Contraception · 2023
Pharmacokinetics of dose-adjusted levonorgestrel emergency contraception combined with efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy or rifampicin-containing tuberculosis regimens.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scarsi Kimberly K, Smeaton Laura M, Podany Anthony T, Olefsky Maxine, Woolley Elizabeth, Barr Elizabeth, Pham Michelle, Mawlana Sajeeda, Supparatpinyo Khuanchai, Gatechompol Sivaporn, Jalil Emilia M, Gadama Luis, Badal-Faesen Sharlaa, Belaunzaran-Zamudio Pablo F, Godfrey Catherine, Cohn Susan E, Mngqibisa Rosie, AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5375 Study Team
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine if double-dose levonorgestrel emergency contraception (EC) in combination with efavirenz or rifampicin, 2 drugs known to decrease levonorgestrel exposure, resulted in similar pharmacokinetics compared to standard-dose levonorgestrel EC without drug-drug interactions.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, partially randomized, 4 parallel group trial in pre-menopausal females ≥16 years old without an indication for EC and not on hormonal contraception. Participants on dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) received levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (control group); those on rifampicin-containing tuberculosis therapy received levonorgestrel 3 mg; those on efavirenz-based ART were randomized 1:2 to levonorgestrel 1.5 mg or 3 mg. Plasma was collected through 48 hours post-dose to assess levonorgestrel pharmacokinetics. Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) over 8 hours was the primary outcome. Levonorgestrel pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between groups using geometric mean ratios (GMR) with 90% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: The median (Q1, Q3) age for all participants (n = 118) was 34 (27, 41) years and BMI was 23.2 (20, 26.3) kg/m2. Participants receiving levonorgestrel 1.5mg plus efavirenz (n = 17) had 50% lower AUC0-8h compared to the control group (n = 32) [0.50 (0.40, 0.62)]. Participants receiving levonorgestrel 3 mg had a similar AUC0-8h when receiving either efavirenz (n = 35) [0.99 (0.81, 1.20)] or rifampicin (n = 34) [1.16 (0.99, 1.36)] compared to control. Levonorgestrel 3 mg resulted in similar or higher maximum concentration with either efavirenz [1.17 (0.96, 1.41)] or rifampicin [1.27 (1.09, 1.49)] compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Doubling the dose of levonorgestrel EC successfully increased levonorgestrel exposure over the first 8 hours in participants receiving either efavirenz-based ART or rifampicin-containing tuberculosis therapy.
IMPLICATIONS: Adjusting levonorgestrel emergency contraception from 1.5 mg to 3 mg improves levonorgestrel pharmacokinetic exposure in participants receiving either efavirenz-based antiretroviral regimens or rifampicin-containing tuberculosis therapy. These data support guideline recommendations to double the dose of levonorgestrel emergency contraception in persons on medications that decrease levonorgestrel exposure by inducing levonorgestrel metabolism.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, partially randomized, 4 parallel group trial in pre-menopausal females ≥16 years old without an indication for EC and not on hormonal contraception. Participants on dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) received levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (control group); those on rifampicin-containing tuberculosis therapy received levonorgestrel 3 mg; those on efavirenz-based ART were randomized 1:2 to levonorgestrel 1.5 mg or 3 mg. Plasma was collected through 48 hours post-dose to assess levonorgestrel pharmacokinetics. Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) over 8 hours was the primary outcome. Levonorgestrel pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between groups using geometric mean ratios (GMR) with 90% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: The median (Q1, Q3) age for all participants (n = 118) was 34 (27, 41) years and BMI was 23.2 (20, 26.3) kg/m2. Participants receiving levonorgestrel 1.5mg plus efavirenz (n = 17) had 50% lower AUC0-8h compared to the control group (n = 32) [0.50 (0.40, 0.62)]. Participants receiving levonorgestrel 3 mg had a similar AUC0-8h when receiving either efavirenz (n = 35) [0.99 (0.81, 1.20)] or rifampicin (n = 34) [1.16 (0.99, 1.36)] compared to control. Levonorgestrel 3 mg resulted in similar or higher maximum concentration with either efavirenz [1.17 (0.96, 1.41)] or rifampicin [1.27 (1.09, 1.49)] compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Doubling the dose of levonorgestrel EC successfully increased levonorgestrel exposure over the first 8 hours in participants receiving either efavirenz-based ART or rifampicin-containing tuberculosis therapy.
IMPLICATIONS: Adjusting levonorgestrel emergency contraception from 1.5 mg to 3 mg improves levonorgestrel pharmacokinetic exposure in participants receiving either efavirenz-based antiretroviral regimens or rifampicin-containing tuberculosis therapy. These data support guideline recommendations to double the dose of levonorgestrel emergency contraception in persons on medications that decrease levonorgestrel exposure by inducing levonorgestrel metabolism.