Talk:Drospirenone

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sng92, Sonyak88, Trmor24, Guigui09. Peer reviewers: Beginwid133.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

General Comments
I have tried to make this easier to understand for an educated but non-physician audience, since not everyone knows what a VTE is, for example.

I disagree with the comments below about the Yasmin Survivors Forum being a "scare forum". There are many online forums for patients and consumers to share information about risks, and the risks expressed are consistent with the FDA label but not everyone can understand an FDA label (and of course, nobody reads them because the writing is so small and the wording so technical.)

Universitydoc (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the rationale behind posting the "Yasmin Survivors Forum" link under Externals? It seems to be some sort of scare forum. 98.224.250.62 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

that link is totally out of place. I'm deleting it --T0rek (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to the 'medicinal uses' section, specifically drospirenone's use in PMDD and other indications (PCOS) that have been FDA approved or are off label uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sng92 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Adverse Reactions
In response to the comments below, I added key information about the research, including the major new study that was not yet published when the comments below were made (and when the article was previously edited). It is now clear that the increase in VTEs is statistically significant in the vast majority of studies, when length of use and other potentially confounding variables are statistically controlled. However, young women who are on for a shorter period of time have a somewhat greater risk.

Only 2 published studies don't show an increased risk, and both were funded by the company making Yasmin, and used some interesting data manipulations that independent researchers believe are not scientifically justified. A recent article also defended those studies, but that article was also written by authors with substantial financial ties to Bayer. While financial conflicts of interest don't necessarily negate a resaercher's findings, one has to consider potential bias when their results differ from all the studies conducted by independent researchers (all of which show significant risks). Universitydoc (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the referenced literature article and I see several problems with the configuration of the study cohorts and, therefore, the results that are cited. Briefly, the study does not include the size of the cohorts (the n's). This is rather odd given that the exposure in the levonorgestrel arm is about 6.5 times that in the drospirenone arm. I see this as a big red flag. Why doesn't the study include this key information? Given the reported incidence of TEs in the Yasmin arm--three times that of the LNG arm--with 6.5 times less exposure suggests there is more to the data than is being revealed. I'd like to see the average duration of use in the two arms. Based on what has already been seen in other more robust studies, my guess is that there is a significantly higher drop-out rate in the Yasmin arm (for any reason), which decreases the women-years of exposure and skews the data so that it appears that Yasmin has a higher rate of thromoembolic rates. If that's the case then it really doesn't matter if the risk factor profiles are comparable in the two chorts. There's a lot of fuzzy discussion about that as well, so I'm not convinced that the study is rigorous in that regard either. Bottom line, I'd propose to change the section to read as follows:

Although there have been several literature articles published during the past decade that suggest that there could be an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events with drospirenone-containg formulations when compared to levonorgestrel-containing formulations, thus far these articles have contained significant flaws which call their validity into question.Wally From Columbia (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit/research properly right now, but this portion of the article seems biased, the use of the word dangerous 4 times especially. There's a good artciel from the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) if someone wanted to update a bit. The article as it stands reads more like inflammatory news article to me, not an unbiased source? Sorry to jump in, judge and not contribute, perhaps later. http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Gynecologic_Practice/Risk_of_Venous_Thromboembolism 64.229.100.222 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Litigation
I've appended a section summarizing the current claims and litigation against Bayer regarding their marketing of Yaz. While there are plenty of sources for reference, I just cited a couple of the more prominent press releases. It wouldn't hurt for someone who has more experience with citations to make adjustments (ie. I'm not sure if the Reuters press release pages are permanent, so that may have to be changed).

I'm also going to redirect Yaz and Yasmin (I dunno about Yasminelle) to this page, as this drug is sufficiently well-known by those names (being the brand names it's marketed under). -K10wnsta (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Will update on recent litigation involving drospirenone.

-trmor24 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Previous comment signed date incorrectly. Actually from October 2017. PriceDL (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's make this less like a text for doctors and more intelligible to a wider audience
This article contains good information but it is very technical. Millions of women use drospirenone so it would be good if this article didn't sound like a medical school textbook. We should include good data, but also make it understandable to students and college educated consumers without making it sound like a sales pitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.228.7 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Drospirenone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901154443/http://www.yasmin-us.com:80/ to http://www.yasmin-us.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry
Would like to expand on this section and include how the chemistry relates to its mechanism of action, side effects and toxicity.

-trmor24 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Previous comment signed date incorrectly. Actually from October 2017. PriceDL (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Altered to avoid problems with Reports bot. PriceDL (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Comments on edits made November 1st: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… I think the draft submission indeed reflects a neutral point of view. The group did a good job stating only facts and avoiding opinion or unjustified statements. Drospirenone has been the topic of litigation and is known to cause clots, and therefore invites more controversy than other oral contraceptives. However, Group 6 does a good job avoiding biased claims and speculation and states only facts verified by the literature and other accessible secondary sources. Engiesalama (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Chemistry section is updated without a citation and explanations on “how the chemistry relates to its mechanism of action, side effects and toxicity.” It is unclear which several indications are FDA-approved and which ones are not FDA-approved. Overall the article generally follows Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles. The Formulations section under Society and culture seems inappropriately placed according to the manual as it mostly covers indications of drospirenone-containing medications. The Chemistry section is missing a citation and the reference #25 is not following the citation template as suggested by the manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginwid133 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the review, I cleaned up the issues mentioned above. I added the reference in the chemistry section. I also added the mechanism section for further clarification. I deleted the information with source 25 because I didn't think that it was a necessary piece on information for the article. Trmor24 (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cited Secondary Sources
The recent editions, which added on to the “Medical Uses” section, as well as the “Formulations” and “Litigation” sections all contain appropriate sources that are cited in the references. If not leading to the appropriate article on a website, they link to online PDFs where the information is found. One particular section in which there is no citation is under the “Forumlations” section, for Yasmin/Jamine/Yarina. There is no citation for its indication, which is for prevention of pregnancy for women who desire oral contraceptives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMoises (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review above! I have made sure all the citations were appropriate. The section for Yasmin/Jazmine/Yarina was edited by another user and I unfortunately cannot trace the source of the document. Following the peer review, I have also decided to add a little more information about Yaz's role in treating PMDD in the medicinal uses section above for completion purposes regarding my proposed goal for that specific topic. Sng92 (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright & Plagiarism
There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation found within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D118:9DA0:8C6D:2490:A377:5878 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)