Cargando…
The effects of vilaprisan on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive—A randomized controlled trial
AIMS: The primary objective was to explore whether the suppression of ovarian activity induced by a combined oral contraceptive (COC) is influenced by the simultaneous intake of the selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) vilaprisan (VPR). METHODS: In this exploratory randomized, double‐bli...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9328435/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32592596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14443 |
Sumario: | AIMS: The primary objective was to explore whether the suppression of ovarian activity induced by a combined oral contraceptive (COC) is influenced by the simultaneous intake of the selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) vilaprisan (VPR). METHODS: In this exploratory randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group study, 71 healthy premenopausal women were randomized (1:1) to receive either 2 mg/d VPR or placebo for 3 months. Concomitantly, a COC (0.15 mg levonorgestrel, 0.03 mg ethinyloestradiol) was administered in a cyclic regimen. Ovarian activity (Hoogland score based on follicle size and hormone concentrations), cervical function (Insler score), bleeding pattern and endometrial thickness/histology were assessed before treatment, in treatment cycle 3 and during follow‐up. RESULTS: The known COC‐driven suppression of ovarian activity was mildly affected by VPR. COC+VPR group: 22, 0 and 6% of the subjects had Hoogland scores of 4 (active follicle‐like structures), 5 or 6 (ovulation). COC+placebo group: 14% of the subjects had a score of 4 and none a score of 5 or 6 (Bayesian analysis for Hoogland score = 4, median difference in response rate: 7.5%; 90% credible interval [−8.5; 23.5%]). COC effects on cervical function were moderately affected (mucus more sperm permeable under COC+VPR). COC withdrawal bleeding, in contrast, was absent in 81% of the subjects receiving COC+VPR vs 0% receiving COC+placebo. CONCLUSION: The SPRM VPR interfered with the pharmacodynamic effects of the COC. Therefore, full contraceptive effectiveness cannot be assumed without final judgement by a Pearl index study. Women on SPRMs should be advised to use nonhormonal contraception methods. |
---|