Effects of rimegepant 75 mg daily on the pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate in healthy female participants.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of single and multiple doses of rimegepant 75 mg dose on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol (EE)/norgestimate (NGM) in healthy females of childbearing potential or non-menopausal females with tubal ligation. BACKGROUND: Females of childbearing age experience the highest prevalence of migraine and frequently inquire about the concomitant use of anti-migraine medications and contraceptives. Rimegepant, a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, demonstrated efficacy and safety for treating an acute migraine attack and preventing migraine. METHODS: This open-label, single-center, phase 1, drug-drug interaction study explored the effects of rimegepant 75 mg daily dose on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing EE/NGM 0.035 mg/0.25 mg in healthy females of childbearing potential or non-menopausal females with tubal ligation. During cycles 1 and 2, participants received EE/NGM once daily for 21 days followed by placebo tablets with inactive ingredients for 7 days. Rimegepant was administered during only cycle 2 for 8 days, from days 12 through 19. The primary endpoint was the effect of single and multiple doses of rimegepant on the pharmacokinetics of EE and norelgestromin (NGMN), an active metabolite of NGM, at steady state, including area under the concentration-time curve for 1 dosing interval (AUC0-τ,ss ) and maximum observed concentration (Css[max] ). RESULTS: The study enrolled 25 participants, with pharmacokinetic data assessed for 20 participants. A single 75 mg dose of rimegepant co-administered with EE/NGM increased exposures of EE and NGMN by ≤16% (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 1.03; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.06; and GMR, 1.16; 90% CI, 1.13-1.20, respectively). After 8 days of co-administering EE/NGM with rimegepant, EE pharmacokinetic parameters, AUC0-τ,ss and Css(max) , increased by 20% (GMR, 1.20; 90% CI, 1.16-1.25) and 34% (GMR, 1.34; 90% CI, 1.23-1.46), respectively, and NGMN pharmacokinetic parameters increased by 46% (GMR, 1.46; 90% CI, 1.39-1.52) and 40% (GMR, 1.40; 90% CI, 1.30-1.51), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified modest elevations in overall EE and NGMN exposures after multiple doses of rimegepant, but these elevations are unlikely to be clinically relevant in healthy females with migraine.

Lack of Effect of Cenerimod, a Selective S1P1 Receptor Modulator, on the Pharmacokinetics of a Combined Oral Contraceptive.

Cenerimod, a sphingosine-1-phosphate 1 receptor modulator, is in development for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, a disease mainly affecting women of childbearing potential. The effect of cenerimod on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a combined oral contraceptive (COC, 100 µg levonorgestrel and 20 µg ethinylestradiol (EE)) was investigated. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was performed in 24 healthy male and female subjects. A single oral dose of COC was administered alone and after 35 days of once daily (o.d.) administration of cenerimod 0.5 (n = 10) or 4 (n = 14) mg. Exposure to EE alone or in combination with cenerimod was comparable as reflected by the geometric mean ratios and the respective 90% confidence intervals, while a slight increase in exposure (approximately 10-25%) to levonorgestrel was observed at clinically relevant concentrations of cenerimod. Overall, COC alone or in combination with cenerimod was safe and well tolerated. Two subjects reported one adverse event each (one headache after COC alone, and gastroenteritis in combination with cenerimod 4 mg). In conclusion, cenerimod does not affect the PK of levonorgestrel or EE to a clinically relevant extent. Therefore, COC can be selected as method of contraception during and after cenerimod therapy without the risk of interaction.

Comparative pharmacokinetic analysis of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems and levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives with oral or subdermal administration route.

