A rodent model of human dose-equivalent progestin-only implantable contraception.
Estrus cycle
Etonogestrel
Hormonal contraception
Long-acting reversible contraception
Ovarian function
Progestin
Ultrasound biomicroscopy
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Mar 2021
22 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
09
09
2020
accepted:
10
03
2021
entrez:
23
3
2021
pubmed:
24
3
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARC; progestin only) are an increasingly common hormonal contraceptive choice in reproductive aged women looking to suppress ovarian function and menstrual cyclicity. The overall objective was to develop and validate a rodent model of implanted etonogestrel (ENG) LARC, at body size equivalent doses to the average dose received by women during each of the first 3 years of ENG subdermal rod LARC use. Intact, virgin, female Sprague-Dawley rats (16-wk-old) were randomized to 1 of 4 groups (n = 8/group) of ENG LARC (high-0.30μg/d, medium-0.17μg/d, low-0.09μg/d, placebo-0.00μg/d) via a slow-release pellet implanted subcutaneously. Animals were monitored for 21 days before and 29 days following pellet implantation using vaginal smears, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), saphenous blood draws, food consumption, and body weights. Data were analyzed by chi-square, non-parametric, univariate, and repeated measures 2-way ANOVA. Prior to pellet implantation there was no difference in time spent in estrus cycle phases among the treatment groups (p > 0.30). Following pellet implantation there was a dose-dependent impact on the time spent in diestrus and estrus (p < 0.05), with the high dose group spending more days in diestrus and fewer days in estrus. Prior to pellet insertion there was not an association between treatment group and estrus cycle classification (p = 0.57) but following pellet implantation there was a dose-dependent association with cycle classification (p < 0.02). Measurements from the UBM (ovarian volume, follicle count, corpora lutea count) indicate an alteration of ovarian function following pellet implantation. Assessment of estrus cyclicity indicated a dose-response relationship in the shift to a larger number of acyclic rats and longer in duration spent in the diestrus phase. Therefore, each dose in this model mimics some of the changes observed in the ovaries of women using ENG LARC and provides an opportunity for investigating the impacts on non-reproductive tissues in the future.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARC; progestin only) are an increasingly common hormonal contraceptive choice in reproductive aged women looking to suppress ovarian function and menstrual cyclicity. The overall objective was to develop and validate a rodent model of implanted etonogestrel (ENG) LARC, at body size equivalent doses to the average dose received by women during each of the first 3 years of ENG subdermal rod LARC use.
METHODS
METHODS
Intact, virgin, female Sprague-Dawley rats (16-wk-old) were randomized to 1 of 4 groups (n = 8/group) of ENG LARC (high-0.30μg/d, medium-0.17μg/d, low-0.09μg/d, placebo-0.00μg/d) via a slow-release pellet implanted subcutaneously. Animals were monitored for 21 days before and 29 days following pellet implantation using vaginal smears, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), saphenous blood draws, food consumption, and body weights. Data were analyzed by chi-square, non-parametric, univariate, and repeated measures 2-way ANOVA.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Prior to pellet implantation there was no difference in time spent in estrus cycle phases among the treatment groups (p > 0.30). Following pellet implantation there was a dose-dependent impact on the time spent in diestrus and estrus (p < 0.05), with the high dose group spending more days in diestrus and fewer days in estrus. Prior to pellet insertion there was not an association between treatment group and estrus cycle classification (p = 0.57) but following pellet implantation there was a dose-dependent association with cycle classification (p < 0.02). Measurements from the UBM (ovarian volume, follicle count, corpora lutea count) indicate an alteration of ovarian function following pellet implantation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Assessment of estrus cyclicity indicated a dose-response relationship in the shift to a larger number of acyclic rats and longer in duration spent in the diestrus phase. Therefore, each dose in this model mimics some of the changes observed in the ovaries of women using ENG LARC and provides an opportunity for investigating the impacts on non-reproductive tissues in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33752672
doi: 10.1186/s12958-021-00729-w
pii: 10.1186/s12958-021-00729-w
pmc: PMC7983206
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contraceptive Agents, Female
0
Drug Implants
0
Progestins
0
etonogestrel
304GTH6RNH
Desogestrel
81K9V7M3A3
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Subventions
Organisme : Translational Research Institute for Space Health
ID : Cooperative Agreement NNX16AO69A
Références
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008 Jun;13 Suppl 1:29-36
pubmed: 18330815
Steroids. 2000 Oct-Nov;65(10-11):681-5
pubmed: 11108876
Contraception. 2017 Jun;95(6):529-537
pubmed: 27591814
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2000 Sep;5 Suppl 2:12-20
pubmed: 11246602
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;208(1):48.e1-8
pubmed: 23103344
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2000 Sep;5 Suppl 2:21-8
pubmed: 11246604
Hum Reprod. 2016 Nov;31(11):2491-2498
pubmed: 27671673
Fertil Steril. 1998 Apr;69(4):714-21
pubmed: 9548163
Fertil Steril. 2016 Jul;106(1):151-157.e5
pubmed: 27016644
Contraception. 2012 Dec;86(6):606-21
pubmed: 22717184
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014 Apr;30(4):320-4
pubmed: 24460500
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010 Jun;281(6):1051-9
pubmed: 20084388
J Osteoporos. 2010 Oct 31;2010:845180
pubmed: 21052538
Contraception. 2013 Oct;88(4):503-8
pubmed: 23582238
Contraception. 2006 Oct;74(4):287-9
pubmed: 16982226
BMJ. 1991 Jul 6;303(6793):13-6
pubmed: 1830502
Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Jun;51(6):1100-5
pubmed: 2349925
Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Nov;23(11):576-81
pubmed: 22595550
Reprod Fertil Dev. 2009;21(4):579-86
pubmed: 19383264
Lab Anim. 2011 Oct;45(4):254-8
pubmed: 21903700
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009 Jul 06;7:69
pubmed: 19580664
Contraception. 2002 Jan;65(1):21-7
pubmed: 11861052
Reproduction. 2007 Jan;133(1):309-21
pubmed: 17244756
Eur J Pharmacol. 2015 Dec 15;769:48-54
pubmed: 26506558
Physiol Rev. 2001 Jan;81(1):419-447
pubmed: 11152762
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Jul;105(7):790-4
pubmed: 9692421
Contraception. 2018 Sep;98(3):181-187
pubmed: 29777663
Womens Health (Lond). 2015 Nov;11(6):749-57
pubmed: 26626534
Obstet Gynecol. 2000 May;95(5):736-44
pubmed: 10775740
Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2007 Apr;80(2):84-97
pubmed: 17342777
Braz J Biol. 2002 Nov;62(4A):609-14
pubmed: 12659010
Contraception. 1999 Jan;59(1):25-9
pubmed: 10342083
Contraception. 1998 Dec;58(6 Suppl):91S-97S
pubmed: 10095979
Contraception. 2004 Nov;70(5):433
pubmed: 15504385
Contraception. 1993 Mar;47(3):251-61
pubmed: 8462316
Reprod Biol. 2008 Nov;8(3):279-84
pubmed: 19092988