Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Progestogen-only pill
View on Wikipedia| Progestogen-only pill | |
|---|---|
| Background | |
| Type | Hormonal |
| First use | 1968[1][2] |
| Failure rates (first year) | |
| Perfect use | 0.3%[3] |
| Typical use | 9%[3] |
| Usage | |
| Duration effect | 1 day |
| Reversibility | Yes |
| User reminders | Taken within same 3-hour window each day |
| Clinic review | 6 months |
| Advantages and disadvantages | |
| STI protection | No |
| Weight | No proven effect |
| Period disadvantages | Light spotting may be irregular |
| Period advantages | Often lighter and less painful |
| Medical notes | |
| Unaffected by being on most (but not all) antibiotics. May be used, unlike COCPs, in patients with hypertension and history of migraines. Affected by some anti-epileptics. | |
Progestogen-only pills (POPs), colloquially known as "mini pills", are a type of oral contraceptive that contain synthetic progestogens (progestins) and do not contain estrogens.[4] They are primarily used for the prevention of undesired pregnancy, although additional medical uses also exist.[5]
Progestogen-only pills differ from combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs), which consist of a combination of progestins and estrogens.[6]
Terminology
[edit]"Progestogen-only pills," "Progestin-only pills," and "Progesterone-only pills" refer to the same class of synthetic hormone medications. The phrase "Progestogen-only pill" is used by the World Health Organization and much of the international medical community.[7] The phrase "Progestin-only pills" is typically used in the United States and Canada.[8]
Despite sometimes being referred to as "Progesterone-only pills," these medications do not contain progesterone but instead one of several chemically related compounds.[9] For example, the medication Opill contains the synthetic hormone Norgestrel, which has some distinct chemical differences despite producing a similar physiological effect.[10]


Available formulations
[edit]Progestogens share the common feature of being able to bind to the body's progesterone receptors and enact a physiological effect similar to naturally occurring progesterone.[11] Still, there are differences between progestogens, and various organizational systems exist to categorize the progestogen hormones used in oral contraception medications.
By Generation - based on when it became available for use, each synthetic hormone can be grouped into 1 of 4 generations of medications.[12] A medication's generation is not necessarily a reflection of safety or efficacy.
By Additional Receptor Activity - each medication may act upon other receptors such as androgen receptors, estrogen receptors, glucocorticoid receptors, and mineralocorticoid receptors. Additional interactions may be positive, increasing activity at a given receptor, or negative, decreasing activity at a given receptor. The overall profile of these additional actions for each medication can be used to describe and contrast progestogens.[13]
| Generic Formulation (Dose) | Generation | Brand name(s) | Additional receptor activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Desogestrel (75 μg) | 3rd | Cerazette
Cerelle |
Gonadotropin (-)
Estrogen (-) Androgen (+) |
| Drospirenone (4 mg) | 4th | Slynd | Gonadotropin (-)
Estrogen (-) Androgen (-) Mineralocorticoid (-) |
| Norethisterone (350 μg) | 1st | Micronor
Nor-QD Noriday |
Gonadotropin (-)
Estrogen (-/+) Pro-androgen (+) Coagulation (+) |
| Norgestrel (0.075 mg) | 2nd | Opill | |
| Etynodiol diacetate (500 μg) | 1st | Femulen | |
| Levonorgestrel (30 μg) | 2nd | 28 mini
Microval Norgeston |
Gonadotropin (-)
Estrogen (-) Androgen (+) |
| Lynestrenol (500 μg) | 1st | Exluton
Mini-kare |
Gonadotropin (-)
Estrogen (-/+) Androgen (+) |
| Norethindrone or Norethisterone (300 μg) | 1st | Camila
Mini-Pe Errin Heather Jolivette Micronor Nor-QD Nora-BE Lyza Sharobel Deblitane |
Gonadotropin (-)
Estrogen (-/+) Androgen (+) Coagulation (+) |
| Norgestrel (75 μg) or Levonorgestrel (37.5 μg) | 2nd | Minicon
Neogest Ovrette Opill |
Gonadotropin (-)
Estrogen (-) Androgen (+) |
| Chlormadinone acetate (0.5 mg) | 1st | Belara
Lutéran Prostal |
|
| Quingestanol acetate (0.3 mg) | - | Demovis
Pilomin |
In the United States, progestogen-only pills are available in 350-μg Norethisterone, 4-mg Drospirenone, and Norgestrel 0.075-mg formulations.[18] Norgestrel is FDA-approved for over-the-counter availability.[19] Norethindrone and Drospirenone are available by prescription.
Medical uses
[edit]Progestogen-only pills are one management option for the suppression of menstruation to avoid pregnancy.[20]
With "perfect use," the efficacy of progestogen-only pills in avoiding unintended pregnancy is greater than 99%, meaning that less than 1 out of every 100 patients will experience undesired pregnancy within the first year of use.[16] "Perfect use" means that an individual uses their contraceptive pill at the same time every day without missing a scheduled dose.[21]
Assuming "typical use," the theoretical efficacy of progestogen-only pills in avoiding undesired pregnancy falls to around 91-93%, meaning that approximately 7 to 9 out of every 100 patients will experience an unintended pregnancy within the first year of use.[22][23] "Typical use" means that an individual uses their contraceptive pill at inconsistent times day to day and/or misses scheduled doses.[21] The study reporting the "typical use" failure rate failed to differentiate COCPs and POPs as distinct medications and instead studied them as a combined group, decreasing the validity of this finding. The results were published before the widespread use of progestogen-only pills other than Norethindrone and may not be applicable to formulations that have since been developed. Reported efficacy varies between types of progestogen-only pills. For example, Norgestrel has a reported failure rate of 2%,[24] and Drosperinone has a reported failure rate of 1.8%.[25]
Some progestogen-only formulations, such as those containing Norethindrone, were thought to have a shorter duration of effect than COCPs.[26] As a result, current guidelines recommend no more than 27 hours between doses to ensure effectiveness, creating a 3-hour window of variability.[27] However, a more recent meta-analysis suggested that there is actually a significantly longer half-life for many of the now available progestogen-only pill formulations. For example, Norgestrel and Drosperinone, in particular, appear to have a longer window of efficacy. More variation in dose timing may still effectively prevent pregnancy.[28] Although the 3-hour window is still widely respected, some researchers have expressed their belief that an update to these guidelines may be beneficial.[29]
Mechanism of action
[edit]Depending on the specific progestogen and its corresponding dose, the contraceptive effect of progestogen-only pills is enacted through combinations of the following mechanisms:[30]
- Thickening the cervical mucus. This reduces sperm viability, sperm penetration, and decreases the likelihood of fertilization.[31]
- Inhibition of ovulation through an action on the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. For a low-dose formulation, this may occur inconsistently in ~50% of cycles.[32] Intermediate-dose formulations, such as the progestogen-only pill Cerazette (Desogestrel), much more consistently inhibit ovulation in 97–99% of cycles.[33]
- Alteration of the endometrial lining of the uterus through modification of the structure of endometrial glands and their corresponding secretary patterns, as well as causing the endometrial lining to thin out (atrophy). Overall, the endometrium becomes less suitable for implantation of a fertilized egg and the likelihood of a viable pregnancy decreases.[34]
- Reduction of fallopian tube motility leading to a slowing of the transport of eggs and sperm through the reproductive tract. The process of fertilization, as well as implantation, are both time-sensitive events. Disruption of the normal movement of these reproductive cells plays a role in preventing a viable pregnancy, although the magnitude of this role is likely less significant than previously mentioned mechanisms of action.[34][12]
Breastfeeding
[edit]Patients who have recently given birth may benefit from contraception, as experiencing another pregnancy within six months of delivery is associated with poor outcomes for the second pregnancy.[35] Lactational amenorrhea, although a common and effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancy following childbirth, may not be attainable for mothers who elect for or require supplemental or total child feeding with formula.[36] Combined oral contraceptives are not typically recommended until six months following delivery. Progestogen-only pills, however, can be a viable contraceptive option for patients immediately following delivery, regardless of breastfeeding habits.[23]
Comparison to combined oral contraceptives
