Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Blutungskontrolle (1)
- Drospirenon (1)
- Gestagen-Monopräparate (1)
- Kontrazeption (1)
- contraception (1)
- control of menstrual bleeding (1)
- drospirenone (1)
- oral progestins (1)
- orale Gestagene (1)
- progestin mono-preparation (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Background: Hepatitis B coinfection is common in HIV-positive individuals and as antiretroviral therapy has made death due to AIDS less common, hepatitis has become increasingly important. Several drugs are available to treat hepatitis B. The most potent and the one with the lowest risk of resistance appears to be tenofovir (TDF). However there are several questions that remain unanswered regarding the use of TDF, including the proportion of patients that achieves suppression of HBV viral load and over what time, whether suppression is durable and whether prior treatment with other HBV-active drugs such as lamivudine, compromises the efficacy of TDF due to possible selection of resistant HBV strains.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and using multilevel mixed effects logistic regression, stratified by prior and/or concomitant use of lamivudine and/or emtricitabine.
Results: Data was available from 23 studies including 550 HBV/HIV coinfected patients treated with TDF. Follow up was for up to seven years but to ensure sufficient power the data analyses were limited to three years. The overall proportion achieving suppression of HBV replication was 57.4%, 79.0% and 85.6% at one, two and three years, respectively. No effect of prior or concomitant 3TC/FTC was shown. Virological rebound on TDF treatment was rare.
Interpretation: TDF suppresses HBV to undetectable levels in the majority of HBV/HIV coinfected patients with the proportion fully suppressed continuing to increase during continuous treatment. Prior treatment with 3TC/FTC does not compromise efficacy of TDF treatment. The use of combination treatment with 3TC/FTC offers no significant benefit over TDF alone.
Hormonal contraceptives are an effective and safe method for preventing pregnancy. Progestins used in contraception are either components of combined hormonal contraceptives (tablets, patches or vaginal rings) or are used as a single active ingredient in progestin mono-preparations (the progestin-only pill (POP), implants, intrauterine systems or depot preparations). Progestins are highly effective in long-term contraception when used properly, and have a very good safety profile with very few contraindications. A new oestrogen-free ovulation inhibitor (POP) has recently been authorised in the USA and the EU. This progestin mono-preparation contains 4 mg of drospirenone (DRSP), which has anti-gonadotropic, anti-mineralocorticoidic and anti-androgenic properties. The hormone administration regimen of 24 days followed by a 4-day hormone-free period was chosen to improve bleeding control and to maintain oestradiol concentrations at early follicular-phase levels, preventing oestrogen deficiency. Clinical trials have demonstrated a high contraceptive effectiveness, a very low risk of cardiovascular side effects and a favourable menstrual bleeding pattern. Due to the long half-life of DRSP (30 – 34 hours), the effectiveness of the preparation is maintained even if a woman forgets to take a pill on a single occasion. Studies involving deliberate 24-hour delays in taking a pill have demonstrated that ovulation inhibition is maintained if a single pill is missed. Following a summary of the current status of oestrogen-free contraception, this review article will describe the clinical development programme of the 4 mg DRSP mono-preparation and the resulting data on the effectiveness and safety of this new oestrogen-free oral hormonal contraceptive.
Oral Progestins in Hormonal Contraception: Importance and Future Perspectives of a New Progestin Only-Pill Containing 4 mg Drospirenone
Thomas Römer, Johannes Bitzer, Christian Egarter et al. Geburtsh Frauenheilk. doi:10.1055/a-1471-4408
In the e-first version of this article the name of the co-author was incorrect. Correct is: Katrin Schaudig