Combined oral contraceptive utilization and uterine fibroid incidence: A prospective study in a cohort of African-American women.

Published associations between combined oral contraceptive use and uterine fibroid development have lacked prospective imaging with ultrasound to distinguish between incident and prevalent fibroids. The Study of Environment, Lifestyle, and Fibroids prospectively followed fibroid-free, African-American women (the group with the highest disease burden in the U.S.) to identify incident cases. We examined associations between combined oral contraceptive use and the 40-month cumulative risk of fibroids. History of hormonal contraceptive use was collected via telephone interview at enrollment. Fibroid identification was performed using transvaginal ultrasonography at enrollment, and at 20 and 40-months of follow-up. Inverse probability weights for exposures and censoring were used to construct weighted risk ratios (wRR) and weighted risk different (wRD) estimators which control for differences in fibroid risk factors between exposure groups. In addition, unweighted fully adjusted log-binomial regression models (aRR) were run for comparison. Of the 1,308 participants in the analysis sample, 70% had used combined oral contraceptives and 17% developed fibroids by 40 months. We observed an inverse association between ever use of combined oral contraceptives and cumulative fibroid incidence (wRR: 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.60, 1.00; wRD: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.11, 0; aRR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.98). Fibroid incidence was greater in participants who started using combined oral contraceptives after age 17 years than among younger initiators, though the restriction to ever-users made this estimate less precise (wRR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.76; wRD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.10). No consistent patterns of fibroid incidence were seen among ever-users for duration of, or years since, last combined oral contraceptives use.

Health benefits of combined oral contraceptives - a narrative review.

PURPOSE: This review presents an update of the non-contraceptive health benefits of the combined oral contraceptive pill. METHODS: We conducted a literature search for (review) articles that discussed the health benefits of combined oral contraceptives (COCs), in the period from 1980 to 2023. RESULTS: We identified 21 subjective and/or objective health benefits of COCs related to (i) the reproductive tract, (ii) non-gynaecological benign disorders and (iii) malignancies. Reproductive tract benefits are related to menstrual bleeding(including anaemia and toxic shock syndrome), dysmenorrhoea, migraine, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), ovarian cysts, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), androgen related symptoms, ectopic pregnancy, hypoestrogenism, endometriosis and adenomyosis, uterine fibroids and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Non-gynaecological benefits are related to benign breast disease, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, asthma and porphyria. Health benefits of COCs related to cancer are lower risks of endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The use of combined oral contraceptives is accompanied with a range of health benefits, to be balanced against its side-effects and risks. Several health benefits of COCs are a reason for non-contraceptive COC prescription.

Venous Thromboembolic Risk of Estradiol Valerate-Dienogest Compared with Ethinyl Estradiol-Levonorgestrel Combined Oral Contraceptives.

This pooled analysis compared the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) containing estradiol (E2) valerate-dienogest with those containing ethinyl E2-levonorgestrel. Data were retrieved from two large, prospective, observational cohort studies. Propensity score subclassification was applied to balance baseline parameters between the COC user cohorts. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated based on the extended Cox model. The pooled data set included 11,616 E2 valerate-dienogest users and 18,681 ethinyl E2-levonorgestrel users, contributing 17,932 and 29,140 women-years of observation, respectively. A significantly decreased VTE risk in E2 valerate-dienogest COCs compared with ethinyl E2-levonorgestrel COCs was observed (propensity score-stratified HR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.22-0.98). This pooled analysis expands data from a previous postauthorization safety study and provides valuable real-world safety information on the relative safety of current COCs.

