Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2021
The effects of vilaprisan on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive-A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of vilaprisan on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive-A randomized controlled trial.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Trial
- Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of the Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulator Vilaprisan: A Comprehensive Overview.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe primary objective was to explore whether the suppression of ovarian activity induced by a combined oral contraceptive (COC) is influenced by the simultaneous intake of the selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) vilaprisan (VPR).
methodsIn this exploratory randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 71 healthy premenopausal women were randomized (1:1) to receive either 2 mg/d VPR or placebo for 3 months. Concomitantly, a COC (0.15 mg levonorgestrel, 0.03 mg ethinyloestradiol) was administered in a cyclic regimen. Ovarian activity (Hoogland score based on follicle size and hormone concentrations), cervical function (Insler score), bleeding pattern and endometrial thickness/histology were assessed before treatment, in treatment cycle 3 and during follow-up.
resultsThe known COC-driven suppression of ovarian activity was mildly affected by VPR. COC+VPR group: 22, 0 and 6% of the subjects had Hoogland scores of 4 (active follicle-like structures), 5 or 6 (ovulation). COC+placebo group: 14% of the subjects had a score of 4 and none a score of 5 or 6 (Bayesian analysis for Hoogland score = 4, median difference in response rate: 7.5%; 90% credible interval [-8.5; 23.5%]). COC effects on cervical function were moderately affected (mucus more sperm permeable under COC+VPR). COC withdrawal bleeding, in contrast, was absent in 81% of the subjects receiving COC+VPR vs 0% receiving COC+placebo.
conclusionThe SPRM VPR interfered with the pharmacodynamic effects of the COC. Therefore, full contraceptive effectiveness cannot be assumed without final judgement by a Pearl index study. Women on SPRMs should be advised to use nonhormonal contraception methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.