Algorithm of Transvaginal Ultrasound and/or Hysterosalpingogram for Confirmation Testing at 3 Months after Essure Placement.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the algorithm of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) and/or modified hysterosalpingogram (HSG) confirmation testing 3 months after Essure placement to determine if women can rely on the device for permanent birth control. DESIGN: Interim analysis of an ongoing 10-year, prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized, single-arm, international trial (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Twenty study centers in the United States (n = 12), Canada (n = 1), The Netherlands (n = 6), and Spain (n = 1). PATIENTS: Women undergoing the Essure procedure for permanent birth control. INTERVENTIONS: Based on the algorithm for confirmation testing, women with an uncomplicated Essure procedure underwent TVU as the confirmation test; modified HSG was used for women ineligible for TVU, when TVU findings were abnormal or inconclusive, or based on the physician's discretion. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Co-primary endpoints (intention-to-treat [ITT] population) were the reliance rate and the 1-year pregnancy rate. Safety evaluation was based on adverse events. Bilateral insert placement was attempted in 597 women (ITT population) and achieved in 582 of 597 (97.5%). A total of 547 women were told to rely on Essure for permanent birth control. Both co-primary endpoints met prespecified limits: based on Bayesian statistics, the reliance rate was 91.6% (547/597; 95% credible interval, 89.2%-93.6%) and the 1-year pregnancy rate .67% (95% credible interval, .16%-1.53%). Using the algorithm for confirmation testing, of 547 subjects told to rely on Essure, 470 (86%) underwent TVU alone, 30 (6%) had modified HSG alone, and 47 (9%) had TVU followed by modified HSG. Four women became pregnant after being told to rely on Essure. They all had confirmation testing with TVU alone, and each initially read incorrectly as optimal insert locations. In each case postpregnancy follow-up and root cause analysis revealed unsatisfactory insert locations, 2 of which were perforations. Most adverse events were mild and unrelated to Essure. CONCLUSION: The algorithm of TVU and/or modified HSG confirmation testing 3 months after Essure placement can determine that a woman can rely on the device for permanent birth control. The adverse events observed are consistent with the known safety profile of Essure. (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01327105.).

Impact of body mass index on suppression of follicular development and ovulation using a transdermal patch containing 0.55-mg ethinyl estradiol/2.1-mg gestodene: a multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled study over three treatment cycles.

BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) may influence ovulation inhibition resulting from transdermal hormone delivery. Investigation of this effect is important given the high prevalence of obesity in the US. STUDY DESIGN: This open-label, uncontrolled, Phase 2b trial stratified 173 women (18-35 years) according to three BMI groups (Group 1, n = 56, ≤ 30 kg/m²; Group 2, n = 55, > 30 kg/m² and ≤ 35 kg/m²; and Group 3, n = 47, > 35 kg/m²). Women used a contraceptive patch containing 0.55-mg ethinyl estradiol (EE) and 2.1-mg gestodene (GSD). The EE/GSD patch was used weekly for three 28-day cycles (one patch per week for 3 consecutive weeks followed by a 7-day, patch-free interval), and its effect on ovulation was assessed by the Hoogland score, a composite score that comprises transvaginal ultrasound and estradiol (E2) and progesterone levels every 3 days in Cycles 2 and 3. Evaluation of pharmacokinetic parameters was a secondary aim of the study, and blood samples for analytic determination of EE, GSD and sex hormone-binding globulin were taken during the pretreatment cycle, Cycle 2 and Cycle 3. Compliance was assessed using diary information and serum drug levels. RESULTS: In the per-protocol set, there were only six ovulations during the study, and no participant ovulated in both study cycles. One ovulation occurred in Group 1, three in Group 2 and two in Group 3. Ovulation inhibition was unaffected by BMI; in all groups, most participants had Hoogland scores of 1 or 2 (i.e., follicle-like structures < 13 mm: Group 1, ≤ 30 kg/m², 80.0% in Cycle 2, 85.7% in Cycle 3; Group 2, > 30 kg/m² and ≤ 35 kg/m², 61.4% in Cycle 2, 75.0% in Cycle 3; Group 3, > 35 kg/m², 78.0% in Cycle 2, 72.5% in Cycle 3). Serum levels of follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, E2 and progesterone were similar between groups. Body weight had a limited effect on EE clearance that was unlikely to be clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: The EE/GSD patch provided effective ovulation inhibition, even in women with higher BMI. IMPLICATIONS: This is the largest-to-date study of physiologic endpoints and found no clinically important differences in ovarian suppression among obese and normal-weight users of the EE/GSD contraceptive patch, thus providing reassurance that obese women can achieve the same high level of contraceptive protection as normal-weight users.

Efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil in men with mild depression and erectile dysfunction: the depression-related improvement with vardenafil for erectile response study.

OBJECTIVE: Erectile dysfunction and depression are highly associated. Previous studies have shown benefits of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor treatment for erectile dysfunction associated with antidepressant therapy or subsyndromal depression. The present study assessed the safety and efficacy of vardenafil in men with erectile dysfunction and untreated mild depression. METHOD: In this 12-week, multicenter, randomized, flexible-dose, parallel-group, double-blind study, 280 men with erectile dysfunction for at least 6 months and untreated mild major depression received placebo or vardenafil, 10 mg/day, for 4 weeks, with the option to titrate to 5 mg/day or 20 mg/day after each of two consecutive 4-week intervals. Endpoints included International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores. RESULTS: Vardenafil produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in all erectile function parameters. The International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain score was 22.9 with vardenafil compared to 14.9 with placebo. The HAM-D score was lower in the vardenafil group (7.9) than in the placebo group (10.1). Treatment with vardenafil was the most important predictor for return to normal erectile function. Improvement in International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain score was the most important predictor of remission in depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Vardenafil was well tolerated and highly efficacious in men with erectile dysfunction and untreated mild major depression. Significant improvements in erectile function and depression were observed in patients treated with vardenafil versus placebo. Erectile dysfunction treatment should be considered a component of therapy for men with depression and erectile dysfunction.

Women's sexual function improves when partners are administered vardenafil for erectile dysfunction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data concerning the sexual function of women whose male partners receive pharmacological treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). AIM: One objective of this research was to prospectively compare the efficacy of vardenafil vs. placebo administered to men with ED in improving men's and women partners' sexual function and satisfaction. Another goal was to assess the relationship of erectile function changes in men with ED receiving treatment with sexual function changes in women partners not directly receiving treatment. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-institutional comparison of vardenafil vs. placebo was performed in 229 couples (treated man with ED>6 months and untreated woman partner). Co-primary outcomes for which this research was statistically powered were Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP3) (treated man with ED) and Sexual Life Quality Questionnaire (mSLQQ-QOL) (untreated woman partner). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Erectile function changes in men with ED receiving vardenafil vs. placebo were compared at last observation carried forward (LOCF) in SEP3, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) and Erection Quality Scale (EQS). Sexual function at LOCF in women partners was determined by mSLQQ-QOL and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). RESULTS: Compared with placebo at LOCF, vardenafil significantly increased least square (LS) mean scores in: (i) overall per-treated male SEP3 success rate, IIEF-EF, and EQS; and (ii) mSLQQ-QOL, total FSFI and sexual desire, subjective arousal, lubrication, orgasm and satisfaction FSFI domains in untreated women partners. Treatment-related improvement in erectile function as assessed by IIEF-EF and EQS was correlated reliably with improvement in women partners' FSFI total and individual domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Vardenafil is an effective ED treatment in men that also significantly improves sexual function/satisfaction in untreated women partners. Women partners' sexual function improvements relate significantly and consistently to treatment-related improvements in men's erectile function. ED management should emphasize both members of the couple.

Improving the sexual quality of life of couples affected by erectile dysfunction: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of vardenafil.

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) has a dual negative impact on men and their female partners; both are likely to face a drop in sexual quality of life and challenges to their intimate relationship as couples' sexual activities are curtailed by the loss of erectile function. AIM: The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of vardenafil vs. placebo in terms of success of maintenance of erection in men with ED and improvement of their female partner's sexual quality of life. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, flexible-dose, parallel-group comparison of vardenafil vs. placebo for 12 weeks in men (> or =18 years) with ED of > or = 6 months duration, and their female partners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in patient's overall response rate to Sexual Encounter Profile question 3 (SEP3) "Did your erection last long enough for you to have sexual intercourse?" and female partner's response to the quality of life domain of the modified Sexual Life Quality Questionnaire (mSLQQ-QOL) at last observation carried forward (LOCF) were considered the primary efficacy measures. In addition, patient's response to SEP2 "Were you able to insert your penis into your partner's vagina?," the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) and patient's mSLQQ-QOL score were also assessed. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, vardenafil significantly improved overall least square (LS) mean per-patient SEP3 success rate (28% vs. 68%; P < 0.0001) and partner's LS mean (standard error [SE]) mSLQQ-QOL score at LOCF (32.14 [3.24] vs. 65.80 [3.10]; P < 0.0001). In addition, compared with placebo, vardenafil also improved overall LS mean per-patient SEP2 success rate (47% vs. 80%; P < 0.0001), LS mean (SE) IIEF-EF scores at LOCF (12.7 [0.8] vs. 22.8 [0.8]; P < 0.0001) and patient's LS mean (SE) mSLQQ-QOL (28.37 [3.46] vs. 63.85 [3.28]; P < 0.0001) at LOCF. CONCLUSIONS: Vardenafil improved erectile function in men with ED and improved the sexual quality of life of the couple.