Is the multinational, surveillance PRO-E2 study informative for all countries? The Italian data on VTE and contraceptive effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the thromboembolic risk and contraceptive effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 observed in the PRO-E2 study can be extended to each participating country, as lifestyle, cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing habits may differ geographically. This analysis was performed on the PRO-E2 Italian subpopulation, where smoking habit and women over 35 years were more prevalent compared with the overall study population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from NOMAC-E2 or levonorgestrel-containing COCs (COCLNG) new users were descriptively analysed. Incidence rates of thrombosis (events/10,000 women-years [WY]) and the Pearl Index (pregnancies/100 WY) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 11,179 NOMAC-E2 and 8,504 COCLNG users were followed up to 2 years (34,869 WY). The NOMAC-E2 cohort included more women over 35 vs. COCLNG (37.7% vs. 31.8%; p = 0.001). A comparable low risk of combined deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed in NOMAC-E2 (1.7/10,000 WY; 95% CI: 0.21-6.2) and COCLNG users (6.6/10,000 WY; 95% CI: 2.4-14.4). Similar results were obtained by considering all thromboembolic events (VTE). Unintended pregnancies did not differ between NOMAC-E2 (0.12/100 WY; 95% CI: 0.06-0.21) and COCLNG (0.15/100 WY; 95% CI: 0.08-0.26) cohorts. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher age and tobacco use, findings from the Italian subpopulation were broadly consistent with overall PRO-E2 results, confirming a similar low thromboembolic risk and high contraceptive effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 and COCLNG. SHORT CONDENSATION: This subgroup analysis of the PRO-E2 study provides comprehensive epidemiological data on the use of combined oral contraceptives in a large Italian cohort, with a higher prevalence of women over 35 years and smokers. The study confirms the low thromboembolic risk and high contraceptive effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 pill.

Comparison of estrogenic components used for hormonal contraception.

Attempts have been made over the years to replace ethinyl estradiol (EE) in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) with the less potent natural estrogen estradiol (E2), or its prodrug, E2 valerate (E2V), to improve their safety and tolerability. Recently, a COC incorporating a novel weak natural estrogen, estetrol (E4), combined with drospirenone, has become available. We present a comparative analysis of the three prevailing estrogens used in COCs, focusing on their structure-function relationships, receptor-binding affinity, potency, metabolism, pharmacokinetic parameters, and pharmacodynamics. The binding affinity of EE to estrogen receptor (ER)α is twice that of E2, whereas its affinity for ERß is about one-half that of E2. E4 has a lower binding affinity for the ERs than E2. The high potency of EE is notable in its dramatic increase in estrogen-sensitive hepatic globulins and coagulation factors. EE and E2 undergo extensive and comparable metabolism, while E4 produces only a very limited number of metabolites. E4 has the highest bioavailability among the three estrogens, with E2 having <5%. Studies demonstrate consistent ovulation inhibition, although a higher dose of E4 (15 mg) in COCs is required to achieve follicular suppression compared to E2 (1-3 mg) and EE (0.01-0.035 mg). E2 and E4 in COCs may be less stimulatory of coagulant proteins than EE. Studies with E2/dienogest suggest a comparable risk of venous thromboembolism to EE/levonorgestrel, while data assessing risk with an E4-based COC are insufficient. Nevertheless, the E4-based formulation shows promise as a potential alternative to EE and E2 due to its lower potency and possibly fewer side effects.

Longitudinal profile of estrogen-related thrombotic biomarkers after cessation of combined hormonal contraceptives.

ABSTRACT: The persistence of risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs), after their cessation, is unknown but important to guide clinical practice. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to define the time until normalization of estrogen-related thrombotic biomarkers after CHC cessation. We enrolled women aged 18 to 50 years who had decided to stop their CHC, excluding those with a personal history of VTE, anticoagulation, or pregnancy. The study started before cessation of CHC, with 6 visits afterwards (at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks after cessation). Primary outcomes were normalized sensitivity ratios to activated protein C (nAPCsr) and to thrombomodulin (nTMsr), with sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) as a secondary end point. We also included control women without CHC. Among 66 CHC users, from baseline until 12 weeks, average levels of nAPCsr, nTMsr, and SHBG decreased from 4.11 (standard deviation [SD], 2.06), 2.53 (SD, 1.03), and 167 nmol/L (SD, 103) to 1.27 (SD, 0.82), 1.11 (SD, 0.58), and 55.4 nmol/L (SD, 26.7), respectively. On a relative scale, 85.8%, 81.3%, and 76.2% of the decrease from baseline until 12 weeks was achieved at 2 weeks and 86.7%, 85.5%, and 87.8% at 4 weeks after CHC cessation, respectively. Levels were not meaningfully modified throughout the study period among 28 control women. In conclusion, CHC cessation is followed by a rapid decrease in estrogen-related thrombotic biomarkers. Two to 4 weeks of cessation before planned major surgery or withdrawal of anticoagulants in patients with VTE appears sufficient for the majority of women. The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03949985.

Combined Oral Contraceptive Use and the Risk of Cervical Cancer: Literature Review.

