ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Cross-sectional and longitudinal metabolomics-based profiles associated with oral contraceptive and progestin-only pill use: A Finnish population-based study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cross-sectional and longitudinal metabolomics-based profiles associated with oral contraceptive and progestin-only pill use: A Finnish population-based study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs), but not of progestin-only pills (POPs) is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. A detailed examination of how different oral contraceptives impact the metabolism in the short- and long-term has not been conducted. This study comparatively examines cross-sectional and longitudinal metabolomics-based profiles of different COCs and POPs, and explores how they perform relative to a metabolically safer contraceptive option. MATERIAL AND
methodsData were obtained from a population-based survey (Health 2000) and its 11-year follow-up (Health 2011). Altogether, 212 metabolic measures in OC users (n = 299; COC, n = 245; POP, n = 33) were compared to those in non-users of hormonal contraception (HC; n = 1422), and in users of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD; n = 341) via multivariable general estimating equations models adjusted for age, body mass index, duration of use, study cohort, diseases, medication use, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity. Participants with complete longitudinal information (n = 327) were divided into continuers, stoppers, starters, switchers, and never-user groups, and the 11-year changes in the levels of each metabolite were compared.
resultsUse of COCs, but not of POPs, was associated with altered levels of several metabolic measures compared to HC non-use or to use of LNG-IUD: higher concentrations and ratios of monounsaturated fatty acids but lower ratios of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and higher concentrations and ratios of triglycerides in lipoproteins. Additionally, in comparison to HC non-use or to use of LNG-IUD, users of third generation or other COCs had higher levels of inflammation markers and of cholesterol, but a lower percentage of cholesterol and a higher percentage of triglycerides in lipoproteins. Continuation or starting of LNG-IUD was not related to changes in metabolic profiles, while women who changed or stopped using COCs had greater levels of unsaturation and lower levels of total and lipoprotein triglycerides and other lipids.
conclusionsThe use of COCs, especially of third generation and other COCs, is related to various metabolic alterations suggestive of increased cardiovascular risk. Conversely, the use of POPs and LNG-IUD appeared metabolically safe. These associations were mostly reversible after interruption of use or switch to different preparations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.