Search

Sanjay K Agarwal,1 Sukhbir S Singh,2 David F Archer,3 Yabing Mai,4 Kristof Chwalisz,5 Keith Gordon,6 Eric Surrey7 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Center for Endometriosis Research and Treatment, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; 2Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA; 4 Statistics, AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA; 5Clinical Development, AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA; 6Medical Affairs, AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA; 7Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, Lone Tree, CO, USACorrespondence: Sanjay K AgarwalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Center for Endometriosis Research and Treatment, UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, #0633, La Jolla, CA, USATel +1 (858) 534-8930Email skagarwal@ucsd.eduObjective: In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of elagolix on dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain across menstrual period (bleeding days) and nonmenstrual (nonbleeding) days.Methods: Data from two randomized, 6-month, placebo-controlled trials (Elaris Endometriosis (EM)-I and EM-II) of elagolix (150 mg once daily (QD) and 200 mg twice daily (BID)) in premenopausal women with moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain (N = 1686) were pooled. Women recorded the presence of menstrual period and severity of dysmenorrhea or nonmenstrual pelvic pain in a daily electronic diary.Results: At baseline, women in the placebo group and both elagolix treatment groups reported moderate or severe dysmenorrhea, on average, 81% of their menstrual period days and moderate/severe nonmenstrual pelvic pain, on average, 56% of their nonmenstrual (nonbleeding) days. Compared with placebo at month 6, elagolix-treated women had a significantly lower mean (standard deviation (SD)) percentage of menstrual period days with moderate or severe dysmenorrhea (elagolix 150 mg QD = 52.4 (38.9), p = 0.002; elagolix 200 mg BID = 38.5 (43.6), p < 0.001, placebo = 61.3 (33.7)) and a significantly lower mean (SD) percentage of nonmenstrual (nonbleeding) days with moderate or severe nonmenstrual pelvic pain (elagolix 150 mg QD = 31.1 (35.8), p < 0.001; elagolix 200 mg BID = 19.7 (29.9), p < 0.001; placebo = 35.6 (33.9)).Conclusion: Following 6 months of elagolix treatment, women who still menstruated had a lower proportion of menstrual period days with moderate or severe dysmenorrhea compared with placebo, demonstrating pain reduction despite continued menses. Additionally, pain did not shift from dysmenorrhea to nonmenstrual pelvic pain, as the percentage of days with moderate or severe nonmenstrual pelvic pain was also reduced for elagolix-treated women compared with placebo.Trial Registration: The Elaris EM-I study is registered with the US National Library of Medicine, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01620528. The Elaris EM-II study is registered with the US National Library of Medicine, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01931670. Both studies are registered with the EU Clinical Trial Register, www.clinicaltrialsregister.ed, 2011-004295-11.Keywords: bleeding, dysmenorrhea, elagolix, endometriosis, nonmenstrual pelvic pain

You can help patients make informed decisions by providing counseling on menopausal changes and therapeutic options. Lower hormone dosages are a significant trend, although controversy exists on whether to prescribe cyclic or continuous combined therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

You can help patients make informed decisions by providing counseling on menopausal changes and therapeutic options. Lower hormone dosages are a significant trend, although controversy exists on whether to prescribe cyclic or continuous combined therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

You can help patients make informed decisions by providing counseling on menopausal changes and therapeutic options. Lower hormone dosages are a significant trend, although controversy exists on whether to prescribe cyclic or continuous combined therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate ovulation risk among women enrolling in an emergency contraception (EC) study by measuring contraceptive steroids and ovarian hormones., Study Design: We used standard chemiluminescent assays to evaluate endogenous hormones (estradiol, progesterone, follicle stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone) and liquid chromatography-tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry to simultaneously analyze concentrations of ethinylestradiol, dienogest, norelgestromin (NGMN), norethindrone (NET), gestodene, levonorgestrel (LNG), etonogestrel (ENG), segesterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and drospirenone in serum samples obtained at the time of enrollment in a recent study comparing oral ulipristal acetate and LNG EC in women with weight ≥80 kg reporting no recent use of hormonal contraception., Results: We enrolled 532 and obtained a valid baseline blood sample from 520 women. Of these, 117 (22.5%) had detectable concentrations of progestin (MPA [n = 58, 11.2%], LNG [50, 9.6%], ENG [11, 2.1%], NET [5, 0.96%], NGMN [3, 0.06%], or drospirenone [1, 0.02%]). LNG was co-detected in all three participants with samples containing NGMN. Multiple progestins were detected in eight other women: ENG/MPA (1), ENG/LNG (2), and MPA/LNG (5). Samples from 55 (10.6%) had concentrations of one or more progestin considered above the minimum level for contraceptive (MPA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL, n = 19; NGMN/LNG ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, n = 31; ENG ≥ 0.09 ng/mL, n = 8; NET ≥ 0.35 ng/mL, n = 4). We detected concentrations of serum progesterone ≥ 3 ng/mL, indicative of luteal phase (postovulation) status, in an additional 194 (37.3%) samples., Conclusions: More than one-third of enrolled in our clinical trial of oral EC had evidence of prior ovulation at the time of enrollment. Additionally, about 23% had evidence of recent use of hormonal contraception. These results would have decreased the expected risk of pregnancy in the study., Implications: Many participants in a recent clinical trial of oral emergency contraception did not appear to be at risk for pregnancy or would not have benefited from intervention due to cycle timing. Investigators should consider the effects of these findings on expected pregnancy rates when determining sample size in future EC clinical trials, particularly when using noninferiority designs or historical controls., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of emergency contraception (EC) regimens used within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse in individuals weighing ≥80 kg., Study Design: We enrolled reproductive-aged healthy women in a multicenter, single-blind, randomized study of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (LNG1X) and 3.0 mg (LNG2X) and ulipristal acetate 30 mg (UPA) (enrollment goal 1200). Key eligibility requirements included regular cycles, weight >/= 80kg, unprotected intercourse within 72 hours, no recent use of hormonal contraception, a negative urine pregnancy test (UPT), and willingness to abstain from intercourse until next menses. To assess our primary outcome of incidence of pregnancy, participants completed home UPTs; if no menses by 2-weeks post-treatment, or a positive UPT, they returned for an in-person visit with quantitative serum human chorionic gonadotropin and ultrasound., Results: We enrolled and randomized 532; 44 were not dosed or not evaluable for primary end point, leaving an analyzable sample of 488 (173 LNG1X, 158 LNG2X, 157 UPA) with similar demographics between groups (mean age 29.6 years [5.74], body mass index 37.09 kg/m 2 [6.95]). Five pregnancies occurred (LNG1X n = 1, LNG2X n = 1, UPA n = 3); none occurred during the highest at-risk window (day of ovulation and the 3 days prior). We closed the study before achieving our enrollment goal because the low pregnancy rate in all groups established futility based on an interim blinded analysis., Conclusions: Although slow enrollment limited our study power, we found no differences in pregnancy rates between EC regimens among women weighing 80 kg or more. Our results are not able to refute or support differences between the treatment arms., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clincialtrials.gov Clinical trials#: NCT03537768., Implications: Women weighing 80 kg or more experienced no differences in pregnancy rates between oral EC regimens but due to several significant study limitations including sample size and the lack of a study population at high risk of pregnancy, our results are not able to determine if differences in treatment effectiveness exist., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the role of PGE 2 in regulating plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in human primary endometrial endothelial cells (HEECs) from women with normal menstrual bleeding (NMB) and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB)., Design: In vitro study using endometrial endothelial cells., Setting: Research laboratory setting., Patients: Women with NMB and HMB provided endometrial biopsy samples., Interventions: Prostaglandin E 2 and PGE 2 receptor-selective agonists were administered to cultured HEECs., Main Outcome Measures: Levels of PAI-1 and tPA in NMB-HEECs and HMB-HEECs after treatment with