OBJECTIVE: To compare systemic exposure to levonorgestrel (LNG) released from commercially available intrauterine systems (IUSs), a subdermal implant, and oral contraceptives. METHODS: An integrated population pharmacokinetic (popPK) analysis of data from over 3400 individuals in ten clinical studies with six different LNG-releasing contraceptives (four long-acting reversible contraceptives [LARCs: LNG-IUS 8, 12, and 20, initially releasing LNG 14, 17.5, and 20 µg/day, a subdermal implant initially releasing LNG 100 µg/day according to label]; progestin-only pill [POP: LNG 30 µg/day]; and combined oral contraceptive [COC] pill [LNG 100 µg/day and ethinylestradiol 20 µg/day]), was conducted to generate a popPK model. LNG release rates, and total and unbound serum/plasma LNG concentrations with LARCs were estimated over the indicated period of use; maximum (Cmax) and average (Cav) serum LNG concentrations were estimated at steady state for oral contraceptives. Influence of body weight on LNG PK was also investigated. RESULTS: Serum LNG concentration with LARCs increased with increasing daily LNG release rate, being lowest with LNG-IUS 8, higher with LNG-IUS 12 and LNG-IUS 20, and highest with the subdermal implant (1.7-2.1-times that with LNG-IUS 20). Compared with early serum LNG concentrations with LNG-IUS 20, Cav and Cmax were 1.7- and 4.5-fold higher with POP, and 8.6- and 18-fold higher with COC. Total LNG bioavailability was >97% for the LNG-IUSs and 66-80% with other contraceptives. Serum/plasma LNG concentrations decreased with increasing body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Among the contraceptives examined, COC had the highest and LNG-IUSs the lowest systemic exposure to LNG. Systemic LNG concentration was inversely correlated to body weight.

The effect of laquinimod, a novel immuno-modulator in development to treat Huntington disease, on the pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel in healthy young women.

PURPOSE: Laquinimod is an orally dosed immuno-modulator currently under development for Huntington's disease (HD). Preclinical findings suggest potential teratogenicity of laquinimod, thus the reproductive ability of females with HD treated with laquinimod needs to be closely managed. Because combined oral contraceptives (COC) are often used in this context, the pharmacokinetics of COC containing ethinylestradiol (EE) and levonorgestrel (LNG) in combination with laquinimod (0.6 mg/day) was evaluated. METHODS: In this randomized, phase-1 single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover drug-drug interaction (DDI) study in 48 healthy premenopausal women, COC were administered in a 28-day regimen of 21 days followed by 7 pill-free days for 4 cycles and laquinimod or placebo was administered for 28 days in cycle 1 and cycle 3 starting 7 days prior to COC administration. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic profiling of laquinimod, EE and LNG were collected on day 21 and day 22 of Cycles 1 and 3 pre-dose and multiple times post-dose. RESULTS: The ratio of geometric means and 90% confidence intervals for AUC0-24 and Cmax of EE and LNG with and without laquinimod were all within the bioequivalence range (80 to 125%). Laquinimod pharmacokinetics was consistent with those observed in previous studies. The adverse event profile was in line with the current knowledge on the safety profile of both drugs, with headache as the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: The combination of COC and laquinimod treatment was found to be safe, tolerable, and devoid of any noticeable pharmacokinetic interaction.

Effect of letermovir on levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol pharmacokinetics
.

OBJECTIVE: Letermovir is an inhibitor of the terminase complex of cytomegalovirus (CMV) used as prophylactic therapy in CMV-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. As the combination oral contraceptive (COC) levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol (LNG/EE) may be coadministered in this target transplant population, the effects of letermovir on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of LNG and EE were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a phase I, open-label, fixed-sequence, two-period study conducted in healthy women (18 - 65 years old) of non-childbearing potential (protocol number: MK-8228 035). On day 1 of period 1, participants received a single dose of COC (LNG 0.15 mg/EE 0.03 mg). Following a 7-day washout, oral letermovir 480 mg was administered once-daily on days 1 - 12 of period 2, with a single dose of COC coadministered on day 8. Blood samples were collected to determine LNG and EE PK, and safety was assessed. RESULTS: The AUC0-∞ geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for COC + letermovir/COC alone were 1.36 (1.30, 1.43) for LNG and 1.42 (1.32, 1.52) for EE, indicating that letermovir coadministration increased COC exposure. Coadministration had no clinically-meaningful effect on Cmax, tmax, or apparent terminal T1/2 for either LNG or EE. All treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Letermovir coadministration with COC resulted in an increase in LNG and EE exposure in healthy adult women; however, levels were within the established safety margins. There was no decrease in LNG or EE exposure with no apparent risk of contraceptive failure on coadministration of letermovir and COC.
.

Drug interactions between rifamycin antibiotics and hormonal contraception: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rifamycin antibiotics are commonly used for treatment of tuberculosis, but may reduce the effectiveness of hormonal contraception (HC). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether interactions between rifamycins and HC result in decreased effectiveness or increased toxicity of either therapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov through May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials, cohort, and case-control studies addressing pregnancy rates, pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetic (PK) outcomes when HC and rifamycins were administered together versus apart. Of 7291 original records identified, 11 met inclusion criteria after independent review by two authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently abstracted study details and assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading system. Findings are reported descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: Studies only addressed combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and none reported pregnancy rates. Quality ranged from good to poor. Rifampin increased the frequency of ovulation in two of four studies, and reduced estrogen and/or progestin exposure in five studies. Rifabutin led to smaller PK changes than rifampin in two studies. In one study each, rifaximin and rifalazil did not alter hormone PK. CONCLUSIONS: No studies evaluated pregnancy risk or non-oral HCs. PK and ovulation outcomes support a clinically concerning drug interaction between COCs and rifampin, and to a lesser extent rifabutin. Data are limited for other rifamycins. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Rifampin and rifabutin reduce systemic exposure of oral contraceptives, but no studies have evaluated pregnancy risk.

No clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interaction between the hepatitis C virus inhibitors elbasvir and grazoprevir and the oral contraceptives ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel.

PURPOSE: Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are an important element of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment in women of childbearing potential. These studies evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetic interactions between elbasvir (EBR) and grazoprevir (GZR) and ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel (EE/LNG). METHODS: Both studies were open-label, single-site, two-period, fixed-sequence, one-way interaction studies. In period 1, subjects received one tablet of EE/LNG (0.03 mg/0.15 mg). In period 2, subjects received EBR (50 mg once daily) for 13 days or GZR (200 mg once daily) for 10 days, with one tablet of EE/LNG on day 7 (GZR group) or 10 (EBR group). Each study enrolled 20 healthy, nonsmoking adult females. RESULTS: There was no clinically meaningful effect of multiple doses of EBR or GZR on the pharmacokinetics of EE or LNG. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for AUC0-∞ and Cmax in the presence and absence of EBR were 1.01 and 1.10 for EE and 1.14 and 1.02 for LNG, with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) that were contained in the interval [0.80, 1.25]. Similarly, the AUC0-∞ and Cmax GMRs in the presence and absence of GZR were 1.10 and 1.05 for EE and 1.23 and 0.93 for LNG, respectively. The 90% CIs for EE AUC0-∞ and for EE and LNG Cmax were contained in the interval [0.80, 1.25]; however, the 90% CI for the LNG AUC0-∞ [1.15, 1.32] slightly exceeded the upper bound. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that EBR/GZR can be co-administered to female patients with HCV of childbearing potential who are on OCPs to prevent pregnancy.

The sexuological impact of hormonal contraceptives based on their route of administration.

Evidence on the effects of hormonal contraceptives on female sexuality is conflicting. We enrolled 556 women, divided into six groups: two composed of subjects using a combined hormonal contraceptive (COC) containing 0.020 ("COC20") and 0.030 ("COC30") mg of ethynyl estradiol (EE), "natural", using COC containing 1.5 mg of estradiol (E2), "ring", using a vaginal ring releasing each day 0.015 mg of EE + 0.120 of etonogestrel, "subcutaneous", using a progestin only subcutaneous contraceptive implant releasing etonogestrel and "controls", using no hormonal contraceptive methods. The subjects were required to answer to the McCoy female sexuality questionnaire and were subjected to a blood test for hormonal evaluation. An ultrasound evaluation of the dorsal clitoral artery was also performed. The higher McCoy sexological value were recorded in the subdermal group; significant differences were recorded among the groups in terms of hormone distribution, with the higher levels of androstenedione in subdermal and control groups. The ultrasound evaluation of dorsal clitoral artery shows a significative correlation between pulsatility and resistance indices and orgasm parameters of McCoy questionnaire. The recorded difference in the sexual and hormonal parameters among the studied hormonal contraceptives may guide toward the personalization of contraceptive choice.

