Effects of estradiol- and ethinylestradiol-based contraceptives on adrenal steroids: A randomized trial

The effect of hormonal contraceptive therapy on clinical laboratory parameters: a literature review

Hormonal contraceptives (HC) are widely used among women in reproductive ages. In this review, the effects of HCs on 91 routine chemistry tests, metabolic tests, and tests for liver function, hemostatic system, renal function, hormones, vitamins and minerals were evaluated. Test parameters were differently affected by the dosage, duration, composition of HCs and route of administration. Most studies concerned the effects of combined oral contraceptives (COC) on the metabolic, hemostatic and (sex) steroids test results. Although the majority of the effects were minor, a major increase was seen in angiotensinogen levels (90-375 %) and the concentrations of the binding proteins (SHBG [∼200 %], CBG [∼100 %], TBG [∼90 %], VDBP [∼30 %], and IGFBPs [∼40 %]). Also, there were significant changes in levels of their bound molecules (testosterone, T3, T4, cortisol, vitamin D, IGF1 and GH). Data about the effects of all kinds of HCs on all test results are limited and sometimes inconclusive due to the large variety in HC, administration routes and dosages. Still, it can be concluded that HC use in women mainly stimulates the liver production of binding proteins. All biochemical test results of women using HC should be assessed carefully and unexpected test results should be further evaluated for both methodological and pre-analytical reasons. As HCs change over time, future studies are needed to learn more about the effects of other types, routes and combinations of HCs on clinical chemistry tests.

Oestrogen-based therapies for menopausal symptoms

PURPOSE

To summarise the dosing options, regimens, pharmacokinetics, risks and benefits of oestrogen-based therapies for the treatment of menopausal symptoms.

METHODS

A review of the literature was undertaken using multiple databases. Randomised trials, observational studies, meta-analyses and review papers were included.

RESULTS

Multiple systemic preparations of oestrogen exist and all appear comparable in terms of efficacy. They differ by pharmacokinetics and those preparations that avoid hepatic metabolism have a lower risk profile in general although their use can be limited by skin barriers or patient acceptability. All vaginal oestrogen treatments are comparable in efficacy and have not been associated with any health risks. Side-effects between all preparations differ.

CONCLUSIONS

With regards to oestrogen treatments there is not a one size fits all. Multiple treatments are available and a clinician's role is to guide and help women make evidence based, unbiased and informed choices.

Ethinylestradiol in combined hormonal contraceptive has a broader effect on serum proteome compared with estradiol valerate: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does an estradiol-based combined oral contraceptive (COC) have a milder effect on the serum proteome than an ethinylestradiol (EE)-based COC or dienogest (DNG) only?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The changes in serum proteome were multifold after the use of a synthetic EE-based COC compared to natural estrogen COC or progestin-only preparation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

EE-based COCs widely affect metabolism, inflammation, hepatic protein synthesis and blood coagulation. Studies comparing serum proteomes after the use of COCs containing EE and natural estrogens are lacking.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a spin-off from a randomized, controlled, two-center clinical trial. Women (n = 59) were randomized to use either EE + DNG, estradiol valerate (EV) + DNG or DNG only continuously for 9 weeks.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Participants were healthy, young, white volunteer women. Serum samples were collected before and after 9 weeks of hormonal exposure. Samples from 44 women were available for analysis (EE + DNG n = 14, EV + DNG n = 16 and DNG only n = 14). Serum proteins were analyzed by quantitative, discovery-type label-free proteomics.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Altogether, 446 proteins/protein families with two or more unique peptides were detected and quantified. The number of proteins/families that altered over the 9-week period within the study groups was 121 for EE + DNG and 5 for EV + DNG, while no changes were detected for DNG only. When alterations were compared between the groups, significant differences were detected for 63 proteins/protein families, of which 58 were between the EE + DNG and EV + DNG groups. The most affected functions during the use of EE + DNG were the complement system, acute phase response signaling, metabolism and the coagulation system. The results were validated by fetuin-B and cortisol-binding globulin ELISA and sex hormone-binding globulin immunoassay.

LARGE SCALE DATA

Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifiers PXD033617 (low abundance fraction) and PXD033618 (high abundance fraction).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The power analysis of the trial was not based on the proteomic analysis of this spin-off study. In the future, targeted proteomic analysis with samples from another trial should be carried out in order to confirm the results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The EE-based COC exerted a broader effect on the serum proteome than the EV-based COC or the DNG-only preparation. These results demonstrate that the effects of EE in COCs go far beyond the established endpoint markers of estrogen action, while the EV combination is closer to the progestin-only preparation. The study indicates that EV could provide a preferable option to EE in COCs in the future and signals a need for further studies comparing the clinical health outcomes of COCs containing EE and natural estrogens.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funding for this researcher-initiated study was obtained from the Helsinki University Hospital research funds, the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Association, the University of Oulu Graduate School, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Swedish Cultural Foundation in Finland, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Orion Research Foundation and the Northern Ostrobothnia Regional Fund. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, publishing decisions or manuscript preparation. T.P. has received honoraria for lectures, consultations and research grants from Exeltis, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Stragen and Mithra Pharmaceuticals. O.H. occasionally serves on advisory boards for Bayer AG and Gedeon Richter and has designed and lectured at educational events for these companies. The other authors have nothing to disclose. O.H. occasionally serves on advisory boards for Bayer AG and Gedeon Richter and has designed and lectured at educational events for these companies. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02352090.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

27 January 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

1 April 2015.