PGE 2 and receptor-selective agonists., Results: Prostaglandin E 2 increased total PAI-1 levels in NMB-HEECs, but not in HMB-HEECs, which had higher baseline PAI-1 levels. PGE 2 receptors (PTGER)1 and PTGER2 agonists increased PAI-1 in NMB-HEECs, whereas PTGER3 and PTGER4 did not. Prostaglandin E 2 had no effect on tPA levels in either NMB-HEECs or HMB-HEECs., Conclusions: Prostaglandin E 2 , through PTGER1 and PTGER2, regulates the plasminogen activator system in NMB-HEECs, suggesting a role in reducing fibrinolytic activity during normal menstrual cycles. The lack of PGE 2 effect and elevated baseline PAI-1 in HMB-HEECs support using this in vitro model to further understand prostaglandin pathways in NMB and HMB., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests S.S. and T.A.J. report funding from Jones Family Foundation, Eastern Virginia Medical School and Commonwealth Health Research Board for the submitted work. D.M.D. reports funding from Jones Family Foundation, Eastern Virginia Medical School and Commonwealth Health Research Board for the submitted work; funding from NIH, Organon & Co. (product donation – no direct financial support), Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, and American Heart Association; consulting fees from InnovaGyn Inc; InnovaGyn Inc, Chief Science Officer member of the Board of Directors; Society for the Study of Reproduction, Chair, Development Committee unpaid; Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Chair, Meetings Committee unpaid; and stock options from InnovaGyn Inc. outside the submitted work. D.F.A. reports funding from Jones Family Foundation, Eastern Virginia Medical School and Commonwealth Health Research Board for the submitted work; grant support for research from Jones Family Foundation at Eastern Virginia Medical School; and stock options as CEO of InnovaGyn, Inc outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the aim to shorten the time for diagnosis and accelerate access to correct management, a non-invasive diagnostic test for endometriosis was developed and validated. The IVD test combines an ELISA test kit to quantify CA125 and BDNF concentrations in serum and a data treatment algorithm hosted in medical software processing results from the ELISA test and responses to six clinical variables. Serum samples and clinical variables extracted from psychometric questionnaires from 77 patients were collected from the Oxford Endometriosis CaRe Centre biobank (UK). Case/control classification was performed based on laparoscopy and histological verification of the excised lesions. Biomarkers serum concentrations and clinical variables were introduced to the software, which generates the qualitative diagnostic result ("positive" or "negative"). This test allowed the detection of 32% of cases with superficial endometriosis, which is an added value given the limited efficacy of existing imaging techniques. Even in the presence of various confounding medical conditions, the test maintained a specificity of 100%, supporting its suitability for use in patients with underlying medical conditions.

Objective: The aim of the study is to identify appropriate definitions and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for each of the eight core outcomes previously selected for genitourinary symptoms associated with menopause: pain with sex, vulvovaginal dryness, vulvovaginal discomfort or irritation, discomfort or pain when urinating, change in most bothersome symptom, distress, bother or interference of genitourinary symptoms, satisfaction with treatment, and side effects., Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify possible definitions and PROMs, including their measurement properties. Identified definitions and relevant PROMs with acceptable measurement properties were entered into an international consensus process involving 28 participants from 10 countries to achieve final recommendations for each core outcome., Results: A total of 87 publications reporting on 34 PROMs were identified from 21,207 publications screened. Of these 34 PROMs, 29 were not considered to sufficiently map onto the core outcomes, and 26 of these also had insufficient measurement properties. Therefore, only five PROMs corresponding to two core outcomes were considered for recommendation. We recommend the PROMIS Scale v2.0 - Sexual Function and Satisfaction: Vaginal Discomfort with Sexual Activity to measure the outcome of "pain with sexual activity" and the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA) Questionnaire to measure "distress, bother or interference" from genitourinary symptoms. Six definitions of "side effects" were identified and considered. We recommend that all trials report adverse events in study participants, which