive lupus anticoagulant (LAC) and COC use (201.0; 95% CI, 22.1-1828.0) compared to COC use alone (2.9; 95% CI, 1.8-4.6).55 Similarly, the OR of myocardial infarction was higher with a positive LAC and COC use (21.6; 95% CI, 1.9-242.0) than COC use alone (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4), but conclusions are limited by small numbers.55

The previous 2016 US MEC guideline version stated for patients with aPL that all hormonal options had more risks than benefits. However, the 2024 US MEC guidelines have been updated and now have a similar approach to other “at risk” groups (Table 2). EULAR (European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology) guidelines recommend progestin-only contraception for those with aPL and APS but also suggest that estrogen-based contraception may be considered for gynecological disorders not otherwise managed in patients who are fully anticoagulated with a low-risk aPL profile.51

Sickle cell disease

There is recent recognition that VTE risk with SCD is similar to that of other thrombophilias.56,57 Menstrual cycle–associated pain crises and dysmenorrhea reduce quality of life.58 Hormonal contraception does not increase SCD pain crises.59 Some randomized trials have shown a reduction in pain crises in SCD patients receiving DMPA, compared to placebo or CHCs, but there are methodological limitations.59 Two small cohort studies showed a reduction in pain crises and other symptoms with the progestin- only implant, compared to a control group, but patients were not randomized.59 From a VTE perspective, progestin-only contraception does not appear to increase VTE in SCD.59 There are less data for combined hormones, but there is a signal for increased VTE risk among sickle cell trait individuals (Table 4).60 Given the potential concerns for VTE risk with CHC or DMPA in other “at-risk” conditions, other formulations of progestins may be preferable.

Table 4.

Estimated number needed to test to prevent VTE when not taking combined oral contraceptives

Thrombophilia Risk on COC per year, % Risk difference per 100 women Number not taking COCs to prevent 1 VTE Number of relatives to be tested
Family history of VTE
 General population, no family history 0.08 0.03 3333 None
 General population, family history 0.04 0.06 1667 None
Relatives with FVL or PGM 0.5 0.3 333 666
Relatives with AT, PC, or PS deficiency 4.3 3.6 28 56
Open in a new tab

Table adapted with permission from Middeldorp,50 which includes data based on family studies and a general population risk based on a baseline VTE risk in young women of 0.01% per year, an RR of VTE by use of COC of 4, and an RR of 2 for VTE by having a positive family history.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and British Journal of Haematology guidelines support contraception counseling and long-acting progestin-only contraception use; however, an individualized assessment is needed (Table 4).61,62 Women with SCD report low use and knowledge about long-acting progestin-only contraception, such as the LNG IUS or implant, and further awareness is needed.58 Similar to aPLs, SCD carries a risk of arterial thrombosis, so a discussion about optimizing cardiovascular risk factors is needed when considering CHCs.62

CLINICAL CASE 1 (continued)

After a discussion about the available evidence and guidelines, the patient decides to forgo testing and is comfortable using an oral contraceptive with a lower estrogen dose and second-generation progestin.

CLINICAL CASE 2 (continued)

While the LNG IUS would have been a good choice for VTE risk and decreased menstrual bleeding, the patient preferred to try a progestin-only implant because of the small number of studies that favored improved pain crises. She wanted to avoid DMPA because of potential VTE risk.

Acknowledgments

Leslie Skeith and Shannon M. Bates are members of the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Research Network.

Dr. Bates receives unencumbered salary support through the Eli Lilly Canada/May Cohen Chair in Women's Health at McMaster University.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure

Leslie Skeith: no competing financial interests to declare.

Shannon M. Bates: no competing financial interests to declare.

Off-label drug use

Leslie Skeith: Off-label drug use is described relating to reducing pain crises in patients with SCD.

Shannon M. Bates: Off-label drug use is described relating to reducing pain crises in patients with SCD.

References

  • 1.Jones J, Mosher W, Daniels K.. Current contraceptive use in the United States, 2006-2010, and changes in patterns of use since 1995. Natl Health Stat Report. 18 October 2012(60):1-15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rotermann M, Dunn S, Black A.. Oral contraceptive use among women aged 15 to 49: results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep. October 2015;26(10):21-28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tchaikovski SN, Rosing J.. Mechanisms of estrogen-induced venous thromboembolism. Thromb Res. 2010;126(1):5-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Teal S, Edelman A.. Contraception selection, effectiveness, and adverse effects: a review. JAMA. 2021;326(24):2507-2518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Oral Contraceptive and Hemostasis Study Group. The effects of seven monophasic oral contraceptive regimens on hemostatic variables: conclusions from a large randomized multicenter study. Contraception. 2003;67(3):173-185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sandset PM. Mechanisms of hormonal therapy related thrombosis. Thromb Res. 2013;131(suppl 1):S4-S7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hugon-Rodin J, Fontana P, Poncet A, Streuli I, Casini A, Blondon M.. Longitudinal profile of estrogen-related thrombotic biomarkers after cessation of combined hormonal contraceptives. Blood. 2024;143(1):70-78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rosing J, Middeldorp S, Curvers J, et al.. Low-dose oral contraceptives and acquired resistance to activated protein C: a randomised cross-over study. Lancet. 1999;354(9195):2036-2040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Middeldorp S, Meijers JC, van den Ende AE, et al.. Effects on coagulation of levonorgestrel- and desogestrel-containing low dose oral contraceptives: a cross-over study. Thromb Haemost. 2000;84(1):4-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kemmeren JM, Algra A, Meijers JC, et al.. Effect of second- and third-generation oral contraceptives on the protein C system in the absence or presence of the factor V Leiden mutation: a randomized trial. Blood. 2004;103(3):927-933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Raps M, Helmerhorst F, Fleischer K, et al.. Sex hormone-binding globulin as a marker for the thrombotic risk of hormonal contraceptives. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(6):992-997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Stegeman BH, Helmerhorst FM, Vos HL, Rosendaal FR, Van Hylckama Vlieg A.. Sex hormone-binding globulin levels are not causally related to venous thrombosis risk in women not using hormonal contraceptives. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(10):2061-2067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sitruk-Ware RL, Menard J, Rad M, et al.. Comparison of the impact of vaginal and oral administration of combined hormonal contraceptives on hepatic proteins sensitive to estrogen. Contraception. 2007;75(6):430-437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fleischer K, van Vliet HA, Rosendaal FR, Rosing J, Tchaikovski S, Helmerhorst FM. Effects of the contraceptive patch, the vaginal ring and an oral contraceptive on APC resistance and SHBG: a cross-over study. Thromb Res. 2009;123(3):429-435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Van Den Heuvel MW, Van Bragt AJ, Alnabawy AK, Kaptein MC. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72(3):168-174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rad M, Kluft C, Ménard J, et al.. Comparative effects of a contraceptive vaginal ring delivering a nonandrogenic progestin and continuous ethinyl estradiol and a combined oral contraceptive containing levonorgestrel on hemostasis variables. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(1):72-77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kluft C, Meijer P, LaGuardia KD, Fisher AC. Comparison of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs. oral contraceptives on hemostasis variables. Contraception. 2008;77(2):77-83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Johnson JV, Lowell J, Badger GJ, Rosing J, Tchaikovski S, Cushman M.. Effects of oral and transdermal hormonal contraception on vascular risk markers: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(suppl 2, pt 1):278-284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lindqvist PG, Rosing J, Malmquist A, Hillarp A.. Etonogestrel implant use is not related to hypercoagulable changes in anticoagulant system. J Thromb Haemost. 2003;1(3):601-602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Van Vliet HA, Tchaikovski SN, Rosendaal FR, Rosing J, Helmerhorst FM. The effect of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on the resistance to activated protein C (APC). Thromb Haemost. 2009;101(4):691-695. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shaaban MM, Elwan SI, El-Kabsh MY, Farghaly SA, Thabet N.. Effect of levonorgestrel contraceptive implants, norplant, on blood coagulation. Contraception. 1984;30(5):421-430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Viegas OA, Koh SC, Ratnam SS. The effects of reformulated 2-rod norplant implant on hemostasis after three years. Contraception. 1996;54(4):219-228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brito MB, Ferriani RA, Meijers JC, et al.. Effects of the etonogestrel- releasing contraceptive implant inserted immediately postpartum on maternal hemostasis: a randomized controlled trial. Thromb Res. 2012; 130(3):355-360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Egberg N, Van Beek A, Gunnervik C, et al.. Effects on the hemostatic system and liver function in relation to implanon and norplant. A prospective randomized clinical trial. Contraception. 