Role of progestins with partial antiandrogenic effects

The effect of non-oral hormonal contraceptives on hypertension and blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Oral contraceptives (OC) are associated with increased risk of hypertension and elevated blood pressure (BP). Whether non-oral hormonal contraceptives have similar associations is unknown. We sought to investigate the effect of non-oral hormonal contraceptive (NOHC) use on the risk of hypertension and changes in BP, compared to non-hormonal contraceptive and OC use. We searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) until August 2020. Studies reporting risk of hypertension or changes in systolic and diastolic BP with NOHC use compared with either non-hormonal contraceptive or OC use. Abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment were completed in duplicate. For studies reporting dichotomous outcomes, we reported results as relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled weighted mean difference and 95% CI of change in BP. Twenty-five studies were included. A lower incidence of hypertension was observed with injectable contraceptive use compared to non-hormonal contraceptive and OC use, although it was unclear if this was statistically significant. Compared to non-hormonal contraceptive use, injectable contraceptive use was associated with increased BP (SBP: 3.24 mmHg, 95%CI 2.49 to 3.98 mmHg; DBP: 3.15 mmHg, 95%CI 0.09 to 6.20 mmHg), the hormonal intra-uterine device use was associated with reduced BP (SBP: -4.50 mmHg, 95%CI -8.44 to -0.57 mmHg; DBP: -7.48 mmHg, 95% -14.90 to -0.05 mmHg), and the vaginal ring was associated with reduced diastolic BP (-3.90 mmHg, 95%CI -6.67 to -1.13 mmHg). Compared to OC use, the injectable contraceptive use was associated with increased diastolic BP (2.38 mmHg, 95%CI 0.39 to 4.38 mmHg). NOHC use is associated with changes in BP which differ by type and route of administration. Given the strong association between incremental increases in BP and cardiovascular risk, prospective studies are required.

Ligand Binding Induces Agonistic-Like Conformational Adaptations in Helix 12 of Progesterone Receptor Ligand Binding Domain

Progesterone receptor (PR) is a member of the nuclear receptor (NR) superfamily and plays a vital role in the female reproductive system. The malfunction of it would lead to several types of cancers. The understanding of conformational changes in its ligand binding domain (LBD) is valuable for both biological function studies and therapeutically intervenes. A key unsolved question is how the binding of a ligand (agonist, antagonist, or a selective modulator) induces conformational changes of PR LBD, especially its helix 12. We applied molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to explore the conformational adaptations of PR LBD with or without a ligand or the co-repressor peptides binding. From the simulations, both the agonist progesterone (P4) and the selective PR modulator (SPRM) asoprisnil induces agonistic-like helix 12 conformations (the "closed" states) in PR LBD and the complex of LBD-SPRM is less stable, comparing to the agonist-liganded PR LBD. The results, therefore, explain the partial agonism of the SPRM, which could induce weak agonistic effects in PR. We also found that co-repressor peptides could be stably associated with the LBD and stabilize the LBD in a "semi-open" state for helix 12. These findings would enhance our understanding of PR structural and functional relationships and would also be useful for future structure and knowledge-based drug discovery.

The effect of different progestogens on sleep in postmenopausal women: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

While progesterone affects sleep, different types of it might affect sleep differently.

METHODS

One hundred Thai women, who complained of insomnia, visited the Menopause Clinic at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand from February 2014 to March 2015, and were divided randomly into two groups. Both groups received daily hormonal treatment that included estradiol valerate (progynova) at 1 mg. The first group also received dydrogesterone (duphaston^®) at 10 mg and the second group micronized progesterone (utrogestran^®) at 100 mg. The clinical symptoms and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were recorded for three consecutive months after treatment. This study was registered with clinicaltrial.gov (code number NCT02086032).

RESULTS

Sleep quality improved in both groups (10.52 ± 4.27 to 4.91 ± 3.15 in the dydrogesterone group and 10.16 ± 3.60 to 6.27 ± 3.04 in the micronized progesterone group, p value 0.08). Women in the micronized progesterone group had fewer overall side effects than those in the dydrogesterone group.

CONCLUSION

Sleep quality of peri-postmenopausal women with insomnia improved dramatically after the first month of hormonal treatment. However, more participating patients are necessary to ascertain the differences in sleep quality from dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone treatment.

Estrogen, medroxyprogesterone acetate, endothelial function, and biomarkers of cardiovascular risk in young women

Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) is widely known for its use in combination hormone therapy for postmenopausal women. However, MPA is also commonly used in young women for contraception and treatment of a number of gynecological conditions. Despite its widespread use, the cardiovascular effects of MPA in young women are unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the acute effects of MPA when used in combination with estradiol on markers of cardiovascular risk in young women. We suppressed endogenous estrogens and progesterone in 10 premenopausal women using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHa) for 10 days. On day 4 of GnRHa subjects received 0.1 mg of estradiol (GnRHa+E(2)), and on day 7 5 mg of MPA was added (GnRHa+E(2)+MPA). Endothelium-dependent vasodilation and endothelium-independent vasodilation of the brachial artery, lipids, homocysteine, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and endothelin-1 were assessed during treatment with GnRHa, GnRHa+E(2), and GnRHa+E(2)+MPA. Four additional subjects were tested to validate the efficacy of the GnRHa model and confirm the findings. Endothelium-dependent vasodilation was greater during GnRHa+E(2) than during GnRHa or GnRHa+E(2)+MPA (P = 0.006). Endothelin-1 was lower during GnRHa+E(2) than GnRHa alone (P = 0.039). Endothelin-1 increased with the addition of MPA and was not significantly different from GnRHa alone. There were no differences in the other markers of cardiovascular risk between hormone treatment days. These data suggest that acute MPA administration negates the beneficial effects of estradiol on endothelium-dependent vasodilation in young women. In addition, these data suggest that estradiol decreases endothelin-1 concentrations and the addition of MPA may counteract the effect of estradiol on endothelin-1.

Differential effects of various progestogens on metabolic risk factors for breast cancer

Biological and epidemiological findings suggest that metabolic factors - insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) - are involved in the development and promotion of breast cancer. Estrogens, particularly if administered orally, counteract metabolic factors that increase breast cancer risk, i.e. they reduce insulin and IGF-I and increase SHBG. This could contribute toward explaining epidemiological data showing that unopposed oral estrogens do not increase breast cancer risk, or do so only modestly. In contrast to natural progesterone and progesterone-derived progestins, progestins endowed with androgenic (or glucocorticoid) activity negatively influence these metabolic factors, counteracting the favorable effects of estrogens. While most biological and epidemiological findings suggest that natural progesterone does not augment breast cancer risk, available data show an increased risk with synthetic progestins - with the possible exception of progesterone-derived dydrogesterone. Different mechanisms for different progestins could possibly be involved. Differences from progesterone with regard to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, potency, interaction with the two isoforms of the progesterone receptor, and binding to other steroid receptors could all be relevant. These remain theoretical speculations for the time being, but the possibility that some progestins increase breast cancer risk through their negative influence on metabolic factors cannot be rejected.