is a requirement of Good Clinical Practice., Conclusions: Suitable PROMs and definitions were identified to measure three of eight core outcomes. Because of the lack of existing measures, which align with the core outcomes and have evidence of high-quality measurement properties, future work will focus on developing or validating PROMs for the remaining five core outcomes., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure/conflicts of interest: M.G. received past funding from Effik SA. M.P. received institutional funding from University of Melbourne (Internal Grant Schemes), Royal Women's Hospital (Internal grant scheme), and Cancer Council NSW Project Grant RG 21-06, Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHiRL) Seed Funding and Project Support Grant, NHMRC (APP1163202), and Royal Children's Hospital Foundation. She received past funding from FertilityIQ webinar honorarium. She has received fee registration fees as an invited speaker by the Pacific Society of Reproductive Medicine 2023 Conference and had subsidized flights and accommodations as an invited speaker for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2022 Conference. She was also given free registration as an invited speaker for the Annual Scientific Meeting of Breast Cancer Trials 2021. D.A. has consulted for Evestra, Exeltis, Lupin, Mithra, ObsEva, and TherapeuticsMD, received industry support for research from AbbVie, Mithra, Myovant, and ObsEva, and has stock holdings in Agile Therapeutics and InnovaGyn, Inc. R.B. was named CI on two grants to Monash University, one from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and one from the Medical Research Future Fund for work not related to the current publication. M.C. has been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for AllianceChicago, wrote a White Paper on GSM for Materna (no financial reimbursement), and is a member of The Menopause Society Board of Trustees, FDA BRUDAC Committee, and Grand Rounds Presenter University of Indians. S.R.D. reports honoraria from BesinsHealthcare, Mayne Pharma, Health Ed, BioSyent, Lawley Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, and Que Oncology. She has served on advisory boards for Mayne Pharm, Astellas Pharmaceuticals, Theramex, Abbott Laboratories, and Gedeon Richterand and has been an institutional investigator for QueOncology and Ovoca Bio. L.K. has lectured and/or acted in an advisory capacity for Gedeon Richter, Dr. KADE Besins and Mithra. C.M.M. has served as a consultant for Scynexis and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, receives research funding from Scynexis, and receives Royalties from UpToDate. R.E.N. has ongoing relationships with Abbott, Astellas, Bayer HealthCare AG, Besins Healthcare, Exeltis, Fidia, Gedeon Richter, HRA Pharma, Merck Healthcare, Novo Nordisk, Shionogi Limited, Theramex, and Viatris. N.P. has lectured and/or acted in an advisory capacity for Abbott, Bayer, Besins, Gedeon Richter, Kora, Lawley, Mithra, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, SeCur, Shionogi, Theramex, and Viatris. S.R. has lectured and/or acted in an advisory capacity or conducted studies for Abbott, Bayer, Gedeon Richter, Mylan, Amgen, UCB, Theramex, and Viatris. J.S. receives grant/research support from AbbVie, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC., Dare´ Bioscience, Ipsen, Mylan/Viatris Inc., Myovant Sciences, and Sebela Pharmaceuticals Inc. He acts as a consultant is on advisory boards for Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), Dare´ Bioscience, Femasys Inc., Khyria, Madorra Pty Ltd., Mayne Pharma, Inc., and Vella Bioscience Inc. He serves on speaker's bureaus for Astellas Pharma, Inc., Mayne Pharma, Inc., Myovant Sciences, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Pharmavite LLC., and Scynexis Inc. He is a stockholder (direct purchase) of Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. P.S. has received fees for giving educational presentations, and participating in advisory boards and conducting research by Besins Healthcare, Astellas, Mylan, Labatec, Exeltis, Effik, Theramex, and Gedeon-Richter. A.J.V. has received fees for presentations and participation in an advisory board from Besins and Theramex. W.W. has received institutional support with an unrestricted grant from Pfizer and sits on the advisory boards of Pfizer, Lupin, and Biosyent. She has received fees for educational presentations for Lupin, Astellas, Bayer and Pfizer, and Biosyent. She is currently president of the Canadian Menopause Society and a Board Member of the International Menopause Society. M.H. has received funding from Madorra for a study of a device to manage GU symptoms. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by The Menopause Society.)

