Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#377 How to slow the flow IV: Combined oral contraceptives


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
In premenopausal heavy menstrual bleeding due to benign etiology, do combined oral contraceptives (COC) improve patient outcomes?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
About 80% of women on COC will see improvement in mean blood loss, compared to 40% on placebo.  Additionally, their use of sanitary items is reduced by approximately half (compared to 20% for placebo), and hemoglobin improves.  Levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine systems, however, are more effective.



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • Three systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of COCs in the past 5 years.1-3 Focusing on most relevant.1 Results statistically different unless indicated.
  • Versus placebo (2 industry-sponsored RCTs, 363 patients).1 After 6 months:
    • Patient-assessed improvement in mean blood loss: 79% versus 42% (placebo).1
    • Proportion with “response” (“menstrual normality” returns): 42% versus 3% (placebo).1
    • Hemoglobin increase from baseline: ~6g/L versus ~1g/L (placebo).4,5
    • Mean blood loss reduced by ~70% versus ~20% (placebo).4,5
    • Sanitary item reduction: ~45% versus 20% (placebo).4,5
    • Quality of life improvement: 56% versus ~30% (placebo).1
  • Versus NSAIDs (1 RCT, 29 participants).1 At 2 months:
    • Mean blood loss: No difference.
  • Versus levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices (IUD) (2 RCTs, 151 participants).1 At 12 months:
    • Treatment “success” (certain score on pictorial blood-loss assessment or no alternative treatment required): 60% versus 87% (IUD).1
    • Mean blood loss reduced by ~35% versus ~85% (IUD).6
    • Patient satisfaction: No difference.1
    • Hemoglobin change: Inconsistent.6,7
    • Quality of life: Inconsistent.
    • Adverse effects: No difference.
  • Versus vaginal ring (2 RCTs).1 At 6 months:
    • Response, mean blood loss, patient satisfaction, hemoglobin: All no difference.
  • New pragmatic RCT, 62 women IUD or COC.8 At 12 months:
    • No difference in menorrhagia-related quality of life.
  • Other systematic reviews found similar.2,3
  • Limitations: Small number of participants, possible regression to the mean, various COC products studied, blinding not always performed, high drop-outs, some calculated means not reproducible by TFP authors.

CONTEXT
CONTEXTE
  • Contraindications to COC include: Previous thromboembolism/cardiovascular disease/breast cancer, uncontrolled hypertension, smoking at age ≥35, migraine with aura, active liver/renal disease.9
  • COCs may increase venous thromboembolism risk by 1/1250 women/year.10
  • IUDs: most effective medication for reducing blood loss, likely at least as good as endometrial ablation.11


Ted Maloney November 8, 2024

good to know, also that NSAIDs are effective in achieving similar results re: blood loss

Lydia Derzko November 11, 2024

consistent with my clinical experience


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#377 How to slow the flow IV: Combined oral contraceptives

In premenopausal heavy menstrual bleeding due to benign etiology, do combined oral contraceptives (COC) improve patient outcomes?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#376 Testosterone supplementation for cis-gender men: Let’s (andro-)pause for a moment (Update)

What are the benefits and harms of testosterone supplementation in healthy cis-gender men or those with age-related low testosterone?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#375 Pharm for Fibro: Can antidepressants ease the pain?

Do antidepressants reduce pain in patients with fibromyalgia?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Adrienne J Lindblad BSP ACPR PharmD
  • Jennifer Young MD CCFP-EM
  • Jennifer Potter MD CCFP

1. Lethaby A, Wise MR, Weterings MAJ, et al. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2019; 2:CD000154.

2. Bofill Rodrigues M, Dias S, Jordan V, et al. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2022; 5:CD013180.

3. Bofill Rodrigues M, Lethaby A, Farquhar C, et al. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2020; 7:CD013651.

4. Jensen JT, Parke S, Mellinger U, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr; 117(4):777-87.

5. Fraser IS, Römer T, Parke S, et al. Human Reproduction. 2011; 26(10):2698-708.

6. Shabaan MM, Zakherah MS, El-Nashar SA, Sayed GH. Contraception. 2011; 83:48-54.

7. Endrikat J, Shapiro H, Lukkari-Lax E, et al. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009; 31(4):340-7.

8. Matteson KA, Valcin J, Raker CA, Clark MA. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 229:532.e1-13.

9. Singh S, Best C, Dunn S, et al. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018; 40(5):e391-415.

10. Allan GM, Koppula S. Tools for Practice #70. What is the risk of VTE with various hormonal contraceptives? Available at: https://cfpclearn.ca/tfp70/. Accessed 22-OCT-2024.

11. Potter J, Lindblad AJ. Tools for Practice #323. How to slow the flow II: levonorgestrel intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding. Available at: https://cfpclearn.ca/tfp323/. Accessed 25-JUL-2024.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare