Marsha E Samson1,2, Swann A Adams3,4,5, Anwar T Merchant5, Whitney D Maxwell6, Jiajia Zhang3,4, Charles L Bennett6, James R Hebert3,5. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of South Carolina, 915 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, USA. msamson@email.sc.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. msamson@email.sc.edu. 3. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of South Carolina, 915 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, USA. 4. College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 6. South Carolina College of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Certain types of oral contraceptives can produce favorable effects on lipid metabolism and vascular tone, while others have potentially detrimental effects. Endogenous and exogenous hormones exert different effects on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) depending on the type, combination, and dose of the hormone. The estrogenic and progestogenic effects of exogenous hormones on HDL and LDL are inconsistent. Studying surrogate end points (LDL, HDL levels) may provide a misleading picture of OCs. METHODS: Medicaid data from 2000 to 2013 were used to assess the relationship between the type of OCs and CVD incidence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between cardiovascular disease and OC use adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Compared to combined oral contraceptives (COC), progestin-only oral contraceptives (POC) were associated with decreased heart disease and stroke incidence after adjusting for important covariates (OR 0.74; 95 % CI 0.57, 0.97 and OR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.16, 0.95, respectively). However, there was a positive association between POC + COC and both heart disease and stroke incidence (OR 2.28; 95 % CI 1.92, 2.70 and OR 2.12; 95 % CI 1.34, 3.35, respectively). CONCLUSION: In light of an association between POC use and decreased heart disease and stroke, women's CVD risk factors should be carefully considered when choosing which OC to use. Baseline CVD risk should be a part of the discussion between women and their primary care providers when making choices regarding OCs.
INTRODUCTION: Certain types of oral contraceptives can produce favorable effects on lipid metabolism and vascular tone, while others have potentially detrimental effects. Endogenous and exogenous hormones exert different effects on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) depending on the type, combination, and dose of the hormone. The estrogenic and progestogenic effects of exogenous hormones on HDL and LDL are inconsistent. Studying surrogate end points (LDL, HDL levels) may provide a misleading picture of OCs. METHODS: Medicaid data from 2000 to 2013 were used to assess the relationship between the type of OCs and CVD incidence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between cardiovascular disease and OC use adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Compared to combined oral contraceptives (COC), progestin-only oral contraceptives (POC) were associated with decreased heart disease and stroke incidence after adjusting for important covariates (OR 0.74; 95 % CI 0.57, 0.97 and OR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.16, 0.95, respectively). However, there was a positive association between POC + COC and both heart disease and stroke incidence (OR 2.28; 95 % CI 1.92, 2.70 and OR 2.12; 95 % CI 1.34, 3.35, respectively). CONCLUSION: In light of an association between POC use and decreased heart disease and stroke, women's CVD risk factors should be carefully considered when choosing which OC to use. Baseline CVD risk should be a part of the discussion between women and their primary care providers when making choices regarding OCs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic disease; Heart disease; Oral contraceptives; Trends; Women’s health
Authors: Polly A Marchbanks; Jill A McDonald; Hoyt G Wilson; Suzanne G Folger; Michele G Mandel; Janet R Daling; Leslie Bernstein; Kathleen E Malone; Giske Ursin; Brian L Strom; Sandra A Norman; Phyllis A Wingo; Ronald T Burkman; Jesse A Berlin; Michael S Simon; Robert Spirtas; Linda K Weiss Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William E Boden; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Todd Anderson; Bernard R Chaitman; Patrice Desvignes-Nickens; Kent Koprowicz; Ruth McBride; Koon Teo; William Weintraub Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Chasan-Taber; W C Willett; J E Manson; D Spiegelman; D J Hunter; G Curhan; G A Colditz; M J Stampfer Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-08-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Knashawn H Morales; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Jennifer E Fassbender; Jerene Good; A Russell Localio; Thomas A Wadden Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Marsha E Samson; Swann Arp Adams; Caroline M Mulatya; Jiajia Zhang; Charles L Bennett; James Hebert; Susan E Steck Journal: Maturitas Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Martin Heier; Mark S Borja; Cathrine Brunborg; Ingebjørg Seljeflot; Hanna Dis Margeirsdottir; Kristian F Hanssen; Knut Dahl-Jørgensen; Michael N Oda Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 9.951