Tolerability and safety of the estetrol/drospirenone combined oral contraceptive: Pooled analysis of two multicenter, open-label phase 3 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate tolerability and safety of estetrol (E4) 15 mg/drospirenone (DRSP) 3 mg oral contraceptive using pooled data from two, multicenter, phase 3 trials. STUDY DESIGN: to use E4/DRSP in a 24/4-day regimen for up to 13 cycles. We pooled data from participants who used at least one E4/DRSP dose and had a follow-up assessment to analyze adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and laboratory parameters, including serum lipids, glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and potassium. We consolidated similar Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms into groupings. RESULTS: Of 3725 participants enrolled, we included 3417 in the analyses of whom 1786 (52.3%) reported ≥1 AE. Most participants with reported AEs had AEs that investigators rated as mild or moderate (n = 1665, 93.2%); of participants reporting AEs, 1105 (61.9%) did so during cycles 1 to 3. In total, 981 (28.7%) participants experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE, most frequently related to bleeding complaints (n = 323, 9.5%), breast pain or tenderness (n = 136, 4.0%), acne (n = 113, 3.3%), and mood disturbance (n = 111, 3.2%). Discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs occurred in 272 participants (8.0%), with only bleeding complaints (n = 97, 2.8%) and mood disturbance (n = 38, 1.1%) at rates exceeding 1%. Three participants experienced serious AEs, which the site investigators considered treatment-related: one venous thromboembolism, one worsening of depression, and one ectopic pregnancy. We found no clinically relevant changes in weight, blood pressure, heart rate, or laboratory parameters during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: E4/DRSP is associated with a favorable tolerability and safety profile. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Pooling data allowed for a robust assessment of tolerability and safety, including relatively infrequent events. Other than bleeding complaints and mood disturbance, no adverse event resulted in E4/DRSP discontinuation at rates >1%. Post-marketing surveillance studies are needed to evaluate long-term safety of the E4/DRSP COC and population-based venous thromboembolism risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".