No abstract

No abstract

In adolescents with suspected endometriosis, dienogest 2 mg for 52 weeks was associated with a decrease in lumbar BMD, followed by partial recovery after treatment discontinuation. Endometriosis-associated pain was substantially reduced during treatment. Because bone accretion is critical during adolescence, results of the VISanne study to assess safety in ADOlescents (VISADO) study highlights the need for tailored treatment in this population, taking into account the expected efficacy on endometriosis-associated pain and an individual's risk factors for osteoporosis.

Objective: To determine the relative bioavailability of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and gestodene (GSD) after application of a novel transdermal contraceptive patch vs. a standard combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill (study 1), and to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of EE after application of the EE/GSD patch compared with an EE/norelgestromin (NGMN) patch (study 2). Materials: Participants were healthy, non-obese women aged 18 – 45 years (study 1) or 18 – 35 years (study 2). Compositions of study treatments were as follows: 0.55 mg EE/2.1 mg GSD (EE/GSD patch); 0.02 mg EE/0.075 mg GSD (standard COC); 0.6 mg EE/6 mg NGMN (EE/NGMN patch). Methods: In study 1, which consisted of 3 treatment periods (each followed by 7 patch- or pill-free days), treatments were administered in one of two randomized orders: either P–M–E (EE/GSD patch (P) every 7 days for 28 days → COC (M) once-daily for 21 days → two 7-day patch-wearing periods followed by one 10-day patch-wearing phase (E)), or the same treatments administered in sequence M–P–E. For study 2, participants received either the EE/GSD patch or EE/NGMN patch for seven treatment cycles (one patch per week for 3 weeks followed by a 7-day patch-free interval). Results: In study 1, average daily exposure to EE was similar for treatments P and M; the mean daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) ratio of treatment P vs. treatment M for EE was 1.06 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.964 – 1.16), indicating average daily delivery similar to oral administration of 0.019 – 0.023 mg EE. For unbound GSD, average daily exposure was lower for treatment P vs. treatment M. The mean AUC ratio of treatment P vs. treatment M for unbound GSD was 0.820 (90% CI: 0.760 – 0.885), indicating average daily delivery from the patch of 0.057 – 0.066 mg GSD. Prolonged patch wearing did not result in a distinct decline in GSD and EE serum concentrations. In study 2, AUC at steady state (AUC0–168,ss), average steady-state serum concentration, and maximum steady-state serum concentration for EE was 2.0 – 2.7-fold higher for the EE/NGMN patch vs. the EE/GSD patch. The EE/GSD patch was well tolerated in both studies. Conclusions: Based on the 90% CI of the AUC ratio of oral treatment vs. patch application for unbound GSD and EE, the daily doses of GSD and EE released from the EE/GSD patch over the 7-day application period provided the same systemic exposure as those recorded after daily oral administration of a COC containing 0.02 mg EE and 0.06 mg GSD. The EE/GSD patch showed reduced EE exposure compared with the EE/NGMN patch. Together with its good tolerability, these properties support the EE/GSD patch as an effective and well-tolerated alternative to available transdermal and oral contraceptives.

Objective To examine the impact of subject characteristics on efficacy as measured by the Pearl Index (PI) in clinical trials and to make study populations similar by matching. Methods Our analysis used US data from four large Phase III studies. We compared results from one fertility control patch study with pooled data from three studies with virtually identical design on oral hormonal contraceptives. First, we identified three characteristics that had the most impact on the PI. Second, we used these three variables and matched subjects from the patch study with those from the OC studies. Finally, we calculated the PIs for matched and unmatched subjects from both the patch study and the OC studies. Results A total of 3,706 subjects were included in our analysis. The variables ‘Hispanic ethnicity’, ‘previous pregnancy’ and ‘previous use of hormonal contraceptives’ had the most impact on the PI. The PIs for the matched patch cohort and the matched OC cohort were 2.97 and 2.48, respectively. Those for the unmatched patch cohort and the unmatched OC cohort were 10.17 and 0.90, respectively. Conclusion Subject characteristics strongly influence the PI in clinical studies of hormonal contraceptives. In particular, Hispanic ethnicity, previous pregnancies and no previous use of hormonal contraceptives result in a higher PI. Implications PIs from different clinical trials cannot be meaningfully compared unless subject characteristics that have most impact on the PI are similar, or are made to be similar statistically as we did here by matching.