No. 329-Canadian Contraception Consensus Part 4 of 4 Chapter 9: Combined Hormonal Contraception.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for health care providers on the use of contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy and on the promotion of healthy sexuality. OUTCOMES: Overall efficacy of cited contraceptive methods, assessing reduction in pregnancy rate, safety, and side effects; the effect of cited contraceptive methods on sexual health and general well-being; and the availability of cited contraceptive methods in Canada. EVIDENCE: Medline and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles in English on subjects related to contraception, sexuality, and sexual health from January 1994 to December 2015 in order to update the Canadian Contraception Consensus published February-April 2004. Relevant Canadian government publications and position papers from appropriate health and family planning organizations were also reviewed. VALUES: The quality of the evidence is rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations for practice are ranked according to the method described in this report. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Modulation of nociceptive threshold by combined hormonal contraceptives in women with oestrogen-withdrawal migraine attacks: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Menstrually-related headache and headaches associated with oestrogen withdrawal are common conditions, whose pathophysiology has not been completely elucidated. In this study we evaluated the influence of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) on pain threshold in women presenting migraine attacks during hormone-free interval. FINDINGS: Eleven women with migraine attacks recurring exclusively during the oestrogen-withdrawal period were studied with the nociceptive flexion reflex, a neurophysiological assessment of the pain control systems, during the third week of active treatment and during the hormone-free interval. During the hormone-free interval, nociceptive withdrawal reflex threshold was significantly lower (12.8 ± 8.0 mA) as compared to the third week of hormonal treatment (15.6 ± 6.6 mA) (p = 0.02). No change was observed in the pain perceived and in the temporal summation. CONCLUSIONS: Oestrogen withdrawal may mediate an increased sensitivity to somatosensory stimuli in women with migraine attacks recurring during the hormone-free interval.

Effect of the hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor faldaprevir on the pharmacokinetics of an oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel in healthy female volunteers.

Faldaprevir is a potent hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor. Faldaprevir is known to inhibit P-glycoprotein, CYP3A4, and UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1. This study evaluated the effect of steady-state 240 mg faldaprevir on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of an oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol (EE) and levonorgestrel (LNG) in healthy premenopausal women. In period 1, subjects received EE/LNG once daily (QD) for 14 days. Blood samples were taken on days 1, 11, and 12, with intensive PK blood sampling for EE and LNG on day 13. In period 2, subjects received EE-LNG QD and 240 mg faldaprevir QD on days 14 to 21 (240 mg faldaprevir twice daily on day 14). Blood samples were taken on days 14, 19, and 20, with PK profiling samples obtained for EE and LNG on day 21. A total of 15/16 subjects completed the study. Overall, EE and LNG exposure (assessed by the area under the curve) was approximately 1.4-fold higher when EE and LNG were coadministered with faldaprevir than when administered alone. Median t1/2 (terminal half-life in plasma at steady state) values were prolonged for both EE (2.4 h longer) and LNG (4.7 h longer) when EE and LNG were coadministered with faldaprevir. The mean oral clearance and apparent volume of distribution of both EE and LNG were lower (∼ 30%) when EE and LNG were coadministered with faldaprevir. Coadministration of faldaprevir and an oral contraceptive resulted in a moderate increase in exposure to both EE and LNG. However, this increase was not considered clinically meaningful, and no dose adjustment of oral contraceptives was deemed necessary. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01570244.).

