RESUMEN
Introduction: We illustrate a comprehensive tampon safety assessment approach that assures products can be used safely. Material biocompatibility, vaginal mucosa assessment, vaginal microbiome evaluation, and in vitro assessment of potential risk of staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome expressed through growth of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and production of TSST-1 are the four essential portions of the approach. Post-marketing surveillance informs of possible health effects that warrant follow up. The approach meets or exceeds US and international regulatory guidance and is described through the example of four tampon products. Methods/Results: Each product is comprised mostly of large molecular weight components (cotton, rayon, polymers) that cannot pass the vaginal mucosa, are widely used across the industry, and replete with a vast body of safety data and a long history of safe use in the category. Quantitative risk assessment of all small molecular weight components assured a sufficient margin of safety supporting their use. Vaginal mucosa assessment confirmed that pressure points, rough edges and/or sharp contact points were absent. A randomized cross-over clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03478371) revealed favorable comfort ratings, and few complaints of irritation, burning, stinging, or discomfort upon insertion, wear, and removal. Adverse events were few, mild in severity, self-limited and resolved without treatment. Vaginal microbiota assessment in vitro presented no adverse effect on microbial growth. Culture-independent microbiome analyses from vaginal swab samples obtained during the clinical trial showed no differences attributable to tampon usage, but instead due to statistically significant subject-to-subject variability. Growth of S. aureus and TSST-1 toxin production in the presence of any of the four products in vitro were statistically significantly reduced when compared to medium control alone. Discussion: The data from the four elements of the comprehensive safety assessment approach illustrated herein confirm that tampons evaluated using this system can be used safely for menstrual protection. A post-marketing surveillance system that monitors and responds to in-market experiences indicated in-use tolerability of the product among consumers, thus confirming the conclusions of the pre-marketing safety assessment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ensuring menstrual cup safety is paramount, yet a menstrual cup safety assessment scheme is lacking. This paper presents a quadripartite scheme, showing how it can be applied. METHODS: The Tampax Menstrual Cup was evaluated in the safety assessment scheme: (1) Biocompatibility and chemical safety of cup constituents. Extractables were obtained under different use condition; exposure-based risk assessments (EBRA) were conducted for extractables exceeding thresholds of toxicological concern. (2) Physical impact to vaginal mucosa. After physical evaluations, the Tampax Cup and another cup were assessed in a randomised double-blinded, two-product, two-period cross-over clinical trial (65 women, mean age 34.2 years). (3) Impact to vaginal microbiota (in vitro mixed microflora assay and evaluation of vaginal swabs). (4) In vitro growth of Staphylococcus aureus and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (TSST-1) production. FINDINGS: Biocompatibility assessments and EBRA of cup constituents showed no safety concerns. In the randomised clinical trial, all potentially product-related adverse effects were mild, vaginal exams were unremarkable, no clinically relevant pH changes occurred, post-void residual urine volume with and without cup were similar, and self-reported measures of comfort along with reports of burning, itching and stinging between cups were comparable. Cup use had no effect on microbial growth in vitro or in the 62 subjects who completed the trial or on in vitro TSST-1 production. INTERPRETATION: The quadripartite safety assessment scheme allows evaluation of menstrual cup safety. The Tampax Cup is safe and well-tolerated upon intended use. As with all feminine hygiene products, post-market safety surveillance confirmed this conclusion. FUNDING: By Procter & Gamble.
