Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
Phase 3 N=65 Randomized Quadruple-blind Treatment

Intervention to End Recurrent Unscheduled Bleeding Trial

Contraception · Bleeding

Enrolled (actual)
65
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Aug 2018
Primary outcome: Primary: Number of Bleeding/Spotting Days With Use of Ulipristal Acetate as Measured by Daily Bleeding Diaries — 7; 12 days — p=0.002

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 3
Interventions
Ulipristal Acetate (Drug); Placebo oral capsule (Drug)
Age
Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
Female
Sponsor
Washington University School of Medicine
Primary completion
Jan 2018

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Number of Bleeding/Spotting Days With Use of Ulipristal Acetate as Measured by Daily Bleeding Diaries
7; 12 0.002 sig
SECONDARY
Number of Participants With Bleeding Cessation by Day 10
11; 3 0.032 sig
SECONDARY
Participant Satisfaction With Bleeding Pattern at 30 Days
0; 7; 0; 2; 4; 3 <0.001 sig
SECONDARY
Number of Participants With Medication Side Effects by 30 Days
3; 6; 1; 3; 0; 1 >0.05
SECONDARY
Ovulation Status Measured by Weekly Serum Progesterone Levels
0.0; 0.0; 4.4; 1.3

Summary

The subdermal etonogestrel (ENG) implant, a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method, is among the most effective forms of reversible contraception and thus, an important tool in the quest to reduce unintended pregnancy. However, despite overall increases in LARC use in the United States from 1.5% in 2002 to 7.2% in 2011, and 11.6% most recently in 2015, implant use continues to make up a small proportion of LARC use. While evidence to explain this low uptake of implants is lacking, one potential reason is patient and provider concerns about unpredictable bleeding. As a result of this, many studies have been performed in attempts to discover therapies for unscheduled bleeding in progestin-only contraceptive users. Some of these studies include those investigating selective progesterone receptor modulators, such as mifepristone and ulipristal acetate (UPA), which did find some benefit. Although a previous study showed mixed benefit, the investigators feel that this medication has demonstrated both biologic plausibility as well as clinically important outcomes. This previous study may not be entirely translatable to the proposed research as therapies were used for different indications (prophylaxis vs. treatment) and different progestins and delivery systems were studied. Therefore, the investigators believe UPA should not be discounted as a potential therapy. UPA may provide an additional safe and effective option for treatment of irregular bleeding with implants in women. In addition, UPA is currently available in outpatient pharmacies in the U.S. as a single 30mg oral tablet. The investigators propose to investigate UPA for the treatment of unscheduled and troublesome bleeding in ENG implant users.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Women age 18-45
  • Implant placed >90 days and 3 years prior to enrollment
  • Contraindication to ulipristal acetate (current use of barbiturates, bosentan, carbamazepine, felbamate, griseofulvin, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, rifampin, St. John's Wort, topiramate, known or suspected pregnancy, hypersensitivity to active substance or excipients, uterine/cervical/ovarian/breast cancer, severe asthma insufficiently controlled by oral glucocorticoids)
  • Inability or unwillingness to comply with medication protocol
  • Inability or unwillingness to comply with bleeding diary
  • Breastfeeding
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03118297). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search