Cervical cancer (CC) is caused by persistent infection of human papillomavirus of high oncogenic risk (hr-HPV); however, several cofactors are important in its carcinogenesis, such as smoking, multiparity, and prolonged use of oral hormonal contraceptives (COCs). Worldwide, 16% of women use COCs, whereas in Brazil this rate is of ∼ 30%. The safety and adverse effects of COCs are widely discussed in the literature, including the increase in carcinogenic risk. Due to the existence of several drugs, combinations, and dosages of COCs, it is hard to have uniform information in epidemiological studies. Our objective was to perform a narrative review on the role of COCs use in the carcinogenesis of cervical cancer. Several populational studies have suggested an increase in the incidence of cervical cancer for those who have used COCs for > 5 years, but other available studies reach controversial and contradictory results regarding the action of COCs in the development of CC.

O câncer cervical (CC) é causado pela infecção persistente pelo papilomavírus humano de alto risco oncogênico (hr-HPV); entretanto, vários cofatores são importantes na sua carcinogênese, como tabagismo, multiparidade e uso prolongado de contraceptivos hormonais orais (COCs). No mundo, 16% das mulheres usam AOCs, enquanto no Brasil essa taxa é de ∼ 30%. A segurança e os efeitos adversos dos COCs são amplamente discutidos na literatura, incluindo o aumento do risco carcinogênico. Devido à existência de várias drogas, combinações e dosagens de COCs, é difícil ter informações uniformes em estudos epidemiológicos. Nosso objetivo foi realizar uma revisão narrativa sobre o papel do uso de COCs na carcinogênese do câncer cervical. Vários estudos populacionais têm sugerido aumento da incidência de câncer de colo uterino para aquelas que usam COCs há mais de 5 anos, mas outros estudos disponíveis chegam a resultados controversos e contraditórios quanto à ação dos COCs no desenvolvimento do CCU.

Combined oral contraceptives: update recommendations of the Latin American contraceptive association.

Background: In recent years, new combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have become available, representing an advance in terms of individualization and compliance by users.Objective: To provide recommendations regarding COCs: formulations, use, efficacy, benefits and safety.Method: For these recommendations, we have used the modified Delphi methodology and carried out a systematic review of studies found in the literature and reviews performed in humans, published in English and Spanish in Pubmed, Medline and advanced medicine and computer networks until the year 2021, using the combination of terms: 'oral contraceptives', 'estroprogestins' and 'combined oral contraceptives'.Results: Regarding the estrogen component, initially switching from mestranol (the pro-drug of ethinylestradiol) to ethinylestradiol (EE) and then reducing the EE dose helped reduce side effects and associated adverse events. Natural estradiol and estradiol valerate are already available and represent a valid alternative to EE. The use of more potent 19-nortestosterone-derived progestins, in order to lower the dose and then the appearance of non-androgenic progestins with different endocrine and metabolic characteristics, has made it possible to individualize the prescription of COC according to the profile of each woman.Conclusion: Advances in the provision of new COCs have improved the risk/benefit ratio by increasing benefits and reducing risks. Currently, the challenge is to tailor contraceptives to individual needs in terms of safety, efficacy, and protection of female reproductive health.

Drospirenone and estetrol: evaluation of a newly approved novel oral contraceptive.

INTRODUCTION: Estetrol (E4) is a native estrogen produced only by the fetal liver during pregnancy. E4 is the first new estrogen to be used in hormonal contraception since the introduction of oral contraceptives in 1960. Ethinyl estradiol, the most commonly used estrogen in oral contraceptives today, increases the risks of thromboembolism and has other significant hepatic impacts, which induce important drug-drug interactions. On the other hand, Phase 2 E4 characterization studies demonstrated that E4 has negligible impacts on liver, breast, and vascular endothelium due to its distinct tissue selectivity. Combined with drospirenone (DRSP), E4 offers an improved safety profile for oral contraception. AREAS COVERED: This paper briefly highlights the unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic features of E4. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability results from the Phase 2 and 3 studies of the E4/DRSP pill are discussed to provide the reader with a thorough understanding of E4 and information to use when counseling potential users. EXPERT OPINION: The estetrol/drospirenone oral contraceptive is effective and well tolerated and provides good cycle control. In the future, estetrol may be the estrogen of choice if subsequent evidence verifies that it reduces the risks associated with current estrogens, such as venous thromboembolism and drug-drug interactions.

