Haemostatic and metabolic impact of @entity53 pills and XXXX -containing @entity2082 pills vs. @entity2692 -containing @entity2082 pills: A literature review.

@entity2691 @entity11718 @entity2082 @entity4863 @entity2692 @entity1735 @entity53 @entity65195 @entity42837 @entity7280 @entity1211 @entity10819
UNASSIGNED: Objective Since its introduction 50 years ago, the contraceptive pill has continuously evolved to decrease the risk of @entity1211 ( @entity1211 ) associated with its use. An increased risk of @entity1211 still remains, however. Other concerns, such as effects on lipid and @entity1735 metabolism, have also been reported. In this study we compared two reference combined @entity7280 (COCs) containing @entity2082 (EE)/ @entity2692 (LNG) and EE/ @entity4863 (DRSP) with COCs containing @entity53 (E2) ( @entity2691 [ @entity65195 ]/dienogest [DNG] and E2/ @entity42837 [NOMAC]). They were evaluated according to their influence on recognised haemostatic and metabolic markers. Methods A literature search of the MEDLINE/PubMed database was conducted for head-to-head studies. EE/LNG was chosen as the comparator pill. Results The haemostatic impact of E2 pills and EE/LNG has been extensively compared, in contrast to that of EE/DRSP and EE/LNG. Changes in haemostatic and metabolic marker levels between EE/LNG and @entity65195 /DNG were generally not statistically significant. @entity10819 showed statistically significantly favourable results on haemostatic markers and had a neutral effect on @entity1735 and lipid metabolism when compared with EE/LNG. Conclusion @entity10819 exhibits less haemostatic and metabolic impact than EE/LNG and other COCs, suggesting that it may be a promising candidate to reduce residual @entity1211 risk associated with @entity11718 use. Confirmation from a well-powered prospective clinical trial is, however, needed.
