Therapeutically equivalent pharmacokinetic profile across three application sites for AG200-15, a novel low-estrogen dose contraceptive patch

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, non-obese 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 (AUC_0–168,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.