Ethinylestradiol 35microgram / Norgestimate 250microgram 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 Ethinylestradiol + Norgestimate
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.
9 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Ethinylestradiol + Norgestimate on the MHRA register
Cilique 250microgram/35microgram tablets
Lizinna 250microgram/35microgram tablets
Ethinylestradiol 35microgram / Norgestimate 250microgram tablets
Ethinylestradiol 35microgram / Norgestimate 250microgram tablets
AM Distributions (Yorkshire) Ltd
Ethinylestradiol 35microgram / Norgestimate 250microgram 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
Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NICE clinical guidance(1)
Source: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
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: 14 · Randomised trials: 6 · 1995–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Stegeman BH, de Bastos M, Rosendaal FR, et al.
2013
- Venous Thrombosis
- Ethinyl Estradiol
- Contraceptives, Oral, Combined
ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive overview of the risk of venous thrombosis in women using different combined oral contraceptives.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Academic Search Premier, and ScienceDirect up to 22 April 2013.Review methodsObservational studies that assessed the effect of combined oral contraceptives on venous thrombosis in healthy women. The primary outcome of interest was a fatal or non-fatal first event of venous thrombosis with the main focus on deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Publications with at least 10 events in total were eligible. The network meta-analysis was performed using an extension of frequentist random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. Unadjusted relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were reported. The requirement for crude numbers did not allow adjustment for potential confounding variables.Results3110 publications were retrieved through a search strategy; 25 publications reporting on 26 studies were included. Incidence of venous thrombosis in non-users from two included cohorts was 1.9 and 3.7 per 10,000 woman years, in line with previously reported incidences of 1-6 per 10,000 woman years. Use of combined oral contraceptives increased the risk of venous thrombosis compared with non-use (relative risk 3.5, 95% confidence interval 2.9 to 4.3). The relative risk of venous thrombosis for combined oral contraceptives with 30-35 µg ethinylestradiol and gestodene, desogestrel, cyproterone acetate, or drospirenone were similar and about 50-80% higher than for combined oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel. A dose related effect of ethinylestradiol was observed for gestodene, desogestrel, and levonorgestrel, with higher doses being associated with higher thrombosis risk.ConclusionAll combined oral contraceptives investigated in this analysis were associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis. The effect size depended both on the progestogen used and the dose of ethinylestradiol.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
Douxfils J, Raskin L, Didembourg M, et al.
2024
- Estrogens
- Venous Thromboembolism
- Ethinyl Estradiol
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
de Medeiros SF, de Medeiros MAS, Santos NS, et al.
2018
Polycystic ovary syndrome is associated with dyslipidemia, dysglycemia, metabolic syndrome, and low-grade chronic inflammation, which increase the risks for cardiovascular disease. Combined oral contraceptives may affect the mediators of low-grade chronic inflammation with potential additive risk in PCOS patients. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of oral contraceptive on markers of chronic inflammation in PCOS patients. Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane database were used to search studies reporting on this matter in the target population. Twenty seven studies were selected, including a total of 838 women. The data were expressed as the standardized mean difference. The random-effects model was used to summarize effect sizes. Heterogeneity was examined using Cochran's test (Q) and I2 statistics. Most of the preparations increased C-reactive protein (CRP) in PCOS patients (p >0.001). The increase in homocysteine levels was not significant (p >0.05). Follistatin significantly increased with pills containing cyproterone acetate (p= 0.008). Interleukin-6 changes were inconsistent and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 decreased with pills containing desogestrel, norgestimate, and drospirenone. Collectively, the results of this review indicate that oral contraceptives modify most inflammatory markers of PCOS patients. However, the clinical implications are not clear yet and future studies must consider longer follow-up and the inclusion of objective clinical parameters.
Abstract licence: CC BY
T. Harada, Saori Kosaka, J. Elliesen, et al.
Fertility and sterility, 2017
Abdel-Maboud M, Menshawy A, Hasabo EA, et al.
