Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Contraceptive services in Oregon's state-funded network during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how changes to in-person health care during the COVID pandemic impacted contraceptive use in Oregon's state-funded network. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort of 245,600 visits (virtual and in-person) among 70,295 women presenting to publicly funded family planning clinics in Oregon between January 2019 and June 2021. Data were abstracted from clinic records and restricted to visits of patients identifying as female, 12-51 years old, not using sterilization as a method. Contraception was grouped by effectiveness Tier (Tier 1: intrauterine device, implants; Tier 2: progestin injectable, pill/patch/ring). Multivariable logistic regression predicted the use of contraception by stage of the COVID pandemic which corresponded to service availability (prepandemic, acute: nonemergency services halted, subacute: restricted services), patient demographics, including insurance type, and clinic and geospatial characteristics. RESULTS: Overall during the acute stage, people with visits were more likely to leave with a method of contraception odds ratios (OR) 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.57); however, it was significantly less likely to be a Tier 1 method (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.91) as compared to prepandemic. This finding was particularly marked in rural areas (OR 0.69 [96% CI 0.58-0.83]) and among the publicly insured (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.80-0.94]). CONCLUSIONS: Demand for contraception increased during the acute phase of the COVID pandemic, and shifts in method mix from Tier 1 to Tier 2 methods occurred. Disparities in contraceptive access persisted for those in rural locations or with public insurance. IMPLICATIONS: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic are critical to informing our future emergency response. The need for family planning services increased during the public health emergency.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on menstrual bleeding quantity: An observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination impacts menstrual bleeding quantity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Five global regions. POPULATION: Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with regular menstrual cycles using the digital fertility-awareness application Natural Cycles°. METHODS: We used prospectively collected menstrual cycle data, multivariable longitudinal Poisson generalised estimating equation (GEE) models and multivariable multinomial logistic regression models to calculate the adjusted difference between vaccination groups. All regression models were adjusted for confounding factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean number of heavy bleeding days (fewer, no change or more) and changes in bleeding quantity (less, no change or more) at three time points (first dose, second dose and post-exposure menses). RESULTS: We included 9555 individuals (7401 vaccinated and 2154 unvaccinated). About two-thirds of individuals reported no change in the number of heavy bleeding days, regardless of vaccination status. After adjusting for confounding factors, there were no significant differences in the number of heavy bleeding days by vaccination status. A larger proportion of vaccinated individuals experienced an increase in total bleeding quantity (34.5% unvaccinated, 38.4% vaccinated; adjusted difference 4.0%, 99.2% CI 0.7%-7.2%). This translates to an estimated 40 additional people per 1000 individuals with normal menstrual cycles who experience a greater total bleeding quantity following the first vaccine dose' suffice. Differences resolved in the cycle post-exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A small increase in the probability of greater total bleeding quantity occurred following the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, which resolved in the cycle after the post-vaccination cycle. The total number of heavy bleeding days did not differ by vaccination status. Our findings can reassure the public that any changes are small and transient.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception: a Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. Individuals with COVID-19 using hormonal contraception could be at additional risk for thromboembolism, but evidence is sparse. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in women aged 15-51 years with COVID-19. We searched multiple databases through March 2022, including all studies comparing outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using or not using hormonal contraception. We applied standard risk of bias tools to evaluate studies and GRADE methodology to assess certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were venous and arterial thromboembolism. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 2119 studies screened, three comparative non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) and two case series met the inclusion criteria. All studies had serious to critical risk of bias and low study quality. Overall, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception (CHC) use on odds of mortality for COVID-19-positive patients (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.4). The odds of hospitalisation for COVID-19-positive CHC users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index <35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97). Use of any type of hormonal contraception may have little to no effect on hospitalisation rates for COVID-19-positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Not enough evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 using hormonal contraception. Evidence suggests there may be little to no or slightly decreased odds of hospitalisation, and little to no effect on odds of mortality for hormonal contraception users versus non-users with COVID-19.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We therefore conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Health, and Scopus from inception to search update in March 2022. For the living systematic review, we monitored the literature monthly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third author helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index (BMI) under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. At a minimum, we noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Association between menstrual cycle length and covid-19 vaccination: global, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVES: To identify whether covid-19 vaccines are associated with menstrual changes in order to address concerns about menstrual cycle disruptions after covid-19 vaccination. DESIGN: Global, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. SETTING: International users of the menstrual cycle tracking application, Natural Cycles. PARTICIPANTS: 19 622 individuals aged 18-45 years with cycle lengths of 24-38 days and consecutive data for at least three cycles before and one cycle after covid (vaccinated group; n=14 936), and those with at least four consecutive cycles over a similar time period (unvaccinated group; n=4686). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean change within individuals was assessed by vaccination group for cycle and menses length (mean of three cycles before vaccination to the cycles after first and second dose of vaccine and the subsequent cycle). Mixed effects models were used to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. RESULTS: Most people (n=15 713; 80.08%) were younger than 35 years, from the UK (n=6222; 31.71%), US and Canada (28.59%), or Europe (33.55%). Two thirds (9929 (66.48%) of 14 936) of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) covid-19 vaccine, 17.46% (n=2608) received Moderna (mRNA-1273), 9.06% (n=1353) received Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and 1.89% (n=283) received Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S). Individuals who were vaccinated had a less than one day adjusted increase in the length of their first and second vaccine cycles, compared with individuals who were not vaccinated (0.71 day increase (99.3% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.96) for first dose; 0.56 day increase (0.28 to 0.84) for second dose). The adjusted difference was larger in people who received two doses in a cycle (3.70 days increase (2.98 to 4.42)). One cycle after vaccination, cycle length was similar to before the vaccine in individuals who received one dose per cycle (0.02 day change (99.3% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.14), but not yet for individuals who received two doses per cycle (0.85 day change (99.3% confidence interval 0.24 to 1.46)) compared with unvaccinated individuals. Changes in cycle length did not differ by the vaccine's mechanism of action (mRNA, adenovirus vector, or inactivated virus). Menses length was unaffected by vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 vaccination is associated with a small and likely to be temporary change in menstrual cycle length but no change in menses length.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID‐19 who are using hormonal contraception

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID‐19. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

Association Between Menstrual Cycle Length and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination: A U.S. Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. RESULTS: We included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference in change: first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination. CONCLUSION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.