Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2023 Jun 8;18(6):e0285885.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285885. eCollection 2023.

Bone impact after two years of low-dose oral contraceptive use during adolescence

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Bone impact after two years of low-dose oral contraceptive use during adolescence

Lilian Rodrigues Orsolini et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: Data regarding the use and effect of hormonal contraceptives on bone mass acquisition during adolescence are contradictory. The present study was designed to evaluate bone metabolism in two groups of healthy adolescents using combined oral contraceptives (COC).

Methods: A total of 168 adolescents were recruited from 2014 to 2020 in a non-randomized clinical trial and divided into three groups. The COC1 group used 20 μg Ethinylestradiol (EE)/150 μg Desogestrel and the COC2 group used 30 μg EE/3 mg Drospirenone over a period of two years. These groups were compared to a control group of adolescent non-COC users. The adolescents were submitted to bone densitometry by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and measurement of bone biomarkers, bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), and osteocalcin (OC) at baseline and 24 months after inclusion in the study. The three groups studied were compared at the different time points by ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparison test.

Results: Incorporation of bone mass was greater in non-users at all sites analyzed (4.85 g in lumbar Bone mineral content (BMC)) when compared to adolescents of the COC1 and COC2 groups, with a respective increase of 2.15 g and loss of 0.43g in lumbar BMC (P = 0.001). When comparing subtotal BMC, the control increased 100.83 g, COC 1 increased 21.46 g, and COC 2 presented a reduction of 1.47 g (P = 0.005). The values of bone markers after 24 months are similar for BAP, being 30.51 U/L (± 11.6) for the control group, 34.95 U/L (± 10.8) for COC1, and 30.29 U/L for COC 2 (± 11.5) (P = 0.377). However, when we analyzed OC, we observed for control, COC 1, and COC 2 groups, respectively, 13.59 ng/mL (± 7.3), 6.44 ng/mL (± 4.6), and 9.48 ng/mL (± 5.9), with P = 0.003. Despite loss to follow-up occurring in the three groups, there were no significant differences between the variables in adolescents at baseline who remained in the study during the 24-month follow-up and those who were excluded or lost to follow-up.

Conclusion: Bone mass acquisition was compromised in healthy adolescents using combined hormonal contraceptives when compared to controls. This negative impact seems to be more pronounced in the group that used contraceptives containing 30 μg EE.

Clinical trial registration: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br, RBR-5h9b3c. "Low-dose combined oral contraceptive use is associated with lower bone mass in adolescents".

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flow of participants in the control and contraception groups over 24 months.
COC1: adolescents receiving an oral contraceptive containing 20 μg ethinylestradiol/150 μg desogestrel; COC2: adolescents receiving an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg ethinylestradiol/3 mg drospirenone.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Comparison of the variation in densitometric variables and bone markers between adolescents followed up for 24 months.
* p<0.05. ANOVA for comparison of means between the three groups. Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons between the three groups.

References

    1. Yilmaz D, Ersoy B, Bilgin E, Gümüşer G, Onur E, Pinar ED. Bone mineral density in girls and boys at different pubertal stages: relation with gonadal steroids, bone formation markers, and growth parameters. J Bone Miner Metab. 2005;23: 476–482. doi: 10.1007/s00774-005-0631-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marshall WA, Tanner JM. Variations in Pattern of Pubertal Changes in Girls. Arch Dis Childh. 1969;44: 291–303. doi: 10.1136/adc.44.235.291 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fortes CMT, Goldberg TBL, Kurokawa CS, Silva CC, Moretto MR, Biason TP, et al.. Relationship between chronological and bone ages and pubertal stage of breasts with bone biomarkers and bone mineral density in adolescents. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2014;90: 624–631. doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2014.04.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Troy KL, Mancuso ME, Butler TA, Johnson JE. Exercise Early and Often: Effects of Physical Activity and Exercise on Women’s Bone Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15: 878. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15050878 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Raisz L. Physiology and Pathophysiology of Bone Remodeling. Clin Chem. 1999;45: 1353–1358. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances