Submitted:
06 October 2024
Posted:
08 October 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are widely used for contraception and the management of various gynecological conditions, offering significant benefits to women’s health. However, their use is associated with a range of potential health risks, including cardiovascular complications, certain cancers, metabolic disturbances, and psychiatric effects. Despite these serious risks, the adverse effects of OCPs are often underappreciated or neglected in both clinical practice and public perception. This review explores the physiological mechanisms behind these complications, discusses the scope of the problem, and highlights the need for greater awareness and personalized healthcare. It also examines alternative contraceptive methods that may offer safer options for women, including intrauterine devices (IUDs), barrier methods, fertility awareness, implants, injectables, and permanent solutions. The review calls for improved patient education, risk assessment, and research into new non-hormonal contraceptive options to reduce the dependence on OCPs and minimize associated health risks.
Keywords:
OCP
Introduction
Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), particularly those containing synthetic estrogens like ethinyl estradiol and various progestins such as levonorgestrel or drospirenone, have been widely utilized for birth control, as well as for managing menstrual disorders, acne, and endometriosis. However, the use of OCPs is associated with several potential health complications that stem from their profound effects on hormonal balance, hemostasis, lipid metabolism, and cellular proliferation.
One of the most significant risks associated with OCPs, particularly combined oral contraceptives (COCs), is their impact on the cardiovascular system. Ethinyl estradiol, a potent synthetic estrogen, increases the production of clotting factors (fibrinogen, factor VII, and factor X) in the liver while simultaneously reducing anticoagulant proteins such as protein S and antithrombin III. This shift towards a prothrombotic state elevates the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). The hypercoagulability induced by COCs is further exacerbated in individuals with inherited thrombophilias, such as Factor V Leiden mutation, and in smokers, making them particularly vulnerable to thrombotic events. Moreover, the thrombotic risks extend to arterial systems, increasing the incidence of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction, particularly in women over 35 years of age who smoke or have underlying hypertension.
The hypertensive effects of OCPs are another critical concern, largely attributable to the estrogen component. Ethinyl estradiol induces the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), promoting sodium and water retention, which leads to increased blood volume and vascular resistance. This mechanism contributes to both the onset and exacerbation of hypertension, especially in women with pre-existing conditions or those sensitive to hormonal fluctuations. Progesterone derivatives, such as drospirenone, found in certain OCPs like Yasmin, can exert antimineralocorticoid effects, which might mitigate some hypertensive effects but can also cause hyperkalemia in susceptible individuals.
The relationship between OCPs and cancer risk has been a subject of extensive research. Prolonged use of COCs is associated with a slightly elevated risk of breast cancer, particularly hormone receptor-positive types. The estrogenic component promotes the proliferation of breast epithelial cells, potentially increasing the likelihood of malignant transformation in predisposed individuals. The risk is further heightened in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Similarly, the use of OCPs has been linked to an increased risk of cervical cancer, especially in women with persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. The hormones in OCPs may alter the cervical epithelium, facilitating the oncogenic effects of HPV. Conversely, OCPs have been shown to reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers, likely due to the suppression of ovulation and endometrial proliferation.
Metabolic disturbances are also prevalent among OCP users, with some formulations leading to glucose intolerance and dyslipidemia. Estrogens in OCPs can decrease insulin sensitivity, promoting hyperinsulinemia and, in some cases, contributing to the development of type 2 diabetes, particularly in women with a predisposition to metabolic syndrome. Additionally, OCPs can alter lipid profiles, increasing levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides while reducing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. This dyslipidemia, driven by changes in hepatic lipase activity, further exacerbates the risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.
The hepatobiliary system is another area where OCPs exert significant influence. Estrogen increases cholesterol saturation in bile, predisposing users to cholelithiasis (gallstones). The risk is particularly pronounced in women with a genetic predisposition to gallstone formation or those with a history of biliary disease. In rare cases, prolonged OCP use has been linked to the development of hepatic adenomas, benign liver tumors that carry a risk of hemorrhage or malignant transformation into hepatocellular carcinoma.
Neurologically, OCPs can exacerbate conditions like migraines, particularly those with an aura. The vasomotor effects of estrogen on cerebral blood vessels can precipitate migraine attacks, and in some cases, increase the risk of ischemic stroke, particularly in women with additional risk factors like smoking or a history of migraine with aura.
Psychiatric side effects, including mood swings, anxiety, and depression, have also been reported, particularly with progestin-dominant OCPs like those containing norethindrone or levonorgestrel. These effects may be related to the impact of synthetic hormones on neurotransmitter systems, particularly serotonin and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which are crucial for mood regulation.
