Dataset Information

Hemostatic effects of a novel estradiol-based oral contraceptive: an open-label, randomized, crossover study of estradiol valerate/dienogest versus ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel.

ABSTRACT: A novel estradiol-based combined oral contraceptive (COC) is currently available in many countries worldwide, including Europe and the US. Based on previous studies, it is expected that this estradiol-based COC will have a reduced hepatic effect compared with COCs containing ethinylestradiol with regard to proteins controlling the hemostatic balance.The aim of this study was to compare the hemostatic effects of the estradiol valerate/dienogest COC with a monophasic low-estrogen dose COC containing ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel.Healthy women aged 18-50 years were randomized to receive a COC containing estradiol valerate/dienogest (2 days estradiol valerate 3?mg, 5 days estradiol valerate 2?mg/dienogest 2?mg, 17 days estradiol valerate 2?mg/dienogest 3?mg, 2 days estradiol valerate 1?mg, 2 days placebo) or ethinylestradiol 0.03?mg/levonorgestrel 0.15?mg in a crossover study design. Women received each treatment for three cycles, with two washout cycles between treatments. The primary efficacy variables were the intra-individual absolute changes in prothrombin fragment 1?+?2 and D-dimer from baseline to cycle three.Data from 29 women were assessed. Intra-individual absolute changes in prothrombin fragment 1?+?2 and D-dimer from baseline to cycle three were less pronounced with estradiol valerate/dienogest than with ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel.The novel COC containing estradiol valerate/dienogest had similar or less pronounced effects on hemostatic parameters than ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel.

SUBMITTER: Klipping C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3585947 | biostudies-other | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hemostatic effects of a novel estradiol-based oral contraceptive: an open-label, randomized, crossover study of estradiol valerate/dienogest versus ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel.

Klipping Christine C Duijkers Ingrid I Parke Susanne S Mellinger Uwe U Serrani Marco M Junge Wolfgang W

Drugs in R&D 20110101 2

<h4>Background</h4>A novel estradiol-based combined oral contraceptive (COC) is currently available in many countries worldwide, including Europe and the US. Based on previous studies, it is expected that this estradiol-based COC will have a reduced hepatic effect compared with COCs containing ethinylestradiol with regard to proteins controlling the hemostatic balance.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to compare the hemostatic effects of the estradiol valerate/dienogest COC with a mono ...[more]

PMID: 21679006

Similar Datasets

Project description:Both oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and estradiol (E2) valerate have been used to schedule gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and, consequently, laboratory activities. However, there are no studies comparing treatment outcomes directly between these two pretreatment methods. This randomized controlled trial was aimed at finding differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between GnRH antagonist IVF cycles scheduled with OCPs or E2 valerate.Between January and May 2012, one hundred consecutive patients (nonobese, regularly cycling women 18-38 years with normal day 3 hormone levels and <3 previous IVF/ICSI attempts) undergoing IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol were randomized to either the OCP or E2 pretreatment arms, with no restrictions such as blocking or stratification. Authors involved in data collection and analysis were blinded to group assignment. Fifty patients received OCP (30 ?g ethinyl E2/150 ?g levonorgestrel) for 12-16 days from day 1 or 2, and stimulation was started 5 days after stopping OCP. Similarly, 50 patients received 4 mg/day oral E2 valerate from day 20 for 5-12 days, until the day before starting stimulation.Pretreatment with OCP (mean±SD, 14.5±1.7 days) was significantly longer than with E2 (7.8±1.9 days). Stimulation and embryological characteristics were similar. Ongoing pregnancy rates (46.0% vs. 44.0%; risk difference, -2.0% [95% CI -21.2% to 17.3%]), as well as implantation (43.5% vs. 47.4%), clinical pregnancy (50.0% vs. 48.0%), clinical miscarriage (7.1% vs. 7.7%), and live birth (42.0% vs. 40.0%) rates were comparable between groups.This is the first study to directly compare these two methods of cycle scheduling in GnRH antagonist cycles. Our results fail to show statistically significant differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between pretreatment with OCP and E2 for IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol. Although the study is limited by its sample size, our results may contribute to a future meta-analysis. An interesting future direction would be to extend our study to women with decreased ovarian reserve, as these are the patients in whom an increase in oocyte yield-due to the hypothetical beneficial effect of steroid pretreatment on follicular synchronization-could more easily be demonstrated.ClinicalTrials.gov http://NCT01501448.