[edit]Patients who choose COCPs versus progestogen-only pills may differ in other important ways, as progesterone-only pills are often preferentially prescribed to subfertile groups, such as recently postpartum women or older women. Progestogen-only pills may also be prescribed for individuals who do not wish to use estrogen-containing methods due to medical contraindications, intolerable side effects, or personal preference.[8] Examples of contraindications to estrogen-containing methods of contraception include relatively common conditions such as hypertension, migraine headaches with aura, or a history of pulmonary embolism, or deep vein thrombosis.[37] On the other hand, progestogen-only pills are safe for use by all these groups.[38] The progestogen-only pill is also recommended for people who have recently given birth and desire a pill for contraception, given the risk of blood clots for both postpartum patients and people using estrogen-containing methods of contraception.[39]
Abnormal uterine bleeding
[edit]Given their ability to impact the menstrual cycle and stabilize the endometrial lining of the uterus, progestogen-only pills are also used to treat various patterns of abnormal uterine bleeding.[40]
Patients with unexplained, abnormal uterine bleeding should be evaluated by a medical professional. The initial assessment typically focuses on ensuring the patient is medically stable and not in any immediate danger from the underlying cause or associated blood loss. Understanding the underlying cause of bleeding is an important part of determining the best next step for treatment in each patient's circumstance. The PALM-COEIN classification system categorizes well-known causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-age patients.[41] Generally, treatment focuses on controlling the current episode of bleeding and reducing further blood loss in future menstrual cycles or acute episodes.[citation needed]
The decision to use POPs to treat abnormal uterine bleeding should be made in consultation with a medical professional who can offer guidance on the appropriateness of this treatment option.[citation needed] Depending on the underlying cause of bleeding, medical management with progestogen-only pills, combined oral contraceptives, or tranexamic acid may be appropriate. One study found that 76% of patients who took oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (20 mg) for treatment of bleeding unrelated to pregnancy saw resolution of their bleeding. The median time to resolution was 3 days from beginning therapy.[42]
Adenomyosis
[edit]Patients with adenomyosis (abnormal growth of endometrial tissue in the wall of the uterus) may suffer heavy or painful menstrual periods. Through their ability to cause amenorrhea, progestogen-only pills can help reduce the symptoms associated with this condition. Levonorgestrel-impregnated intrauterine devices (IUDs) may be more effective than progestogen-only pills and reducing associated bleeding (maintaining healthy hemoglobin levels), uterine volume, and pain, although both methods have shown a beneficial impact. That being said, there is currently no definitive treatment guideline, and management can be tailored based to the patient's medical history, preferences, and response to treatment.[43]
Endometriosis
[edit]Patients experiencing mild to moderate pelvic pain from endometriosis may be given non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as well as hormonal contraceptives (COCPs or POPs) to help manage their symptoms. For a long time, combined oral contraceptives have been used as the first-line hormonal contraceptive (vs. progestogen-only pills) for the treatment of endometriosis. However, progestogen-only pills, including dienogest, medroxyprogesterone acetate, norethisterone, and cyproterone, are also effective in treating symptoms (e.g., pain, excess uterine bleeding), reducing associated lesions, and improving patient quality of life.[44][45] Recognizing that some patients cannot receive combined oral contraceptives due to a contraindication to the estrogen component, these findings suggest that POPs can be an alternative therapy capable of producing adequate symptom relief. POPs are typically not given to patients experiencing severe symptoms.[citation needed]
Decreased likelihood of malignancy
[edit]Daily progesterone use decreases the risk of endometrial cancer,[46] whereas it is unclear whether POPs provide protection against ovarian cancer to the extent that COCPs do.[citation needed]
Side effects
[edit]Genitourinary
[edit]- Irregular menstrual bleeding and spotting in individuals taking progestogen-only pills, especially in the first months after starting.[47][48] This side effect may be bothersome but is not dangerous, and most users report improved bleeding patterns with longer usage.
- May cause mastalgia (breast tenderness, pain)
- Available data on the average impact of POPs on mood are limited and conflicting, and do not show a clear link between POP usage and mental health changes.[49] However, some patients may experience mood swings, including feelings of anxiety and depression.
- Follicular ovarian cysts are more common in POP users than in those not using hormones.[50] The follicular changes tend to regress over time, and no intervention other than reassurance is required in asymptomatic individuals.
Breast cancer risk
[edit]Epidemiological evidence on POPs and breast cancer risk is based on much smaller populations than that for COCPs of users and so is less conclusive. In the largest (1996) reanalysis of previous studies of hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer risk, less than 1% were POP users. Current or recent POP users had a slightly increased relative risk (RR 1.17) of breast cancer diagnosis that just missed being statistically significant. The relative risk was similar to that found for current or recent COCP users (RR 1.16), and, as with COCPs, the increased relative risk decreased over time after stopping, vanished after 10 years, and was consistent with being due to earlier diagnosis or promoting the growth of a preexisting cancer.[51][52]
The most recent (1999) IARC evaluation of progestogen-only hormonal contraceptives reviewed the 1996 reanalysis as well as 4 newer case-control studies of POP users. They concluded that: "Overall, there was no evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer".[53]
Recent anxieties about the contribution of progestogens to the increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT in postmenopausal women such as found in the WHI trials[54] have not spread to progestogen-only contraceptive use in premenopausal women.[30]
Depression
[edit]There is a growing body of research investigating the links between hormonal contraception, such as the progestogen-only pill, and potential adverse effects on women's psychological health.[55][56][57] A large Danish study of one million women (followed-up from January 2000 to December 2013) reported that the use of hormonal contraception, particularly amongst adolescents, was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of subsequent depression.[56] Women on the progestogen-only pill, in particular, were 34% more likely to later take anti-depressants or be given a diagnosis of depression, in comparison with those not on hormonal contraception.[56] In 2018, a nationwide cohort study in Sweden amongst women aged 12–30 (n=815,662) found an association, particularly amongst adolescents aged 12–19, between hormonal contraception and subsequent use of psychotropic drugs.[55] Still, the results of these studies are inconclusive because they are observational and cannot establish causality. Additionally, the studies do not account for the possibility of confounding factors, such as preexisting health conditions, which could influence the results.[58]
Weight gain
[edit]There is some evidence that progestogen-only contraceptives may lead to weight gain (on average less than 2 kg in the first year) compared to women not using any hormonal contraception.[59]
History
[edit]The first POP to be introduced contained 0.5 mg chlormadinone acetate and was marketed in Mexico and France in 1968.[1][2][17] However, it was withdrawn in 1970 due to safety concerns raised by long-term animal studies.[1][2][17] Subsequently, levonorgestrel 30 μg (brand name Microval) was marketed in Germany in 1971.[60][61] It was followed by a number of other POPs in the early 1970s, including etynodiol diacetate, lynestrenol, norethisterone, norgestrel, and quingestanol acetate.[60][62] Desogestrel 75 μg (brand name Cerzette) was marketed in Europe in 2002 and was the most recent POP to be introduced.[63][62][64] It differs from earlier POPs in that it is able to inhibit ovulation in 97% of cycles.[62][64]
In July 2023, the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first over-the-counter (OTC) POP birth control pill to be sold without a prescription in the United States. The pill, marketed under the brand name Opill, contains once daily 0.075 mg oral norgestrel.[65]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c Annetine Gelijns (1991). Innovation in Clinical Practice: The Dynamics of Medical Technology Development. National Academies. pp. 172–. NAP:13513.
Development of the minipill, which contains only a progestin, was another result of concerns over the thromboembolic side effects of combination oral contraceptives.36 This development was also driven by the expectation that lower steroid doses would diminish effects on the metabolic and reproductive systems, lessen complaints about nausea and headache, and improve compliance (because it offered a regimen of continuous pill taking rather than the cyclic regimen of earlier pill formulations).37 Syntex was the first to introduce a 0.5 milligram chlor- madinone acetate minipill in 1968 in France, although this pill was withdrawn from the market in 1970 when long-term animal toxicity tests for the FDA revealed the occurrence of breast nodules in beagles.38 Nevertheless, other manufacturers began to pursue minipill development using their own progestogens, and since 1970 a variety of compounds have been introduced.
- ^ a b c Bennett, John P. (1974). "The Second Generation of Hormonal Contraceptives". Chemical Contraception. pp. 39–62. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-02287-8_4. ISBN 978-1-349-02289-2.
Chlormadinone acetate was the first minipill contraceptive to be marketed, in Mexico during July 1968. This compound was removed from clinical use in February 1970 because it produced nodules in the breast tissues of beagle dogs [...]
- ^ a b Trussell, James (2011). "Contraceptive efficacy". In Hatcher, Robert A.; Trussell, James; Nelson, Anita L.; Cates, Willard Jr.; Kowal, Deborah; Policar, Michael S. (eds.). Contraceptive technology (20th revised ed.). New York: Ardent Media. pp. 779–863. ISBN 978-1-59708-004-0. ISSN 0091-9721. OCLC 781956734. Table 26–1 = Table 3–2 Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and the first year of perfect use of contraception, and the percentage continuing use at the end of the first year. United States. Archived 2013-11-12 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Dhont, Marc (December 2010). "History of oral contraception". The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care. 15 (Suppl 2): S12–18. doi:10.3109/13625187.2010.513071. ISSN 1473-0782. PMID 21091163.
- ^ "Progestin-Only Hormonal Birth Control: Pill and Injection". www.acog.org. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
- ^ Whitaker, Amy K.; Gilliam, Melissa (June 2008). "Contraceptive care for adolescents". Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 51 (2): 268–280. doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e31816d713e. ISSN 1532-5520. PMID 18463458. S2CID 13450620.
- ^ World Health Organization (2015). Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (5th ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 978-92-4-154915-8.
- ^ a b Hatcher, Robert A. (2018). Contraceptive technology (21st ed.). New York, NY: Ayer Company Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-1-7320556-0-5.
- ^ "Contraception | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2023-05-01. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
- ^ "Opill OTC Birth Control: Usage, Side Effects & Warnings". Drugs.com. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
- ^ Cannon, Joseph G. (2006-01-11). "Chapter 44: Estrogens, Progestins, and the Female Reproductive Tract. Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 11th Edition Edited by Laurence Brunton, John Lazo, and Keith Parker. McGraw Hill, New York. 2005. xxiii + 2021 pp. 21 × 26 cm. ISBN 0-07-142280-3. $149.95". Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 49 (3). doi:10.1021/jm058286b. ISSN 0022-2623.
- ^ a b c Regidor, Pedro-Antonio (2018-10-02). "The clinical relevance of progestogens in hormonal contraception: Present status and future developments". Oncotarget. 9 (77): 34628–34638. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.26015. ISSN 1949-2553. PMC 6195370. PMID 30349654.
- ^ Sitruk-Ware, Regine (2008). "Pharmacological profile of progestins". Maturitas. 61 (1–2): 151–157. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.11.011. ISSN 0378-5122. PMID 19434887.
- ^ Grimes DA, Lopez LM, O'Brien PA, Raymond EG (2013). "Progestin-only pills for contraception". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11) CD007541. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007541.pub3. PMC 11975192. PMID 24226383.
- ^ Hussain SF (2004). "Progestogen-only pills and high blood pressure: is there an association? A literature review". Contraception. 69 (2): 89–97. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2003.09.002. PMID 14759612.
- ^ a b Sylvia K. Rosevear (15 April 2008). Handbook of Gynaecology Management. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-1-4051-4742-2.
- ^ a b c M.R. Henzl (1978). "Natural and Synthetic Female Sex Hormones". In S.S.C. Yen; R.B. Jaffe (eds.). Reproductive Endocrinology: Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Management. W.B. Saunders Co. pp. 421–468. ISBN 978-0-7216-9625-6.
- ^ "Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products". United States Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
- ^ Commissioner, Office of the (2023-07-13). "FDA Approves First Nonprescription Daily Oral Contraceptive". FDA. Archived from the original on July 13, 2023. Retrieved 2023-07-14.
- ^ American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Clinical Consensus–Gynecology (2022-09-01). "General Approaches to Medical Management of Menstrual Suppression: ACOG Clinical Consensus No. 3". Obstetrics and Gynecology. 140 (3): 528–541. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004899. ISSN 1873-233X. PMID 36356248.
- ^ a b Cooper, Danielle B.; Patel, Preeti; Mahdy, Heba (2023), "Oral Contraceptive Pills", StatPearls, Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, PMID 28613632, retrieved 2023-11-09
- ^ Trussell, James (May 2011). "Contraceptive failure in the United States". Contraception. 83 (5): 397–404. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.01.021. ISSN 1879-0518. PMC 3638209. PMID 21477680.
- ^ a b "Family Planning: A Global Handbook For Providers" (PDF). WHO. 2022. Retrieved November 9, 2023.
- ^ Food and Drug Administration (FDA). "Opill Tablets" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 10, 2021.
- ^ Food and Drug Administration (FDA). "SLYND (drosperione), tablets for oral use" (PDF).
- ^ Cox, H. J. E. (1968). "The pre-coital use of mini-dosage progestagens". Journal of Reproduction and Fertility (6): 167–172.
- ^ Bowman, J. A. (1968-12-01). "The effect of norethindrone-mestranol on cervical mucus". American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 102 (7): 1039–1040. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(68)90467-5. ISSN 0002-9378. PMID 5724391.
- ^ Wollum, Alexandra; Zuniga, Carmela; Blanchard, Kelly; Teal, Stephanie (June 2023). "A commentary on progestin-only pills and the "three-hour window" guidelines: Timing of ingestion and mechanisms of action". Contraception. 122 109978. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2023.109978. ISSN 1879-0518. PMID 36801392. S2CID 257068251.
- ^ Wollum, Alexandra; Zuniga, Carmela; Blanchard, Kelly; Teal, Stephanie (June 2023). "A commentary on progestin-only pills and the "three-hour window" guidelines: Timing of ingestion and mechanisms of action". Contraception. 122 109978. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2023.109978. ISSN 0010-7824. PMID 36801392. S2CID 257068251.
- ^ a b Glasier, Anna (March 20, 2015). "Chapter 134. Contraception". In Jameson, J. Larry; De Groot, Leslie J.; de Krester, David; Giudice, Linda C.; Grossman, Ashley; Melmed, Shlomo; Potts, John T. Jr.; Weir, Gordon C. (eds.). Endocrinology: Adult and Pediatric (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 2306. ISBN 978-0-323-18907-1.
- ^ Mackay, E. V.; Khoo, S. K.; Adam, R. R. (August 1971). "Contraception with a six-monthly injection of progestogen. 2. Effects on cervical mucus secretion and endocrine function". The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 11 (3): 156–163. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.1971.tb00470.x. ISSN 0004-8666. PMID 5286757. S2CID 38037168.
- ^ Landgren, B. M.; Balogh, A.; Shin, M. W.; Lindberg, M.; Diczfalusy, E. (December 1979). "Hormonal effects of the 300 microgram norethisterone (NET) minipill. 2. Daily gonadotrophin levels in 43 subjects during a pretreatment cycle and during the second month of NET administration". Contraception. 20 (6): 585–605. doi:10.1016/s0010-7824(79)80038-4. ISSN 0010-7824. PMID 535366.
- ^ Pattman, Richard; Sankar, K. Nathan; Elewad, Babiker; Handy, Pauline; Price, David Ashley, eds. (November 19, 2010). "Chapter 33. Contraception including contraception in HIV infection and infection reduction". Oxford Handbook of Genitourinary Medicine, HIV, and Sexual Health (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 360. ISBN 978-0-19-957166-6.
Ovulation may be suppressed in 15–40% of cycles by POPs containg levonorgestrel, norethisterone, or etynodiol diacetate, but in 97–99% by those containing desogestrel.
- ^ a b Brunton, Laurence L.; Hilal-Dandan, Randa; Knollmann, Björn C.; Goodman, Louis Sanford; Gilman, Alfred; Gilman, Alfred Goodman, eds. (2018). Goodman & Gilman's The pharmacological basis of therapeutics (Thirteenth ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education. ISBN 978-1-259-58473-2.
- ^ Porter, Luz S.; Holness, Nola A. (2011). "Breaking the repeat teen pregnancy cycle". Nursing for Women's Health. 15 (5): 368–381. doi:10.1111/j.1751-486X.2011.01661.x. ISSN 1751-486X. PMID 22900650.
- ^ "Lactational Amenorrhea Method". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. March 27, 2023.
- ^ "US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 (US MEC) | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2023-09-14. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
- ^ "US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 (US MEC) | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
- ^ "US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 (US MEC) | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
- ^ "Management of Acute Abnormal Uterine Bleeding in Nonpregnant Reproductive-Aged Women". www.acog.org. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
- ^ Munro, Malcolm G.; Critchley, Hilary O. D.; Broder, Michael S.; Fraser, Ian S.; FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders (April 2011). "FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age". International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 113 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.011. ISSN 1879-3479. PMID 21345435.
- ^ Munro, Malcolm G.; Mainor, Nakia; Basu, Romie; Brisinger, Mikael; Barreda, Lorena (October 2006). "Oral medroxyprogesterone acetate and combination oral contraceptives for acute uterine bleeding: a randomized controlled trial". Obstetrics and Gynecology. 108 (4): 924–929. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000238343.62063.22. ISSN 0029-7844. PMID 17012455. S2CID 26316422.
- ^ Sharara, Fady I.; Kheil, Mira H.; Feki, Anis; Rahman, Sara; Klebanoff, Jordan S.; Ayoubi, Jean Marc; Moawad, Gaby N. (2021-07-30). "Current and Prospective Treatment of Adenomyosis". Journal of Clinical Medicine. 10 (15): 3410. doi:10.3390/jcm10153410. ISSN 2077-0383. PMC 8348135. PMID 34362193.
- ^ Andres, Marina de Paula; Lopes, Livia Alves; Baracat, Edmund Chada; Podgaec, Sergio (2015-09-01). "Dienogest in the treatment of endometriosis: systematic review". Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 292 (3): 523–529. doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3681-6. ISSN 1432-0711. PMID 25749349. S2CID 22168242.
- ^ Mitchell JB, Chetty S, Kathrada F (September 7, 2022). "Progestins in the symptomatic management of endometriosis: a meta-analysis on their effectiveness and safety" (PDF). BMC Women's Health. 22 (1): 52. doi:10.1186/s12912-023-01246-4. PMC 10061877. PMID 36997958.
- ^ Weiderpass, E.; Adami, H. O.; Baron, J. A.; Magnusson, C.; Bergström, R.; Lindgren, A.; Correia, N.; Persson, I. (1999-07-07). "Risk of endometrial cancer following estrogen replacement with and without progestins". Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 91 (13): 1131–1137. doi:10.1093/jnci/91.13.1131. ISSN 0027-8874. PMID 10393721.
- ^ Belsey, E. M. (August 1988). "Vaginal bleeding patterns among women using one natural and eight hormonal methods of contraception". Contraception. 38 (2): 181–206. doi:10.1016/0010-7824(88)90038-8. ISSN 0010-7824. PMID 2971505.
- ^ Steiner, Mitchell (September 1998). "Campbell's Urology, 7th ed.WalshP.C.: Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.1998. 210 pages.RetikA.B.: Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.1998. 210 pages.VaughanE.D.: Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.1998. 3,426 pages.WeinA.J.: Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia: Isis Medical Media Ltd.1998. 3,426 pages". Journal of Urology. 160 (3 Part 1): 967–968. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)62878-7. ISSN 0022-5347.
- ^ Worly, Brett L.; Gur, Tamar L.; Schaffir, Jonathan (June 2018). "The relationship between progestin hormonal contraception and depression: a systematic review". Contraception. 97 (6): 478–489. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2018.01.010. ISSN 1879-0518. PMID 29496297.
- ^ Tayob, Y.; Adams, J.; Jacobs, H. S.; Guillebaud, J. (October 1985). "Ultrasound demonstration of increased frequency of functional ovarian cysts in women using progestogen-only oral contraception". British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 92 (10): 1003–1009. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb02994.x. ISSN 0306-5456. PMID 3902074. S2CID 24930690.
- ^ Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (1996). "Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies". Lancet. 347 (9017): 1713–27. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90806-5. PMID 8656904. S2CID 36136756.
- ^ Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (1996). "Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: further results". Contraception. 54 (3 Suppl): 1S – 106S. doi:10.1016/s0010-7824(15)30002-0. PMID 8899264.
- ^ IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (1999). "Hormonal contraceptives, progestogens only". Hormonal contraception and post-menopausal hormonal therapy; IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 72. Lyon: IARC Press. pp. 339–397. ISBN 92-832-1272-X.
- ^ Chlebowski R, Hendrix S, Langer R, Stefanick M, Gass M, Lane D, Rodabough R, Gilligan M, Cyr M, Thomson C, Khandekar J, Petrovitch H, McTiernan A (2003). "Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial". JAMA. 289 (24): 3243–53. doi:10.1001/jama.289.24.3243. PMID 12824205.
- ^ a b Zettermark, Sofia; Vicente, Raquel Perez; Merlo, Juan (2018-03-22). "Hormonal contraception increases the risk of psychotropic drug use in adolescent girls but not in adults: A pharmacoepidemiological study on 800 000 Swedish women". PLOS ONE. 13 (3) e0194773. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1394773Z. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194773. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5864056. PMID 29566064.
- ^ a b c Skovlund, Charlotte Wessel; Mørch, Lina Steinrud; Kessing, Lars Vedel; Lidegaard, Øjvind (2016-11-01). "Association of Hormonal Contraception With Depression". JAMA Psychiatry. 73 (11): 1154–1162. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.2387. ISSN 2168-6238. PMID 27680324.
- ^ Kulkarni, Jayashri (July 2007). "Depression as a side effect of the contraceptive pill". Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 6 (4): 371–374. doi:10.1517/14740338.6.4.371. ISSN 1744-764X. PMID 17688380. S2CID 8836005.