Objective: The aim of the study is to identify suitable definitions and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess each of the six core outcomes previously identified through the COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) global consensus process relating to vasomotor symptoms: frequency, severity, distress/bother/interference, impact on sleep, satisfaction with treatment, and side effects., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant definitions for the outcome of side-effects and PROMs with acceptable measurement properties for the remaining five core outcomes. The consensus process, involving 36 participants from 16 countries, was conducted to review definitions and PROMs and make final recommendations for the measurement of each core outcome., Results: A total of 21,207 publications were screened from which 119 reporting on 40 PROMs were identified. Of these 40 PROMs, 36 either did not adequately map onto the core outcomes or lacked sufficient measurement properties. Therefore, only four PROMs corresponding to two of the six core outcomes were considered for recommendation. We recommend the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale to measure the domain of distress, bother, or interference of vasomotor symptoms and to capture impact on sleep (one item in the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale captures interference with sleep). Six definitions of "side effects" were identified and considered. We recommend that all trials report adverse events, which is a requirement of Good Clinical Practice., Conclusions: We identified suitable definitions and PROMs for only three of the six core outcomes. No suitable PROMs were found for the remaining three outcomes (frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms and satisfaction with treatment). Future studies should develop and validate PROMs for these outcomes., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure/conflicts of interest: V.P. received past funding from Sigvaris AG. M.P. received institutional funding from University of Melbourne (Internal Grant Schemes), Royal Women's Hospital (Internal grant scheme), and Cancer Council NSW Project Grant RG 21-06, Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHiRL) Seed Funding and Project Support Grant, NHMRC (APP1163202), and Royal Children's Hospital Foundation. She received past funding from FertilityIQ webinar honorarium. She has received fee registration fees as an invited speaker by the Pacific Society of Reproductive Medicine 2023 Conference and had subsidized flights and accommodations as an invited speaker for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2022 Conference. She was also given free registration as an invited speaker for the Annual Scientific Meeting of Breast Cancer Trials 2021. D.A. has consulted for Evestra, Exeltis, Lupin, Mithra, ObsEva, and TherapeuticsMD, received industry support for research from AbbVie, Mithra, Myovant, and ObsEva, and has stock holdings in Agile Therapeutics, InnovaGyn, Inc. N.A. receives ongoing institutional funding from the National Cancer Institute. J.C. is owner of JSCarpenter, LLC which received scale licensing fees from Mapi Research Trust (2022), consulting fees from the University of Wisconsin (spring 2022), and consulting fees from Simumetrix SMX Health (spring 2022). M.C. has been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for Alliance Chicago, received fees for an educational video and speaking engagements with Fertility IQ, wrote a White Paper on GSM for Materna (no financial reimbursement), and is a member of The Menopause Society Board of Trustees. M.D. receives current institutional funding from National Institute of Health Research. She serves as a chief investigator on POISE study (research relevant to HRT) and a chief investigator for BLUSH study (research on treatment of menopause). She received past institutional funding from Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology as editor of volume on menopause management published 2022. She is an elected member of the Medical Advisory Council of the British Menopause Society, is a member of the ESHRE guideline update group on Premature Ovarian Insufficiency, is a member of the British Endocrine Society working group producing clinical guidelines on estrogen treatment, and is a member of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society working group producing clinical guidelines on HRT. T.H. received past funding from Besins and