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

Study questionDoes an estradiol-based combined oral contraceptive (COC) have a milder effect on the serum proteome than an ethinylestradiol (EE)-based COC or dienogest (DNG) only?Summary answerThe changes in serum proteome were multifold after the use of a synthetic EE-based COC compared to natural estrogen COC or progestin-only preparation.What is known alreadyEE-based COCs widely affect metabolism, inflammation, hepatic protein synthesis and blood coagulation. Studies comparing serum proteomes after the use of COCs containing EE and natural estrogens are lacking.Study design, size, durationThis was a spin-off from a randomized, controlled, two-center clinical trial. Women (n = 59) were randomized to use either EE + DNG, estradiol valerate (EV) + DNG or DNG only continuously for 9 weeks.Participants/materials, setting, methodsParticipants were healthy, young, white volunteer women. Serum samples were collected before and after 9 weeks of hormonal exposure. Samples from 44 women were available for analysis (EE + DNG n = 14, EV + DNG n = 16 and DNG only n = 14). Serum proteins were analyzed by quantitative, discovery-type label-free proteomics.Main results and the role of chanceAltogether, 446 proteins/protein families with two or more unique peptides were detected and quantified. The number of proteins/families that altered over the 9-week period within the study groups was 121 for EE + DNG and 5 for EV + DNG, while no changes were detected for DNG only. When alterations were compared between the groups, significant differences were detected for 63 proteins/protein families, of which 58 were between the EE + DNG and EV + DNG groups. The most affected functions during the use of EE + DNG were the complement system, acute phase response signaling, metabolism and the coagulation system. The results were validated by fetuin-B and cortisol-binding globulin ELISA and sex hormone-binding globulin immunoassay.Large scale dataData are available via ProteomeXchange with identifiers PXD033617 (low abundance fraction) and PXD033618 (high abundance fraction).Limitations, reasons for cautionThe power analysis of the trial was not based on the proteomic analysis of this spin-off study. In the future, targeted proteomic analysis with samples from another trial should be carried out in order to confirm the results.Wider implications of the findingsThe EE-based COC exerted a broader effect on the serum proteome than the EV-based COC or the DNG-only preparation. These results demonstrate that the effects of EE in COCs go far beyond the established endpoint markers of estrogen action, while the EV combination is closer to the progestin-only preparation. The study indicates that EV could provide a preferable option to EE in COCs in the future and signals a need for further studies comparing the clinical health outcomes of COCs containing EE and natural estrogens.Study funding/competing interest(s)Funding for this researcher-initiated study was obtained from the Helsinki University Hospital research funds, the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Association, the University of Oulu Graduate School, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Swedish Cultural Foundation in Finland, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Orion Research Foundation and the Northern Ostrobothnia Regional Fund. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, publishing decisions or manuscript preparation. T.P. has received honoraria for lectures, consultations and research grants from Exeltis, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Stragen and Mithra Pharmaceuticals. O.H. occasionally serves on advisory boards for Bayer AG and Gedeon Richter and has designed and lectured at educational events for these companies. The other authors have nothing to disclose. O.H. occasionally serves on advisory boards for Bayer AG and Gedeon Richter and has designed and lectured at educational events for these companies. The other authors have nothing to disclose.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT02352090.Trial registration date27 January 2015.Date of first patient’s enrolment1 April 2015.

Abstract licence: CC BY

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

Many factors must be considered and discussed with women when initiating a contraceptive method and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of them. In this review, we discuss the numerous strategies that have been implemented to reduce the thrombotic risk associated with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) from their arrival on the market until today. Evidences suggesting that COCs were associated with an increased risk of VTE appeared rapidly after their marketing. Identified as the main contributor of this risk, the dosage of the estrogen, i.e., ethinylestradiol (EE), was significantly reduced. New progestins were also synthetized (e.g., desogestrel or gestodene) but their weak androgenic activity did not permit to counterbalance the effect of EE as did the initial progestins such as levonorgestrel. Numerous studies assessed the impact of estroprogestative combinations on hemostasis and demonstrated that women under COC suffered from resistance towards activated protein C (APC). Subsequently, the European Medicines Agency updated its guidelines on clinical investigation of steroid contraceptives in which they recommended to assess this biological marker. In 2009, estradiol-containing COCs were marketed and the use of this natural form of estrogen was found to exert a weaker effect on the synthesis of hepatic proteins compared to EE. In this year 2021, a novel COC based on a native estrogen, i.e., estetrol, will be introduced on the market. Associated with drospirenone, this preparation demonstrated minor effects on coagulation proteins as compared with other drospirenone-containing COCs. At the present time, the standard of care when starting a contraception, consists of identifying the presence of hereditary thrombophilia solely on the basis of familial history of VTE. This strategy has however been reported as poorly predictive of hereditary thrombophilia. One rationale and affordable perspective which has already been considered in the past could be the implementation of a baseline screening of the prothrombotic state to provide health care professionals with objective data to support the prescription of the more appropriate contraceptive method. While this strategy was judged too expensive due to limited laboratory solutions, the endogenous thrombin potential-based APC resistance assay could now represent an interesting alternative.

Abstract licence: CC BY