Project description:BackgroundConsistent with its effect on gastric emptying, exenatide, an injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, may slow the absorption rate of concomitantly administered oral drugs resulting in a decrease in maximum concentration (Cmax). This study evaluated the drug interaction potential of exenatide when administered adjunctively with oral contraceptives, given their potential concomitant use.MethodsThis trial evaluated the effect of exenatide co-administration on single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of a combination oral contraceptive (ethinyl estradiol [EE] 30 μg, levonorgestrel [LV] 150 μg [Microgynon 30®]). Thirty-two healthy female subjects participated in an open-label, randomised, crossover trial with 3 treatment periods (oral contraceptive alone, 1 hour before exenatide, 30 minutes after exenatide). Subjects received a single dose of oral contraceptive on Day 8 of each period and QD doses on Days 10 through 28. During treatment periods of concomitant usage, exenatide was administered subcutaneously prior to morning and evening meals at 5 μg BID from Days 1 through 4 and at 10 μg BID from Days 5 through 22. Single- (Day 8) and multiple-dose (Day 22) pharmacokinetic profiles were assessed for each treatment period.ResultsExenatide did not alter the bioavailability nor decrease daily trough concentrations for either oral contraceptive component. No substantive changes in oral contraceptive pharmacokinetics occurred when oral contraceptive was administered 1 hour before exenatide. Single-dose oral contraceptive administration 30 minutes after exenatide resulted in mean (90% CI) Cmax reductions of 46% (42-51%) and 41% (35-47%) for EE and LV, respectively. Repeated daily oral contraceptive administration 30 minutes after exenatide resulted in Cmax reductions of 45% (40-50%) and 27% (21-33%) for EE and LV, respectively. Peak oral contraceptive concentrations were delayed approximately 3 to 4 hours. Mild-to-moderate nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events observed during the trial.ConclusionsThe observed reduction in Cmax is likely of limited importance given the unaltered oral contraceptive bioavailability and trough concentrations; however, for oral medications that are dependent on threshold concentrations for efficacy, such as contraceptives and antibiotics, patients should be advised to take those drugs at least 1 hour before exenatide injection.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00254800.