- ^ Martell S, Marini C, Kondas CA, Deutch AB (January 2023). "Psychological side effects of hormonal contraception: a disconnect between patients and providers". Contracept Reprod Med. 8 (1) 9. doi:10.1186/s40834-022-00204-w. PMC 9842494. PMID 36647102.
- ^ Lopez, LM; Ramesh, S; Chen, M; Edelman, A; Otterness, C; Trussell, J; Helmerhorst, FM (28 August 2016). "Progestin-only contraceptives: effects on weight". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016 (8) CD008815. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008815.pub4. PMC 5034734. PMID 27567593.
- ^ a b Population Reports: Oral contraceptives. Department of Medical and Public Affairs, George Washington Univ. Medical Center. 1975. p. A-64.
Distribution and Use of the Minipill. [...] Progestogen & Dose in mg: d-Norgestrel 0.03. Manufacturer: Schering AG. Brand Names: Microlut, Nordrogest. Where & When First Marketed: Federal Republic of Germany 1971.
- ^ Greenberg (19 February 2016). Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp. 481–. ISBN 978-1-284-11474-4.
The progestin-only pill was introduced in 1972.
- ^ a b c Amy Whitaker; Melissa Gilliam (27 June 2014). Contraception for Adolescent and Young Adult Women. Springer. pp. 26, 97. ISBN 978-1-4614-6579-9.
- ^ Kathy French (9 November 2009). Sexual Health. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 92–93. ISBN 978-1-4443-2257-6.
- ^ a b J. Larry Jameson; Leslie J. De Groot (18 May 2010). Endocrinology - E-Book: Adult and Pediatric. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 2424–. ISBN 978-1-4557-1126-0.
In 2002, a POP containing desogestrel 75 ug/day, a dose sufficient to inhibit ovulation in almost every cycle, was introduced in Europe.51
- ^ Commissioner, Office of the (2023-07-13). "FDA Approves First Nonprescription Daily Oral Contraceptive". FDA. Archived from the original on July 13, 2023. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
Progestogen-only pill
View on GrokipediaTerminology
Definitions and synonyms
The progestogen-only pill (POP) is an oral contraceptive formulation consisting solely of a synthetic progestogen hormone, without any estrogen component, administered daily to prevent pregnancy.[3][6] Progestogens are biologically active compounds structurally related to progesterone, the natural corpus luteum hormone, and exert effects such as thickening cervical mucus to impede sperm penetration and, variably, suppressing ovulation.[1] In regions like the United States, the equivalent term "progestin-only pill" is used interchangeably, reflecting the synthetic nature of the hormone (progestin being the American nomenclature for progestogens).[7][8] Common synonyms include "mini-pill" or "minipill," terms emphasizing its lower hormone dose compared to combined oral contraceptives containing both estrogen and progestogen.[9][10] These alternatives highlight the pill's composition and daily, uninterrupted regimen, typically requiring intake at the same time each day for efficacy.[11] The designation "progestogen-only" underscores its distinction from estrogen-inclusive pills, avoiding risks associated with estrogen such as thromboembolism in certain populations.[12]Formulations
Traditional low-dose POPs
Traditional low-dose progestogen-only pills (POPs) contain synthetic progestogens from the norethisterone or levonorgestrel families at doses insufficient for consistent ovulation suppression, typically 0.3–0.35 mg norethisterone or 30–37.5 µg levonorgestrel daily.[1] These formulations, developed in the mid-1960s, rely on continuous administration without hormone-free intervals to maintain contraceptive effects through local endometrial and cervical changes rather than systemic gonadotropin inhibition.[13] Common examples include norethisterone acetate (also known as norethindrone) in brands such as Micronor or Noriday, and levonorgestrel in formulations like Microval.[14] In the United States, available traditional low-dose POPs primarily feature norethindrone 0.35 mg per tablet, marketed under generic names or brands including Camila, Errin, and Nora-BE, while norgestrel 0.075 mg (a racemic mixture including levonorgestrel) was previously available but is less common today.[3] These progestogens, classified as first- or second-generation, exhibit relatively short half-lives—approximately 7–8 hours for norethisterone—necessitating precise daily timing, with pills considered missed if taken more than 3 hours late, potentially requiring emergency contraception or backup methods.[15] Unlike desogestrel-containing POPs, traditional variants inhibit ovulation in only 15–40% of cycles, emphasizing cervical mucus thickening and endometrial atrophy as primary mechanisms.[16] Reported Pearl Indices for traditional low-dose POPs range from 3–12 pregnancies per 100 woman-years under typical use, reflecting sensitivity to adherence lapses due to the progestogens' pharmacokinetic profiles.[2] These pills are often prescribed for women contraindicated for estrogen, such as those breastfeeding or with thrombotic risks, though unscheduled bleeding occurs in up to 20–30% of users in the first months.[17] Availability varies by region, with generic formulations predominant in Europe and generics dominating the U.S. market since the 1970s.[1]Desogestrel-containing POPs
Desogestrel-containing progestogen-only pills (POPs) are a subtype of POP formulated with desogestrel at a standard dose of 75 micrograms daily, distinguished from traditional low-dose POPs by their potent ovulation-inhibiting effects.[2] Unlike earlier POPs relying primarily on cervical mucus thickening and endometrial changes, desogestrel is metabolized to etonogestrel, which exerts strong progestogenic activity to suppress mid-cycle luteinizing hormone (LH) surges, preventing ovulation in approximately 97% of treatment cycles.[18] This mechanism enhances reliability, with clinical trials demonstrating superior contraceptive efficacy compared to levonorgestrel 30 micrograms daily, achieving Pearl indices as low as 0.4 pregnancies per 100 woman-years under perfect use.[19] The 12-hour dosing window for desogestrel POPs—versus the 3-hour limit for traditional formulations—stems from the sustained activity of etonogestrel, allowing flexibility without substantially increasing ovulation risk; studies show escape ovulation rates below 1% even after three consecutive 12-hour delays.[20][2] Common brands include Cerazette and its generics such as Cerelle, taken continuously without hormone-free intervals to maintain suppression.[20] This formulation improves user adherence, though efficacy drops with typical use if doses exceed the window, necessitating backup contraception.[21] Reported side effects mirror those of other POPs but include irregular bleeding patterns, with amenorrhea or spotting in up to 20-30% of users after initial cycles; other effects like headache, acne, breast tenderness, and nausea occur in randomized trials but lack strong causal evidence linking them directly to desogestrel beyond transient adaptation.[22] Weight gain and mood changes are anecdotally cited but not consistently substantiated in controlled studies, while risks of venous thromboembolism remain low, comparable to non-users given the estrogen absence.[23] Desogestrel POPs are contraindicated in conditions like active breast cancer or severe liver disease, per established guidelines.[3]Pharmacology
Mechanism of action
Progestogen-only pills (POPs) prevent pregnancy through multiple complementary mechanisms, including suppression of ovulation, modification of cervical mucus to hinder sperm penetration, thinning of the endometrial lining to impair implantation, and potential alterations in oviductal transport of gametes.[8][6] These effects arise from the progestin's mimicry of endogenous progesterone, which exerts negative feedback on the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis, reducing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion from the hypothalamus and subsequently lowering luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels from the pituitary, thereby inhibiting follicular development.[24] In traditional low-dose POPs, such as those containing norethindrone (0.35 mg) or norgestrel (0.075 mg), ovulation inhibition occurs inconsistently, suppressing ovulation in approximately 40-60% of cycles depending on the specific progestin and user compliance, with the predominant contraceptive effect stemming from the production of thick, viscous cervical mucus that creates a barrier to sperm ascent.[18][25] These pills also induce endometrial atrophy, rendering the uterine lining less receptive to blastocyst implantation, and may decelerate ovum progression through the fallopian tubes.[18][6] Desogestrel-containing POPs (0.075 mg), classified as highly progestogenic formulations, differ by more reliably preventing ovulation through potent antigonadotropic activity that consistently blocks the pre-ovulatory LH surge, achieving ovulation suppression in over 97% of cycles.[2][3] Secondary mechanisms, including cervical mucus thickening and endometrial suppression, contribute additively but are less critical given the robust ovulatory blockade.[2] This formulation's efficacy in ovulation inhibition aligns more closely with that of combined oral contraceptives, though without estrogenic components.[3]Pharmacokinetics and absorption
