Abstract
The contraceptive pill is an effective and very safe method to control pregnancies. It was developed 60 years ago, and despite that the composition has been the same since it was first developed (estrogen and progestogen), over the years the concentration of ethinyl estradiol has been reduced to improve tolerability. Nevertheless, progestogens are the basic active agent of hormonal contraception. The mechanism of progestogens is a multimodal one and basically three modes of contraceptive action can be distinguished: (a) A strong antigonadotrophic action leading to the inhibition of ovulation. The necessary dosage of ovulation inhibition per day is a fixed dosage that is intrinsic to each progestogen and independent of the dosage of estrogen used or the partial activities of the progestogen or the mode of application. (b) Thickening of the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration and (c) desynchronization of the endometrial changes necessary for implantation. The on the market available progestogens used for contraception are either used in combined hormonal contraceptives (in tablets, patches or vaginal rings) or as progestogen only contraceptives. Progestogen only contraceptives are available as daily oral preparations, monthly injections, implants (2–3 years) and intrauterine systems (IUS). Even the long-acting progestogens are highly effective in typical use and have a very low risk profile. According to their introduction into the market, progestogens in combined hormonal contraceptives, have been described as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation progestogens. The different structures of progestogens are derivatives from testosterone, progesterone and spironolactone. These differences in the molecular structure determine pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic differential effects which contribute to the tolerability and additional beneficial or therapeutic effects whether used in combined oral contraceptive (COC) or as progestogen only drugs. These differences enhance the individual options for different patient profiles. The new development of polymers for vaginal rings allowed on the one hand, the improvement of the estrogen/progestogen combination in these rings especially regarding the comfort of use for women (e.g. avoiding the use of cold chains or packages with up to 6-month rings) and on the other hand, the development of progestogen only formulations. Another future development will be the introduction of new progestogen only pills that will provide effective contraceptive protection with more favorable bleeding patterns and a maintenance of ovulation inhibition after scheduled 24-h delays in pill intake than the existing progestogen only pill (POP) with desogestrel (DES).
Author Statement
Research funding: The author states no funding involved.
Conflict of interest: The author is Medical Director of Exeltis Western Europe.
Informed consent: Informed consent is not applicable.
Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animals use.
References
[1] Schindler AE, Campagnoli C, Druckmann R, Huber J, Pasqualini JR, Schweppe KW, et al. Classification and pharmacology of progestins. Maturitas. 2008;61:171–80.10.1016/j.maturitas.2003.09.014Search in Google Scholar
[2] Schindler AE. Non-contraceptive benefits of oral hormonal contraceptives. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013;11:41–7.10.5812/ijem.4158Search in Google Scholar
[3] Fraser IS. Non-contraceptive health benefits of intrauterine hormonal systems. Contraception. 2010;82:396–403.10.1016/j.contraception.2010.05.005Search in Google Scholar
[4] Trussell J, Wynn LL. Reducing unintended pregnancy in the United States. Contraception 2008;77:1–5.10.1016/j.contraception.2007.09.001Search in Google Scholar
[5] Brown SS, Eisenberg L. editors. The best intentions: unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995.Search in Google Scholar
[6] PRAC referral assessment report. Procedure under Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC resulting from pharmacovigilance data. Combined hormonal contraceptives containing medicinal products INN: chlormadinone, desogestrel, dienogest, drospirenone, etonogestrel, gestodene, nomegestrol, norelgestromin or norgestimate. Procedure number: EMEA/H/A-31/1356. 15 October 2013.Search in Google Scholar
[7] Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use pursuant to Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/ EC for dienogest/ethinylestradiol containing medicinal products indicated in acne. EMA/CHMP/562861/2016. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. EMEA/ H/A-31/1435. January 2017.Search in Google Scholar
[8] Djerassi C. Steroid research at Syntex: “the pill” and cortisone. Steroids. 1992;57:631–41.10.1016/0039-128X(92)90016-3Search in Google Scholar
[9] Kuhl H. Pharmacology of progestogens. J Reproduct Endocrinol. 2011;8:157–76.Search in Google Scholar
