Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of a contraceptive patch in healthy women participants

Combined hormonal contraception and the risk of venous thromboembolism: a guideline

While venous thromboembolism (VTE) is rare in young women of reproductive age, combined oral contraceptives increase the risk of VTE. In the patient in whom combined hormonal contraception is appropriate, it is reasonable to use any currently available preparation.

New and emerging contraceptives: a state-of-the-art review

Background

The first hormonal contraceptive was introduced onto the market in several countries 50 years ago; however, the portfolio of contraceptive methods remains restricted with regards to their steroid composition, their cost, and their ability to satisfy the requirements of millions of women/couples in accordance with their different reproductive intentions, behaviors, cultures, and settings.

Methods

A literature review was conducted using Medline, Embase, and Current Contents databases, up to September 1, 2013 to identify publications reporting new contraceptives in development using combinations of the search terms: contraception, contraceptives, oral contraceptives, patch, vaginal ring, implants, intrauterine contraceptives, and emergency contraception (EC). Also, several experts in the field were also consulted to document ongoing projects on contraception development. Additionally, the Clinicaltrial.gov website was searched for ongoing studies on existing contraceptive methods and new and emerging female contraceptives developed over the past 5 years. Information was also obtained from the pharmaceutical industry.

Results

Early sexual debut and late menopause means that women may require contraception for up to 30 years. Although oral, injectable, vaginal, transdermal, subdermal, and intrauterine contraceptives are already available, new contraceptives have been developed in an attempt to reduce side effects and avoid early discontinuation, and to fulfill women’s different requirements. Research efforts are focused on replacing ethinyl-estradiol with natural estradiol to reduce thrombotic events. In addition, new, less androgenic progestins are being introduced and selective progesterone receptor modulators and new delivery systems are being used. In addition, research is being conducted into methods that offer dual protection (contraception and protection against human immunodeficiency virus transmission), and contraceptives for use “on demand.” Studies are also investigating non-hormonal contraceptive methods that have additional, non-contraceptive benefits.

Conclusion

The most pressing need worldwide is, first, that the highly effective contraceptive methods already available should be affordable to most of the population and also that these methods should fulfill the needs of women of different ages and with different reproductive requirements. The development of new contraceptive methods should also take advantage of the knowledge obtained over the past 30 years on gamete physiology and gamete interaction to avoid the use of steroid compounds.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of a Transdermal Contraceptive Patch and an Oral Contraceptive

This open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover study characterized the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a transdermal contraceptive patch and a norgestimate-containing oral contraceptive. Healthy women (n = 34) applied a patch once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks during each of 2 cycles and received an oral contraceptive for 21 consecutive days during each of 2 cycles. Plasma concentrations of norelgestromin and ethinyl estradiol peaked and waned after daily oral contraceptive administration, whereas they rose and reached steady-state levels after first patch application. Norelgestromin exposure was similar; ethinyl estradiol exposure was higher for the patch than oral contraceptive. Hepatic estrogenic activity, assessed by hepatic globulin synthesis, was similar for corticosteroid-binding globulin and corticosteroid-binding globulin-binding capacity and higher for sex hormone-binding globulin for the patch versus oral contraceptive. The clinical significance of the differences in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles between the patch and oral contraceptive is not fully known. No serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events were recorded.

[Early home abortion and immediate contraception with Evra® patch]

AIM

To propose a new home safe abortion protocol and effective immediate contraception.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred women undergoing home safe abortion with RU 486. Hundred accepted to start contraception with Evra® patch.

RESULTS

Concerning home abortion, the failure rate of the protocol was only 3% (12 cases). Concerning contraception, the continuation rate was 50% (50 cases).

CONCLUSION

Early home abortion is a promising method to propose an immediate contraception. The Evra® patch is well accepted and appears to be a first line contraceptive choice.

Contraceptive efficacy of oral and transdermal hormones when co-administered with protease inhibitors in HIV-1-infected women: pharmacokinetic results of ACTG trial A5188

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and transdermally delivered ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norelgestromin (NGMN) are unknown.

METHODS

Using a standard noncompartmental PK analysis, we compared EE area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) and NGMN AUC during transdermal contraceptive patch administration in HIV-1-infected women on stable LPV/r to a control group of women not on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). In addition, EE AUC after a single dose of a combination oral contraceptive pill including EE and norethindrone was measured before patch placement and was compared with patch EE AUC in both groups. Contraceptive effects on LPV/r PKs were estimated by measuring LPV/r AUC at baseline and during week 3 of patch administration.

RESULTS

Eight women on LPV/r, and 24 women in the control group were enrolled. Patch EE median AUC0-168 h was 45% lower at 6010.36 pg·h·mL in those on LPV/r versus 10911.42 pg·h·mL in those on no HAART (P = 0.064). Pill EE median AUC0-48 hours was similarly 55% lower at 344.67 pg·h·mL in those on LPV/r versus 765.38 pg·h·mL in those on no HAART (P = 0.003). Patch NGMN AUC0-168 h however, was 138.39 ng·h·mL, 83% higher in the LPV/r group compared with the control AUC of 75.63 ng·h·mL (P = 0.036). After 3 weeks on the patch, LPV AUC0-8 h decreased by 19%, (P = 0.156).

CONCLUSIONS

Although PKs of contraceptive EE and NGMN are significantly altered with LPV/r, the contraceptive efficacy of the patch is likely to be maintained. Larger studies are indicated to fully assess contraceptive efficacy versus risks of the transdermal contraceptive patch when co-administered with protease inhibitors.

Comparing Patient Telephone Callback Rates for Different Hormonal Birth Control Delivery Systems

This study was conducted to determine the number of office telephone callbacks in the first 3 months after initiating use of the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch, or an oral contraceptive. If a patient called back, the reason for her call was noted. Patients were prospectively followed from sites in New Jersey and Florida for 3 months after initiation of hormonal contraception (oral, transdermal, vaginal) and the number of callbacks for each method was assessed. Before study recruitment, the patients had either never used or discontinued hormonal contraception for at least 1 month. All patients were given standard counseling, which included reference handouts specific to their chosen form of contraception. The number of callbacks for patients on oral contraceptives was 30/96 (26 patients, 4 of the 26 with 2 callbacks each); for the transdermal patch, 20/40 (17 patients, 3 of the 17 with 2 callbacks each); and for the vaginal ring, 11/72 (11 patients). Pearson chi2 analysis revealed that all 3 groups were significantly different from each other (P = 0.0004). Most patients called back for side effects related to their method of choice, and some patients called back more than once. Rate of callbacks after initiation of hormonal contraception was the least with the vaginal ring. Use of oral contraception, often considered the gold standard, resulted in a callback rate that was midway between the number of callbacks for the vaginal ring and the number of callbacks for the transdermal patch. The lower observed rate of callbacks with the vaginal ring compared with oral and transdermal contraception may provide clinicians the confidence that this method is well tolerated by their patients.

Medical eligibility criteria for new contraceptive methods: combined hormonal patch, combined hormonal vaginal ring and the etonogestrel implant

To review evidence on the combined hormonal patch, combined hormonal vaginal ring and the etonogestrel implant, with a focus on safety and effectiveness of use among women with special health conditions, we searched MEDLINE, Pre-MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for reports published from 1980 through March 2005. Articles eligible for review included 11 on the hormonal patch, nine on the hormonal ring, and 11 on the etonogestrel implant. Limited evidence suggests patch efficacy is lower among women>90 kg. No evidence was identified for vaginal ring use among women with medical conditions. A single small study found that etonogestrel implants had no adverse effects on bone mineral density among women 18-40 years old. Limited evidence also suggests no adverse effects of the etonogestrel implant on lactation parameters or infant development among users enrolled 28 to 56 days postpartum and followed for 4 months.

Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive

This open-label, randomized study compared the pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol (EE) from the contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing (15 microg EE/day), the transdermal patch (20 microg EE/day) and a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 microg EE. After 2-8 weeks of synchronization by COC treatment, subjects were randomized to 21 days of treatment with NuvaRing, patch or COC. Analysis of area under the EE concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) during 21 days of treatment showed that exposure to EE in the NuvaRing group was 3.4 times lower than in the patch group (p < .05) and 2.1 times lower than in the pill group (p < .05). Serum EE levels of subjects showed much lower variation with NuvaRing than with the patch or the COC. Thus, exposure to EE was significantly lower with NuvaRing than with the patch and pill methods, demonstrating that NuvaRing is a low-estrogen-dose contraceptive method that also results in low estrogen exposure.

New Product Review (September 2003) Norelgestromin/ethinyl oestradiol transdermal contraceptive system (Evra®)

This new transdermal contraceptive system (contraceptive patch), Evra (Janssen-Cilag), received a UK product licence in 2003. In clinical trials: Consistent doses of norelgestromin and ethinyl oestradiol are released into the systemic circulation daily. Pharmacokinetic data suggest that levels are sufficient to inhibit ovulation for at least 7 days. The overall Pearl index for the contraceptive patch (1.24; 95% CI 0.19-2.33) was similar to that of a triphasic combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill (2.18; 95% CI 0.57-3.8). Self-reported "perfect" compliance was significantly better with the contraceptive patch (88.2%) than with a combined contraceptive pill (77.7%). Patch detachment, requiring replacement with a new patch, with normal daily activity is uncommon (4.6%). Breakthrough bleeding and spotting were significantly more common with the contraceptive patch than with combined oral contraception in the first two cycles but differences were not significant by cycle three. In general, reported side effects were not significantly different with contraceptive patch or combined pill use. However, breast tenderness in the first two treatment cycles was more common with patch use. Symptoms were mild to moderate in 85% of women and were rarely treatment limiting. Currently, there are limited data regarding risk of venous thromboembolism, and cervical or breast cancer with the contraceptive patch. No clinically significant alterations in metabolic or haemostatic parameters were identified with contraceptive patch use. A month's supply of the contraceptive patch costs 7.74 UK pounds. Combined oral contraception prices range from approximately 0.80 to 5.00 UK pounds and hormone replacement therapy patches range from 10.00 to 13.00 UK pounds. The contraceptive patch offers additional choice for women who wish to use a combined hormonal method of contraception.

New Hormonal Contraceptives: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Over 16 million women in the United States take oral hormonal contraceptives, yet approximately 5% experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of use. Compliance with the regimen is important in maintaining cycle control and preventing pregnancy. New hormonal contraceptive agents, norelgestromin-ethinyl estradiol patch, etonogestrel-ethinyl estradiol vaginal ring, and medroxyprogesterone-estradiol cypionate injection, were designed to increase compliance and decrease adverse effects while maintaining efficacy. Each one has potential advantages for women seeking alternatives to traditional oral contraceptives or for those who have trouble remembering to take a daily pill. Each agent also may have its own disadvantages, including application site reactions, need for monthly injections, and device-related events; however, all have similar efficacy and adverse-effect profiles compared with current oral hormonal contraceptives.

New methods of hormonal contraception

Several new hormonal contraceptive methods have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. most new methods combine the high efficacy of oral contraceptives with the longer-term delivery methods that eliminate the need to take a pill each day. New methods also offer reversibility and resumption of fertility if desired. This article discusses these new methods and reviews the literature on efficacy and side effects.

Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a skin patch or vaginal ring offers potential advantages over those administered via the traditional oral route. The skin patch and vaginal ring could possibly require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance.