2021
- Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
- Obesity
- Hyperandrogenism
BackgroundPolycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects up to 18% of reproductive-age females. The prevalence of obesity in PCOS patients reaches up to 80%, which is 2-fold higher than the general population.ObjectiveThe present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 55 pharmacological interventions across 17 different outcomes in overweight/obese PCOS patients with hyperandrogenism manifestations for both short- and long-term follow-ups. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials comparing any conventional pharmacological intervention as a monotherapy or a combination in overweight/obese patients with polycystic ovary syndrome and hyperandrogenism manifestations. Extracted data included three main parameters; I. Anthropometric parameters (BMI, Waist and Hip circumferences, and Waist/HIP ratio), II. Hormonal parameters (FSH, LH, FSG, SHBG, Estradiol, Total Testosterone, Free testosterone, DHEAS, Androstenedione), and III. Metabolic parameters (Total Cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C, Triglycerides, Fasting glucose, Fasting glucose, HOMA-IR). Critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments were performed using the modified Jadad scale, and the overall quality of this network meta-analysis was evaluated according to the CINeMA framework. We performed both a pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis to evaluate the effect sizes with 95% CI, and we calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each intervention.ResultsOur final search on May 15th 2021 retrieved 23,305 unique citations from searching six electronic databases. Eventually, 101 RCTs of 108 reports with a total of 8,765 patients were included in our systematic review and multi-treatments meta-analysis. 55 different interventions were included: 22 monotherapies, and 33 combinations. The two-dimensional cluster ranking of the average SUCRA values for metabolic and hormonal parameters with significant estimates revealed flutamide (77.5%, 70%; respectively) as the highest and rosiglitazone (38.2%, 26.3%; respectively) as the lowest, in terms of the overall efficacy in reducing weight and hyperandrogenism. However, cyproterone-acetate+ethinylestradiol exhibited a higher ranking in improving hormonal parameters (71.1%), but even a lower-ranking regarding metabolic parameters (34.5%).Conclusions and relevanceCurrent evidence demonstrated the superiority of flutamide in improving both metabolic and hormonal parameters, and the higher efficacy of cyproterone-acetate+ethinylestradiol only in improving hormonal parameters. Nearly all interventions were comparable in female hormones, FGS, HDL, glucose, and insulin levels improvements.
Abstract licence: CC BY
J. Dinger
2020
L. Barreiros, J. Queiroz, Luís M. Magalhães, et al.
Microchemical Journal, 2016
Morimont L, Haguet H, Dogné JM, et al.
2021
- Contraceptives, Oral, Combined
- Risk Reduction Behavior
- Venous Thromboembolism
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
Lidegaard Ø, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, et al.
2011
- Androstenes
- Norpregnenes
- Desogestrel
ObjectiveTo assess the risk of venous thromboembolism from use of combined oral contraceptives according to progestogen type and oestrogen dose.DesignNational historical registry based cohort study.SettingFour registries in Denmark.ParticipantsNon-pregnant Danish women aged 15-49 with no history of thrombotic disease and followed from January 2001 to December 2009.Main outcome measuresRelative and absolute risks of first time venous thromboembolism.ResultsWithin 8,010,290 women years of observation, 4307 first ever venous thromboembolic events were recorded and 4246 included, among which 2847 (67%) events were confirmed as certain. Compared with non-users of hormonal contraception, the relative risk of confirmed venous thromboembolism in users of oral contraceptives containing 30-40 µg ethinylestradiol with levonorgestrel was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 3.8), with desogestrel was 6.6 (5.6 to 7.8), with gestodene was 6.2 (5.6 to 7.0), and with drospirenone was 6.4 (5.4 to 7.5). With users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel as reference and after adjusting for length of use, the rate ratio of confirmed venous thromboembolism for users of oral contraceptives with desogestrel was 2.2 (1.7 to 3.0), with gestodene was 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8), and with drospirenone was 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8). The risk of confirmed venous thromboembolism was not increased with use of progestogen only pills or hormone releasing intrauterine devices. If oral contraceptives with desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone are anticipated to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism sixfold and those with levonorgestrel threefold, and the absolute risk of venous thromboembolism in current users of the former group is on average 10 per 10,000 women years, then 2000 women would need to shift from using oral contraceptives with desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone to those with levonorgestrel to prevent one event of venous thromboembolism in one year.ConclusionAfter adjustment for length of use, users of oral contraceptives with desogestrel, gestodene, or drospirenone were at least at twice the risk of venous thromboembolism compared with users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
M. Kangasniemi, R. Arffman, S. Joenväärä, et al.
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022
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.