Lastly, dermatological issues such as melasma can occur due to the estrogenic stimulation of melanocytes, leading to hyperpigmented patches on the skin, particularly in sun-exposed areas. This condition, though benign, can be cosmetically distressing and often persists even after discontinuation of OCPs.
In conclusion, while OCPs offer significant benefits for contraception and the management of various gynecological conditions, they also carry risks that necessitate careful consideration and individualized patient assessment. The choice of OCP should be guided by a thorough evaluation of the patient’s medical history, including cardiovascular, metabolic, hepatic, and oncological risk factors, to minimize adverse effects and ensure the safest and most effective use of these medications.
The widespread use of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) represents a significant public health issue, especially considering the potential health risks associated with their long-term use. Despite the established associations between OCPs and various serious health complications—such as thromboembolism, hypertension, certain cancers, metabolic disorders, and psychiatric issues—their risks are often underappreciated or neglected by both healthcare providers and the public. This oversight can be attributed to several factors, including the convenience and effectiveness of OCPs in preventing pregnancy, their non-contraceptive benefits, and the general perception of OCPs as a “one-size-fits-all” solution for women’s reproductive health.
The Scope of the Problem
The magnitude of the issue is underscored by the fact that millions of women globally rely on OCPs, often for extended periods. While OCPs are undoubtedly effective and provide important health benefits, such as reducing the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers, and managing conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis, the potential for serious adverse effects is substantial. The prothrombotic effects of estrogen, for instance, have led to an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), which are life-threatening conditions. Similarly, the elevated risk of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction among women with cardiovascular risk factors is a critical concern that warrants more attention.
Moreover, the association of OCPs with breast and cervical cancers, while not as strong as with cardiovascular events, still poses a significant public health challenge. The fact that these risks are often overshadowed by the convenience and non-contraceptive benefits of OCPs means that many women are not fully informed of the potential dangers, leading to a situation where the risks are downplayed or even ignored. This lack of awareness is particularly troubling given the increasing use of OCPs among younger women, who may use them for decades, compounding their cumulative risk.
Neglect and Underestimation
The neglect of these issues stems in part from a broader cultural and medical acceptance of OCPs as a standard of care for a wide range of conditions. Healthcare providers may not always communicate the full range of risks, or may assume that patients are willing to accept these risks in exchange for the benefits of contraception or symptom management. Additionally, there may be a lack of thorough risk assessment before prescribing OCPs, particularly in terms of screening for cardiovascular risk factors, genetic predispositions to thromboembolism, or a family history of hormone-sensitive cancers.
There is also a societal tendency to view the side effects of OCPs as minor or tolerable, despite evidence to the contrary. The normalization of mood swings, weight gain, and even more serious side effects like hypertension and migraines contributes to a culture where women feel compelled to endure these issues rather than seek alternative options. Furthermore, pharmaceutical marketing often emphasizes the benefits of OCPs, with less focus on the potential dangers, leading to a skewed perception of their safety profile.
Age-Wise OCP Use in Nepal:
OCP usage among women in Nepal varies significantly by age. According to data from the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2016, OCP use is more common among women aged 25-34. In this age group, about 15-20% of women reported using OCPs. Usage tends to be lower among younger women (15-24 years), where around 5-10% reported using OCPs. For women aged 35-49, the usage drops again, reflecting concerns about age-related risks such as cardiovascular issues and the onset of menopause.
Region-Wise OCP Use in Nepal:
In urban areas of Nepal, particularly in Kathmandu and other major cities, OCP usage rates are higher, with some urban centers reporting that around 20-25% of married women use OCPs. In contrast, rural areas show significantly lower rates of usage, often below 10%. The Terai region, which has better access to healthcare services compared to the mountainous and hilly regions, reports OCP usage around 15%. The disparity is largely due to differences in access to family planning services, education levels, and cultural attitudes towards contraception.
Country-Wise Comparison:
Globally, the use of OCPs in Nepal is lower compared to many other countries. For example, in countries like the United States and some parts of Europe, the prevalence of OCP use among women of reproductive age can be as high as 30-40%. In contrast, in South Asia, Nepal’s OCP usage is comparable to neighboring countries like India, where about 13-15% of women use OCPs. In contrast, Bangladesh reports a slightly higher prevalence, with about 20% of women using OCPs.
Risk Data:
The risk of adverse effects such as venous thromboembolism (VTE) is consistent with global data but varies based on the formulation of the OCPs used. In general, the risk of VTE for OCP users is approximately 3-9 per 10,000 women per year, with newer generation progestins (like drospirenone) carrying a slightly higher risk compared to older formulations (like levonorgestrel). In Nepal, however, the reporting of such complications is less frequent due to the limited healthcare infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, making it difficult to estimate the exact prevalence of these risks.
