Breast Health

COVID-19

Cervical Health 

Contraception

Curbside Consults

Dermatology

Drug Pipeline News

Endometriosis

Genetic Testing

Gynecologic Oncology

Gynecology

Fetal Imaging

Abnormal Obstetrical Ultrasound

Ultrasound

Women's Imaging

Breast Imaging

Women's Ultrasound

Imaging

Infertility

LARC

Legally Speaking

Life Transitions

Malpractice

Menopause

Mental Health

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Obstetrics

Opinion

Osteoporosis

Pediatrics

Practice Management

Pregnancy and Birth

Sexual Health

Sexually Transmitted Infections

Surgery

Technology

Urology

Uterine Fibroids

Vulvovaginal Disease

Well Woman

About

News

Media

Podcasts

Insights

Medical World News

Peer Exchange

Peers & Perspectives

Videos

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Publications

Contemporary OB/GYN® Journal

Digital Supplements

CME/CE

Resources

Physician Fact Sheets

Interactive Tools

Supplements and Featured Publications

Subscribe

Editorial Board

Partnerships

 and joined the MJH Life Sciences team in December 2019. She graduated from Youngstown State University in 2019 with a bachelor's degree in journalism and a minor in political science. Prior to graduating, Morgan worked as the editor-in-chief of her college newspaper. She went on to work as an assignment editor at a broadcast news station in Youngstown, Ohio before joining 

 You can reach her at mpetronelli@mjhlifesciences.com.

Articles

A new study presented at ISSWSH highlights patient dissatisfaction with current treatments for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, emphasizing the need for more effective therapies and improved provider communication.

Current treatments for recurrent bacterial vaginosis leave many patients dissatisfied

A recent study presented at the ISSWSH 2025 Annual Meeting found no significant association between hormonal contraceptive use and the severity of clitoral adhesions, though researchers emphasize the need for further investigation.

No link found between hormonal contraception and clitoral adhesion severity

Learn how women aged 30 to 35 years may be experiencing symptoms of perimenopause at a younger age than expected, as discussed by Jennifer Lanier Payne, MD, of UVA Health.

Perimenopausal symptoms in young women discussed by Jennifer Payne, MD

A new study reveals that obstetrician-led lecture and simulation training significantly improve Emergency Medicine residents' comfort in managing complex obstetric conditions.

Obstetric training enhances EM residents’ confidence in emergencies

Advertise

Contact Us

Job Board

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Contemporary OB/GYN

Facebook

LinkedIn

RSS Feed

Spotlight

A Psychedelic to Treat Postpartum Depression?

CMV: In the Know

RSV Roundtable

STIs

Supplement: Closing the Gap in Cervical Cancer Screening

Vaginismus: Managing a Misunderstood and Underdiagnosed Condition

Why vNOTES Make Sense for My Patients

1rem

Authors

A Catholic doctor shares his thoughts on eary breast cancer detection with a story about its patron saint.

Saint Agatha's Story

Saying "obstetrician-gynecologist" is a mouthful for most people, and it's probably the most abbreviated specialty in medicine, both spoken and written. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to pronounce OB-GYN. First, is it the two-syllable "O-B" or the monosyllabic "Ob"? Second, is it "gin" or "gyne" (like "Lyme")? I wonder if you have a preference. I know I do.

Almost nobody says "obstetrician-gynecologist" when speaking about these specialist physicians. But what's the "correct" way to pronounce OB/GYN?

Is It Ob-Gin or Ob-Gyne?

The past few decades have seen significant growth in the number of contraceptive methods available on the US market, as well as a growth in the body of literature about how to provide contraceptive care safely and effectively. The more options and information we have, the more important it is for clinicians to have accessible, easy-to-use tools to guide our contraceptive counseling.

One of the most widely known tools is the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (US MEC), which was first published by the CDC in 2010. Many providers may have decorated their office with one of the colorful US MEC summary charts cross-listing contraceptive methods and medical comorbidities or downloaded the smartphone application version for easy reference. The goal of the US MEC and its companion document, the US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, was to adapt contraceptive use guidelines originally developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) into recommendations for US providers. For a given medical condition or patient factor, the US MEC stratifies the safety of each available contraceptive method into 4 categories (

Since its first publication, the US MEC has undergone several revisions and updates. The most recent update, from 2024, is the first since 2016.

 The updates were made after extensive review of studies from the Continuous Identification of Research Evidence database (jointly administered by the WHO and CDC) that were felt to have potential to change the previous recommendations. The CDC staff and other invited authors conducted systematic reviews for each of the potential revision topics being considered and then presented their findings at a CDC meeting held in January 2023. This meeting included experts in the field from a variety of health backgrounds, as well as patient perspectives and public comments on proposed revisions, which were solicited via the Federal Register. CDC staff then determined the final revisions based on feedback about the available evidence presented at the January meeting.

 Although many changes were ultimately made, we will highlight the most significant here.

Injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and thromboembolic risk

Due to new evidence, injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) should now be used with caution in patients at increased thromboembolic risk. Although the effects of estrogen-containing hormonal contraceptive methods on thromboembolic risk profile are long established, the evidence is mixed for progestin-only contraception (POC), such as DMPA.

 The new recommendations are guided by a forthcoming systematic review and a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the association between POC use and cardiometabolic outcomes.

In the systematic review from 2020, injectable POC showed an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with an RR of 2.62 (95% CI, 1.74 -3.94) compared with nonusers of progestins.

 More recently, a matched case-control study in 2022 examined the risk of VTE among women of reproductive age who use various forms of POC.

 Using an insurance claims database, the investigators reviewed 21,405 women with acute VTE and matched them 1:5 by birth year to a control group of 107,025 women without VTE. Compared with nonusers of progestins, they found an increased odd of VTE in DMPA users (aOR, 2.37; 99% CI, 1.95-2.88). Adjusted odds ratios for users of etonogestrel implants, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs), or oral norethindrone did not indicate an increased risk of VTE. Given this evidence, DMPA has been changed from a category 1 or 2 method to a category 3 method for patients with certain conditions that may significantly increase their thromboembolic risk, as shown in 

DMPA has also been changed from a category 1 method to a category 2 method for patients with conditions that may mildly increase thromboembolic risk, such as postpartum patients and those with current or prior superficial venous thrombosis (known as valvular disease) or peripartum cardiomyopathy with less than moderate impairment of cardiac function.

 In light of this new evidence, clinicians should consider a patient’s baseline thromboembolic risk before initiating or refilling DMPA prescriptions.

Sickle cell disease and thromboembolic risk

The next set of changes highlighted are those regarding recommendations for contraceptive use in patients with sickle cell disease. The new recommendations reflect increased evidence that sickle cell disease causes a prothrombotic state and that patients with sickle cell have increased risk of both arterial and venous thrombi.

 In addition to elevated thromboembolic risk at baseline, they also have a significantly higher risk for thromboembolic events in pregnancy and the postpartum period.

 Evidence on thromboembolic risk for contraceptive users with sickle cell disease is limited, but available data do suggest a potential increase in thromboembolic risk for patients with sickle cell who use hormonal contraception specifically.

A 2023 study using population-level administrative claims assessed hormonal contraception use among patients with sickle cell disease and evaluated the risk of thromboembolism during the first year after initial contraceptive prescription.

 They evaluated 7143 patients with a new prescription for hormonal contraception and a diagnosis of sickle cell disease, 44.6% of whom received combined hormonal contraception (CHC) and 55.4% of whom received POC. Of these patients, 126 (1.8%) had a thromboembolic event within the first year of use of their hormonal contraception.

 The thromboembolic event rate in patients with sickle cell disease during the first year of hormonal contraceptive use was 21 events per 1000 person-years. Combined oral contraceptives have been associated with an increased risk of VTE in the general population, with an absolute risk of 0.1 to 0.3 events per 1000 person-years.

 This study suggests that there may be a higher risk of thromboembolic events in new users of hormonal contraception who have sickle cell disease compared with the general population of hormonal contraception users.

The 2024 US MEC recommendations have been updated to reflect the known increased thromboembolic risk in the sickle cell population and the newer evidence presented above. CHC of all varieties, including pills, patches, and rings, are now category 4.

 DMPA is now considered category 2 or 3, as mentioned above; the determination of category 2 vs 3 depends on the severity of a patient’s sickle cell disease and other factors that may affect thromboembolic risk.

In any discussion of contraception for patients with sickle cell, the significant morbidity and mortality risks associated with pregnancy itself should also be acknowledged. In addition to increased risk of sickle-related complications, such as acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, and thromboembolic events during pregnancy, patients with sickle cell disease experience higher rates of poor obstetric outcomes, including fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and intrauterine fetal demise.

 This unique risk-benefit calculus can significantly complicate the choice of contraceptive methods for patients with sickle cell, and it underscores the importance of a shared decision-making approach to optimize their reproductive health.

The most recent update to the US MEC also includes the addition of a new medical condition that was not previously listed on its own: chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD is further broken down into subcategories based on the presence or absence of nephrotic syndrome and whether the patient requires hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.

 The data on contraceptive users with CKD are limited, though the CDC’s expert working group plans to publish a forthcoming systematic review on this topic in 

 Therefore, the updated recommendations reflect a risk of worsening kidney disease, hypertension, thrombosis, adverse events, or reduced contraceptive effectiveness among those who have CKD and use hormonal contraception.

For this reason, CHC of all types is considered category 4 and DMPA is considered category 3 for patients with CKD who have nephrotic syndrome or are on either type of dialysis. The etonogestrel implant and all doses of LNG-IUDs are considered category 2 for these patients. The copper IUD is considered category 1, though initiation of a new copper IUD for a patient on peritoneal dialysis specifically is considered category 2 due to a very small number of case reports of patients who experienced peritonitis or peritoneal allergic reactions after insertion.