Project description:BackgroundOral solution N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is an antidote for acetaminophen overdose, but its unpleasant taste and aroma can impede delivery even after the coadministration of antiemetic medications. Flavored effervescent NAC tablets dissolved in water might be a more palatable formulation than oral solution NAC diluted with soft drink.ObjectivesTo evaluate the relative bioavailability of these 2 formulations and assess subjective preferences between them.MethodsThirty healthy adult volunteers (mean [SD] = 35.2 [9.14] years) were enrolled in this open-label, randomized, single-dose, crossover study, with a 7-day washout period. Volunteers were randomized to receive 11 g effervescent test formulation or the reference product under fasting conditions, after which 19 serial blood samples were collected over 48 hours. Total plasma NAC concentrations were evaluated by LC-MS, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The 2 formulations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of log-transformed ratios of pharmacokinetic parameters were within the predetermined bioequivalence range (80%-125%) established by the US Food and Drug Administration. Within 15 minutes of dosing, subjects were also asked to rank formulation attributes on a 5-point hedonic scale, with mean group differences analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Safety-profile assessment included treatment-emergent adverse events, physical examination, chemistry, and hematology parameters.ResultsThe concentration-versus-time profiles were similar for the 2 formulations, with mean Cmax of 26.5 μg/mL for effervescent NAC tablets and 28.4 μg/mL for oral solution NAC. The 90% CIs for the pharmacokinetic parameters met the criteria for concluding bioequivalence, and subjects preferred effervescent NAC tablets in terms of taste (P = 0.0247), flavor (P = 0.0082), texture (P = 0.009), and overall likeability (P = 0.0012), but there was no difference for smell (P = 0.0533). All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, with no differences between the treatment groups.ConclusionsData from this study of a single dose of 11 g oral NAC demonstrated that effervescent NAC tablets and oral solution NAC met the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence in fasting healthy adult subjects. Effervescent NAC tablets appear to be a more palatable alternative for treatment of acetaminophen overdose. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02723669. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2016; 83C:1-7) © 2016 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Project description:BackgroundEzetimibe is a new class of antihyperlipidemic agent indicated for the prevention of atherosclerosis disease and for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Information on the pharmacokinetic profiles of ezetimibe tablet in healthy Chinese volunteers are lacking, and regulatory requirements necessitate a bioequivalence study of ezetimibe tablet versus Ezetrol® in China.MethodsA single-dose randomized, open-label, two-group, two-period crossover study was conducted in 59 healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting or fed conditions to assess the bioequivalence between two preparations. Eligible participants were randomly divided into fasted and fed groups. Blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, and the plasma concentrations of ezetimibe and ezetimibe glucuronide were determined by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. PK and bioavailability parameters were estimated via non-compartmental methods. Adverse events were also recorded.ResultsFifty-nine healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of total ezetimibe in the plasma of the ezetimibe tablet (10 mg) and the Ezetrol® (10 mg) after a single fasting administration: Cmax were (65.73 ± 47.14), (71.32 ± 51.98) ng·mL- 1; Tmax were 1.75, 1.25 h; T½ were (17.09 ± 13.22), (17.35 ± 12.14) h; AUC0-t were (643.34 ± 400.77), (668.49 ± 439.57) h·ng·mL- 1; AUC0-∞ were (706.36 ± 410.92), (734.23 ± 468.26) h·ng·mL- 1. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of total ezetimibe in plasma of ezetimibe tablet (10 mg) and Ezetrol® (10 mg) after a fed administration: Cmax were (83.38 ± 38.95), (84.74 ± 34.62) ng·mL- 1; Tmax were 2.50, 2.50 h; T½ were (22.56 ± 12.68), (19.80 ± 15.59) h; AUC0-t were (494.21 ± 208.65), (536.69 ± 209.11) h·ng·mL- 1; AUC0-∞ were (573.74 ± 252.74), (604.75 ± 247.13) h·ng·mL- 1. The main pharmacokinetic parameters Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of the two drugs were analyzed by variance analysis after logarithmic transformation. The total ezetimibe under fasting state with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were 85.29 ~ 97.19, 90.41% ~ 104.38%, and 90.81 ~ 106.05%; total ezetimibe in fed state were 86.36% ~ 109.17, 84.96% ~ 96.40, and 85.32% ~ 101.0%. The 90% CIs of the ratio of geometric means (GMRs) of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of Ezetrol® and ezetimibe tablet both fasting and fed conditions fell within the conventional bioequivalence criteria of 0.80-1.25. Both Cmax and AUC met the predetermined criteria for assuming bioequivalence. No severe adverse events were observed.ConclusionsThe test ezetimibe tablet and Ezetrol® were determined to be bioequivalent under both fasting and fed conditions in Chinese people.Trial registrationClinicaltrials, NCT05681247 (retrospectively registered in 11/01/ 2023).

Dataset Information

Hemostatic effects of a novel estradiol-based oral contraceptive: an open-label, randomized, crossover study of estradiol valerate/dienogest versus ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel.

Publications

Hemostatic effects of a novel estradiol-based oral contraceptive: an open-label, randomized, crossover study of estradiol valerate/dienogest versus ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets