Pharmacokinetics (PK) of anastrozole (ATZ) and levonorgestrel (LNG) released from an intravaginal ring (IVR) intended to treat endometriosis symptoms were characterized, and the exposure-response relationship focusing on the development of large ovarian follicle-like structures was investigated by modeling and simulation to support dose selection for further studies. A population PK analysis and simulations were performed for ATZ and LNG based on clinical phase 1 study data from 66 healthy women. A PK/PD model was developed to predict the probability of a maximum follicle size ≥30 mm and the potential contribution of ATZ beside the known LNG effects. Population PK models for ATZ and LNG were established where the interaction of LNG with sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) as well as a stimulating effect of estradiol on SHBG were considered. Furthermore, simulations showed that doses of 40 μg/d LNG combined with 300, 600, or 1050 μg/d ATZ reached anticipated exposure levels for both drugs, facilitating selection of ATZ and LNG doses in the phase 2 dose-finding study. The main driver for the effect on maximum follicle size appears to be unbound LNG exposure. A 50% probability of maximum follicle size ≥30 mm was estimated for 40 μg/d LNG based on the exposure-response analysis. ATZ in the dose range investigated does not increase the risk for ovarian cysts as occurs with LNG at a dose that does not inhibit ovulation.
To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the progestin levonorgestrel for various routes of administration, an integrated population PK analysis was performed. This analysis integrated data from 10 clinical pharmacology studies and resulted in a single, comprehensive population PK model (and its applications) describing the PK of levonorgestrel and its variability for 6 levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives: 3 intrauterine systems (IUSs; levonorgestrel [LNG]-IUS 20 [Mirena ], LNG-IUS 12 [Kyleena ], and LNG-IUS 8 [Jaydess /Skyla ]); 2 oral contraceptives (the progestin-only pill [Microlut /Norgeston ] and the combined oral contraceptive [Miranova ]); and a subdermal implant (Jadelle ). The levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives administered orally or as an implant act mainly via their systemic (unbound) levonorgestrel exposure, whereas levonorgestrel administered via an IUS is released directly into the uterine cavity, resulting in lower systemic levonorgestrel concentrations. The integrated population PK analysis revealed that the combined oral contraceptive led to the highest levonorgestrel exposure, followed by the progestin-only pill and the implant, which led to similar levonorgestrel exposure, and the IUSs, which led to the lowest levonorgestrel exposure (in decreasing order: LNG-IUS 20, LNG-IUS 12, and LNG-IUS 8). The difference was even more distinct at the end of the indicated duration of use of 3 years (LNG-IUS 8) and 5 years (LNG-IUS 20 and LNG-IUS 12). Comparing the 3 IUSs and the implant, in vivo release rates were highest for the implant, followed by LNG-IUS 20, then LNG-IUS 12, and were lowest for LNG-IUS 8. This is in line with the comparison of the total levonorgestrel concentrations.
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 (AUC0–168,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.
Anticoagulant plasma concentrations and patient characteristics might affect the benefit-risk balance of therapy. This study assessed the impact of model-predicted rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics on outcomes in patients receiving rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism treatment (VTE-T) using data from the phase 3 EINSTEIN-DVT and EIN-STEIN-PE studies. In the absence of measured rivaroxaban exposure, exposure estimates were predicted based on individual increases in prothrombin time (PT) and the known correlation between rivaroxaban plasma concentrations and PT dynamics. The composite efficacy outcomes evaluated were recurrent deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and recurrent DVT, PE and all-cause death; safety outcomes were major bleeding and the composite of major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding. Exposure-response relationships were evaluated using multivariate logistic and Cox regression for the twice-daily (BID) and once-daily (OD) dosing periods, respectively. Predicted rivaroxaban exposure and CrCl were significantly associated with both efficacy outcomes in the BID period. In the OD period, exposure was significantly associated with recurrent DVT and PE but not recurrent DVT, PE and all-cause death. The statistically significant exposure-efficacy relationships were shallow. Exposure-safety relationships were absent within the investigated exposure range. During both dosing periods, low baseline hemoglobin and prior bleeding were associated with the composite of major or NMCR bleeding. In conclusion, based on the underlying data and analysis, no reliable target window for exposure with improved benefit-risk could be identified within the investigated exposure range. Therefore, monitoring rivaroxaban levels is unlikely to be beneficial in VTE-T.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.