Rozenbaum H, Birkhäuser M, De Nooyer C, Lambotte R, Pornel B, Schneider H, Studd J, Thebault J
Hôpital Universitaire de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique, Bern, Switzerland.
Maturitas. 1996 Nov;25(3):175-85. doi: 10.1016/s0378-5122(96)01074-2.
The objectives were to compare the local skin tolerability of a matrix-type estradiol transdermal system, Oesclim 50, with that of the reservoir-type system, Estraderm TTS 50.
Two randomised studies were performed. In the first study, the modified Draize-Shelanski-Jordan method of sensitization was used in an open, parallel-group trial to compare the cutaneous tolerability of repeated applications of Oesclim 50 with that of Estraderm TTS 50 in 24 healthy postmenopausal women. The second study was an open, randomised, parallel-group, multi-centre clinical trial involving 283 healthy menopausal women. A total of 143 women were allocated to treatment with Oesclim 50 and 140 to Estraderm TTS 50. The treatment duration was four months.
The first study showed that the treatments, Oesclim 50 and Estraderm TTS 50, had no sensitizing potential and did not induce allergic reactions. In the second study, 4.2% of applications in the Oesclim group provoked reactions compared with 9.5% in the Estraderm group (P < 0.001). Thirty-seven patients (25.9%) treated with Oesclim and 55 patients (39.9%) receiving Estraderm experienced one or more reactions (P < 0.05). Redness and itching were the most frequent types of application site reaction in both treatment groups. The durations of the reactions were significantly shorter in the Oesclim group (P < 0.01), with a higher percentage of durations of less than 1 h and a lower percentage of durations of over 48 h than in the Estraderm TTS 50 group. None of the reactions in the Oesclim group led to premature removal of the patch, compared with 11 (3.4%) in the Estraderm group (P < 0.05). The number of patients who discontinued treatment due to application site reactions was one (0.7%) in the Oesclim group and seven (5.1%) in the Estraderm group (P < 0.05). Efficacy and general safety were comparable in the two treatment groups.
In the first study, neither Oesclim nor Estraderm induced allergic reactions. In the second study, the local skin tolerability of Oesclim was significantly better than that of Estraderm, in terms of the number, duration and severity of the application site reactions.
比较基质型雌二醇透皮系统Oesclim 50与储库型系统Estraderm TTS 50的局部皮肤耐受性。
进行了两项随机研究。在第一项研究中,在一项开放的平行组试验中使用改良的Draize-Shelanski-Jordan致敏方法,比较24名健康绝经后妇女重复应用Oesclim 50和Estraderm TTS 50的皮肤耐受性。第二项研究是一项开放、随机、平行组、多中心临床试验,涉及283名健康绝经后妇女。共有143名妇女被分配接受Oesclim 50治疗,140名接受Estraderm TTS 50治疗。治疗持续时间为四个月。
第一项研究表明,Oesclim 50和Estraderm TTS 50治疗均无致敏潜力,也未诱发过敏反应。在第二项研究中,Oesclim组4.2%的贴剂应用引发反应,而Estraderm组为9.5%(P<0.001)。接受Oesclim治疗的37名患者(25.9%)和接受Estraderm治疗的55名患者(39.9%)出现了一种或多种反应(P<0.05)。发红和瘙痒是两个治疗组中最常见的应用部位反应类型。Oesclim组反应持续时间明显更短(P<0.01),持续时间小于1小时的百分比更高,超过48小时的百分比低于Estraderm TTS 50组。Oesclim组的反应均未导致贴片提前移除,而Estraderm组有11例(3.4%)(P<0.05)。因应用部位反应而停药的患者数量,Oesclim组为1例(0.7%),Estraderm组为7例(5.1%)(P<0.05)。两个治疗组的疗效和总体安全性相当。
在第一项研究中,Oesclim和Estraderm均未诱发过敏反应。在第二项研究中,就应用部位反应的数量、持续时间和严重程度而言,Oesclim的局部皮肤耐受性明显优于Estraderm。