Estradiol 1mg / Drospirenone 2mg 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

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common gynecological condition among women of reproductive age that significantly affects quality of life and often leads to iron deficiency anemia. Hormonal treatments are usually prescribed in combination to include combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and progestin-only pills (POPs) in treating HMB. This systematic review aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of COCs and POPs in the management of HMB in terms of menstrual blood loss, hemoglobin levels, side effects, and patient satisfaction. The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and covered articles published between 2000 and 2025. Blood loss reduction, hemoglobin levels, side effects, and patient satisfaction data were extracted, and a narrative review was conducted. The review included 10 studies. Both POPs and COCs had a great impact on minimizing menstrual blood loss and enhancing hemoglobin index. There were no mean differences in the two treatments concerning the improvement of hemoglobin, with a mean change of 2.75-2.71 g/dL in both treatment groups (p = 0.84). The heterogeneity within the companies made the calculation of confidence intervals impossible, and the comparison was done regarding the differences in mean only. COCs were linked with an increased incidence of nausea, headaches, and weight gain, whereas POPs were found to have more desirable side effects. Drospirenone (POP) showed reduced unscheduled bleeding days and patient satisfaction with the medication compared to other POPs. Risk of bias was moderate to low across studies, with some concerns regarding randomization and blinding in certain trials. Further research with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods, and head-to-head comparisons between COCs and POPs is needed to confirm these findings and evaluate the long-term impact of these treatments.

Abstract licence: CC BY

ObjectiveTo evaluate the hemostatic profile of estetrol/drospirenone (E4/DRSP) compared with ethinylestradiol/drospirenone (EE/DRSP) in adult women.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies compared E4/DRSP with EE/DRSP in adult women and assessed coagulation, anticoagulation, or fibrinolytic markers. Three RCTs (n=183) met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted independently, and pooled mean differences (MD) were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsCompared to EE/DRSP, E4/DRSP was associated with higher protein S activity (MD = 21.23; 95% CI: 11.83 to 30.64; pConclusionE4/DRSP demonstrates a more favorable hemostatic profile than EE/DRSP, potentially reducing thrombotic risk. Despite the limited number of RCTs, consistency across markers supports E4 as a safer estrogenic component for contraceptive formulations, with implications for women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism.PROSPERO registry: #CRD420251074961.

Abstract licence: CC BY

ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the evidence on the contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, safety, and selected noncontraceptive effects of estetrol 15 mg/drospirenone 3 mg (E4/DRSP) and to assess certainty of evidence by outcome using the GRADE approach.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible studies published through February 2026. Clinical trials and comparative studies evaluating E4/DRSP in women of reproductive age were included. Outcomes were grouped into contraceptive efficacy, bleeding/cycle control, safety and tolerability, hemostatic and endocrine-metabolic effects, ovarian suppression, and noncontraceptive clinical outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using design-specific tools, and certainty of evidence was graded by outcome.ResultsA total of 25 eligible publications/study reports were included, comprising phase 2 dose-finding studies, pivotal phase 3 contraceptive trials, pooled analyses, mechanistic comparator studies, adolescent data, and indication-specific studies. E4/DRSP demonstrated robust contraceptive efficacy, predictable bleeding patterns, and an acceptable tolerability profile. Across mechanistic studies, E4/DRSP showed less pronounced hemostatic and endocrine-metabolic effects than ethinyl estradiol-containing comparators. The most consistent biological differentiation of E4/DRSP was observed for APC resistance and thrombin-generation endpoints, which were less affected than with EE-containing comparators. The strongest noncontraceptive evidence was observed for dysmenorrhea, supported by a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Certainty of evidence was moderate for contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, common adverse events, and surrogate hemostatic/metabolic outcomes; high for dysmenorrhea versus placebo; low for endometriosis-related and menstrual symptom outcomes; and very low for clinical thromboembolic risk.ConclusionsE4/DRSP is an effective combined oral contraceptive with favorable cycle control and a consistent biologic profile suggesting lower hepatic/hemostatic impact than ethinyl estradiol-containing formulations. However, current evidence does not establish comparative thromboembolic safety, which requires dedicated postauthorization and real-world comparative studies.

Abstract licence: CC BY

According to the FDA Guidance for Industry on Clinical Drug Interaction (DDI) Studies with Combined Oral Contraceptives (COCs), sponsors are expected to conduct dedicated clinical DDI studies if in vitro findings suggest weak or moderate CYP3A induction, while concomitant use of COCs with strong inducers should be avoided. The guidance further suggests that a negative DDI result for drospirenone (DRSP) may be extrapolated to other progestins that are less sensitive to CYP3A modulation, such as levonorgestrel (LNG). This approach assumes that DDI-mediated changes in exposure directly translate into clinical efficacy across progestins. To evaluate the validity of this assumption, we established a quantitative link between dose, exposure, and response (Pearl Index [PI] and ovulation rate [OR]) via an integrated model-based meta-analysis, physiologically based pharmacokinetic, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling and simulation approach using data from 51 clinical studies in 36,040 women receiving LNG or DRSP. COCs containing LNG and DRSP were selected because they represent clinically relevant progestins at the lower and the upper end of the fraction metabolized via CYP3A4. The results of our analysis show a moderate correlation (Pearson's r = 0.52, 95% CI 0.46-0.58, P < 0.001) between PI and OR, which enables the use of OR as an ethically measurable endpoint, even at subtherapeutic doses/exposures, to predict efficacy outcomes. They further show that DDI-induced changes in exposure do not directly translate into clinical response. Therefore, DDIs with COCs should be interpreted in a PK/PD rather than a PK-only context. The quantitative framework developed in this study can serve as the scientific basis to do so.

Abstract licence: CC BY

We compared the efficacy of 4 mg drospirenone (DRSP) progestin-only pills (POPs) versus combined oral contraceptive pills (COCs) containing 0.02 mg of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and 0.075 mg of gestodene (GS) in ovulation inhibition and inducing unfavorable cervical mucus changes using a delayed-starting approach. This randomized controlled trial involved 36 participants aged 18-45 years. The major outcomes included ovulation inhibition assessed using the Hoogland and Skouby score, and cervical mucus permeability, assessed using the modified World Health Organization score. The results demonstrated ovulation inhibition rates of 77.8% for the EE/GS group and 88.9% for the DRSP group. The risk ratio and absolute risk reduction were 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10, 2.40) and - 0.11 (95% CI: - 0.35, 0.13), respectively, satisfying the 20% non-inferiority margin threshold. The median time to achieve unfavorable cervical mucus changes was comparable between the DRSP (3 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 6 days) and EE/GS (3.5 days, IQR: 4 days) groups. However, the DRSP group had a higher incidence of unscheduled vaginal bleeding (55.56% vs. 11.11%; p = 0.005). DRSP-only pills, initiated on days 7-9 of the menstrual cycle, were non-inferior to EE/GS pills in ovulation inhibition. However, they exhibited delayed unfavorable cervical mucus changes compared to the standard two-day backup recommendation.Clinical trial registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20220819001) https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220819001 .

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