Estimating systemic exposure to ethinyl estradiol from an oral contraceptive.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare single-dose pharmacokinetics of ethinyl estradiol in an oral contraceptive with steady-state values and to assess whether any simpler measures could provide an adequate proxy of the "gold standard" 24-hour steady-state area under the curve (AUC) value. Identification of a simple, less expensive measure of systemic ethinyl estradiol exposure would be useful for larger studies that are designed to assess the relationship between an individual's ethinyl estradiol exposure and side-effects. STUDY DESIGN: We collected 13 samples over 24 hours for pharmacokinetic analysis on days 1 and 21 of the first cycle of a monophasic oral contraceptive that contained 30 µg ethinyl estradiol and 150 µg levonorgestrel in 17 nonobese healthy white women. We also conducted an abbreviated single-dose 9-sample pharmacokinetic analysis after a month washout. Ethinyl estradiol was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. We compared results of a full 13-sample steady-state pharmacokinetic analysis with results that had been calculated with the use of fewer samples (9 or 5) and after the single doses. We calculated Pearson correlation coefficients to evaluate the relationships between these estimates of systemic ethinyl estradiol exposure. RESULTS: The AUC, maximum, and 24-hour values were similar after the 2 single oral contraceptive doses (AUC; r=0.92). The steady-state 13-sample 24-hour AUC value was correlated highly with the average 9-sample AUC value after the 2 single doses (r=0.81; P=.0002). This correlation remained the same if the number of single-dose samples was reduced to 4, taken at time 1, 2.5, 4, and 24 hours. The 24-hour value at steady-state was correlated highly with the 24-hour steady-state AUC value (r=0.92; P<.0001). The average of the 24-hour values after the 2 single doses was also correlated quite highly with the steady-state AUC value (r=0.72; P=.0026). CONCLUSION: Limited blood sampling, including results from 2 single doses, gave highly correlated estimates of an oral contraceptive user's steady-state ethinyl estradiol exposure.

Dolutegravir Has No Effect on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Contraceptives With Norgestimate and Ethinyl Estradiol.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay; ViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, NC) is an HIV-1-unboosted integrase inhibitor with no cytochrome P450 or uridine 5'diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase inhibition or induction. As DTG is administered to HIV-1-infected women receiving oral contraceptives, assessing the potential for drug interactions was warranted. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of DTG on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of a common oral contraceptive, norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol (NGM/EE; Ortho-Cyclen; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Raritan, NJ). METHODS: This randomized, 2-period, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted within 1 menstrual cycle at 1 clinical center in the United States; 16 women were enrolled. Participants received NGM 0.25 mg/EE 0.035 mg throughout the study. During days 1 to 10, they were randomized to receive twice-daily DTG 50 mg or matching placebo with food and switched to the other treatment during days 12 to 21. RESULTS: Ratios of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 until end of the dosage interval (AUC0-τ), maximum plasma concentration, and concentration at the end of the dosage interval of norelgestromin with DTG treatment to the same PK parameters with placebo treatment were 0.975, 0.890, and 0.932, respectively; for EE, ratios were 1.03, 0.99, and 1.02, respectively. No significant differences in luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and progesterone were detected on days 1, 10, 11, 21, and 22. DTG steady-state AUC0-τ was similar to historical data. No severe or grade 3/4 adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: DTG had no effect on NGM/EE PK or PD. NGM/EE can be administered with DTG without dose adjustment.

Effect of pradigastat, a diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics of a combination oral contraceptive in healthy female subjects.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between pradigastat, a potent and selective diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 inhibitor, and Levora-28®, a combination oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 µg ethinylestradiol (EE) and 150 µg levonorgestrel (LVG). METHODS: An open-label, single-sequence three-period (period 1, single dose of COC; period 2, pradigastat 100 mg x 3 days followed by 40 mg x 7 days; and period 3, both pradigastat 40 mg and a single dose of COC) study involving 24 healthy female subjects of childbearing potential was conducted. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic parameters of EE were similar when administered alone or in combination with pradigastat, as the 90% confidence interval (CI) of geometric mean ratios for EE exposure (AUC and C(max)) were all within the range of 0.80 - 1.25. The AUC(∞), AUC(last), and C(max) of LVG were slightly increased in the presence of pradigastat, the geometric mean ratios (90% CI) were 1.25 (1.16, 1.35), 1.24 (1.15, 1.34), and 1.16 (1.06, 1.27), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pradigastat did not elicit clinically relevant changes in the magnitude of Levora-28® exposure. Therefore, dose adjustment is not required for Levora-28® when co-administered with pradigastat.

