[Naming and classification of steroids and human stress ulcers. Articles of historic significance published by Hans Selye 70 years ago]. / A szteroidok elnevezése, felosztása és az emberi stresszfekélyek. Selye János 70 éve megjelent történelmi jelentoségu cikkei.

The name of Hans Selye is mostly known worldwide as the discoverer of stress reaction. Yet, he made numerous other seminal and clinically relevant discoveries. Namely, since he had a focused research on steroid hormones originating from the adrenal cortex that play a crucial role in stress response, he was the first who introduced about 70 years ago the first classification of steroids that is still valid nowadays. This is based on three objective facts: (a) the names of steroid groups are identical with their organ of origin (e.g., corticoids from the adrenal cortex, testoids/androgens from the testis); (b) chemical structures of the steroids are identical within a group (e.g., all corticoids have pregnane nucleus with 21 carbon atoms); and (c) the biological effects are homogenous within a group (e.g., all glucocorticoids exert catabolic effect, while androgens are anabolic). It should be emphasized that Selye also discovered in animal models the pro-inflammmatory effect of mineralocorticoids and the anti-inflammatory properties of glucocorticoids, about 8-10 years before Nobel Prize was awarded to a physician for the first clinical use of adrenocorticotrop hormone and cortisone. Last, but not least, Selye was the first who recognized about 70 years ago the occurence of stress ulcers in humans, based on clinical reports on the huge increase in the number of perforated gastric anti-duodenal ulcers during bombings of London in World War II. The subsequent ulcer research by Selye`s former students and their contemporaries resulted in the recognition of anti-duodenal ulcer effect of dopamine, and the central gastroprotective actions of thyreotrop releasing hormone and endogenous opioids. Thus, Hans Selye made much more contributions to medical science and clinical practice than 'just' the discoverer of biologic stress response.

History of oral contraception.

On the 50th birthday of the pill, it is appropriate to recall the milestones which have led to its development and evolution during the last five decades. The main contraceptive effect of the pill being inhibition of ovulation, it may be called a small miracle that this drug was developed long before the complex regulation of ovulation and the menstrual cycle was elucidated. Another stumbling block on its way was the hostile climate with regard to contraception that prevailed at the time. Animal experiments on the effect of sex steroids on ovulation, and the synthesis of sex steroids and orally active analogues were the necessary preliminaries. We owe the development of oral contraceptives to a handful of persons: two determined feminists, Margaret Sanger and Katherine McCormick; a biologist, Gregory Pincus; and a gynaecologist, John Rock. Soon after the introduction of the first pills, some nasty and life-threatening side effects emerged, which were due to the high doses of sex steroids. This led to the development of new preparations with reduced oestrogen content, progestins with more specific action, and alternative administration routes. Almost every decade we have witnessed a breakthrough in oral contraception. Social and moral objections to birth control have gradually disappeared and, notwithstanding some pill scares, oral contraceptives are now one of the most used methods of contraception. Finally, all's well that ends well: recent reports have substantiated the multiple noncontraceptive health benefits paving the way for a bright future for this 50-year-old product.

Nongenital malformations following exposure to progestational drugs: the last chapter of an erroneous allegation.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, a number of epidemiological studies were published indicating that pregnant women who were exposed to an array of sex steroids delivered infants with an increased incidence of nongenital congenital malformations. Because of these publications, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in conjunction with various pharmaceutical companies, labeled the therapeutic exposure of progestational drugs and contraceptives in pregnant women as a risk factor for limb-reduction defects (LRDs) and congenital heart defects (CHDs). Subsequently there was a rapid decrease in the exposure of pregnant women to these drugs and the initiation of numerous lawsuits alleging that a particular progestational drug was responsible for a child's nongenital congenital malformation. Wilson and Brent (1981) published an article indicating that epidemiological and animal studies of these drugs, and basic science did not support the package insert's warnings. Many new and previous animal and epidemiological studies did not support the FDA box warning. In 1987 the FDA held a hearing in which the FDA, the Teratology Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and other organizations supported the position that progestational agents did not result in nongenital malformations. An editorial appeared in Teratology congratulating the FDA for removing the warning label on oral contraceptives regarding nongenital malformations. In 1999 the FDA published new wording for package inserts that removed warnings for nongenital malformations for all progestational agents. In spite of the recent changes in the package inserts, lawsuits have alleged that progestational drugs cause nongenital malformations. It took 22 years from the time a box warning was required by the FDA until the warnings were removed in 1999. The 1999 FDA publication, which is a scholarly and objective document, should put an end to 2 decades of concern and anxiety for pregnant women or women of reproductive age. Could scientists, the pharmaceutical companies, or the FDA have prevented the mislabeling of progestational drugs with regard to their teratogenic risks? Was the epidemiological or teratology community at fault because they did not critique and respond to the early publications? Did the FDA act too slowly? The epidemiologic analyses, animal studies, and basic science principles have been reviewed, and it is obvious that clinically utilized progestational drugs do not cause nongenital malformations (i.e., LRDs and CHDs).