Progestogen-only pills (POPs) are administered orally and absorbed primarily via the gastrointestinal tract, with bioavailability influenced by first-pass metabolism in the gut wall and liver. Traditional low-dose POPs, such as those containing norethindrone (norethisterone) or norgestrel, demonstrate rapid and complete absorption, leading to peak serum concentrations within 1 to 2 hours post-ingestion.[26][27] Norethindrone acetate, a common form, undergoes complete and rapid deacetylation to active norethindrone immediately after absorption, followed by quick distribution and elimination, with an elimination half-life of approximately 6 to 8 hours.[26] This short half-life necessitates precise daily timing to maintain contraceptive efficacy, as plasma levels fluctuate significantly between doses. In contrast, desogestrel-containing POPs feature desogestrel as a prodrug that is rapidly and completely absorbed but undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism in the intestinal mucosa and liver to its active metabolite, 3-keto-desogestrel (etonogestrel).[28][29] The parent desogestrel has low bioavailability due to this conversion, but etonogestrel achieves steady-state plasma levels with a longer elimination half-life of about 30 hours, enabling more consistent inhibition of ovulation and a wider window for dosing flexibility compared to traditional POPs.[28] Drospirenone-only formulations, another variant, show nearly complete absorption (95-97% bound to plasma albumin post-absorption) with minimal food effect on bioavailability and an elimination half-life exceeding 24 hours, supporting daily dosing without strict hourly adherence.[30][31][32] Factors such as particle size of the progestogen can influence absorption rates; smaller particles of norethindrone yield higher plasma levels due to enhanced dissolution.[33] Overall, progestins in POPs like levonorgestrel exhibit full gastrointestinal absorption, though individual variability in metabolism affects steady-state concentrations.[34] These pharmacokinetic profiles underscore the importance of consistent administration to sustain therapeutic levels for contraception.[35]Contraceptive efficacy
Perfect-use versus typical-use failure rates
The perfect-use failure rate of the progestogen-only pill (POP), defined as consistent and correct daily intake without deviations in timing or missed doses, ranges from 0.3 to 0.5 pregnancies per 100 woman-years based on clinical trial data and regulatory assessments.[36][37] This low rate reflects primary mechanisms such as ovulation inhibition or disruption (more reliably with desogestrel formulations) and endometrial/cervical effects when adherence is absolute.[3] Typical-use failure rates, which incorporate real-world inconsistencies like delayed intake or omissions, are substantially higher at 7 to 9 pregnancies per 100 woman-years according to U.S. public health estimates derived from population-level compliance data and modeling.[3][37] A systematic literature review of observational and trial data reported a lower median Pearl Index of 1.63 for typical use across progestin-only pills (range 0.00-14.20), potentially reflecting selected study populations with higher motivation than general users, though this contrasts with modeled estimates emphasizing non-adherence impacts.[38] The wider gap between perfect- and typical-use efficacy for POPs compared to estrogen-progestogen combined pills stems from the brief pharmacodynamic window of progestogens; traditional formulations (e.g., levonorgestrel or norethisterone) demand intake within a strict 3-hour daily window to maintain contraceptive effects, as hormone levels decline rapidly, permitting follicular development and ovulation within days of inconsistency.[39] Desogestrel POPs exhibit narrower gaps, with adjusted Pearl indices as low as 0.14 under extended 12-hour timing flexibility due to superior ovulation suppression in 97% of cycles, though typical-use failures still exceed perfect-use rates from lapses.[40][41]| Formulation Type | Perfect-Use Failure Rate (Pearl Index) | Typical-Use Failure Rate (Pearl Index) |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional POPs (e.g., levonorgestrel) | 0.3-0.5 | 7-9 |
| Desogestrel POPs | 0.4-1.0 (median 0.52) | 0.4-1.0 (lower end in trials) |
Factors influencing effectiveness
The effectiveness of the progestogen-only pill (POP) is highly dependent on daily adherence, with traditional formulations requiring intake within a strict 3-hour window of the same time each day to maintain contraceptive reliability; delays beyond this interval necessitate emergency contraception and backup methods due to rapid metabolism of progestogens like norethisterone or levonorgestrel. In contrast, desogestrel-containing POPs offer a more forgiving 12-hour window, attributed to their potent antiovulatory mechanism, which sustains inhibition of ovulation even with minor timing deviations, resulting in lower typical-use failure rates of approximately 0.4-1.5 pregnancies per 100 woman-years compared to 5-9 for traditional POPs.[2] Drospirenone-based POPs similarly exhibit enhanced efficacy through consistent ovulation suppression, with phase 3 trials reporting Pearl Index rates as low as 0.96 under typical use.[42] Drug interactions, particularly with hepatic enzyme inducers such as rifampicin or certain antiepileptics, can accelerate progestogen metabolism, substantially reducing plasma levels and contraceptive efficacy across all POP types, thereby requiring alternative methods or additional barrier contraception.[14] Gastrointestinal disturbances, including vomiting or severe diarrhea occurring within 2-3 hours post-ingestion, impair absorption and mimic missed doses, prompting recommendations for a replacement pill and backup use; this risk is consistent regardless of formulation but underscores the need for user education on these contingencies. User-related factors like body mass index show minimal impact on POP efficacy in population studies, with no significant differences in pregnancy rates across BMI categories, unlike some estrogen-containing methods; however, overall typical-use failure remains elevated (up to 9%) primarily due to inconsistent adherence rather than pharmacokinetic variations by weight.[3] Breastfeeding does not compromise effectiveness and may enhance it via combined lactational amenorrhea, though initiation timing post-partum influences ovulation recovery rates.[43] Comprehensive reviews emphasize that formulation-specific antiovulatory potency, rather than external variables like age or smoking, predominantly determines real-world performance, with perfect-use efficacy exceeding 99% for all types when guidelines are followed.[40]Clinical applications
Use in breastfeeding women
The progestogen-only pill (POP) is considered a safe and effective contraceptive option for breastfeeding women, as it lacks estrogen, which can inhibit prolactin secretion and reduce milk production. Major health organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), classify POP use as medically eligible (Category 1 or 2) for lactating individuals across postpartum periods, with initiation possible immediately after delivery.[44][45] Clinical guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) affirm that progestin-only methods like POPs pose no contraindications during lactation and support their use to prevent unintended pregnancies without disrupting breastfeeding.[46] Studies indicate that POPs do not adversely affect milk volume, composition, or infant growth when started from the sixth week postpartum or later, with progestogen transfer into breast milk occurring at low levels (typically <1% of the maternal dose) that show no detectable harm to neonates.[31][47] A 2022 systematic review of progestin-bearing contraceptives found no negative impacts on lactogenesis, breastfeeding duration, or milk supply, contrasting with combined hormonal methods that carry higher risks of suppressing lactation if initiated before six weeks postpartum.[43] Earlier concerns from smaller studies about potential interference with lactogenesis when POPs are begun immediately postpartum have not been substantiated in larger reviews, though some evidence suggests monitoring for individualized responses in the first weeks.[48][49] For contraceptive efficacy, breastfeeding itself offers temporary protection via lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) when exclusive and frequent, but POPs enhance reliability, with CDC recommendations noting no need for backup methods if initiated in fully breastfeeding, amenorrheic women under six months postpartum.[3] Ongoing research, such as a 2021-ongoing trial comparing early (<1 week) versus delayed (4 weeks) POP initiation, continues to evaluate subtle effects on breastfeeding success, but preliminary data align with historical findings of noninferiority to nonhormonal options.[50] Providers should counsel on strict daily timing adherence, as POP efficacy relies on consistent use, particularly amid variable postpartum hormone levels.[51]Management of abnormal uterine bleeding
