Compounded hormonal pellets: a critical review of current evidence and risks

The use of compounded hormonal pellets has recently gained popularity in Brazil, driven by claims of benefits beyond their intended clinical indications, such as enhanced muscle mass, improved physical and sexual performance, and overall well-being. However, this growing trend raises significant concerns within the medical community due to the lack of robust scientific evidence supporting their safety and efficacy in the treatment of gynecological conditions, as well as insufficient regulatory oversight. The only hormonal pellet approved by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) is Implanon ® (Nexplanon ® ), which contains etonogestrel and is used as a contraceptive 1 . This pellet has undergone extensive clinical studies for safety and efficacy. In contrast, other pellets like gestrinone and testosterone are made in compounding pharmacies without strict dosage control or strong evidence of safety, particularly for non-medical uses. Health organizations warn of increased adverse effects linked to the indiscriminate use of these compounded hormonal pellets. This article aimed to review the available scientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of hormones used in subdermal pellets.

This non-systematic literature review critically evaluates the efficacy, safety, and clinical implications of hormonal pellets. The search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar, using terms such as "subdermal pellets," "estradiol," "gestrinone," "testosterone," "nestorone," "oxytocin," and "oxandrolone pellets." Studies in English, with no date restrictions, were included, and the search concluded in November 2024. Original studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials were analyzed, while those with incomplete data or irrelevant to the review were excluded. Titles and abstracts were screened, and selected articles were fully reviewed. References were manually examined for additional relevant studies. Key data on study population, intervention, dosage, treatment duration, outcomes, results, and adverse effects were extracted. Study quality was assessed based on design, sample size, methodology, and clinical applicability. The GRADE system was applied to evaluate the evidence quality of compounded hormonal pellets ( Table 1 ), grouping studies by hormone type and clinical outcomes, including contraceptive efficacy, symptom relief, and adverse effects 2 . All articles collected and reviewed for this narrative are shown in Table 2 . IUD: intrauterine device; SEER: surveillance epidemiology and end results; FSH: follicle-stimulating hormone; BMD: bone mass density; T-IUD: T-shaped intrauterine device.

Gestrinone, or ethylnorgestrienone or progestogen R-2323, is an antigonadotropic agent with antiestrogenic, androgenic, and antiprogesterone effects. It has been explored since the 1980s for the oral treatment of endometriosis. Although it first appeared as a contraceptive, it has not advanced due to factors such as high cost and lack of significant advantages compared to other methods 3 . Only three trials were identified for gestrinone pellets indicating the lack of good-quality data to assess the safety and efficacy profile of this delivery method. The studies by Coutinho et al. 4 , Diaz et al. 5 , and Alvarez et al. 6 , investigated the contraceptive efficacy and adverse effects of these pellets in women of different ages and reproductive characteristics. Coutinho et al. 4 studied 531 women using 2–5 subdermal pellets, noting pregnancy rates varied by capsule count, with most pregnancies occurring after 8 months. About 30% experienced amenorrhea. Diaz et al. 5 found that in 38 women, pellets effectively inhibited fertility but often caused amenorrhea, androgenic effects (acne, hypertrichosis), headaches, and nervousness. After 3 months, 20 of 27 women had elevated transaminases. Alvarez et al. 6 compared the efficacy of gestrinone and levonorgestrel pellets in women using six capsules and found that 80–90% of gestrinone users had oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea, plus increased transaminases, pruritus, and acne. Hematocrit levels were higher in gestrinone users, with significant differences at 3 and 12 months (p<0.01). The study ended early due to transaminase concerns from the Diaz study. Three ongoing clinical trials are investigating gestrinone. One assesses its efficacy in relieving pelvic pain from deep endometriosis ( NCT05570786 ). Another compares gestrinone and dienogest for symptom reduction and disease progression in endometriosis ( NCT06543550 ). The third examines its impact on endothelial function in young patients with cardiovascular disease ( NCT06402344 ). The evidence on the use of gestrinone pellets is very ­limited and of very low quality, primarily due to methodological ­limitations, small sample sizes, and the age of the available ­studies. While recent clinical trials are ongoing to investigate the potential of bioabsorbable gestrinone pellets, current evidence is insufficient to support their safe and effective use. Testosterone plays a vital role in female physiology, particularly influencing sexual desire in postmenopausal women. Its use is currently approved only for specific sexual dysfunction cases, with guidelines recommending physiological doses to prevent hyperandrogenism and side effects. In the US and elsewhere, testosterone is often used off-label when other treatments fail 7 . Clinical trials on testosterone for postmenopausal women show mixed results, with some suggesting benefits for desire and satisfaction, especially in those with lower androgen levels, like postmenopausal women or those who have undergone oophorectomy 8 , 9 . The effectiveness of compounded testosterone pellets is inconclusive and hence not recommended due to the risks of high testosterone levels, which can lead to adverse effects 8 . Studies on these pellets are limited by small sample sizes and lack rigorous design, focusing more on outcomes like breast cancer rather than general safety. A 2019 review highlighted the low-quality evidence regarding testosterone's benefits and safety in women, concluding that current data do not support widespread use 8 . Reported side effects include acne, increased oiliness, and hirsutism, with higher doses potentially causing more serious issues like voice changes and mood swings. While specific cardiovascular risks of pellets are not well documented, testosterone is known to increase cardiovascular event risks, particularly at high levels 9 . Overall, the evidence for testosterone pellets in women is limited and of low quality, necessitating a cautious approach to their use. The evidence supporting testosterone pellets in women is limited and of low quality, with methodological flaws and inconsistent findings. Most studies are observational, with few small randomized trials. Brincat et al. noted climacteric symptom improvements, while Buckler et al. reported enhanced sexual function, but both lacked adverse effect data 10 , 11 . A pilot study indicated that testosterone pellets (100–160 mg) might relieve migraines, but it comprised only 27 participants, had no control group, and used a non-validated questionnaire, undermining its reliability. The same authors later noted symptom improvements related to "androgen deficiency" in pre- and postmenopausal women, but the lack of placebo control and structured side-effect assessment compromised validity. Another study showed significant variability in testosterone levels post-therapy and mild androgenic side effects like acne and hair growth. Glaser and Dimitrakakis suggested a lower breast cancer incidence in testosterone users, but methodological flaws, such as poor control groups and non-randomized design, hindered conclusive findings. A 10-year follow-up study on testosterone with or without aromatase inhibitors also had critical issues, including an unmatched control group. Donovitz reported a high dropout rate after initial pellet use, which improved after a second insertion but lacked a thorough side-effect assessment. A major concern with testosterone pellets is their potential to induce supraphysiological hormone levels, increasing risks like voice changes, weight gain, and mood disturbances. Due to the lack of robust evidence, dosing variability, and unresolved safety issues, further rigorous studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety, especially for esthetic or non-regulated uses. Estradiol plays a key role in gynecological and menopausal management. The estradiol pellet Riselle ® , once available in Brazil and other countries, met regulatory standards before its global discontinuation in 2012. In general, they help maintain stable estradiol levels, as noted by Stanczyk 18 and Panay 19 , but can cause breast tenderness, skin reactions, and fatigue. Forsling 20 found that estradiol increases vasopressin, while testosterone suppresses it, indicating possible effects on water balance and kidney function, relevant for patients with renal or cardiovascular issues. Suhonen 21 , 22 and Barbosa 23 reported gynecological side effects, including prolonged bleeding, endometrial hyperplasia, and polyps, especially at higher doses. Vashisht 24 and Britto 25 suggested a protective effect on bone health, but high doses require caution due to adverse effects. Evidence on compounded estradiol pellets is limited and of low quality, mainly from observational studies and small trials. While they offer some benefits, the lack of robust trials and safety concerns restricts their clinical use, particularly for off-label or esthetic purposes. Nestorone (segesterone acetate or Elcometrine) is a synthetic progestin with high progesterone receptor affinity and no significant androgenic activity. The Annovera ® vaginal ring, combining segesterone acetate and ethinyl estradiol, is approved for contraception in the US. However, its off-label use for esthetic purposes raises concerns about safety and prolonged exposure without a clear clinical indication. Our search identified seven clinical studies on Nestorone pellets. Early research on Elcometrine (ST-14350) reported high rates of bleeding pattern changes, a finding confirmed in later studies 27 - 29 . One study on 60 women using Nestorone pellets for up to 24 months found luteal suppression in the first year, preventing ovulation and pregnancy, but ovulation frequency increased in the second year, suggesting temporary ovarian suppression 30 . In Ylänen's study on endometriosis, symptoms recurred post-treatment, with irregular bleeding and hypoestrogenic symptoms being frequently reported 31 . Evidence on Nestorone pellets is of low quality due to small sample sizes and lack of randomized trials. While studies indicate short-term contraceptive efficacy, adverse effects such as irregular bleeding, hypoestrogenism, and symptom recurrence are common 32 , 33 . The absence of long-term data limits safety assessment, and current evidence does not support off-label or esthetic use, emphasizing the need for well-designed studies. No studies involving pellets in humans were found.

Hormonal pellets are increasingly marketed for gynecological issues but are not the first-line treatment. Established alternatives, like gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, oral contraceptives, and hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs), have better safety and efficacy profile for conditions such as endometriosis and uterine fibroids. Evidence for compounded hormonal pellets is mostly of low quality, with outdated studies that do not meet modern standards ( Table 3 ). Concerns about safety include androgenic effects and cardiovascular risks for gestrinone and testosterone, while studies on Nestorone focus on contraception, showing high rates of irregular bleeding. No studies exist for oxytocin and oxandrolone pellets. The National Academies of Sciences recommends these pellets only when commercial options are unavailable or for patients with allergies 34 . Pellets can cause high hormonal peaks and prolonged elevations, which are not well monitored. Compounded pellets also face challenges in dosage accuracy, release consistency, and sterility. Many supporting studies are outdated, lacking randomization and adequate sample sizes 35 . In 2021, ANVISA banned gestrinone pellet advertising due to safety concerns, and in 2023, the Federal Council of Medicine regulated their prescription, prohibiting esthetic use. Over 40 medical societies oppose the indiscriminate use of hormonal pellets, reporting over 200 adverse effects, including cardiovascular and psychological issues, as well as irreversible effects in women, like acne and infertility 36 - 38 .

The available scientific evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of hormones used in subdermal pellets is either of low quality or entirely lacking. Data on their pharmacokinetics remain insufficient, and the well-documented risks associated with conventional hormone therapy cannot be directly extrapolated to these formulations. Prescribing decisions should be guided by high-quality evidence, aligned with established clinical guidelines, and subject to stringent regulatory oversight.