 All listed barrier methods are considered category 1. The eligibility criteria for progestin-only pills (POPs) depend on the specific progestin in question. Because drospirenone-containing POPs can increase serum potassium levels, drospirenone POPs are considered category 4 for patients with CKD with known hyperkalemia, though other POPs are considered category 2. For patients with CKD without known hyperkalemia, drospirenone POPs are considered category 2, though the US MEC does recommend checking a serum potassium level during the first cycle of drospirenone POP use.

Reductions in risk level and other changes

Although the changes we have highlighted so far all reflect a heightened concern about the safety of specific contraceptive methods in particular populations, there were also revisions that reflected decreased safety concerns. For example, all POC methods except for DMPA (eg, LNG-IUDs, etonogestrel implants, and POPs) have changed from category 3 to category 2 for patients with the conditions listed in 

. Several other changes also reflect increased safety of contraceptive methods for certain medical conditions. Please see 

Additionally, new contraceptive methods have been added, including new formulations of CHC (eg, patches and vaginal rings), new formulations of POPs, new doses for LNG-IUDs, and the vaginal pH modulator (Phexxi).

The document has also been edited to use gender-inclusive language, and there is an increased emphasis on contraceptive autonomy, patient-centered counseling, and shared decision-making.

The US MEC should always be considered a set of “tools, not rules.” Based on the updates and evidence described above, clinicians should consider a patient’s baseline thromboembolic risk when providing contraception, particularly for prescription of DMPA or for patients with sickle cell disease or CKD. However, these new recommendations should be utilized within the context of a shared decision-making approach that incorporates the patient’s goals, preferences, and likelihood of pregnancy. The health risks of pregnancy should also be considered and discussed when discussing the health risks of contraceptive methods. This is especially true for patients with sickle cell disease or CKD who may be at increased risk of pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality, making the prevention of undesired pregnancy even more important. Ultimately, the decision of whether and how to contracept can be affected by a multitude of factors spanning patients’ medical history, lifestyle, past experiences, future fertility desires, and more. The best contraceptive method for any patient who desires pregnancy prevention is the one they will use consistently and correctly.

1. Nguyen AT, Curtis KM, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024. 

. 2024;73(4):1-126. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7304a1

2. Cockrum RH, Soo J, Ham SA, Cohen KS, Snow SG. Association of progestogens and venous thromboembolism among women of reproductive age. 

. 2022;140(3):477-487. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004896

3. Appendix A: summary of classifications for 

U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024

. CDC. November 19, 2024. Accessed November 30, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usspr/classifications-mec-contraception.html

4. Glisic M, Shahzad S, Tsoli S, et al. Association between progestin-only contraceptive use and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 

. 2018;25(10):1042-1052. doi:10.1177/2047487318774847

5. Brunson A, Keegan T, Mahajan A, White R, Wun T. High incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with sickle cell disease. 

. 2019;94(8):862-870. doi:10.1002/ajh.25508

6. Naik RP, Streiff MB, Haywood C Jr, Segal JB, Lanzkron S. Venous thromboembolism incidence in the Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease. 

. 2014;12(12):2010-2016. doi:10.1111/jth.12744

7. Noubiap JJ, Temgoua MN, Tankeu R, Tochie JN, Wonkam A, Bigna JJ. Sickle cell disease, sickle trait and the risk for venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 

. 2018;16:27. doi:10.1186/s12959-018-0179-z

8. Bala NS, Stanek JR, Vesely SK, et al. Comparison of thromboembolism outcomes in patients with sickle cell disease prescribed hormonal contraception. 

. 2023;7(20):6140-6150. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2023010204

9. Gialeraki A, Valsami S, Pittaras T, Panayiotakopoulos G, Politou M. Oral contraceptives and HRT risk of thrombosis. 

. 2018;24(2):217-225. doi:10.1177/1076029616683802

10. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Sinkey RG, Ogunsile FJ, et al. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #68: sickle cell disease in pregnancy. 

. 2024;230(2):B17-B40. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.031

Clinical

Key changes from the 2024 update to the US medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use

What is your diagnosis based on these images of the ovary?

Challenge your diagnostic skills with this image quiz: Is this ovarian lesion cystic in nature or something else?

Image IQ: Ovarian Cyst or Something Else?

A 27-year-old woman presents with an 18-month history of vulvar irritation. She is otherwise healthy except for episodes of depression. She has tried multiple agents for her condition including topical steroids, Vagisil, antibiotics, and fluconazole. She used oral steroids but developed knee pain. Tacrolimus has not helped. A biopsy revealed lichen simplex chronicus. Immunofluorescent studies were negative.

A 27-year-old woman presents with an 18-month history of vulvar irritation. She has tried multiple agents for her condition including topical steroids, Vagisil, antibiotics, and fluconazole without relief. What's your diagnosis?

Vulvar irritation in a 27-year-old woman

These are 3D ultrasound images of a 14-week fetus. What is your diagnosis?

occipital meningocele and umbilical hernia

DailyDx: 3D Images of a 14-week fetus

What structure or anomaly is the arrow pointing to in this image of a 20-week fetal spine?

Challenge your anatomy skills: Can you identify the spinal structure?

Dib Abdalla Chacur, MD

Articles

Latest Updated Articles