Astellas. M.H. receives ongoing funding from Rightsteps and current funding from Hello Therapeutics. L.K. has lectured and/or acted in an advisory capacity for Gedeon Richter, Dr. KADE Besins and Mithra. P.M. has received compensation as a member of the scientific advisory board of Astellas, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson; compensation from AbbVie and Pfizer for consulting; and serves as a member of the scientific advisory board and has/had equity in Alloy, Estrigenix, and MidiHealth. She has received speaking fees and travel support from Mithra. R.E.N. has ongoing relationships with Abbott, Astellas, Bayer HealthCare AG, Besins Healthcare, Exeltis, Fidia, Gedeon Richter, HRA Pharma, Merck Healthcare, Novo Nordisk, Shionogi Limited, Theramex, and Viatris. N.P. has lectured and/or acted in an advisory capacity for Abbott, Lawley, Mithra, Novo, SeCur, and Viatris. S.R. has lectured and/or acted in an advisory capacity or conducted studies for Abbott, Bayer, Gedeon Richter, Mylan, Amgen, UCB, Theramex, and Viatris. J.S. receives grant/research support from AbbVie, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC., Dare´ Bioscience; Ipsen, Mylan/Viatris Inc., Myovant Sciences, Sebela Pharmaceuticals Inc. He acts as a consultant is on advisory boards for Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Besins Healthcare, California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), Dare´ Bioscience, Femasys Inc., Khyria, Madorra Pty Ltd., Mayne Pharma, Inc., and Vella Bioscience Inc. He serves on speaker's bureaus for Astellas Pharma, Inc., Mayne Pharma, Inc., Myovant Sciences, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Pharmavite LLC., Scynexis Inc. He is a stockholder (direct purchase) of Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. P.S. has received fees for giving educational presentations, participating in advisory boards and conducting research by Besins Healthcare, Astellas, Mylan, Labatec, Exeltis, Effik, Theramex, and Gedeon-Richter. A.J.V. has received fees for presentations and participation in an advisory board from Besins and Theramex. W.W. has received institutional support with an unrestricted grant from Pfizer and sits on the advisory boards of Pfizer, Lupin, and Biosyent. She has received fees for educational presentations for Lupin, Astellas, Bayer and Pfizer, and Biosyent. She is a board member of the International Menopause Society and the President of the Canadian Menopause Society. M.H. has received funding from Madorra for a study of a device to manage GU symptoms and is a clinical expert for the NICE Menopause Guidelines. J.T.G. is a speaker for NurtureMed Pharma, Bayer Phils, Corbridge Phils, and Zuellig Pharma. P.S. has a research consultancy relationship with Chugai Pharmaceuticals. H.J. receives grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, Merck, and Pfizer and is a consultant to Bayer, Merck, and Hello Therapeutics. She receives in kind support from Sage to her institution (drug provided to support NIH-funded trial), funds from Bayer support a pilot grant program she lead within an NIH-funded Center grant. Her spouse is employed by Arsenal Biosciences and receives equity from Merck Research Labs. N.J. is on the advisory board of Vira Health, UK. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by The North American Menopause Society.)

Attempts have been made over the years to replace ethinyl estradiol (EE) in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) with the less potent natural estrogen estradiol (E 2 ), or its prodrug, E 2 valerate (E 2 V), to improve their safety and tolerability. Recently, a COC incorporating a novel weak natural estrogen, estetrol (E 4 ), combined with drospirenone, has become available. We present a comparative analysis of the three prevailing estrogens used in COCs, focusing on their structure-function relationships, receptor-binding affinity, potency, metabolism, pharmacokinetic parameters, and pharmacodynamics. The binding affinity of EE to estrogen receptor (ER)α is twice that of E 2 , whereas its affinity for ERβ is about one-half that of E 2 . E 4 has a lower binding affinity for the ERs than E 2 . The high potency of EE is notable in its dramatic increase in estrogen-sensitive hepatic globulins and coagulation factors. EE and E 2 undergo extensive and comparable metabolism, while E 4 produces only a very limited number of metabolites. E 4 has the highest bioavailability among the three estrogens, with E 2 having <5%. Studies demonstrate