Effect of mavoglurant (AFQ056), a selective mGluR5 antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel in healthy women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of a combination oral contraceptive (OC) when given alone or concomitantly with the selective metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonist mavoglurant (AFQ056). METHODS: This open-label, fixed-sequence, two-period study included 30 healthy female subjects aged 18-40 years. In period 1, a single oral dose of an OC containing 30 µg ethinyl estradiol (EE)/150 µg levonorgestrel (LNG) was administered alone. In period 2, the OC was administered with a clinically relevant multiple dose of mavoglurant 100 mg b.i.d. under steady-state conditions. Plasma concentrations of EE and LNG were measured up to 72 hours post administration, and the PK parameters Cmax and AUClast were estimated using noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios of EE Cmax and AUClast obtained with and without mavoglurant were 0.97 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-1.06) and 0.94 (90% CI: 0.86-1.03), respectively. The corresponding Cmax and AUClast for LNG were 0.81 (90% CI: 0.75-0.87) and 0.68 (90% CI: 0.63-0.73), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, EE PK was unchanged, whereas Cmax and AUClast of LNG were 19% and 32% lower, respectively, when given with mavoglurant Further investigation regarding the impact on contraceptive efficacy is warranted.

Effect of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptives, warfarin, and digoxin in healthy participants.

OBJECTIVE: Drug-drug interactions between canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor approved for the management of type-2 diabetes mellitus, and an oral contraceptive (OC), warfarin, and digoxin were evaluated in three phase 1 studies in healthy participants. METHODS: All studies were open-label; study 1 included a fixed-sequence design, and studies 2 and 3 used a crossover design. Regimens were: study 1: OC (levonorgestrel (150 µg) + ethinyl estradiol (30 µg))/day (day 1), canagliflozin 200 mg/day (days 4 - 8), and canagliflozin with OC (day 9); study 2: canagliflozin 300 mg/day (days 1 - 12) with warfarin 30 mg/day (day 6) in period 1, and only warfarin 30 mg/day (day 1) in period 2, or vice versa; study 3: digoxin alone (0.5 mg/day (day 1) + 0.25 mg/day (days 2 - 7)) in period 1, and with canagliflozin 300 mg/day (days 1 - 7) in period 2, or vice versa. Pharmacokinetics (PK) were assessed at prespecified intervals; OC: days 1 and 9, canagliflozin: days 8 - 9 (study 1); warfarin: days 6 (period 1) and 1 (period 2) (study 2); and digoxin: days 5 - 7 (periods 1 and 2) (study 3). Warfarin's pharmacodynamics (PD; International Normalized Ratio (INR)) was assessed on days 6 (period 1) and 1 (period 2). RESULTS: Canagliflozin increased the plasma exposure of OC (maximum plasma concentration (Cmax): 22%, area under the curve (AUC): 6%) and digoxin (Cmax: 36%, AUC: 20%); but did not alter warfarin'€™s PK and PD. No clinically relevant safety findings (including hypoglycemia) were noted. CONCLUSION: Canagliflozin can be coadministered with OC, warfarin, or digoxin without dose adjustments. All treatments were well-tolerated.

Unique effects on hepatic function, lipid metabolism, bone and growth endocrine parameters of estetrol in combined oral contraceptives.

OBJECTIVES: Estetrol (E4) is a natural estrogen produced by the human fetal liver. In combination with drospirenone (DRSP) or levonorgestrel (LNG), E4 blocks ovulation and has less effect on haemostatic biomarkers in comparison with ethinylestradiol (EE) combined with DRSP. This study evaluates the impact of several doses of E4/DRSP and E4/LNG on safety parameters such as liver function, lipid metabolism, bone markers and growth endocrine parameters. METHODS: This was a dose-finding, single-centre, controlled study performed in healthy women aged 18 to 35 years with a documented pretreatment ovulatory cycle. Participants received 5 mg or 10 mg E4/3 mg DRSP; 5 mg, 10 mg or 20 mg E4/150 µg LNG; or 20 µg EE/3 mg DRSP as a comparator for three consecutive cycles in a 24/4-day regimen. Changes from baseline to end of treatment in liver parameters, lipid metabolism, bone markers and growth endocrinology were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 109 women were included in the study. Carrier proteins were minimally affected in the E4/DRSP and E4/LNG groups, in comparison with the EE/DRSP group, where a significant increase in sex hormone-binding globulin was observed. Similarly, minor effects on lipoproteins were observed in the E4 groups, and the effects on triglycerides elicited by the E4 groups were significantly lower than those in the EE/DRSP group. No imbalances in bone markers were observed in any groups. No alterations in insulin-like growth factor were observed in the E4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: E4-containing combinations have a limited effect on liver function, lipid metabolism, and bone and growth endocrine parameters.

