ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2025
Hepatic Safety Considerations in the Use of Ulipristal Acetate for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- HIF-1α Signaling in Uterine Fibroids: A Central Integrator of Hypoxic, Hormonal, and Fibrotic Pathways.Oxygen (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Insights on Medical Therapy for Uterine Fibroids: A Review.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Assessment of Hepatic Safety of Ulipristal Acetate in Korean Women with Uterine Fibroids: A Real-World Study Using Biochemical Markers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ulipristal acetate (UPA, 5 mg) demonstrated efficacy in symptom reduction for patients with symptomatic fibroids. While registration and post-marketing trials assessing UPA identified few hepatic concerns, post-marketing concerns about potential drug-induced liver injury (DILI) led to significant restrictions, including indication restriction, warning labels and mandatory liver function monitoring. These measures, along with two marketing suspensions, resulted in a decline in UPA use, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of its marketing authorization previously in Canada, Australia, as well as Singapore and in 2024, at the request of the marketing authorization holder for commercial reasons, also for the European Union. Methods: This narrative review critically evaluates the hepatic safety considerations associated with UPA. Results: On reassessment, the risk of severe DILI with UPA is low at 13.5:100.000, with an incidence of 1 in 200,000 for liver transplantation. These numbers are lower than with many other widely prescribed medications, where no regular liver monitoring is recommended. UPA was subjected to strict liver test monitoring although proof of effectiveness of these measures in preventing serious DILI was lacking. While the risk of severe hepatotoxic events is important to consider, a balanced approach to safety measures is needed, particularly in light of the higher risks associated with alternative treatment options such as surgical intervention. Conclusion: While UPA had a unique place in the treatment of uterine fibroids, overly cautious regulatory measures due to exceedingly rare DILI incidences led to the withdrawal of its marketing authorization in most parts of the world. There is a need for an improved understanding of DILI mechanisms and causality assessments to aid in the development of more proportional regulatory responses, balancing patient safety and sustained access to effective innovative treatment.
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.