consistent ovulation inhibition, although a higher dose of E 4 (15 mg) in COCs is required to achieve follicular suppression compared to E 2 (1-3 mg) and EE (0.01-0.035 mg). E 2 and E 4 in COCs may be less stimulatory of coagulant proteins than EE. Studies with E 2 /dienogest suggest a comparable risk of venous thromboembolism to EE/levonorgestrel, while data assessing risk with an E 4 -based COC are insufficient. Nevertheless, the E 4 -based formulation shows promise as a potential alternative to EE and E 2 due to its lower potency and possibly fewer side effects., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to compare contraceptive efficacy and safety of drospirenone 4 mg in a 24/4-day regimen in nonobese and obese users and describe pharmacokinetics according to bodyweight., Study Design: We analyzed data from three drospirenone 4 mg trials (2 European and 1 United States) to report outcomes in nonobese (body mass index <30 kg/m 2 ) and obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ) users. We used data from the US trial to calculate the Pearl Index (pregnancies per 100 woman-years) in nonbreastfeeding participants aged ≤35 years at enrollment for confirmed pregnancies. We assessed safety outcomes from all trials based on reported treatment-emergent adverse events. We evaluated pharmacokinetics by bodyweight in the US trial., Results: The three trials combined comprised 2152 nonobese and 425 obese participants, including 590 nonobese and 325 obese participants in the US trial. Eight nonobese and four obese participants had confirmed pregnancies in the US trial, resulting in Pearl Indices of 3.0 (95% CI: 1.3-5.8) and 2.9 (95% CI: 0.8-7.3), respectively. Two-hundred forty-four (11.3%) nonobese and 39 (9.2%) obese participants discontinued due to a treatment-emergent adverse event. The pharmacokinetic analysis included 814 participants with a median weight of 73 (interquartile range 61-89) kg and median plasma drospirenone exposure (AUC 0-24ss ) of 661.3 (interquartile range 522-828) ng∙h/mL. Changing bodyweight from the median to the fifth percentile (51 kg) or 95th percentile (118 kg) changed drospirenone exposure (AUC 0-24,ss ) by 22.2% and -23.6%, respectively., Conclusions: Drospirenone 4 mg demonstrated similar contraceptive efficacy for both nonobese and obese users despite a difference in exposure based on bodyweight., Implications: Our limited comparison between obese and nonobese users of drospirenone-only oral contraception demonstrated no evidence that efficacy or discontinuation for adverse events differs between groups. Serum drospirenone levels vary by bodyweight and may correlate with bleeding outcomes., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Estetrol (E 4 ) has emerged as a novel and highly promising estrogen for therapeutic use. E 4 is a weak natural estrogen produced only in pregnancy. Because of its novelty, there is considerable interest by clinicians in how it is produced in pregnancy. Although the fetal liver plays a key role in its production, the placenta is also involved. A current view is that estradiol (E 2 ) formed in the placenta enters the fetal compartment and is then rapidly sulfated. E 2 sulfate then undergoes 15α-/16α-hydroxylation in the fetal liver thereby forming E 4 sulfate (phenolic pathway). However, another pathway involving 15α,16α-dihydroxy-DHEAS formed in the fetal liver and converted to E 4 in the placenta also plays a significant role (neutral pathway). It is not known which pathway predominates, but both pathways appear to be important in E 4 biosynthesis. In this commentary, we summarize the well-established pathways in the formation of estrogens in the nonpregnant and pregnant female. We then review what is known about the biosynthesis of E 4 and describe the 2 proposed pathways involving the fetus and placenta., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest FZS has previously received funding from Mithra Pharmaceuticals for manuscript writing, and is a consultant for Agile Therapeutics and owns stock in the company. DFA owns stock or options in Agile Therapeutics and Innova Gyn Inc., and is a consultant for AbbVie, Agile Therapeutics, Exeltis, Mayne Pharma, Mithra Pharmaceuticals, TherapeuticsMD. Eastern Virginia Medical School receives research funding from AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Estetra SRL (an affiliate company of Mithra Pharmaceuticals), Myovant Sciences, ObsEva, and TherapeuticsMD., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)