Effects of ponesimod, a selective S1P1 receptor modulator, on the pharmacokinetics of a hormonal combination contraceptive.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of steady-state concentrations of the selective S1P1 receptor modulator ponesimod on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a single dose of a combined oral contraceptive, containing 1 mg norethisterone (NET) and 35 µg ethinyl estradiol (EE) and to investigate the effects on heart rate at different ponesimod doses within an up-titration regimen prior to co-administration of the contraceptive. METHODS: Twenty-two healthy women (age: 29-60 years) received twice a single oral dose of the combined oral contraceptive, alone or in combination with multiple doses of 40 mg ponesimod attained by an up-titration regimen. Heart rate (HR) effects were assessed on the first day of each up-titration level. PK parameters of NET and EE were determined by non-compartmental analysis. RESULTS: Geometric mean ratios (ponesimod and contraceptive / contraceptive alone) of Cmax and AUC0-24 of NET were 0.87 (90 % CI: 0.80, 0.94) and 0.84 (90 % CI: 0.76, 0.93), respectively. Geometric mean ratios of Cmax and AUC0-24 of EE were 0.94 (90 % CI: 0.86, 1.03) and 0.95 (90 % CI: 0.89, 1.01), respectively. The maximum mean HR reduction after the first dose of 10 mg ponesimod was 12.4 bpm (SD ± 6.2) at 2.5 h post-dose. On Day 4 (first dose of 20 mg) and Day 7 (first dose of 40 mg) the maximum mean HR reduction was 4.3 bpm (SD ± 5.7) and 1.4 (SD ± 6.4), respectively, at 2.5 h post-dose compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: No clinically relevant PK interactions between ponesimod and the combined oral contraceptive were observed, therefore, efficacy of hormonal contraceptives is not expected to be affected by concomitant administration of ponesimod. The up-titration regimen showed that HR reductions are diminished upon repeated ponesimod administration.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between the hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor, boceprevir, and the oral contraceptive ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine drug interactions between boceprevir, a hepatitis C virus NS3/4A protease inhibitor, and a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norethindrone (NE). METHODS: A single-center, open-label study was conducted in 20 healthy female volunteers. In three consecutive 28-day treatment periods, subjects received EE/NE (0.035 mg/1 mg; 21 days on, 7 days off). During period 3, subjects also received boceprevir (800 mg three times daily) for 28 days. RESULTS: Coadministration of boceprevir with EE/NE did not affect NE AUC0-24 but slightly reduced NE C max. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for NE AUC0-24 and C max with EE/NE alone and EE/NE plus boceprevir were 0.96 (90% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-1.06) and 0.83 (90% CI, 0.76-0.90). Coadministration of boceprevir with EE/NE reduced EE AUC0-24 and C max by 26 and 21%, with GMRs of 0.74 (90% CI, 0.68-0.80) and 0.79 (90% CI, 0.75-0.84). Boceprevir had no effect on mid-cycle luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), or sex hormone-binding globulin levels, and progesterone concentrations remained <1 ng/ml during the luteal phase. Adverse events reported in this study were consistent with the well-established safety profile of boceprevir. CONCLUSION: Serum progesterone, LH, and FSH levels indicate that ovulation was suppressed during coadministration of boceprevir with EE/NE. Coadministration of boceprevir with combined oral contraceptives containing EE and ≥1 mg of NE is therefore unlikely to alter contraceptive effectiveness. The ovulation suppression activity of oral contraceptives containing lower doses of NE, and of other forms of hormonal contraception during coadministration with boceprevir, has not been established.

Pharmacokinetic overview of ethinyl estradiol dose and bioavailability using two transdermal contraceptive systems and a standard combined oral contraceptive.

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, nonobese 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.