Vardenafil improves patient satisfaction with erection hardness, orgasmic function, and overall sexual experience, while improving quality of life in men with erectile dysfunction.

PURPOSE: The North American Pivotal Trial was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of vardenafil in males with erectile dysfunction (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, fixed-dose, parallel group, 6-month study, vardenafil at three doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg) was compared to placebo with the primary efficacy variables being the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Erectile Function (EF) domain score and per patient diary response success rates for penetration and maintenance of erection through completion of intercourse. Additional efficacy variables included IIEF domain scores measuring intercourse satisfaction, orgasmic function, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction. Diary entries for overall per patient satisfaction rates for hardness and sexual experience were also measured. Improvements in quality of sexual life were assessed using the Fugl-Meyer quality of life (QoL) questionnaire. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, patients taking 10 mg and 20 mg doses of vardenafil showed statistically significantly greater improvement in IIEF domain scores measuring intercourse satisfaction (10.3 and 10.3 vs. 7.7), orgasmic function (7.1 and 6.9 vs. 5.3), overall satisfaction. (7.1 and 7.1 vs. 5.2) for vardenafil 10 mg and 20 mg vs. placebo, respectively, at last observation carried forward (LOCF). Vardenafil 5 mg was statistically significantly better than placebo for the secondary IIEF domain variables of intercourse satisfaction (8.9 vs. 7.7) and overall satisfaction (6.3 vs. 5.2) for vardenafil vs. placebo, respectively, at LOCF. Per patient satisfaction rates for the secondary diary variables measuring erection hardness (38%, 52%, 58% and 18%) and overall satisfaction (45%, 58%, 62% and 23%) were dose dependent and statistically significantly superior for vardenafil at 5 mg, 10 mg and 20 mg compared with placebo, respectively. Patients' answers to the Fugl-Meyer QoL questionnaire assessing improvement in sexual life also indicated statistically significant superiority for all doses of vardenafil vs. placebo treatment. The most frequent adverse events (AE) in the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg of vardenafil and placebo groups, respectively, were: headache (10%, 22%, 21% and 4%), flushing (5%, 10%, 13% and 0%), dyspepsia (1%, 4%, 6% and < 1%), and rhinitis (9%, 14%, 17% and 5%). Most AEs were mild or moderate in severity and transient in nature. CONCLUSION: Vardenafil was superior to placebo for IIEF domain scores, per patient success rates for diary questions, and assessment of quality of sexual life, in a broad range of patients with ED irrespective of etiology or severity. Vardenafil was generally well tolerated, with most AEs being mild or moderate in severity and transient in nature.

Vardenafil, a new phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes: a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled fixed-dose study.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of vardenafil treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) in men with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled fixed-dose parallel-group phase III trial, 452 patients with diabetes (type 1 or type 2) and ED were randomized to take 10 or 20 mg vardenafil or placebo as needed for 12 weeks. Efficacy responses were assessed by International Index of Erectile Function domain scores, rates of vaginal penetration and successful intercourse, and a global assessment question (GAQ) about erection improvement during the previous 4 weeks. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, a dose-dependent (P = 0.02) improvement in erections was noted for the GAQ, with 57 and 72% of men taking 10 mg or 20 mg vardenafil, respectively, reporting improved erections, in contrast to 13% after taking placebo (P < 0.0001). For the erectile function domain, dose-dependent (P = 0.03) final scores for the 10- and 20-mg dose were 17.1 and 19.0 compared with 12.6 for placebo (P < 0.0001). Both vardenafil doses significantly enhanced the rates of successful penetration (P < 0.0001) and successful intercourse (P < 0.0001) compared with placebo. Vardenafil treatment was effective in increasing intercourse success rates at all levels of baseline ED severity, at each level of plasma HbA(1c), and for type 1 and 2 diabetes. Treatment-emergent adverse events were primarily mild to moderate headache (