The detailed article on the subject of contraception provided a whole range of important details (1). It therefore is even more striking that the so-called third generation gestagen—drospirenone—is not mentioned with even a single word.
Two recent industry-independent studies (2) have reported a doubling or tripling in the tendency to develop venous thromboembolism compared with the much cheaper levonorgestrel preparations. The Arzneitelegramm has raised this suspicion in numerous articles and for many years (3)—and the same is true for the Arzneimittelbrief (4). The lay press has also taken an interest in the topic for quite some time (for example, Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung), and many accusations have been brought against Bayer—the US Food and Drug Administration has reported excess mortality in women taking drospirenone-containing contraceptives.
All this may not be proof (although I do ask myself what more is actually required …), but I think it is neigh-on scandalous that this article does not even report and reflect on these serious concerns. Might there be a connection with the mentioned potential competing interests?
Dr. med. Joachim Pries
Gemeinschaftspraxis für Allgemeinmedizin, Korbach
Conflict of interest statement
The author declares that no conflict of interest exists.
|1.||Wiegratz I, Thaler CJ: Hormonal contraception: what kind, when, and for whom? Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108(28–29): 495–506. VOLLTEXT|
|2.||Parkin L, Sharples K, Hernandez R, Jick S: Risk of venous thromboembolism in users of oral cortraceptives containing drospirenone or levonorgestrel: nested case-control study based on UK General Practice. BMJ 2011; 342: d2139. CrossRef MEDLINE|
|3.||N. N.: Nebenwirkungen – Neues zu Thromboembolien unter Drospirenon-Pillen (in Yasmin u. a.): a-t 2011; 42: 48.|
|4.||N. N.: Häufigkeit zu Thromboembolien unter oraler Kontrazeptiva mit unterschiedlichen Gestagenen. AMB 2009; 43: 87. |