2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(00)00137-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A randomized comparison of the effects on vaginal and cervical epithelium of a placebo vaginal ring with non-use of a ring

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bounds et al studied an early version of the hormone replacement therapy ring Femring that had remarkable mechanical stiffness, and it was concluded that the ring contributed to the creation of ulcerative lesions in the vagina (5). Subsequently, several large clinical safety studies have evaluated an array of medicated and nonmedicated IVRs composed of silicone and ethylene vinyl acetate polymers comprising various dimensions and varied ring stiffness (14,27,41,43,47,59). None of these studies found a significant ring contribution in creating epithelial lesions and/or altering vaginal microflora when tested for up to 1 year.…”
Section: Fig 7 Proximal and Distal Tfv Vaginal Tissue Concentrations mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bounds et al studied an early version of the hormone replacement therapy ring Femring that had remarkable mechanical stiffness, and it was concluded that the ring contributed to the creation of ulcerative lesions in the vagina (5). Subsequently, several large clinical safety studies have evaluated an array of medicated and nonmedicated IVRs composed of silicone and ethylene vinyl acetate polymers comprising various dimensions and varied ring stiffness (14,27,41,43,47,59). None of these studies found a significant ring contribution in creating epithelial lesions and/or altering vaginal microflora when tested for up to 1 year.…”
Section: Fig 7 Proximal and Distal Tfv Vaginal Tissue Concentrations mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IVRs with 5.0 mm XD and 21% TFV loading had F 10 values more than twice those of NuvaRing® prior to release testing and had F 10 values approximately 30% less than NuvaRing® after release testing. Various reports from clinical literature [20][21][22] indicate an optimal range exists for IVR mechanical properties, however, there is no consensus as to the appropriate metric for quantitatively determining mechanical IVR acceptability. If the load under compression is insufficient, an IVR may be displaced or expelled by the user.…”
Section: Ivr Mechanical Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Excessively inflexible IVRs may cause user discomfort or epithelial barrier damage, while excessively compressible IVRs may be expelled during use [20][21][22]. These problems are compounded in swellable systems as polymer properties will likely vary during swelling and drug dissolution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While high stiffness of an IVR could lead to difficulty in insertion and potential damage to the vaginal tissue post-application [37,38], low stiffness will result in lack of retention and difficulty in insertion [39]. Therefore, a relevant technique to evaluate mechanical performance is to measure the force required to compress the ring and/or the retractive forces exerted by a compressed ring.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%