OBJECTIVES

The review's objective is to compare the contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, compliance, and safety of the contraceptive skin patch versus combination oral contraceptives and the contraceptive vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, Popline, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, and LILACS for trials of the contraceptive patch or the contraceptive ring. We also searched the references of the publications identified for inclusion. We contacted the manufacturers of the skin patch and the contraceptive ring in an attempt to identify published or unpublished trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials in any language comparing the combination contraceptive skin patch with a combination oral contraceptive or the combination contraceptive vaginal ring with a combination oral contraceptive.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles and abstracts identified from the literature searches were assessed for potential inclusion. Data were abstracted by both the primary and second reviewers to ensure accuracy and were entered into RevMan 4.1. Peto odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Six- and 13-cycle Kaplan-Meier pregnancy rates were also entered into "Additional Tables." No sensitivity analyses were conducted since the eligible trials used different comparison oral contraceptives. The trials were critically appraised by examining the following factors: the study design; blinding; randomization method; group allocation concealment; exclusions after randomization; loss-to-follow-up; and early discontinuation.

MAIN RESULTS

We found three trials of the skin patch and no eligible randomized controlled trials of the combination contraceptive vaginal ring. The six-cycle and 13-cycle Kaplan-Meier cumulative probabilities of pregnancy showed that the combination contraceptive skin patch was similar to the control combination oral contraceptive in contraceptive efficacy. One trial found that patch users discontinued early from the trial more often than oral contraceptive users (OR 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.0) but a second trial found no differences in discontinuation between the groups (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0-6.7). Patch users had more self-reported cycles of compliance than oral contraceptive users; the odds ratio of compliance was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.3). Patch users were more likely to report breast discomfort than oral contraceptive users with an odds ratio of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2). The remaining commonly reported adverse events did not differ by group assignment. One trial found that women assigned to use the patch were more likely to discontinue due to adverse events than those assigned to use the oral contraceptive (OR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.3), but a second trial found no difference (OR 2.8; 95% CI, 0.7-11.3). Few serious adverse events occurred that were considered possibly or likely related to the use of the patch or oral contraceptive.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The randomized controlled trials comparing a combination contraceptive skin patch to a combination oral contraceptive showed similar efficacy rates for the two methods. The patch group had better self-reported compliance than the oral contraceptive group. On the other hand, breast tenderness was more common among those randomized to the patch. The patch might lead to early discontinuation (overall and due to adverse events), but the trial results on this outcome were mixed. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the vaginal ring as no eligible trials were available.

Pharmacokinetic overview of Ortho Evra/Evra

OBJECTIVE

The pharmacokinetics of norelgestromin, the primary active metabolite of norgestimate, plus ethinyl estradiol (EE), delivered by the once-weekly contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra/Evra), have been studied in eight trials. This overview summarizes the relevant pharmacokinetic data for the contraceptive patch.

DESIGN

Review article.

RESULT(S)

The amount of norelgestromin and EE absorbed from the patch is proportional to patch size: the 20-cm(2) patch (Ortho Evra) delivers norelgestromin, 150 microg/d, and EE, 20 microg/d, to the systemic circulation. After single and multiple applications of the contraceptive patch, daily serum concentrations (area under the serum concentration-versus-time curve) of norelgestromin and EE were within the ranges generally seen with oral norgestimate, 250 microg/EE 35 microg (Ortho-Cyclen/Cilest), but without the peaks and troughs characteristic of oral dosing. Moreover, the contraceptive patch maintains serum concentrations of norelgestromin and EE within these ranges for up to 10 days, suggesting that clinical efficacy would be maintained even if a scheduled change is missed for as long as two full days. Regardless of the location of patch application (abdomen, buttock, upper outer arm, or torso [excluding breasts]) and even under conditions of heat, humidity, exercise, and cool-water immersion, efficacious concentrations of norelgestromin and EE are achieved. Coadministration of the patch with tetracycline did not affect the pharmacokinetics of norelgestromin and EE.

CONCLUSION(S)

The contraceptive patch exhibits an excellent pharmacokinetic profile, maintaining efficacious serum hormone concentrations under varying conditions.