Premium
Influence of transdermal rotigotine on ovulation suppression by a combined oral contraceptive
Author(s) -
Braun Marina,
Elshoff JanPeer,
Andreas JensOtto,
Müller Louise Ischen,
Horstmann Rolf
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
british journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.216
H-Index - 146
eISSN - 1365-2125
pISSN - 0306-5251
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03468.x
Subject(s) - rotigotine , levonorgestrel , crossover study , ovulation , pharmacodynamics , pharmacokinetics , medicine , transdermal , transdermal patch , placebo , population , endocrinology , tolerability , bioequivalence , pharmacology , hormone , adverse effect , alternative medicine , disease , environmental health , pathology , family planning , parkinson's disease , research methodology
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • The non‐ergolinic dopamine agonist rotigotine was developed for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome as a silicone‐based matrix‐type transdermal system. • Dopamine agonists have been recommended as initial treatment in young patients with restless legs syndrome which has a higher prevalence in females. It is therefore likely that the rotigotine transdermal patch will be administered to young women taking oral contraceptives. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • Concomitant administration of 3 mg (24 h) −1 transdermal rotigotine has no impact on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive containing 0.03 mg ethinyloestradiol and 0.15 mg levonorgestrel. • The study results suggest that application of the transdermal rotigotine patch has no influence on contraceptive efficacy. AIMS To assess the influence of the transdermally applied dopamine agonist rotigotine on ovulation suppression by a combined oral contraceptive (0.03 mg ethinyloestradiol and 0.15 mg levonorgestrel) in a randomized, double‐blind crossover study in 40 healthy females. METHODS Treatment A consisted of the combined oral contraceptive for 28 days plus rotigotine for the first 13 days (2 mg (24 h) −1 on days 1–3, 3 mg (24 h) −1 maintenance dose thereafter). During treatment B, subjects received matching placebo patches instead of rotigotine. Pharmacodynamic parameters (progesterone, oestradiol, luteinizing hormone, and follicle stimulating hormone serum concentrations), pharmacokinetic parameters for ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel and rotigotine, and safety and tolerability of the treatment were assessed. RESULTS Progesterone serum concentrations remained below 2 ng ml −1 in all subjects during the luteal phase. Median serum concentrations of all other pharmacodynamic parameters were similar during both treatments. Pharmacokinetic parameters C max,ss and AUC(0,24 h) ss at steady state were similar with or without co‐administration of rotigotine for both ethinyloestradiol and levonorgestrel with geometric mean ratios close to 1 and 90% confidence intervals within the acceptance range of bioequivalence (0.8, 1.25): C max,ss 1.05 (0.93, 1.19), AUC(0,24 h) ss 1.05 (0.9, 1.22) for ethinyloestradiol; C max,ss 1.01 (0.96, 1.06), AUC(0,24 h) ss 0.98 (0.95, 1.01) for levonorgestrel. Mean plasma concentrations of unconjugated rotigotine remained stable throughout the patch‐on period (day 13). CONCLUSIONS Concomitant administration of 3 mg (24 h) −1 transdermal rotigotine had no impact on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive containing 0.03 mg ethinyloestradiol and 0.15 mg levonorgestrel, suggesting that the dopamine agonist does not influence contraception efficacy.