4.6 Article

A prospective, controlled study of the effects of hormonal contraception on bone mineral density

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 576-582

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01495-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and two types of oral contraceptives (OC) on bone mineral density (BAM) among women 18-33 years of age with those not using hormonal contraception. METHODS: Data from 155 women were analyzed. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate was administered to 33 women; 63 women who chose oral contraception were randomly assigned to receive either a norethindrone-containing pill (n = 28) or a desogestrel-containing pill (n = 35). Fifty-nine women who did not use hormonal contraception served as controls. Lumbar spine BMD was determined using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and after 12 months of contraceptive use. We analyzed method-related percent change in BAM while controlling for body mass index, calcium intake, exercise, and smoking. We had approximately 90% power to detect a 2.5% difference between any two groups. RESULTS: Users of DMPA experienced a mean BMD loss of 2.74% over 12 months compared with controls who sustained a 0.37% loss (P = .01). Users of OCs generally demonstrated a gain (2.33% for noretbindrone-containing pills, 0.33% for desogestrel-containing pills), which was different from controls among users of norethindrone-containing pills (P = .01), but not among users of desogestrel-containing pills (P = .99). Observed changes in BMD among DMPA users differed from women who used either type of pill (P < .002). CONCLUSION: Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate has an adverse effect on BMD, in comparison with OCs or nonhormonal methods, when used for 12 months. Results must be interpreted cautiously until it is determined whether these effects endure or are reversible. (C) 2001 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据