Conjugated oestrogens 300microgram / Medroxyprogesterone 1.5mg modified-release tablets
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Conjugated oestrogens + Medroxyprogesterone
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
2 branded products available
Part of the Premique brand family (generic: Conjugated oestrogens + Medroxyprogesterone)
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Conjugated oestrogens + Medroxyprogesterone on the MHRA register
Conjugated oestrogens 300microgram / Medroxyprogesterone 1.5mg modified-release tablets
This is the NHS Drug Tariff indicative price used for reimbursement purposes. It may not reflect the price paid by patients or pharmacies.
View full Drug TariffSource: NHS Drug Tariff via NHSBSA. Derived from dm+d VMPP (Virtual Medicinal Product Pack) pricing data. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 10 · Randomised trials: 8 · 1957–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Anderson GL, Chlebowski RT, Aragaki AK, et al.
2012
- Breast Neoplasms
- Estrogens, Conjugated (USP)
- Hysterectomy
Fond G, Mallet J, Urbach M, et al.
2023
- Antipsychotic Agents
- Schizophrenia
- Amino Acids
QuestionThis umbrella review and guidelines aimed to provide evidence to support the rational choice of selected adjunctive therapies for schizophrenia.Study selection and analysisFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP)-grading recommendations, 63 randomised control trials (RCTs) (of which 4219 unique participants have completed the RCTs) and 29 meta-analyses were analysed.FindingsProvisional recommendations (WFSBP-grade 1) could be made for two molecules in augmentation to antipsychotics: (1) N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC, 1200-3600 mg/day, for >12 consecutive weeks) in improving negative symptoms, general psychopathology (positive and negative syndrome scale for schizophrenia (PANSS) general psychopathology factor (G)-G subscale), with the RCTs with the longer duration showing the most robust findings; (2) polyunsaturated fatty acids (3000 mg/day of eicosapentaenoic acid, for >12 weeks) in improving general psychopathology. Weaker recommendations (ie, WFSBP-grade 2) could be drawn for sarcosine (2 g/day) and minocycline (200-300 mg/day) for improving negative symptoms in chronic schizophrenia (not early schizophrenia), and NAC for improving positive symptoms and cognition. Weak recommendations are not ready for clinical practice. There is provisional evidence that oestrogens and raloxifene are effective in some patients, but further research is needed to determine their benefit/risk ratio.ConclusionsThe results of this umbrella review should be interpreted with caution as the number of RCTs included in the meta-analyses was generally small and the effect sizes were weak or medium. For NAC, two RCTs with low risk of bias have provided conflicting results and the WFSBP-grade recommendation included also the results of meta-analyses. These drugs could be provisionally prescribed for patients for whom no other treatments have been effective, but they should be discontinued if they prove ineffective.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
Yi Lin Zhang, Lei Xie, Fen lan Wu, et al.
European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2024
- Estrogens, Conjugated (USP)
- Triglycerides
- Cholesterol, LDL
Rui Han, Zhen Wang, Kousalya Prabahar, et al.
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, 2025
Ratten LK, Plummer EL, Bradshaw CS, et al.
2021
- Microbiota
- Vagina
- Lactobacillus
BackgroundExogenous sex steroids within hormonal contraception and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have been used for family planning and management of menopausal symptoms, without consideration of their effects on the vaginal microbiota. This is largely because their use predates our understanding of the importance of the vaginal microbiome on human health. We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42018107730) to determine the influence of exogenous sex steroids, stratified by oestrogen-containing or progestin-only types of contraception, and MHT on the vaginal microbiome, as measured by molecular methods.MethodsEmbase, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant literature published through to December 1st 2020. Eligible studies reported on the effect of specific exogenous sex steroids on the vaginal microbiome using a molecular method. Data regarding the 'positive', 'negative' or 'neutral' effect of each type of contraceptive or MHT on the vaginal microbiome was extracted and summarised. A positive effect reflected sex steroid exposure that was associated with increased abundance of lactobacilli, a change to, or maintenance of, an optimal vaginal microbiota composition, or a decrease in bacterial diversity (specifically reflecting a low-diversity optimal microbiota state), relative to the control group. An exogenous sex steroid was designated as having a negative effect on the vaginal microbiome if it resulted in opposing effects (i.e. loss of lactobacilli, a non-optimal microbiota state). When no significant change was found, this was considered neutral/inconclusive.ResultsWe identified 29 manuscripts reporting on the effect of exogenous sex steroids on the vaginal microbiome; 25 investigating hormonal contraceptives, and 4 investigating MHT. Oestrogen-containing contraception, particularly reflecting the combined oestrogen and progestin-containing contraceptive pill, had a positive effect on the composition of the vaginal microbiota. Progestin-only contraception, particularly reflecting depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate, had mixed effects on the microbiota. Among post-menopausal women using MHT, exogenous oestrogen applied topically was associated with increased prevalence of lactobacilli.ConclusionOur findings suggest that oestrogen-containing compounds may promote an optimal vaginal microbiota, which could have clinical applications. The impact of progestin-only contraceptives on the vaginal microbiota is less clear; more data is needed to determine how progestin-only contraceptives contribute to adverse reproductive and sexual health outcomes.
Abstract licence: CC BY
J. Prior, Y. Vigna, J. Wark, et al.
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1997
Aalberg K, Stavem K, Norheim F, et al.
2021
BackgroundFemale athletes might develop reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and amenorrhoea due to low energy intake.ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of oestrogen oral contraceptives (OCP), conjugated oestrogens (CE) and transdermal estradiol (TE) on BMD in premenopausal women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhoea (FHA) due to weight loss, vigorous exercise and/or stress.MethodsA comprehensive literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid and CINAHL from inception to 1 October 2020.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently extracted data. When possible, the data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis.Main outcomesDifference in BMD (g/cm2) at the lumbar spine.ResultsNine RCTs comprising 770 participants met the inclusion criteria; five studies applied OCP, two CE and two TE. Four RCTs (two OCP, two TE) found an increased BMD in premenopausal women with FHA, and five (three OCP, two CE) found a decreased BMD compared with controls. A meta-analysis showed no difference in BMD between the treatment and control groups, (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.73). A secondary analysis for change scores from baseline to first assessment point, showed a similar overall result (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.51). No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionThe literature suggests that TE might increase lumbar BMD in premenopausal women with FHA, but pooled results revealed no effect of the intervention. The findings do not support oestrogen therapy to improve BMD in these patient groups.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
P. Lalitkumar, E. Lundström, B. Byström, et al.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2023
Ying Zhou, Rusha Yin, Yuelun Zhang, et al.
The BMJ, 2025
J. Prior, J. Nielsen, C. L. Hitchcock, et al.
Clinical science, 2007
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.