Phase II dose-finding study on ovulation inhibition and cycle control associated with the use of contraceptive vaginal rings containing 17ß-estradiol and the progestagens etonogestrel or nomegestrol acetate compared to NuvaRing.

PURPOSE: To identify at least one contraceptive vaginal ring that effectively inhibits ovulation and demonstrates cycle control that is non-inferior to NuvaRing® (Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., The Netherlands) in terms of an unscheduled bleeding incidence, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. METHODS: This was a randomised, active controlled, parallel group, multicentre, partially blinded trial in healthy women 18-35 years of age. Subjects received one of six contraceptive vaginal rings with an average daily release rate of 300 µg 17ß-estradiol (E2) and various rates of either etonogestrel (ENG; 75, 100, or 125 µg/day) or nomegestrol acetate (NOMAC; 500, 700, or 900 µg/day), or the active control NuvaRing® (ENG/ethinylestradiol 120/15 µg), for three 28-day cycles. RESULTS: Ovulation inhibition was observed in all groups as confirmed by absence of progesterone concentrations compatible with ovulation (>16 nmol/L) and absence of ultrasound evidence of ovulation. All investigational rings provided good cycle control, with the ENG-E2 125/300 µg/day group being associated with the best cycle control based on the numerically lowest incidence of unscheduled bleeding and absence of scheduled bleeding. Non-inferiority to NuvaRing® with respect to the incidence of unscheduled bleeding could not be concluded for any of the investigational ring groups. The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of combined estrogen/progestin contraceptives and similar across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Contraceptive rings releasing 300 µg E2 and 75-125 µg/day of ENG or 500-900 µg/day of NOMAC provided adequate ovulation inhibition and cycle control and are generally well-tolerated. While non-inferiority to NuvaRing® was not met, among the investigational rings, the ENG-E2 125/300 ring provided the best cycle control.

A randomised study comparing the effect on ovarian activity of a progestogen-only pill (POP) containing desogestrel and a new POP containing drospirenone in a 24/4 regimen.

OBJECTIVES: Progestogen-only pills (POPs) are safer with respect to cardiovascular risks than contraceptives containing estrogens. Despite the increased contraceptive efficacy of a desogestrel-only pill compared with a traditional POP, POPs are still not widely used due to an unpredictable bleeding pattern. A new POP containing 4 mg drospirenone has been developed with a 24/4 intake regimen which may improve the bleeding pattern. The objectives of this study were to investigate ovulation inhibition with the new drospirenone-only pill in comparison with the desogestrel-only pill and, in addition, to assess the effects on cervical mucus permeability and bleeding. METHODS: Sixty-four healthy volunteers with proven ovulatory cycles were randomised and treated with either the drospirenone-only or the desogestrel-only pill during two 28-day cycles. Follicular diameter, endometrial thickness, and serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone concentrations were measured and Hoogland scores were determined. Additionally, cervical mucus scores, bleeding and return of ovulation were assessed. RESULTS: Both treatments effectively inhibited ovulation. Follicular diameter, E2 levels and Hoogland scores were equal, demonstrating efficient ovarian suppression. One subject in each group had a Hoogland score of 6, but the criteria for normal luteal activity were not fulfilled. In both groups, ovulation did not occur before day 9 of the post-treatment cycle. Cervical mucus permeability was suppressed in both groups. The median number of bleeding and spotting days was lower in the drospirenone group. CONCLUSIONS: The new drospirenone-only pill inhibited ovulation as effectively as the desogestrel-only pill despite the 4-day hormone-free interval.

No interacting influence of lavender oil preparation silexan on oral contraception using an ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel combination.

PURPOSE: Silexan is an oral Lavender oil preparation with proven anxiolytic efficacy. Given the high prevalence of anxiety and restlessness in younger women, oral contraceptives and Silexan will likely be co-administered. METHODS: A double-blind, randomised, 2-period crossover study was performed to investigate the effects of Silexan on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of Microgynon(®), a combination oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol 0.03 mg (EE) and levonorgestrel 0.15 mg (LNG) in healthy, fertile, adult females. During 2 consecutive cycles of 28 days, oral contraception was given for 21 days combined with 1 × 160 mg/day Silexan or placebo. Plasma concentration-time profiles of EE and LNG were obtained on day 18 ± 1 up to 24 h after dosing. The primary outcome measure was the area under the concentration-time curve over a dosing interval of τ = 24 h (AUCτ) for EE and LNG plasma levels. An interaction with Silexan was formally excluded if the 90 % confidence interval for the AUCτ ratio during co-administration with Silexan or placebo was included within the range of 0.80-1.25. Secondary outcomes included EE and LNG peak concentration (C max) and time to C max (t max), follicle size, endometrial thickness, the Hoogland score, and serum levels of estradiol, progesterone, and sex hormone-binding globulin. RESULTS: A total of 24 women (mean age 27.3 years; mean body mass index 22.2 kg/m(2)) participated. The confidence intervals for the EE and LNG AUCτ and C max ratios fell within the pre-specified limits, indicating no interaction (point estimates [Silexan/placebo] AUCτ EE 0.97, LNG 0.94; C max EE 0.99, LNG 0.96). For LNG, t max was slightly delayed. No secondary outcome indicated any impairment of contraceptive efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Co-administration of Silexan did not affect the efficacy of a combination oral contraceptive containing EE and LNG and was well tolerated.

Suppression of ovarian activity with a low-dose 21/7-day regimen oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol 20 mcg/drospirenone 3 mg in Japanese and Caucasian women.

BACKGROUND: Two studies assessed the effect of a low-estrogen-dose 21/7-day oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and drospirenone (EE 20 mcg/drsp 3 mg) on ovarian activity in Japanese and Caucasian women. STUDY DESIGN: Study 1 was conducted in Japanese women (20-35 years), and Study 2 was conducted in Caucasian women (18-35 years). All women received EE 20 mcg/drsp 3 mg in a 21-day active pill regimen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women with ovulation inhibition (Hoogland score <6; as assessed by transvaginal ultrasonography) during treatment cycle 2. RESULTS: Japanese (n=23) and Caucasian (n=30) women received two cycles of study treatment. During treatment cycle 2, ovulation was inhibited in 100% and 92.9% of Japanese and Caucasian women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EE 20 mcg/drsp 3 mg in a 21/7-day regimen provides comparable ovarian suppression in Japanese and Caucasian women, with normal ovarian function resuming shortly after treatment end in both populations.