1998;58(2):93-98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vieira CS, Ferriani RA, Garcia AA, et al.. Use of the etonogestrel-releasing implant is associated with hypoactivation of the coagulation cascade. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(8):2196-2201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fahmy K, Khairy M, Allam G, Gobran F, Alloush M.. Effect of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate on coagulation factors and serum lipids in Egyptian women. Contraception. 1991;44(4):431-444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Goldstein J, Cushman M, Badger GJ, Johnson JV. Effect of depomedroxyprogesterone acetate on coagulation parameter: a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1267-1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kawano H, Motoyama T, Hirai N, et al.. Effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate plus estradiol on endothelium-dependent vasodilation in postmenopausal women. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87(2):238-240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lidegaard O, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, Skjeldestad FE, Løkkegaard E.. Risk of venous thromboembolism from use of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens and oestrogen doses: Danish cohort study, 2001-9. BMJ. 25 October 2011;343:d6423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Samuelsson E, Hägg S.. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in young Swedish women and possibly preventable cases among combined oral contraceptive users. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(7):674-681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stegeman BH, de Bastos M, Rosendaal FR, et al.. Different combined oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thrombosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 12 September 2013;347:f5298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.de Bastos M, Stegeman BH, Rosendaal FR, et al.. Combined oral contraceptives: venous thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(3): CD010813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lidegaard Ø, Edström B, Kreiner S.. Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism: a five-year national case-control study. Contraception. 2002;65(3):187-196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bergendal A, Persson I, Odeberg J, et al.. Association of venous thromboembolism with hormonal contraception and thrombophilic genotypes. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(3):600-609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lidegaard O, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, Løkkegaard E.. Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10. BMJ. 10 May 2012;344:e2990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tepper NK, Dragoman MV, Gaffield ME, Curtis KM. Nonoral combined hormonal contraceptives and thromboembolism: a systematic review. Contraception. 2017;95(2):130-139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mantha S, Karp R, Raghavan V, Terrin N, Bauer KA, Zwicker JI. Assessing the risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraception: a meta-analysis. BMJ. 7 August 2012;345:e4944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tepper NK, Whiteman MK, Marchbanks PA, James AH, Curtis KM. Progestin- only contraception and thromboembolism: a systematic review. Contraception. 2016;94(6):678-700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Palacios S, Regidor PA, Colli E, et al.. Oestrogen-free oral contraception with a 4 mg drospirenone-only pill: new data and a review of the literature. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020;25(3):221-227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vasilakis C, Jick H, del Mar Melero-Montes M.. Risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism in users of progestagens alone. Lancet. 1999;354(9190):1610-1611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Poulter NR, Chang CL, Farley TM, Meirik O.. Risk of cardiovascular diseases associated with oral progestagen preparations with therapeutic indications. Lancet. 1999;354(9190):1610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Floyd JL, Beasley AD, Swaim LS, Turrentine MA, Nijjar JB. Association of Immediate postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion and venous thromboembolism. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(6):1275-1280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Skeith L, Le Gal G, Rodger MA. Oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy: how strong a risk factor for venous thromboembolism? Thromb Res. June 2021;202:134-138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Conard J, Plu-Bureau G, Bahi N, Horellou MH, Pelissier C, Thalabard JC. Progestogen-only contraception in women at high risk of venous thromboembolism. Contraception. 2004;70(6):437-441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Van Vlijmen EF, Wiewel-Verschueren S, Monster TB, Meijer K.. Combined oral contraceptives, thrombophilia and the risk of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14(7):1393-1403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cohen MK, Houry D, Posner SF. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2024. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2024;73:1-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vlijmen EFW Van, Veeger NJGM, Middeldorp S, et al.. Thrombotic risk during oral contraceptive use and pregnancy in women with factor V Leiden or prothrombin mutation: a rational approach to contraception. Blood. 2011;118(8):2055-2061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Middeldorp S, Nieuwlaat R, Baumann Kreuziger L, et al.. American Society of Hematology 2023 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: thrombophilia testing. Blood Adv. 2023;7(22):7101-7138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sonnevi K, Bergendal A, Adami J, Lärfars G, Kieler H.. Self-reported family history in estimating the risk of hormone, surgery and cast related VTE in women. Thromb Res. 2013;132(2):164-169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Middeldorp S. Is thrombophilia testing useful? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2011;2011(1):150-155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Andreoli L, Bertsias GK, Agmon-Levin N, et al.. EULAR recommendations for women's health and the management of family planning, assisted reproduction, pregnancy and menopause in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and/or antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(3):476-485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Petri M, Kim MY, Kalunian KC, et al.. Combined oral contraceptives in women with systemic lupus erythematosus for the OC-SELENA trial. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(24): 2550-2558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.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(24): 2539-2549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Barbhaiya M, Zuily S, Naden R, et al; ACR/EULAR APS Classification Criteria Collaborators. 2023 ACR/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(10):1258-1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Urbanus RT, Siegerink B, Roest M, Rosendaal FR, de Groot PG, Algra A.. Antiphospholipid antibodies and risk of myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke in young women in the RATIO study: a case-control study. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(11):998-1005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ogunsile FJ, Naik R, Lanzkron S.. Overcoming challenges of venous thromboembolism in sickle cell disease treatment. Expert Rev Hematol. 2019;12(3):173-182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Pecker LH, Burke A, Streiff MB, Lanzkron S, Naik RP. Progestin-only contraception is first line for sickle cell disease: a comment on “Hormonal Therapies in Females with Blood Disorders: Thrombophilia, Thrombosis, Hemoglobinopathies, and Anemias.” Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2023;7(6):102183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Pecker LH, Hussain S, Lanzkron S, et al.. Women with sickle cell disease report low knowledge and use of long acting reversible contraception. J Natl Med Assoc. 2021;113(5):552-559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Haddad LB, Curtis KM, Legardy-Williams JK, Cwiak C, Jamieson DJ. Contraception for individuals with sickle cell disease: a systematic review of the literature. Contraception. 2012;85(6):527-537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Austin H, Lally C, Benson JM, Whitsett C, Hooper WC, Key NS. Hormonal contraception, sickle cell trait, and risk for venous thromboembolism among African American women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):620.e1-e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.National Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute. Evidence-based management of sickle cell disease: expert panel report. Accessed 11 August 2024. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/media/docs/Evd-Bsd_SickleCellDis_Rep2014.pdf.
  • 62.Oteng-Ntim E, Pavord S, Howard R, et al.. Management of sickle cell disease in pregnancy. A British Society for Haematology Guideline. Br J Haematol. 2021;194(6):980-995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Næss IA, Christiansen SC, Romundstad P, Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Hammerstrøm J.. Incidence and mortality of venous thrombosis: a population-based study. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5(4):692-699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bucciarelli P, Rosendaal FR, Tripodi A, et al.. Risk of venous thromboembolism and clinical manifestations in carriers of antithrombin, protein C, protein S deficiency, or activated protein C resistance: a multicenter collaborative family study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999;19(4): 1026-1033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mustonen P, Lehtonen KV, Javela K, Puurunen M.. Persistent antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) in asymptomatic carriers as a risk factor for future thrombotic events: a nationwide prospective study. Lupus. 2014;23(14):1468-1476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ahmadzadeh Y, Andrade D, Tektonidou M, et al.. First and recurrent thrombosis risk after 3842 patient-years of follow-up: prospective results from antiphospholipid syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) Clinical Database and Repository. Abstract presented at: ACR Convergence 2021; 6 November 2021; Poster session A.
  • 67.Pengo V, Testa S, Martinelli I, et al.. Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in carriers of isolated lupus anticoagulant. Thromb Res. 2015;135(1):46-49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Pengo V, Ruffatti A, Legnani C, et al.. Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in asymptomatic carriers of high-risk antiphospholipid antibody profile: a multicenter prospective study. Blood. 2011;118(17):4714-4719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Folsom AR, Tang W, Roetker NS, et al.. Prospective study of sickle cell trait and venous thromboembolism incidence. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(1): 2-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Naik RP, Streiff MB, Haywood C, Segal JB, Lanzkron S.. Venous thromboembolism incidence in the cooperative study of sickle cell disease. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(12):2010-2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Hematology: the American Society of Hematology Education Program are provided here courtesy of The American Society of Hematology

RESOURCES