Mestranol 50microgram / Norethisterone 1mg tablets
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 Mestranol + Norethisterone
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.
2 branded products available
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
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.
Randomised trials: 1 · 1973–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
P. Garnero
Human Reproduction, 2002
Doose DR, Wang SS, Padmanabhan M, et al.
2003
- Obesity
- Carbamazepine
- Ethinyl Estradiol
W KUHNZ, A HEUNER, M HUMPEL, et al.
Contraception, 1997
J. Nathorst-Böös, M. Hammar
Maturitas, 1997
Stalas J, Morris R, Bu K, et al.
2024
BackgroundDeep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been reported as an adverse event for patients receiving combined oral contraceptives. Norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol (NET/EE) and drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol (DRSP/EE) are two commonly prescribed combined hormonal oral contraceptive agents used in the United States, differing in their progestin component.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the association between the progestin component of a combined oral contraceptive and the risk of DVT in patients taking oral contraceptives for birth control using data derived from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).MethodsThe risk of DVT was compared between patients that had taken NET/EE with those that had taken the DRSP/EE COC formulation for birth control. In addition, age was assessed as a possible confounder and the outcome severity for those diagnosed with DVT were compared between the two groups. Finally, association rule mining was utilized to identify possible drug-drug interactions that result in elevated DVT risk.ResultsDVT was the fourth most commonly adverse event reported for patients taking DRSP/EE accounting for 8558 cases and the seventeenth most commonly reported adverse event for NET/EE accounting for 298 cases. Age was found to be a significant confounder for users of DRSP/EE with regards to DVT risk across all age groups assessed: 2040 (ROR = 3.69, 95% CI 3.37-4.04) However, there was only a statistically significant elevated risk in patients over 40 years of age taking NET/EE (ROR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.36-2.88). Patients that had taken DRSP/EE and the corticosteroid prednisone simultaneously had an approximately 3-fold increase in DVT risk (ROR = 2.77, 95% CI 2.43-3.15) relative to individuals that had only taken DRSP/EE.ConclusionBased on this analysis, there is a higher risk of developing DVT when taking DRSP/EE than when taking NET/EE as hormonal contraception. In addition, a possibly significant drug-drug interaction between different COC formulations and prednisone were identified. This interaction may result in elevated DVT risk due to a synergistic impairment of fibrinolysis and a decrease in plasmin production.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Li J, Qin L, Fu Y, et al.
2026
- Ethinyl Estradiol
- Desogestrel
- Norethindrone
W.G.E.J Schoonen, G.H Deckers, M.E de Gooijer, et al.
The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2000
Shoupe D
2021
Since the introduction of the first modern contraceptive methods, the interlink between bleeding control and contraceptive development has been a dominant and critical factor. This interplay has led to the development of safer and better contraceptive methods that are often used to control bleeding in both women with normal bleeding patterns as well as in those suffering from heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). The success of progestin-only methods, such as hormonal IUDs or progestin dominant oral contraceptives in substantially decreasing and controlling menstrual bleeding, has led to development of multiple progestin-only protocols for the sole purpose of bleeding control. These include protocols designed to stop acute heavy bleeding as well as manage long-term bleeding. Recent publications describe a variety of protocols using high dose oral progestin pills with or without a medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) injection that demonstrate high effectiveness and good tolerability. Comparted to many other progestins, MPA is not converted in part into ethinyl estradiol and appears to have a progestin-only advantage. Norethindrone acetate (NET acetate) is converted in part to ethinyl estradiol and therefore is an especially good option for bleeding control in patients with low estrogen levels that would benefit from estrogen replacement (such as in premenopausal women with premature menopause or hypothalamic hypogonadism).
Abstract licence: CC BY
Burchardt NA, Shafrir AL, Kaaks R, et al.
2021
- Endometrial Neoplasms
- Ethinyl Estradiol
- Mestranol
Oral contraceptives (OCs) have been associated with long-term lower endometrial cancer risk; relatively little is known about associations with more recent OC formulations and associations with longer-term risk. A total of 107,069 women from the Nurses' Health Study II recalled OC use from age 13 to baseline (1989); biennial questionnaires updated data on OC use until 2009. OCs were classified by estrogen and progestin type, dose, and potency based on reported brand. 864 incident endometrial cancer cases were identified through 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] for the association of OC use with endometrial cancer risk. OC use was associated with lower endometrial cancer risk (ever use, HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.65-0.91]; >10 years of use, 0.43 [0.32-0.58] vs. never OC use). Inverse associations for duration were evident regardless of time since last use. Longer durations (> 5 years) of ethinyl estradiol (0.52 [0.41-0.67]) and second-generation progestins (0.43 [0.30-0.61]), both versus never use, were more strongly associated with lower risk than mestranol (0.66 [0.50-0.88], p-het = 0.01) and first-generation progestins (0.62 [0.49-0.78], p-het = 0.03). Inverse associations were generally observed for cross-classified cumulative average estrogen and progestin dose and potency (< vs. ≥ median; ever use vs. never OC use), with the exception of high estrogen and low progestin dose. OCs were associated with lower endometrial cancer risk, independent of time since last use. Use of ethinyl estradiol and second-generation progestins were more strongly inversely associated with risk compared with older formulations.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Elisabeth Stadberg, Lars-Åke Mattsson, Margareta Uvebrant
Maturitas, 1996
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.