Estradiol 1.5mg / Nomegestrol 2.5mg tablets

IntroductionIn the WHO eligibility criteria, there is agreement that hypertensive women taking Oral Contraceptive Hormonal Combined (OCHC) may be at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The risk-to-benefit ratio hinges on the severity of the condition. While a mild increase in blood pressure is a common occurrence in consumers of OCHC, the potential for developing high blood pressure exists during oral contraceptive use. Consequently, there is a possibility of increased cardiovascular risk, with limited available data on this issue.ObjectiveTo evaluate the potential effects of OCHC on blood pressure through a systematic review with statistical analysis of existing randomized controlled trials.MethodThis systematic review with statistical comparison adheres to the recommendations outlined in the PRISMA (Principal Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The analysis strategy involves comparing the mean difference in blood pressure change according to the type of treatment, in addition to the calculation of clinically relevant outcomes (CRO).ResultsOur findings suggest a clinically relevant outcome related to the increase in blood pressure in users of ethinyl estradiol combined with gestodene in a cyclic regimen over 6 months. Conversely, a decrease in blood pressure was observed among users of ethinyl estradiol combined with chlormadinone over 24 months of usage.ConclusionWhile our study found minor variations in blood pressure across varying forms of oral contraceptives, these differences are not significant enough to warrant specific clinical recommendations. However, the results suggest that individuals with hypertension should exercise caution with ethinyl estradiol, particularly when administered cyclically alongside gestodene, due to the potential risk of increased blood pressure. Additionally, the use of oral contraceptives containing ethinyl estradiol paired with chlormadinone acetate or ethinyl estradiol combined with drospirenone may be more suitable for individuals at a high risk of developing hypertension.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Endometriosis is associated with nociceptive pain, as well as peripheral and central sensitization. Evidence-based treatment suggestions for controlling endometriosis should be based on the convergence of the best scientific evidence, physicians' clinical expertise, and the values and priorities of individual patients. In this non-systematic, comprehensive narrative review, data from available randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses on hormonal treatment for symptomatic endometriosis are interpreted through the lens of clinical experience. The role of patients in defining therapeutic trade-off balances is also taken into consideration. Most symptomatic patients benefit from hormonal therapy, including first-line (progestogens and estrogen-progestogen combinations) and second-line (GnRH agonists and antagonists) medications, to relieve nociceptive pain. To reduce the risk of venous and arterial thrombosis and avoid stimulating lesions, it is preferable to use combinations containing body-identical estrogens rather than ethinyl-estradiol. The main adverse effect of first-line medications is irregular bleeding, which adversely impacts efficacy, tolerability, and adherence. If progestogens and estrogen-progestogens do not improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), promptly stepping up to GnRH analogues combined with add-back therapy is indicated. Add-on rather than upfront combination therapy is suggested. Separating the analogues and add-back therapy allows for choosing the compounds that best suit the characteristics of individual patients. Transdermal body-identical estradiol use is proposed in combination with both progestogens and GnRH analogues. Similar satisfactory outcomes are achieved with GnRH agonists and antagonists. Evidence on the use of neuromodulatory drugs to treat neuropathic and nociplastic pain is derived from studies of other chronic pain conditions and shows limited effectiveness. The two mainstays of hormonal therapy are (i) ovariostasis and (ii) amenorrhea. "Medical treatment failure" should not be declared unless a shift from first-line to second-line medications has been undertaken whenever these conditions are not met. For severely symptomatic adolescents and young women, secondary prevention through ovariostasis and amenorrhea should be pursued promptly to improve HRQoL, halt lesion progression, and preserve reproductive potential.

Abstract licence: CC BY

To determine the effectiveness of quick starting combined oral contraception (COC) contain 2.5 mg nomegestrol acetate and 1.5 mg estradiol (NOMAC/E2) comparing with 0.075 mg gestodene and 0.02 mg ethinyl estradiol (GS/EE) on ovarian ovulation inhibition rate, we conducted a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial involving 69 healthy female volunteers aged 18-40 years who had normal menstrual history and were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to take one pack of COC containing either NOMAC/E2 (study group) or GS/EE (control group) starting on menstrual cycle Day7-9. The ovarian activity was assessed by using Hoogland and Skouby grading. Forty-six and 23 participants were randomized to NOMAC/E2 and GS/EE groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. No significant difference was observed between the study and control groups for ovulation inhibition rate (93.4% vs. 95.6%, risk difference: -2.2%, 95% CI: -13.1, 8.8), ovarian quiescence rate (91.2% vs. 91.2%, P = 1.000), persistent cyst rate (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 1.000), and ovulation rate (6.6% vs. 4.4%, P = 1.000). Quick starting COC during day7-9 of menstrual cycle can inhibit ovulation for more than 90%. The quick starting NOMAC/E2 is non-inferior to GS/EE for preventing ovulation and suppressing follicular growth.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0