34 purandare etal

2
975 Purandare et al., Int J Med Res Health Sci. 20144;3(4):975-976 International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences www.ijmrhs.com Volume 3 Issue 4 Coden: IJMRHS Copyright @2014 ISSN: 2319-5886 Received: 13 th Aug 2014 Revised: 20 th Aug 2014 Accepted: 29 th Aug 2014 Short communication PRESCRIPTION EVENT MONITORING STUDY TO ASSESS THE SAFETY PROFILE OF ORAL NATURAL MICRONIZED PROGESTERONE SUSTAINED RELEASE IN INDIA Purandare AC 1 , Hajare A 2 , Krishnaprasad K 2 , Bhargava A 2 1 Obstetrician&Gynaecologist, Chowpatty Maternity & Gynecology Hospital, Chowpatty, Mumbai 2 Medical Services, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Mumbai *Corresponding author email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Background:Role of natural micronized progesterone (NMP) in various therapeutic conditions, including luteal phase correction and luteal phase support (LPS) has been very well highlighted 1, 2 . It offers better safety profile on long term administration with ancillary immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties 3 . Oral NMP in the form of sustained release (SR)offers better patient compliance due to once a day dosage schedule 4 . This employs a novel matrix technology for the release of progesterone in small pulses into the systemic circulation over a period of 24 hours, thereby minimizing the hepatic metabolism related side effects including sedation or drowsiness. Objective: To study the safety profile of oral NMP SR (Dubagest SR), a PEM study was conducted in the outpatient settings in India.Materials and methods: PEM study is a method employed worldwide to provide useful safety information on the drug when prescribed in ‘Real -life clinic settings’. Patients with bad obstetric history (BOH) or unexplained infertility were prescribed either 300 or 400 mg SR once a day following induction with Natural or Stimulated ART cycle for two months. Safety information related as ‘Events’ was captured on the Study questionnaire sheet provided to 35 doctors across India for five patients at each centre between March and May ’13.Results: 153 patients completed the study with a mean of 27yrs& 55kgs. In infertility patients with BOH 87% patients had ≥ 2 abortions. The formulation was prescribed for Luteal Phase Support in Unexplained infertility (43.8%) or BOH (50%) and Secondary Amenorrhoea (5.9%). Oral NMP 300 mg SR was the most commonly prescribed formulation. The formulation was well tolerated with side effects including drowsiness (0.6%), hyperemesis (1.3%)& giddiness (0.6%) that were mild and transient. Two patients reported Spotting that disappeared on continued therapy and in other case probably related to reappearance of menses. Conclusion: Oral NMP SR is a clinically feasible option for LPSespecially in BOH cases having Insignificant side effect profile for improved compliance. DOI: 10.5958/2319-5886.2014.00034.4

Upload: editorijmrhs

Post on 19-Jul-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

ijmrhs

TRANSCRIPT

975Purandare et al., Int J Med Res Health Sci. 20144;3(4):975-976

International Journal of Medical Research&

Health Scienceswww.ijmrhs.com Volume 3 Issue 4 Coden: IJMRHS Copyright @2014 ISSN: 2319-5886Received: 13th Aug 2014 Revised: 20th Aug 2014 Accepted: 29thAug 2014Short communication

PRESCRIPTION EVENT MONITORING STUDY TO ASSESS THE SAFETY PROFILE OF ORALNATURAL MICRONIZED PROGESTERONE SUSTAINED RELEASE IN INDIA

Purandare AC1, Hajare A2, Krishnaprasad K2, Bhargava A2

1 Obstetrician&Gynaecologist, Chowpatty Maternity & Gynecology Hospital, Chowpatty, Mumbai2Medical Services, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Mumbai

*Corresponding author email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background:Role of natural micronized progesterone (NMP) in various therapeutic conditions, including lutealphase correction and luteal phase support (LPS) has been very well highlighted1, 2. It offers better safety profile onlong term administration with ancillary immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties3. Oral NMP in theform of sustained release (SR)offers better patient compliance due to once a day dosage schedule4. This employsa novel matrix technology for the release of progesterone in small pulses into the systemic circulation over aperiod of 24 hours, thereby minimizing the hepatic metabolism related side effects including sedation ordrowsiness. Objective: To study the safety profile of oral NMP SR (Dubagest SR), a PEM study was conductedin the outpatient settings in India.Materials and methods: PEM study is a method employed worldwide toprovide useful safety information on the drug when prescribed in ‘Real-life clinic settings’. Patients with badobstetric history (BOH) or unexplained infertility were prescribed either 300 or 400 mg SR once a day followinginduction with Natural or Stimulated ART cycle for two months. Safety information related as ‘Events’ wascaptured on the Study questionnaire sheet provided to 35 doctors across India for five patients at each centrebetween March and May ’13.Results: 153 patients completed the study with a mean of 27yrs& 55kgs. Ininfertility patients with BOH 87% patients had ≥ 2 abortions. The formulation was prescribed for Luteal PhaseSupport in Unexplained infertility (43.8%) or BOH (50%) and Secondary Amenorrhoea (5.9%). Oral NMP 300mg SR was the most commonly prescribed formulation. The formulation was well tolerated with side effectsincluding drowsiness (0.6%), hyperemesis (1.3%)& giddiness (0.6%) that were mild and transient. Two patientsreported Spotting that disappeared on continued therapy and in other case probably related to reappearance ofmenses. Conclusion: Oral NMP SR is a clinically feasible option for LPSespecially in BOH cases havingInsignificant side effect profile for improved compliance.

DOI: 10.5958/2319-5886.2014.00034.4

976Purandare et al., Int J Med Res Health Sci. 20144;3(4):975-976

Fig 1: Clinical indications for oral NMP SR

Fig. 3: Side effects with oral NMP SR

Conflict of Interest: NilPaper was presented as Oral presentation by Dr.Purandare AC at AICOG 2013 conference held atPatna

REFERENCES

1. Schindler AE, Druckmann R, Huber J,Pasqualini JR, Schweppe KW, Thijssen JH.Classification and pharmacology ofprogestins. Maturitas. 2003;46:7-16.

2. Frishman G, Klock S, Luciano A, Nulsen J.Efficacy of oral micronized progesterone inthe treatment of luteal phase defects. Journalof reproductive medicine. 1995;40(7):521-4.

3. Cedars MI. Progesterone: Uses in ART andprevention of pregnancy loss. The Journal ofFamily Practice. 2007; (Suppl - 1):9-13.

4. Kyurkchiev D, Ivanova-Todorova E,Kyurkchiev SD. New target cells of theimmunomodulatory effects of progesterone.Reproductive biomedicine online.2010;21(3):304-11.

43.8% 50%

5.9%0

20

40

60

80

100

LPS inUnexplained

infertility

LPS in BOH SecAmenorrhea

% pts

0.6%1.3%

0.6%

0

1

2

3

4

5

Drowsiness Hyperemesis Giddiness

% pts

Fig. 2 - LPS inunexplained

infertility

Fig. 3 - LPSin BOH