Literature DB >> 6291391

Comparison of pharmacodynamic properties of various estrogen formulations.

C A Mashchak, R A Lobo, R Dozono-Takano, P Eggena, R M Nakamura, P F Brenner, D R Mishell.   

Abstract

A group of 23 healthy postmenopausal women received one or more 2-week courses of daily administration of the following estrogen preparations: piperazine estrone sulfate (Ogen), 0.3, 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, and 5.0 mg; micronized estradiol (Estrace), 1, 2, and 10 mg; conjugated estrogens (Premarin), 0.3, 0.625, 1.25, and 2.5 mg; ethinyl estradiol (Estinyl), 10 and 20 micrograms; and diethylstilbestrol, 0.1 and 0.5 mg. Each dosage of each formulation was ingested by three women. In those women who received more than one dosage, each course was separated by a drug-free interval of at least 4 weeks. Pretreatment and posttreatment levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), corticosteroid-binding globulin-binding capacity, sex hormone-binding globulin-binding capacity, angiotensinogen, estrone, and estradiol were determined. The relative potency of these five estrogen formulations was determined by parallel line analysis for each of these responses, except LH. On a weight basis, piperazine estrone sulfate and micronized estradiol were equipotent for all responses. Conjugated estrogens suppressed FSH in a fashion equipotent to that of the other nonsynthetic estrogens; however, for all three hepatic parameters, the response was exaggerated twofold to threefold. The synthetic estrogens, diethylstilbestrol and ethinyl estradiol, were relatively more potent on a weight basis for every response and produced the most marked response (fourfold to eighteenfold in excess of their FSH suppression) for the hepatic parameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 6291391     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(82)90218-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  33 in total

1.  Growth and development: patching up a better pill for GH-deficient women.

Authors:  Vita Birzniece; Ken K Y Ho
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 43.330

Review 2.  A risk-benefit assessment of estrogen therapy in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  M P Cust; K F Gangar; T C Hillard; M I Whitehead
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 3.  Estradiol and dydrogesterone. A review of their combined use as hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  R H Foster; J A Balfour
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.923

4.  Skeletal size and bone mineral content in Turner's syndrome: relation to karyotype, estrogen treatment, physical fitness, and bone turnover.

Authors:  R W Naeraa; K Brixen; R M Hansen; C Hasling; L Mosekilde; J H Andresen; P Charles; J Nielsen
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 4.333

5.  Continuous dosing of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing Nestorone® and estradiol: pharmacokinetics from a dose-finding study.

Authors:  J T Jensen; A B Edelman; B A Chen; D F Archer; K T Barnhart; M A Thomas; A E Burke; C L Westhoff; L S Wan; R Sitruk-Ware; N Kumar; B Variano; D L Blithe
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 3.375

6.  Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral and transdermal 17β estradiol in girls with Turner syndrome.

Authors:  Martha Taboada; Richard Santen; John Lima; Jobayer Hossain; Ravinder Singh; Karen Oerter Klein; Nelly Mauras
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 7.  Estrogens, bone loss and preservation.

Authors:  C Christiansen; R Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Hormone therapy dose, formulation, route of delivery, and risk of cardiovascular events in women: findings from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

Authors:  Chrisandra L Shufelt; C Noel Bairey Merz; Ross L Prentice; Mary B Pettinger; Jacques E Rossouw; Vanita R Aroda; Andrew M Kaunitz; Kamakshi Lakshminarayan; Lisa W Martin; Lawrence S Phillips; Joann E Manson
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 9.  Pipeline for contraceptive development.

Authors:  Diana L Blithe
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Review of the safety, efficacy and patient acceptability of the combined dienogest/estradiol valerate contraceptive pill.

Authors:  Maurizio Guida; Giuseppe Bifulco; Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo; Mariamaddalena Scala; Loredana Maria Sosa Fernandez; Carmine Nappi
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2010-08-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.