Progestogen-only pills (POPs) serve as a hormonal option for managing abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), especially in cases where estrogen-containing therapies are contraindicated, such as in breastfeeding women or those with thrombotic risks. By delivering continuous low-dose progestogen, POPs promote endometrial atrophy and oppose unopposed estrogen stimulation, which can stabilize the endometrium and reduce menstrual blood volume over time. Clinical consensus from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) includes progestin-only oral formulations among strategies for menstrual regulation and suppression, with continuous administration helping to induce lighter bleeding or amenorrhea in responsive patients.[52][53] Efficacy varies by formulation and patient factors; traditional low-dose POPs (e.g., norethisterone 350 μg daily) achieve reduced bleeding volume in many users after 3–6 months, but up to 40% experience persistent irregular or unscheduled spotting due to incomplete ovulatory suppression. Desogestrel-containing POPs (75 μg daily), which more reliably inhibit ovulation, demonstrate improved bleeding control, with studies reporting acceptable patterns (infrequent or absent bleeding) in approximately 70–80% of users by 6–12 months, alongside a 20–50% reduction in blood loss compared to baseline in ovulatory AUB. However, POPs are generally less effective for acute heavy bleeding than high-dose cyclic progestins (e.g., norethisterone 5 mg three times daily for 10 days) or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems, which achieve up to 90% reduction in menorrhagia volume. Guidelines recommend POPs for long-term maintenance after initial stabilization, with monitoring for non-response, as unscheduled bleeding leads to discontinuation in 10–20% of cases.[54] Patient-specific considerations include underlying AUB etiology; POPs are more suitable for ovulatory dysfunctional bleeding than structural causes like fibroids, where imaging and alternative therapies may be needed first. In perimenopausal or adolescent populations intolerant to estrogen, POPs provide a non-invasive alternative, though evidence from systematic reviews emphasizes their role as adjunctive rather than first-line, prioritizing tranexamic acid or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for non-hormonal initial control. Transition from acute high-dose therapy to daily POP dosing supports ongoing suppression without daily timing restrictions seen in some combined regimens.[55][56]Treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis
Progestogen-only pills (POPs) are employed in the management of endometriosis by suppressing endometrial proliferation and inducing endometrial atrophy, which can alleviate symptoms such as dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and chronic pelvic pain. Clinical studies indicate that progestins, including those delivered via POPs, provide pain relief comparable to combined oral contraceptives, with some evidence suggesting superior efficacy in reducing endometriotic lesion size and preventing recurrence post-surgery. For instance, norethindrone acetate and dienogest, progestins available in oral forms akin to POPs, have regulatory approval for endometriosis treatment and demonstrate better symptomatic control than estrogen-containing alternatives as first-line therapy in select patients.[57][58][59] However, evidence for POPs specifically remains limited, with a Cochrane review of progestogens (including depot formulations) finding only modest support for pain relief due to heterogeneous study designs and small sample sizes. Desogestrel-containing POPs have been used off-label, showing reductions in pelvic pain and dyspareunia, though long-term adherence may be challenged by breakthrough bleeding. Progestins like dienogest exhibit sustained efficacy over three years in reducing dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pain, outperforming placebo in randomized trials.[60][61][62] In adenomyosis, POPs contribute to symptom control by decidualizing ectopic endometrial tissue and reducing uterine volume, thereby mitigating heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia. Long-term studies on progestins, including POP formulations, report significant improvements in these symptoms, with dienogest achieving up to 80% reduction in dysmenorrhea scores maintained over 36 months. Desogestrel POPs initially alleviate HMB and pain but show diminished efficacy beyond one year, leading to higher discontinuation rates compared to dienogest or levonorgestrel intrauterine systems.[63][64][65] Comparative analyses position progestin-only therapies, including POPs, as viable alternatives to combined contraceptives for adenomyosis, particularly in estrogen-intolerant patients, though dienogest emerges as the most effective among oral options despite a slightly elevated risk of adverse effects like weight gain. Guidelines from bodies such as the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology endorse progestins as first-line medical therapy for both conditions, emphasizing individualized selection based on symptom severity and fertility goals. Overall, while POPs offer a non-invasive option with favorable safety profiles for symptom palliation, their role is adjunctive, with surgical intervention considered for refractory cases.[66][67][68]Risks and adverse effects
Common side effects
The most prevalent side effect of the progestogen-only pill (POP) is disruption to menstrual bleeding patterns, manifesting as irregular, unpredictable, or unscheduled bleeding, including spotting, breakthrough bleeding, lighter periods, more frequent bleeding, or amenorrhea.[2][69] These changes arise from the pill's partial suppression of ovulation and effects on the endometrium, with variability depending on the progestogen type and dose; for instance, desogestrel (75 mcg) yields amenorrhea or infrequent bleeding in approximately 50% of users after one year, while frequent bleeding occurs in about 4%.[2] Such bleeding irregularities account for discontinuation in up to 25% of users and are more pronounced with lower-dose traditional POPs like norethisterone compared to higher-dose options like desogestrel.[2][69] Other reported common side effects include acne, which may worsen due to the androgenic properties of certain progestogens, and breast tenderness.[70] Headaches, nausea, and mood alterations such as swings have also been noted, though these occur less frequently and often resolve with continued use or are comparable to placebo rates in controlled studies.[69] Weight gain lacks strong causal evidence specific to POPs, with systematic reviews indicating no significant difference from non-users.[71] Overall, non-bleeding side effects tend to be milder and less systemic than those associated with estrogen-containing contraceptives, reflecting the isolated progestogenic action.[69]Mental health impacts
Studies have identified potential associations between progestogen-only pill (POP) use and adverse mental health outcomes, particularly depressive symptoms and mood disturbances, though evidence remains observational and causality is not firmly established. A 2022 review of hormonal contraception and mood disorders concluded that progestogen-only methods appear to confer a greater propensity for depressive disorders in vulnerable women compared to combined oral contraceptives, potentially due to the absence of estrogen's mood-stabilizing effects and direct actions of progestins on brain receptors influencing neurosteroid pathways like allopregnanolone.[72] This aligns with pharmacovigilance data from 2025 indicating that progestogens can induce emotional effects, including depression and anxiety, beyond common physical side effects.[73] Population-based analyses have quantified modest risk elevations; for instance, two cohort studies reported relative risks of depression at 1.11 (95% CI: 1.07-1.14) and 1.3 for POP users versus non-users, with risks potentially higher in adolescents or those with pre-existing vulnerabilities.[74] A 2018 systematic review of progestin-only methods found minimal overall association with depression across five studies, attributing weak links to high bias risks and small sample sizes, yet noted discontinuation rates due to perceived mood symptoms in up to 21% of users in broader contraceptive contexts.[75] Recent pharmacoepidemiologic evidence suggests a 1.34-fold increased depression risk with POPs, comparable to combined formulations, underscoring subtype-specific vulnerabilities rather than absence of effect.[76] Contrasting findings highlight inconsistencies; UK clinical guidance as of 2023 maintains no established causal link between POPs and depression, emphasizing confounding factors like self-selection in users with baseline mental health issues.[77] Nonetheless, progestin-only methods show elevated depression incidence in targeted reviews, potentially amplified in subgroups such as postpartum women or those with histories of mood disorders, where hormonal fluctuations exacerbate susceptibility.[78] Empirical data thus warrant caution in prescribing POPs to at-risk individuals, with monitoring recommended despite limited randomized trial evidence due to ethical constraints in contraception research.Metabolic and cardiovascular effects