The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an estrogen-free oral contraceptive drospirenone 4 mg (24/4-day regimen) in obese users.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare contraceptive efficacy and safety of drospirenone 4 mg in a 24/4-day regimen in nonobese and obese users and describe pharmacokinetics according to bodyweight. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from three drospirenone 4 mg trials (2 European and 1 United States) to report outcomes in nonobese (body mass index <30 kg/m2) and obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) users. We used data from the US trial to calculate the Pearl Index (pregnancies per 100 woman-years) in nonbreastfeeding participants aged ≤35 years at enrollment for confirmed pregnancies. We assessed safety outcomes from all trials based on reported treatment-emergent adverse events. We evaluated pharmacokinetics by bodyweight in the US trial. RESULTS: The three trials combined comprised 2152 nonobese and 425 obese participants, including 590 nonobese and 325 obese participants in the US trial. Eight nonobese and four obese participants had confirmed pregnancies in the US trial, resulting in Pearl Indices of 3.0 (95% CI: 1.3-5.8) and 2.9 (95% CI: 0.8-7.3), respectively. Two-hundred forty-four (11.3%) nonobese and 39 (9.2%) obese participants discontinued due to a treatment-emergent adverse event. The pharmacokinetic analysis included 814 participants with a median weight of 73 (interquartile range 61-89) kg and median plasma drospirenone exposure (AUC0-24ss) of 661.3 (interquartile range 522-828) ng∙h/mL. Changing bodyweight from the median to the fifth percentile (51 kg) or 95th percentile (118 kg) changed drospirenone exposure (AUC0-24,ss) by 22.2% and -23.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Drospirenone 4 mg demonstrated similar contraceptive efficacy for both nonobese and obese users despite a difference in exposure based on bodyweight. IMPLICATIONS: Our limited comparison between obese and nonobese users of drospirenone-only oral contraception demonstrated no evidence that efficacy or discontinuation for adverse events differs between groups. Serum drospirenone levels vary by bodyweight and may correlate with bleeding outcomes.

Former long-term use of combined hormonal contraception and glucose metabolism disorders in perimenopausal women: A prospective, population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Current use of combined hormonal contraceptives worsens glucose tolerance and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus at late fertile age, but the impact of their former use on the risk of glucose metabolism disorders is still controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal birth cohort study with long-term follow-up consisting of 5889 women. The cohort population has been followed at birth, and at ages of 1, 14, 31 and 46. In total, 3280 (55.7%) women were clinically examined and 2780 also underwent a 2-h oral glucose tolerance test at age 46. Glucose metabolism indices were analyzed in former combined hormonal contraceptive users (n = 1371) and former progestin-only contraceptive users (n = 52) and in women with no history of hormonal contraceptive use (n = 253). RESULTS: Compared with women with no history of hormonal contraceptive use, those who formerly used combined hormonal contraceptives for over 10 years had an increased risk of prediabetes (odds ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-9.2) but not of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Former progestin-only contraceptive use was not associated with any glucose metabolism disorders. The results persisted after adjusting for socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, parity, body mass index and use of cholesterol-lowering medication. CONCLUSIONS: Former long-term use of combined hormonal contraceptives was associated with a significantly increased risk of prediabetes in perimenopausal women, which potentially indicates a need of screening for glucose metabolism disorders in these women.