Studies from Nepal have also indicated that women in rural areas are less likely to be aware of the potential risks associated with OCPs, and therefore, complications may be underreported. The prevalence of hypertension among OCP users in Nepal is estimated to be slightly higher than in non-users, aligning with global data, where OCP users have a 1.6-fold increased risk of developing hypertension compared to non-users.
Alternatives to OCPs
Given the risks associated with OCPs, it is imperative to explore and promote alternative methods of contraception and reproductive health management that may carry fewer risks:
1. Intrauterine Devices (IUDs):
- Non-hormonal IUDs: Copper IUDs (like ParaGard) are highly effective at preventing pregnancy without the use of hormones. They work by creating an inhospitable environment for sperm within the uterus, thus preventing fertilization. Because they do not contain hormones, they do not carry the same risks of thromboembolism, hypertension, or hormonal cancers.
- Hormonal IUDs: These IUDs (such as Mirena or Kyleena) release small amounts of progestin locally in the uterus, which can prevent pregnancy by thickening cervical mucus and thinning the endometrial lining. While they do release hormones, the systemic absorption is much lower compared to OCPs, reducing the risk of systemic side effects.
2. Barrier Methods:
- Condoms, diaphragms, and cervical caps are effective when used correctly and provide the added benefit of protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs). These methods avoid systemic hormonal exposure entirely, making them suitable for women at risk of or who wish to avoid the complications associated with OCPs.
3. Fertility Awareness Methods (FAM):
- FAM involves tracking the menstrual cycle and identifying fertile periods to avoid or achieve pregnancy. While less effective than OCPs in typical use, FAM can be a suitable option for women who prefer not to use hormonal or invasive methods. Education and careful monitoring are key to the success of this method.
4. Implants and Injectables:
- Implants (like Nexplanon) and injectables (such as Depo-Provera) provide long-term contraception through the release of progestin. These methods are highly effective and can be alternatives for those who cannot use estrogen-containing OCPs. However, they still carry some risk of side effects, though generally to a lesser degree than OCPs.
5. Permanent Methods:
- Tubal ligation or vasectomy (for male partners) offers a permanent solution for those who are certain they do not want more children. These methods are highly effective and eliminate the need for ongoing contraception, thus avoiding the systemic side effects associated with hormonal methods.
6. Lifestyle and Behavioral Approaches:
- Encouraging a healthier lifestyle, including weight management, regular exercise, and smoking cessation, can help reduce the overall risk of complications associated with any form of hormonal contraception. Women should also be encouraged to engage in open discussions with their healthcare providers about their individual risks and preferences.
Reducing Dependence on OCPs
To reduce the reliance on OCPs, there needs to be a multifaceted approach that includes better education, broader access to alternative contraceptive methods, and more personalized healthcare. Health practitioners should prioritize a detailed risk assessment before prescribing OCPs and should actively discuss alternatives with their patients. Public health campaigns can also play a role in raising awareness about the potential risks associated with OCPs and promoting the availability of safer alternatives.
Research into new contraceptive methods, especially non-hormonal options, is also crucial. Advancements in understanding reproductive health could lead to the development of innovative solutions that provide effective contraception without the associated risks of current hormonal methods.
In conclusion, while OCPs remain a cornerstone of contraceptive and reproductive health management, the associated health risks should not be overlooked. By emphasizing alternative methods, improving education, and fostering an environment where women are empowered to make informed choices, it is possible to diminish the reliance on OCPs and reduce the incidence of associated health complications.
References
- Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in Oral Contraceptive Users.
- Hypertension and Oral Contraceptives: Mechanisms and Risk Factors.
- The Association Between Oral Contraceptives and Breast Cancer Risk.
- Cervical Cancer and Hormonal Contraceptives: An Epidemiological Perspective.
- Impact of Oral Contraceptives on Glucose Metabolism and Lipid Profiles.
- Hepatic Adenomas: Risk Associated with Oral Contraceptive Use.
- Migraines, Stroke, and Oral Contraceptives: A Review of the Literature.
- Psychiatric Effects of Progestin-Containing Oral Contraceptives.
- Melasma and Hormonal Contraceptives: Pathophysiology and Management.
- Alternatives to Oral Contraceptives: IUDs, Barrier Methods, and Beyond.
- Public Health Implications of Oral Contraceptive Use and Risk Awareness.
- Fertility Awareness Methods as a Contraceptive Option: Efficacy and Challenges.
- Innovations in Non-Hormonal Contraceptive Technologies: A Future Perspective.
- Patient Education and Risk Assessment in Contraceptive Counseling.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
