Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compares four progestins—gestodene (GSD), desogestrel (DSG), drospirenone (DRSP), and levonorgestrel (LNG)—in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) regarding safety, and efficacy for personalized contraceptive selection.</p> Methods <p>This systematic review, which searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Medline through Jan 28, 2025, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using NMA with random effects by STATA and GeMTC software. The outcomes included breakthrough bleeding (BTB), irregular bleeding (IB), withdrawal bleeding days, pregnancy rates, and adverse events.</p> Results <p>Eighteen RCTs were included. GSD&#xa0;demonstrated the lowest incidence of BTB and IB (OR 0.41 (0.26, 0.66); OR 0.67 (0.52, 0.86)). For withdrawal bleeding days, DRSP&#xa0;ranked highest (SUCRA 40.1; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 27%, <i>p</i> = 0.222), followed by GSD, LNG and DSG. Contraceptive efficacy was highest for DSG (OR 0.74, (0.31–1.73); SUCRA = 51.3%) followed by DRSP and GSD, with LNG being the least effective. Regarding safety, DRSP&#xa0;had the lowest adverse event rate (OR 0.84, 0.60–1.19); SUCRA = 66.9%), followed by LNG and DSG, while GSD&#xa0;was associated with the highest.</p> Conclusion <p>The four progestogens demonstrate comparable contraceptive efficacy while exhibiting distinct therapeutic advantages in their respective clinical applications. DSG for routine use, GSD for bleeding control, DRSP for minimizing androgenic effects, and LNG for emergency contraception.</p> Trial registration <p>PROSPERO ID: CRD42024582991.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative effectiveness and safety of different progestins in combined oral contraceptives: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月20日

查看全文
  • Binting Li,
  • Xiaotong Xu,
  • Keyi Xu,
  • Jing Ni,
  • Cong Wang,
  • Ting Zhang

摘要

Purpose

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compares four progestins—gestodene (GSD), desogestrel (DSG), drospirenone (DRSP), and levonorgestrel (LNG)—in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) regarding safety, and efficacy for personalized contraceptive selection.

Methods

This systematic review, which searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Medline through Jan 28, 2025, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using NMA with random effects by STATA and GeMTC software. The outcomes included breakthrough bleeding (BTB), irregular bleeding (IB), withdrawal bleeding days, pregnancy rates, and adverse events.

Results

Eighteen RCTs were included. GSD demonstrated the lowest incidence of BTB and IB (OR 0.41 (0.26, 0.66); OR 0.67 (0.52, 0.86)). For withdrawal bleeding days, DRSP ranked highest (SUCRA 40.1; I2 = 27%, p = 0.222), followed by GSD, LNG and DSG. Contraceptive efficacy was highest for DSG (OR 0.74, (0.31–1.73); SUCRA = 51.3%) followed by DRSP and GSD, with LNG being the least effective. Regarding safety, DRSP had the lowest adverse event rate (OR 0.84, 0.60–1.19); SUCRA = 66.9%), followed by LNG and DSG, while GSD was associated with the highest.

Conclusion

The four progestogens demonstrate comparable contraceptive efficacy while exhibiting distinct therapeutic advantages in their respective clinical applications. DSG for routine use, GSD for bleeding control, DRSP for minimizing androgenic effects, and LNG for emergency contraception.

Trial registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42024582991.