Oral contraceptives containing drospirenone for premenstrual syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC), which provide both progestin and oestrogen, have been examined for their ability to relieve premenstrual symptoms. A combined oral contraceptive containing drospirenone and a low oestrogen dose has been approved for treating PMDD in women who choose combined oral contraceptives for contraception. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COCs containing drospirenone in women with PMS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trial register, CENTRAL (now containing output from two trials registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos on 29 June 2022. We checked included studies' reference lists and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared COCs containing drospirenone with placebo or with another COC for treatment of women with PMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were effects on premenstrual symptoms that were prospectively recorded, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included effects on mood, adverse events, and response rate to study medications. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (858 women analysed, most diagnosed with PMDD). The evidence was very low to moderate quality; the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious inconsistency and imprecision. COCs containing drospirenone and ethinylestradiol (EE) versus placebo COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve overall premenstrual symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.24; 2 RCTs, N = 514; I2 = 64%; low-quality evidence); and functional impairment due to premenstrual symptoms in terms of productivity (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I2 = 47%; low-quality evidence), social activities (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.04; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I2 = 53%; low-quality evidence), and relationships (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I2 = 45%; low-quality evidence). The effects from COCs containing drospirenone may be small to moderate. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may increase withdrawal from trials due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.78; 4 RCT, N = 776; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects from placebo is 3%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 6% and 16%. We are uncertain of the effect of drospirenone plus EE on premenstrual mood symptoms, when measured by validated tools that were not developed to assess premenstrual symptoms. COCs containing drospirenone may lead to more adverse effects in total (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.11; 3 RCT, N = 739; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of having adverse effects from placebo is 28%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 40% and 54%. It probably leads to more breast pain, and may lead to more nausea, intermenstrual bleeding, and menstrual disorder. Its effect on nervousness, headache, asthenia, and pain is uncertain. There was no report of any rare but serious adverse effects, such as venous thromboembolism in any of the included studies. COCs containing drospirenone may improve response rate (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.40; 1 RCT, N = 449; I2 not applicable; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the response rate from placebo is 36%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 39% and 58%. We did not identify any studies that compared COCs containing drospirenone with other COCs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve premenstrual symptoms that result in functional impairments in women with PMDD. The placebo also had a significant effect. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may lead to more adverse effects compared to placebo. We do not know whether it works after three cycles, helps women with less severe symptoms, or is better than other combined oral contraceptives that contain a different progestogen.

Effects of rimegepant 75 mg daily on the pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate in healthy female participants.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of single and multiple doses of rimegepant 75 mg dose on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol (EE)/norgestimate (NGM) in healthy females of childbearing potential or non-menopausal females with tubal ligation. BACKGROUND: Females of childbearing age experience the highest prevalence of migraine and frequently inquire about the concomitant use of anti-migraine medications and contraceptives. Rimegepant, a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, demonstrated efficacy and safety for treating an acute migraine attack and preventing migraine. METHODS: This open-label, single-center, phase 1, drug-drug interaction study explored the effects of rimegepant 75 mg daily dose on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing EE/NGM 0.035 mg/0.25 mg in healthy females of childbearing potential or non-menopausal females with tubal ligation. During cycles 1 and 2, participants received EE/NGM once daily for 21 days followed by placebo tablets with inactive ingredients for 7 days. Rimegepant was administered during only cycle 2 for 8 days, from days 12 through 19. The primary endpoint was the effect of single and multiple doses of rimegepant on the pharmacokinetics of EE and norelgestromin (NGMN), an active metabolite of NGM, at steady state, including area under the concentration-time curve for 1 dosing interval (AUC0-τ,ss ) and maximum observed concentration (Css[max] ). RESULTS: The study enrolled 25 participants, with pharmacokinetic data assessed for 20 participants. A single 75 mg dose of rimegepant co-administered with EE/NGM increased exposures of EE and NGMN by ≤16% (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 1.03; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.06; and GMR, 1.16; 90% CI, 1.13-1.20, respectively). After 8 days of co-administering EE/NGM with rimegepant, EE pharmacokinetic parameters, AUC0-τ,ss and Css(max) , increased by 20% (GMR, 1.20; 90% CI, 1.16-1.25) and 34% (GMR, 1.34; 90% CI, 1.23-1.46), respectively, and NGMN pharmacokinetic parameters increased by 46% (GMR, 1.46; 90% CI, 1.39-1.52) and 40% (GMR, 1.40; 90% CI, 1.30-1.51), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified modest elevations in overall EE and NGMN exposures after multiple doses of rimegepant, but these elevations are unlikely to be clinically relevant in healthy females with migraine.

In the thicket of fears, doubts, and murky facts: some reflections on treatment modalities for endometriosis-associated pain.

