Ethinylestradiol 30microgram / Levonorgestrel 125microgram tablets

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) poses a significant global health challenge, notably exacerbated by the use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs). Evidence mainly focuses on the type of progestogen used in COCs to establish the increased risk of VTE with less data assessed on the type of estrogen used. This meta-analysis aims to assess the risk of VTE associated with COCs containing synthetic estrogens like ethinylestradiol (EE) versus natural estrogens like estradiol (E2).MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature searches were performed in December 2023 in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify clinical studies comparing the VTE risk between COCs containing synthetic versus natural estrogens. Studies were selected through rigorous screening, and data extraction followed standardized protocols, with statistical analyses employing a random effects model.ResultsThe search yielded five relevant studies, involving over 560,000 women/time, demonstrating a significant 33% reduction in VTE risk among users of natural estrogen-based COCs compared to synthetic estrogen-based COCs (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.87). Stratification analyses using adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of the main observationnal studies showed a 49% reduced VTE risk of E2-based pills compared to EE in association with levonorgestrel.Discussion and conclusionDespite the longstanding use of EE-based COCs, emerging evidence supports a lower thrombotic risk associated with natural estrogens. This meta-analysis substantiates the lower VTE risk associated with natural estrogen-based COCs compared to synthetic alternatives, advocating for a re-evaluation of contraceptive guidelines to prioritize patient safety and reduce thrombotic risks.

Abstract licence: CC BY

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

BackgroundEndometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life.DesignA multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model.SettingThirty-four United Kingdom hospitals.ParticipantsWomen of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis.InterventionsLong-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained.ResultsFour hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman.LimitationsLimitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment.ConclusionsAt 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women.Future workFuture research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475.FundingThis award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundCurrently, there is no evidence-based hormonal treatment for migraine in women. Several small studies suggest a beneficial effect of combined oral contraceptives, but no large randomized controlled trial has been performed. As proof of efficacy is lacking and usage may be accompanied by potentially severe side effects, there is a great need for clarity on this topic.MethodsWomen with menstrual migraine (n = 180) are randomly assigned (1:1) to ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel 30/150 μg or vitamin E 400 IU. Participants start with a baseline period of 4 weeks, which is followed by a 12-week treatment period. During the study period, a E-headache diary will be used, which is time-locked and includes an automated algorithm differentiating headache and migraine days.ResultsThe primary outcome will be change in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline (weeks - 4 to 0) to the last 4 weeks of treatment (weeks 9 to 12). Secondary outcomes will be change in monthly headache days (MHD) and 50% responder rates of MMD and MHD.ConclusionsThe WHAT! trial aims to investigate effectivity and safety of continuous combined oral contraceptive treatment for menstrual migraine. Immediate implementation of results in clinical practice is possible.Trial registrationClinical trials.gov NCT04007874 . Registered 28 June 2019.

Abstract licence: CC BY