4.3 Article

Effect of one-week treatment with vaginal estrogen preparations on serum estrogen levels in postmenopausal women

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/gme.0b013e31817b6132

关键词

Estrogens; Vaginal atrophy; Breast cancer; Vagifem; Premarin cream

资金

  1. Endoceutics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Approximately 50% of postmenopausal women suffer from vaginal atrophy, and a large proportion of them choose intravaginal estrogen preparations administered for local action to avoid systemic exposure to estrogens and its associated risk of breast and uterine cancer. The primary objective of this study was the evaluation of the systematic bioavailability of estradiol and estrone and the pharmacokinetics of two of the most frequently used intravaginal estrogen preparations, namely Vagifem and Premarin cream. Design: While immunobased assays could not previously provide accurate measurement of serum estrogen concentrations in postmenopausal women, we have used validated mass spectrometry assays to measure the pharmacokinetics of serum estradiol and estrone during the 24 hours following the seventh daily application of 25 mu g estradiol (Vagifem) and 1 g (0.625 mg) conjugated estrogens (Premarin) cream in 10 postmenopausal women in each group. Results: Serum estradiol was increased on average by 5.4-fold from 3 to 17 pg/mL during the 24-hour period after daily administration of 25 mu g estradiol or 1 g (0.625 mg) conjugated estrogens cream. Serum estrone, conversely, increased 150% with Vagifem and 500% with Premarin cream. Conclusions: The present data using validated, accurate, and sensitive mass spectrometry assays of estrogens show that the Vagifem pill and Premarin cream, after 1 week of daily treatment, cause an approximately fivefold increase in serum estradiol in postmenopausal women, thus indicating that the effects are unlikely to be limited to the vagina and that systemic actions are expected after application of these intravaginal estrogen preparations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据