Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Drug Investigation 6/2012

01-06-2012 | Original Research Article

Bioequivalence and X-Ray Visibility of a Radiopaque Etonogestrel Implant versus a Non-Radiopaque Implant

A 3-Year, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Authors: Peter Schnabel, Gabriele S. Merki-Feld, Alice Malvy, Ingrid Duijkers, Ellen Mommers, Michiel W. van den Heuvel

Published in: Clinical Drug Investigation | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing implant is a subdermal progestogen-only contraceptive that provides coverage for up to 3 years. This long-acting hormonal contraceptive has been available in Europe since 1998 and in the US since 2006. To date, localization of non-palpable implants at insertion and before removal has been dependent on ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging by an experienced clinician. To facilitate localization in rare cases of non-palpable implants using widely available equipment without the need for a specialist, a radiopaque ENG implant has been developed that is detectable by two-dimensional x-ray imaging.

Objective

This study aimed to establish whether the radiopaque ENG implant is bioequivalent in situ compared with the original non-radiopaque ENG implant, and to assess x-ray visibility of the radiopaque ENG implant.

Methods

This was a 3-year, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study carried out in nine international clinical trial centres. Women aged 18–40 years at the time of screening, with menstrual cycles of a usual length of 24–35 days and a body mass index of between ≥18 and ≤29 kg/m2 were included. Women were assigned to either the radiopaque or non-radiopaque ENG implant in a 1:1 ratio via a block randomization by centre. Bioequivalence testing was performed based on the peak ENG concentration (Cmax), and the area under the curve (AUC) for ENG at 6, 24 and 36 months (AUC6 mo, AUC24 mo and AUC36 mo) after insertion. For this purpose, blood sampling for pharmacokinetic determination was performed prior to insertion and for up to 3 years afterwards. Bioequivalence was defined as the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio radiopaque implant/non-radiopaque implant of the geometric means (GMR) within the acceptance range of 0.80–1.25. x-Ray visibility was assessed by two-dimensional x-ray imaging after insertion and before removal of the implant.

Results

The pharmacokinetic profiles of ENG indicated that the radiopaque and non-radiopaque implants were bioequivalent with respect to the geometric mean of Cmax (GMR 1.06; 90% CI 0.91, 1.23), AUC6 mo (GMR 1.00; 90% CI 0.91, 1.10), AUC24 mo (GMR 0.98; 90% CI 0.88, 1.10) and AUC36 mo (GMR 1.00; 90% CI 0.89, 1.11). The radiopaque ENG implant was clearly visible in 50 out of 52 women after insertion and in all 52 women before removal, whereas none of the non-radiopaque implants were visible.

Conclusion

The radiopaque ENG implant is bioequivalent in situ compared with the original non-radiopaque ENG implant and is clearly visible using x-ray imaging.

Clinical Trials Registration

Registered as ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00620464.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Etonogestrel implant (Implanon) for contraception. Drug Ther Bull 2001 Aug; 39_(8): 57-9 Etonogestrel implant (Implanon) for contraception. Drug Ther Bull 2001 Aug; 39_(8): 57-9
2.
go back to reference Graesslin O, Korver T. The contraceptive efficacy of Implanon: a review of clinical trials and marketing experience. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008 Jun; 13 Suppl. 1: 4–12PubMedCrossRef Graesslin O, Korver T. The contraceptive efficacy of Implanon: a review of clinical trials and marketing experience. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008 Jun; 13 Suppl. 1: 4–12PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Mansour D, Walling M, Glenn D, et al. Removal of non-palpable etonogestrel implants. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2008 Apr; 34(2): 89–91PubMedCrossRef Mansour D, Walling M, Glenn D, et al. Removal of non-palpable etonogestrel implants. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2008 Apr; 34(2): 89–91PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Merki-Feld GS, Brekenfeld C, Migge B, et al. Nonpalpable ultrasonographically not detectable Implanon rods can be localized by magnetic resonance imaging. Contraception 2001 Jun; 63(6): 325–8PubMedCrossRef Merki-Feld GS, Brekenfeld C, Migge B, et al. Nonpalpable ultrasonographically not detectable Implanon rods can be localized by magnetic resonance imaging. Contraception 2001 Jun; 63(6): 325–8PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mansour D. Nexplanon((R)): what Implanon((R)) did next. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2010 Oct; 36(4): 187–9PubMedCrossRef Mansour D. Nexplanon((R)): what Implanon((R)) did next. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2010 Oct; 36(4): 187–9PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Timmer CJ, Srivastava N, Dieben TO, et al. Bioavailability and bioequivalence of etonogestrel from two oral formulations of desogestrel: Cerazette and Liseta. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 1999 Oct-Dec; 24(4): 335–43PubMedCrossRef Timmer CJ, Srivastava N, Dieben TO, et al. Bioavailability and bioequivalence of etonogestrel from two oral formulations of desogestrel: Cerazette and Liseta. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 1999 Oct-Dec; 24(4): 335–43PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wenzl R, van Beek A, Schnabel P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon. Contraception 1998 Nov; 58(5): 283–8PubMedCrossRef Wenzl R, van Beek A, Schnabel P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon. Contraception 1998 Nov; 58(5): 283–8PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, et al. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril 2009 May; 91(5): 1646–53PubMedCrossRef Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, et al. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril 2009 May; 91(5): 1646–53PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
go back to reference Mansour D, Mommers E, Teede H, et al. Clinician satisfaction and insertion characteristics of a new applicator to insert radiopaque Implanon: an open-label, noncontrolled, multicenter trial. Contraception 2010 Sep; 82(3): 243–9PubMedCrossRef Mansour D, Mommers E, Teede H, et al. Clinician satisfaction and insertion characteristics of a new applicator to insert radiopaque Implanon: an open-label, noncontrolled, multicenter trial. Contraception 2010 Sep; 82(3): 243–9PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Bioequivalence and X-Ray Visibility of a Radiopaque Etonogestrel Implant versus a Non-Radiopaque Implant
A 3-Year, Randomized, Double-Blind Study
Authors
Peter Schnabel
Gabriele S. Merki-Feld
Alice Malvy
Ingrid Duijkers
Ellen Mommers
Michiel W. van den Heuvel
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical Drug Investigation / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 1173-2563
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1918
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11631930-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

Clinical Drug Investigation 6/2012 Go to the issue

Adis Drug Profile

Intranasal Ketorolac