The 1995-1996 "pill" scare, which suggested that third-generation oral cont
raceptives (OCs) were associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembol
ism (VTE) than second-generation OCs, had serious social and public health
consequences, as women discontinued OCs, resulting in unwanted pregnancies
and unnecessary abortions. This article uses the Bradford Hill criteria, fo
r diagnosing causality from an observed association, to interpret evidence
from recent studies as to whether there is any difference in the risk of VT
E between third- and second-generation OCs. Bias and the influence of confo
unders have also been examined in relation to the difference in the risk of
VTE between third- and second-generation OCs reported in the 1995-1996 stu
dies. It is clear from the results of this analysis that none of the Bradfo
rd Hill criteria are fulfilled. Thus, a causal relationship cannot be infer
red from the alleged association of third-generation OCs with VTE. Indeed,
it would appear that the unavoidable bias in observational research is a mo
re likely explanation for the apparent difference in the risk of VTE betwee
n third- and second-generation OCs in the 1995-1996 studies. Recent studies
, which employed more appropriate controls for these biases showed no diffe
rence in the risk of VTE between third- and second-generation OCs. A Danish
study (1994-1996) demonstrated a lower risk of thrombotic morbidity and mo
rtality with third-generation OCs compared with second-generation OCs. In a
ddition, the Transnational study has shown that third-generation OCs have a
significantly lower relative risk (0.3 [0.1-0.9]) for acute myocardial inf
arction (MI) compared with second-generation products. In conclusion, there
is no convincing evidence for a difference in the risk of stroke or VTE be
tween third- and second-generation OCs. Moreover, third-generation OCs may
be associated with a lower risk of MI than second-generation OCs. (C) 2000
Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.