Progestogen-only pills (POPs) are associated with minimal weight gain, with systematic reviews indicating mean increases of less than 2 kg (4.4 lb) at 6 to 12 months of use, comparable to rates observed in non-users or users of other contraceptives.[79] This effect does not differ significantly from placebo groups in randomized trials, suggesting no causal link beyond typical variability in body weight.[79] Regarding lipid metabolism, POPs generally exert neutral or modest effects; for instance, formulations containing desogestrel (DSG) or drospirenone (DRSP) have been shown to decrease total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides without clinical significance.[80] Progestins in POPs may variably influence hepatic lipase activity, potentially reducing HDL levels, but overall changes remain within normal ranges and do not elevate cardiovascular risk in most users.[80] Glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity show no substantial alterations, with meta-analyses reporting negligible impacts on fasting glucose, insulin, or HOMA-IR indices.[71] Cardiovascular risks with POPs are low, as evidenced by meta-analyses finding no increased incidence of hypertension, myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism compared to non-users.[81] Blood pressure remains unaffected, with longitudinal studies up to 3 years showing no significant elevations attributable to POP use.[82] This contrasts with estrogen-containing contraceptives, where progestogen-only options avoid estrogen-mediated prothrombotic effects, though individual progestin potency may subtly influence endothelial markers like endothelin-1 in select populations.[71] Overall, POPs do not elevate cardiometabolic disease risk in systematic evaluations.[81]Cancer risks
Current or recent use of the progestogen-only pill (POP) is associated with a modest increase in breast cancer risk, with relative risks estimated at 20-30% higher compared to non-users among premenopausal women.[83] [84] A 2023 Danish cohort study and meta-analysis reported an incidence rate ratio of 1.20 (95% CI 1.14-1.26) for current POP users, with risks persisting for up to 5 years after cessation but diminishing thereafter.[83] This elevated relative risk translates to an absolute increase of approximately 1-2 additional cases per 10,000 women per year in typical user populations, given the low baseline incidence in reproductive-age women.[85] The association holds across progestogen-only methods, including oral formulations, though earlier studies showed inconsistent results due to smaller sample sizes and confounding factors like parity and breastfeeding.[86] In contrast, POP use appears protective against endometrial cancer, with progestin-only formulations reducing risk more substantially than combined oral contraceptives in some analyses.[87] This effect stems from progestogens' inhibition of endometrial proliferation, mimicking the luteal phase and countering unopposed estrogen exposure, a primary causal pathway in endometrial carcinogenesis.[88] A Swedish case-control study found progestin-only pill users had odds ratios as low as 0.40 for endometrial cancer compared to non-users, with duration-dependent protection persisting post-discontinuation.[87] For ovarian cancer, evidence indicates no significant association with POP use, unlike the protective effect seen with combined contraceptives that suppress ovulation more consistently.[89] A 2018 Danish cohort analysis reported hazard ratios near 1.0 for progestogen-only users, suggesting neutrality rather than risk elevation or reduction.[89] Data on cervical cancer and POP are limited and mixed, with some evidence of a small increased risk for long-term progestogen-only contraceptive use overall, potentially linked to hormonal influences on HPV persistence or epithelial changes.[90] A 2021 pooled analysis found current or recent progestin-only use associated with a relative risk of 3.38 (95% CI 1.13-10.10) in a subset of users, though confounding by screening adherence and sexual behavior complicates attribution.[91] Absolute risks remain low, and causality requires further clarification beyond observational data.[92]Comparisons with other methods
Versus combined oral contraceptives
The progestogen-only pill (POP) differs from combined oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain both estrogen and progestogen, primarily in its mechanism of action; POPs thicken cervical mucus and thin the endometrium to impede sperm transport and implantation, with ovulation inhibition occurring inconsistently, whereas COCs more reliably suppress ovulation through estrogen's follicular suppression.[25] This leads to POPs requiring precise daily timing—typically within a 3-hour window for traditional formulations—to maintain efficacy, unlike the more forgiving 12- or 24-hour grace period for most COCs.[25] Effectiveness rates are comparable between POPs and COCs under perfect use, with both yielding a Pearl Index of approximately 0.3 pregnancies per 100 woman-years, but typical-use failure rates hover around 7% for each due to inconsistent adherence, though some studies indicate POP typical-use rates may reach 9% from missed doses disrupting mucus barriers.[37] A 2023 review of clinical data found median typical-use Pearl Index for POPs at 7.0, aligning closely with COC estimates and challenging prior assumptions of inferior POP performance.[38] POPs offer advantages for populations contraindicated for estrogen-containing methods, including breastfeeding women (as they do not reduce milk supply or pose neonatal risks), those over 35 who smoke, individuals with hypertension, history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), or migraine with aura, where COCs elevate stroke and VTE risks 2- to 6-fold via estrogen-mediated coagulation changes.[25] [93] Contraindications for POPs are fewer and mainly involve current breast cancer, unexplained vaginal bleeding, or severe liver disease, rendering them suitable for over 90% of reproductive-age women per prevalence studies, versus broader estrogen-related exclusions for COCs.[94] [95] Side effects diverge notably in bleeding patterns and tolerability; POPs frequently cause irregular spotting or amenorrhea in 20-50% of users due to endometrial atrophy, contrasting with COCs' more predictable cycles from estrogen stabilization, though POP users report less nausea, breast tenderness, and headache.[25] [8] Mood changes, acne, and weight gain occur with both but may be less pronounced with POPs absent estrogen fluctuations; however, POPs do not confer non-contraceptive benefits like reduced dysmenorrhea or acne seen in COCs.[25]| Aspect | Progestogen-Only Pill (POP) | Combined Oral Contraceptive (COC) |
|---|---|---|
| VTE Risk | No significant increase; safer for high-risk groups | 3-4 fold elevation due to estrogen |
| Breast Cancer Risk | Slight increase similar to other hormonals; limited data | Small increase (RR 1.2-1.24) during use |
| Migraine Impact | May ameliorate attacks; preferred over COC | Can worsen, especially with aura |
| Breastfeeding Suitability | Recommended; no milk suppression | Avoid in early postpartum; potential supply reduction |
Versus other progestogen-only contraceptives
The progestogen-only pill (POP) exhibits lower typical-use effectiveness compared to long-acting progestogen-only methods such as injections, subdermal implants, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs), primarily due to reliance on daily adherence.[69] Typical failure rates for POPs range from 4 to 9 pregnancies per 100 women per year, whereas depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injections have rates of 4 to 6, etonogestrel implants approximately 0.05, and LNG-IUDs 0.1 to 0.2.[37] [69] Perfect-use failure rates are similar across methods at 0.2% to 0.3%, but POP efficacy drops markedly with inconsistent timing, as traditional formulations require intake within a 3-hour window daily, though desogestrel variants allow up to 12 hours.[24]| Method | Perfect-Use Failure Rate (%) | Typical-Use Failure Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Progestogen-only pill | 0.3 | 7–9 |
| DMPA injection | 0.2 | 4–6 |
| Etonogestrel implant | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| LNG-IUD | 0.2 | 0.2 |