[10] Wiechert R, Bittler D, Krebs U, Casals-Stenzel J, Losert W, Deutsches Patent Nr. 2652761 (Priorität: 1976).Search in Google Scholar
[11] Wiechart R. Analogue based drug discovery. In: Fisher J, Robin Ganellin C, editors. IUPAC. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley VCH; 2006. p. 395–400.10.1002/3527608001.ch20Search in Google Scholar
[12] De Lignierès B, Dennerstein L, backstrom T. Influence of route of administration on progesterone metabolism. Maturitas. 1995;21:251–7.10.1016/0378-5122(94)00882-8Search in Google Scholar
[13] Graham JD, Clarke CL. Physiological action of progesterone in target tissues. Endocrinol Rev. 1997;52:502–19.10.1210/edrv.18.4.0308Search in Google Scholar
[14] Regidor PA, Schindler AE. Antiandrogenic and antimineralocorticoid health benefits of COC containing newer progestogens: dienogest and drospirenone. Oncotarget. 2017;8:83334–42.10.18632/oncotarget.19833Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[15] Rabe T, Ahrendt HJ, Merkle E, Peters K, Albring C, Bitzer J, et al. Hormonimplantate zur Kontrazeption bei der Frau. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol. 2013;10:168–80.Search in Google Scholar
[16] Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Oral contraceptive use and risk of fracture. Contraception. 2006;73:571–6.10.1016/j.contraception.2006.01.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[17] Meier C, Brauchli YB, Jick SS, Kraenzlin ME, Meier CR. Use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and fracture risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95:4909–16.10.1210/jc.2010-0032Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[18] Nappi C, Bifulco G, Tommaselli GA, Gargano V, Di Carlo C. Hormonal contraception and bone metabolism: a systematic review. Contraception. 2012:86;606–21.10.1016/j.contraception.2012.04.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Isley MM, Kaunitz AM. Update on hormonal contraception and bone density. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2011;12:93–106.10.1007/s11154-011-9180-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[20] Thijssen JHH. Long-term effects of progestins on bone quality and fractures. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007;23:45–52.10.1080/09513590701584931Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[21] Römer T. Aktuelles: Intrauterine hormonelle Kontrazeption. J Gynäkol Endokrinol. 2012;4:16–22.Search in Google Scholar
[22] Melvin L, Scott J, Craik J. Jaydess® levonorgestrel intrauterine system. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40:165–9.10.1136/jfprhc-2014-100980Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[23] WHO. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 5th ed. WHO; 2015, p. 161. ISBN 978 92 4 1549 15 8.Search in Google Scholar
[24] Rice CF, Killick SR, Dieben T, Bennink HC. A comparison of the inhibition of ovulation achieved by desogestrel 75 mg and levonorgestrel 30 mg daily. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:982–5.10.1093/humrep/14.4.982Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[25] Sarfati J, de Vernejoul MC. Impact of combined and progestogen-only contraceptives on bone mineral density. Joint Bone Spine. 2009;76:134–8.10.1016/j.jbspin.2008.09.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[26] Rice C, Killick S, Hickling D, Bennink HC. Ovarian activity and vaginal bleeding patterns with a desogestrel-only preparation at three different doses. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:737–40.10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019245Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[27] Algorta J, Diaz M, de Benito R, Lefebvre M, Sicard E, Furtado M, et al. Pharmacokinetic bioequivalence, safety and acceptability of Ornibel®, a new polymer composition contraceptive vaginal ring (etonogestrel/ethinylestradiol 11.00/3.474 mg) compared with Nuvaring® (etonogestrel/ethinylestradiol 11.7/2.7 mg). Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22:429–38.10.1080/13625187.2017.1413179Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[28] Archer DF, Ahrendt HJ, Drouin D. Drospirenone-only oral contraceptive: results from a multicenter noncomparative trial of efficacy, safety and tolerability. Contraception. 2015;92:439–44.10.1016/j.contraception.2015.07.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[29] Duijkers IJM, Heger-Mahn D, Drouin D, Colli E, Skouby S. Maintenance of ovulation inhibition with a new progestogen-only pill containing drospirenone after scheduled 24-h delays in pill intake. Contraception. 2016;93:303–9.10.1016/j.contraception.2015.12.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[30] Regidor PA, Colli E, Schindler AE. Drospirenone as estrogen-free pill and hemostasis: coagulatory study results comparing a novel 4 mg formulation in a 24+4 cycle with desogestrel 75 μg per day. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32:749–51.10.3109/09513590.2016.1161743Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