Endometriosis-associated pain can be managed by either surgery or hormonal therapy. The final decision as to which treatment modality to take is based on efficacy and possible complications of different treatment modalities, risk of recurrence, and the patient's wishes and preferences. But in the thicket of fears, doubts, and murky facts, the choice may ultimately be the trade-off between irrational fears and ignorance versus scientific evidence. We elaborate some pros and cons of the two treatment modalities and highlight some notable downsides of hormonal therapy, in particular the possible yet unquantified risk of long-term hormonal therapy for malignant transformation, perhaps with the only exception of combined oral contraceptives. Thus, when discussing with patients, we advocate the approach of discussing the advantages and disadvantages of all treatment options in detail, accounting for the known pros and cons with a full understanding of the predictive irrationality of human beings. For endometriosis-associated pain, surgery is definitely not a failure of medicine but, rather, a viable option, especially given the recently surfaced undercurrent of wariness and dissatisfaction with the current hormonal drugs among patients with endometriosis. Above all, there is a pressing need to fill the knowledge gap of perioperative interventions intended to reduce the risk of recurrence and to fulfill the demand for the development of safe and efficacious non-hormonal therapeutics.

Combined Oral Contraceptives As Victims of Drug Interactions.

Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are widely used in women of reproductive age in the United States. Metabolism plays an important role in the elimination of estrogens and progestins contained in COCs. It is unavoidable that a woman using COCs may need to take another drug to treat a disease. If the concurrently used drug induces enzymes responsible for the metabolism of progestins and/or estrogens, unintended pregnancy or irregular bleeding may occur. If the concurrent drug inhibits the metabolism of these exogenous hormones, there may be an increased safety risk such as thrombosis. Therefore, for an investigational drug intended to be used in women with reproductive potential, evaluating its effects on the pharmacokinetics of COCs is important to determine if additional labeling is necessary for managing drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between the concomitant product and the COCs. It is challenging to determine when this clinical drug interaction study is needed, whether an observed exposure change of progestin/estrogen is clinically meaningful, and if the results of a clinical drug interaction study with one COC can predict exposure changes of unstudied COCs to inform labeling. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of metabolic pathways of estrogens and progestins contained in commonly used COCs and known interactions of these COCs as victim drugs and we discuss possible mechanisms of interactions for unexpected results. We also discuss recent advances, knowledge gaps, and future perspectives on this important topic. The review will enhance the understanding of DDIs with COCs and improve the safe and effective use of COCs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This minireview provides an overview of the metabolic pathways of ethinyl estradiol and progestins contained in commonly used combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and significant drug interactions of these COCs as victims. It also discusses recent advances, knowledge gaps, future perspectives, and potential mechanisms for unexpected results of clinical drug interaction studies of COCs. This minireview will help the reader understand considerations when evaluating the drug interaction potential with COCs for drugs that are expected to be used concurrently.

[Combined Hormonal Contraception - Which Pill for Which Patient?] / Kombinierte hormonelle Kontrazeption ­ welches Präparat für welche Indikation?

Combined Hormonal Contraception - Which Pill for Which Patient? Abstract. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) are a valuable and highly effective option in contraceptive counseling. Methods and preparations available in Switzerland are combined oral contraceptives (COC), vaginal rings and transdermal patches. All preparations contain an estrogen and a progestin component. The estrogen component mainly consists of the synthetically produced ethinylestradiol (EE), although newer COC may contain natural estrogens such as estradiol (E2) and estetrol (E4). For the progestin component, a variety of luteal body hormones are available, which enable the health care professional to prescribe a "tailored" product for the patient due to their different partial effects. The individual thromboembolism (TE) risk should always be considered and taken into account when prescribing CHC.

NOMAC-E2 compares to LNG combined oral contraceptives in women over forty: real-world PRO-E2 study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate safety and effectiveness of NOMAC-E2 and levonorgestrel-containing COCs (COCLNG) in users over 40. METHODS: In this large, observational study, new users1 of NOMAC-E2 and COCLNG were recruited in Europe, Australia, and Latin America and followed-up via questionnaires. Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was expressed as incidence rate (IR; events/104 women-years [WY]). Unintended pregnancy was expressed by the Pearl Index (PI; contraceptive failures/100 WY). Mood and weight changes were defined as mean changes in mood score and percentage of body weight. RESULTS: Overall, 7,762 NOMAC-E2 and 6,059 COCLNG users over 40 were followed-up. NOMAC-E2 showed no increased VTE risk compared to COCLNG; confirmed events: 5 NOMAC-E2 (IR 5.9; 95% CI, 1.9-13.7) vs 4 COCLNG (IR 5.9; 95% CI, 1.6-15.1). Unintended pregnancy did not differ substantially between cohorts; confirmed events: 4 NOMAC-E2 (PI 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13) vs 5 COCLNG (PI 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). No differential effect on mood and weight was observed between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: NOMAC-E2 can be considered a valid alternative to COCLNG in perimenopausal women.

