Search

Background: Clinical guidelines for postpartum thromboprophylaxis differ due to its uncertain effect and varying preferences of experts. Women's preferences for postpartum thromboprophylaxis are unknown, although they may inform practices and future research., Objectives: Our aim was to elicit the pregnant women's preferences for postpartum thromboprophylaxis according to different risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding., Methods: In 2 Swiss and French maternity hospitals, we conducted structured interviews of pregnant or postpartum women. Participants were instructed on pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, postpartum hemorrhage, and subcutaneous injections of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). First, we randomized women to either standard gamble or time trade-off (2 different validated methods) to estimate the utilities (quality of life, from 0 to 1) of these health states. Second, we elicited the preference for the use of short-term postpartum thromboprophylaxis with LMWH vs none across different risks of postpartum VTE and bleeding through direct-choice exercises., Results: Among 122 participants, median (IQR) health state utilities were 0.725 (0.30-0.925) for pulmonary embolism, 0.75 (0.40-0.97) for postpartum hemorrhage, 0.85 (0.60-0.97) for deep vein thrombosis, and 0.96 (0.96-0.999) for LMWH injections. The median risk of postpartum VTE for preference of the use of postpartum thromboprophylaxis over no treatment was 0.1% (IQR, 0.01%-0.50%) without LMWH-associated bleeding risk and 0.2% (IQR, 0.1%-5%) with a 1% bleeding risk., Conclusion: European pregnant women appear to have a high willingness for 10-day postpartum thromboprophylaxis, preferred over no treatment even for low risks of postpartum VTE. This perspective from patients supports the urgent need for a randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of postpartum thromboprophylaxis., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests M.B. reports travel/congress support from Sobi; B.M.d.T. reports consulting fees from Effik and Pierre-Favre, honoraria for lectures from Effik, and receipt of medical equipment from Pregnolia and Hologic; all other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a rare pathology affecting 1-2% of under-40 year-old women, 1 in 1000 under-30 year-olds and 1 in 10,000 under-20 year-olds. There are multiple etiologies, which can be classified as primary (chromosomal, genetic, auto-immune) and secondary or iatrogenic (surgical, or secondary to chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy). Despite important progress in genetics, more than 60% of cases of primary POI still have no identifiable etiology; these cases are known as idiopathic POI. POI is defined by the association of 1 clinical and 1 biological criterion: primary or secondary amenorrhea or spaniomenorrhea of>4 months with onset before 40 year of age, and elevated follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH)>25IU/L on 2 assays at>4 weeks' interval. Estradiol level is low, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels have usually collapsed. Initial etiological work-up comprises auto-immune assessment, karyotype, FMR1 premutation screening and gene-panel study. If all of these are normal, the patient and parents may be offered genome-wide analysis under the "France Génomique" project. The term ovarian insufficiency suggests that the dysfunction is not necessarily definitive. In some cases, ovarian function may fluctuate, and spontaneous pregnancy is possible in around 6% of cases. In confirmed POI, hormone replacement therapy is to be recommended at least up to the physiological menopause age of 51 years. Management in a rare diseases center may be proposed., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Background: Studies have shown a significant association between migraine and endometriosis, but no study has explored the relationship between migraine and endometriosis phenotypes: Superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep infiltrating endometriosis., Methods: We conducted a case-control study using data collected from 314 women aged 18 to 42 years who had undergone surgery for benign gynecological conditions between January 2013 and December 2015. All women completed a self-administered headache questionnaire according to the IHS classification. Cases (n = 182) are women with histologically proven endometriosis and controls are women (n = 132) without endometriosis. Occurrence of migraine was studied according to endometriosis phenotypes., Results: Migraine prevalence in cases was significantly higher compared with controls (35.2% vs. 17.4%, p  = 0.003). The risk of endometriosis was significantly higher in migrainous women (OR = 2.62; 95% CI = 1.43-4.79). When we take into account endometriosis phenotypes, the risk of ovarian endometrioma and deep infiltrating endometriosis were significant (OR = 2.78; 95% CI = 1.11-6.98 and OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.25-5.07, respectively). In women with endometriosis, the intensity of chronic non-cyclical pelvic pain was significantly greater for those with migraine (visual analogic scale (VAS) = 3.6 ± 2.9) compared with the women without headache (VAS = 2.3 ± 2.8, p  = 0.0065)., Conclusion: Our study shows a significant association between migraine and endometriosis. In clinical practice, women of reproductive age who suffer from migraine should be screened for endometriosis criteria in order to optimise the medical and therapeutic care of this condition.

Venous thromboembolism and arterial ischemic events are the main deleterious diseases associated with the use of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC). Even though their composition has been substantially improved, the vascular risk persists with the most recent CHCs use. If the vascular risk associated with CHCs containing 50μg EE is significantly higher than with those containing less than 50μg, there is no evidence that the CHCs containing either 30 or 20μg of EE induce different venous risks. CHC containing gestodene, desogestrel, drospirenone or cyproterone acetate are associated with a higher risk of venous thrombosis compared with levonorgestrel-containing CHCs. CHC containing norgestimate are associated with similar venous thrombosis risk than CHC containing levonorgestrel. Venous thrombosis risk of non-oral routes of administration of CHC appears to be equivalent to the risk of CHC containing gestodene or desogestrel, but this result is based on a small number of epidemiological studies. Before prescribing a CHC, it is important to determine all vascular risk factors. Family history of ischemic arterial event or venous thromboembolism disease should be routinely sought before any CHC prescription. All CHCs are contraindicated in women with biological thrombophilia, in women with combined vascular risk factors, in women with first-degree family history of arterial or venous event (under age 50) as well as in women suffering of migraine with aura. Progestin-only contraceptives are not associated with vascular risk (arterial or venous) outside of medroxyprogesterone acetate. In women with higher vascular risk, progestin-only contraceptives (administered by oral, sous-cutaneous or intra-uterine routes) can be prescribed., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

For many years, it has been well documented that combined hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The third-generation pill use (desogestrel or gestodene (GSD)) is associated with an increased VTE risk as compared with second-generation (levonorgestrel) pill use. Other progestins such as drospirenone or cyproterone acetate combined with ethinyl-estradiol (EE) have been investigated. Most studies have reported a significant increased VTE risk among users of these combined oral contraceptives (COCs) when compared with users of second-generation pills. Non-oral combined hormonal contraception, such as the transdermal patch and the vaginal ring, is also available. Current data support that these routes of administration are more thrombogenic than second-generation pills. These results are consistent with the biological evidence of coagulation activation. Overall, the estrogenic potency of each hormonal contraceptive depending on both EE doses and progestin molecule explains the level of thrombotic risk. Some studies have shown a similar increased VTE risk among users of COCs containing norgestimate (NGM) as compared with users of second-generation pill. However, for this combination, biological data, based on quantitative assessment of sex hormone-binding globulin or haemostasis parameters, are not in agreement with these epidemiological results. Similarly, the VTE risk associated with low doses of EE and GSD is not biologically plausible. In conclusion, newer generation formulations of hormonal contraceptives as well as non-oral hormonal contraceptives seem to be more thrombogenic than second-generation hormonal contraceptives. Further studies are needed to conclude on the combinations containing NGM or low doses of EE associated with GSD., (© 2014 European Society of Endocrinology.)