Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35143669›Full record

ReviewHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022

Evaluation of marketing authorization and clinical implementation of ulipristal acetate for uterine fibroids.

Mei-An Middelkoop, Maria E de Lange, T Justin Clark, Ben Willem J Mol, Pierre M Bet, Judith A F Huirne, Wouter J K Hehenkamp

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Preoperative medical therapy before surgery for uterine fibroids.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Outcome reporting for heavy menstrual bleeding.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mei-An MiddelkoopDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0847-2566
Maria E de LangeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T Justin ClarkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Ben Willem J MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Pierre M BetDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith A F HuirneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wouter J K HehenkampDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLBirmingham Women's Hospital · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a medical treatment for uterine fibroids and was authorized for surgical pre-treatment in 2012 after the conduct of the PEARL I and II randomized controlled trials and for intermittent treatment after the observational PEARL III and IV trials. However, UPA came into disrepute due to its temporary suspension in 2017 and 2020 because of an apparent association with liver injury. This clinical opinion paper aims to review the process of marketing authorization and implementation of UPA, in order to provide all involved stakeholders with recommendations for the introduction of future drugs. Before marketing authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that Phase III registration trials should evaluate relevant outcomes in a representative population, while comparing to gold-standard treatment. This review shows that the representativeness of the study populations in all PEARL trials was limited, surgical outcomes were not evaluated and intermittent treatment was assessed without comparative groups. Implementation into clinical practice was extensive, with 900 000 prescribed treatment cycles in 5 years in Europe and Canada combined. Extremely high costs are involved in developing and evaluating pre-marketing studies in new drugs, influencing trial design and relevance of chosen outcomes, thereby impeding clinical applicability. It is vitally important that the marketing implementation after authorization is regulated in such way that necessary evidence is generated before widespread prescription of a new drug. All stakeholders, from pharmaceutical companies to authorizing bodies, governmental funding bodies and medical professionals should be aware of their role and take responsibility for their part in this process.

Indexed as

LeiomyomaNorpregnadienesUterine NeoplasmsEuropeFemaleHumansNorpregnadienesulipristal acetateclinical trialsleiomyomaPhase IIIrandomized controlled trialsrisk evaluation and mitigationulipristal acetate

Identifiers

PMID35143669
PMCPMC9071218
OpenAlexW4206711013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.