[Contraception in Women at Risk]. / Kontrazeption bei Risikopatientinnen.

Contraception in Women at Risk Abstract. Healthy non-obese non-smokers without personal contraindications may use all hormonal and non-hormonal contraceptive methods up to the normal menopausal age. However, underlying diseases or an unfavourable lifestyle may change this liberty of choice. Vascular risks are potentiated by age, obesity, smoking, arterial hypertension, and diabetes. The presence of any arterial disease is an absolute contraindication against combined oral contraceptive (CHC). In regard of internal diseases, CHC possess the highest risk for serious complications among the methods known to be safe, whereas the lowest risk is seen in users of Cu-IUDs. The hormonal alternatives to CHC are gestagen-only preparations including levonorgestrel-releasing IUS. If no further pregnancies are intended, sterilisation of one of the partners is also a valid alternative. Because of their lack of reliability, barrier methods and natural family planning should be strongly discouraged in women with an underlying disease. Any unplanned pregnancy may present a high risk for mother and child. In presence of an underlying disease, it is strongly recommended to consult the treating specialist before a hormonal method is chosen. Independently of the method used, all women at risk for sexually transmitted diseases should also use a barrier method.

Tolerability and safety of the estetrol/drospirenone combined oral contraceptive: Pooled analysis of two multicenter, open-label phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate tolerability and safety of estetrol (E4) 15 mg/drospirenone (DRSP) 3 mg oral contraceptive using pooled data from two, multicenter, phase 3 trials. STUDY DESIGN: The two trials enrolled participants aged 16-50 years with a body mass index ≤35.0 kg/m2 to use E4/DRSP in a 24/4-day regimen for up to 13 cycles. We pooled data from participants who used at least one E4/DRSP dose and had a follow-up assessment to analyze adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and laboratory parameters, including serum lipids, glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and potassium. We consolidated similar Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms into groupings. RESULTS: Of 3725 participants enrolled, we included 3417 in the analyses of whom 1786 (52.3%) reported ≥1 AE. Most participants with reported AEs had AEs that investigators rated as mild or moderate (n = 1665, 93.2%); of participants reporting AEs, 1105 (61.9%) did so during cycles 1 to 3. In total, 981 (28.7%) participants experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE, most frequently related to bleeding complaints (n = 323, 9.5%), breast pain or tenderness (n = 136, 4.0%), acne (n = 113, 3.3%), and mood disturbance (n = 111, 3.2%). Discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs occurred in 272 participants (8.0%), with only bleeding complaints (n = 97, 2.8%) and mood disturbance (n = 38, 1.1%) at rates exceeding 1%. Three participants experienced serious AEs, which the site investigators considered treatment-related: one venous thromboembolism, one worsening of depression, and one ectopic pregnancy. We found no clinically relevant changes in weight, blood pressure, heart rate, or laboratory parameters during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: E4/DRSP is associated with a favorable tolerability and safety profile. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Pooling data allowed for a robust assessment of tolerability and safety, including relatively infrequent events. Other than bleeding complaints and mood disturbance, no adverse event resulted in E4/DRSP discontinuation at rates >1%. Post-marketing surveillance studies are needed to evaluate long-term safety of the E4/DRSP COC and population-based venous thromboembolism risks.

Combined oral contraceptive use and risk for binge eating in women: Potential gene × hormone interactions.

Extant animal and human data suggest endogenous ovarian hormones increase risk for binge eating in females, possibly via gene × hormone interactions and hormonally induced increases in genetic influences. Approximately 85 % of women will take combined oral contraceptives (COCs) that mimic the riskiest hormonal milieu for binge eating (i.e., post-ovulation when both estrogen and progesterone are present). The purpose of this narrative review is to synthesize findings of binge eating risk in COC users. Few studies have been conducted, but results suggest that COCs may increase risk for binge eating and related phenotypes (e.g., craving for sweets), particularly in genetically vulnerable women. Larger, more systematic human and animal studies of COCs and binge eating are needed. The goal of this work should be to advance personalized medicine by identifying the extent of COC risk as well as the role of gene × hormone interactions in susceptibility.