Amelia C L Mackenzie, Stephanie Chung, Emily Hoppes, Nora Miller, Anne E Burke, Sharon L Achilles, C Leigh Allen, Luis Bahamondes, Diana L Blithe, Vivian Brache, Rebecca L Callahan, Alice F Cartwright, Kathryn B H Clancy, Enrico Colli, Amanda Cordova-Gomez, Elizabeth C Costenbader, Mitchell D Creinin, Hilary O D Critchley, Gustavo F Doncel, Laneta J Dorflinger, Alison Edelman, Thomas Faustmann, Christoph Gerlinger, Lisa B Haddad, Julie Hennegan, Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato, Simon P S Kibira, Diana Mansour, Andres Martinez, Kristen A Matteson, Jacqueline A Maybin, Alexandria K Mickler, Kavita Nanda, Chukwuemeka E Nwachukwu, Funmilola M OlaOlorun, Kevin J Peine, Chelsea B Polis, Carolina Sales Vieira, Regine Sitruk-Ware, Jennifer A Smit, Marsden Solomon, Lisa M Soule, Douglas Taylor, Elizabeth E Tolley, Olivia Vandeputte
{"title":"Consensus recommendations for measuring the impact of contraception on the menstrual cycle in contraceptive clinical trials.","authors":"Amelia C L Mackenzie, Stephanie Chung, Emily Hoppes, Nora Miller, Anne E Burke, Sharon L Achilles, C Leigh Allen, Luis Bahamondes, Diana L Blithe, Vivian Brache, Rebecca L Callahan, Alice F Cartwright, Kathryn B H Clancy, Enrico Colli, Amanda Cordova-Gomez, Elizabeth C Costenbader, Mitchell D Creinin, Hilary O D Critchley, Gustavo F Doncel, Laneta J Dorflinger, Alison Edelman, Thomas Faustmann, Christoph Gerlinger, Lisa B Haddad, Julie Hennegan, Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato, Simon P S Kibira, Diana Mansour, Andres Martinez, Kristen A Matteson, Jacqueline A Maybin, Alexandria K Mickler, Kavita Nanda, Chukwuemeka E Nwachukwu, Funmilola M OlaOlorun, Kevin J Peine, Chelsea B Polis, Carolina Sales Vieira, Regine Sitruk-Ware, Jennifer A Smit, Marsden Solomon, Lisa M Soule, Douglas Taylor, Elizabeth E Tolley, Olivia Vandeputte","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We sought to develop consensus recommendations for measurement and analysis of data on contraceptive-induced menstrual changes (CIMCs) in contraceptive clinical trials. We built upon previous standardization efforts over the last 50 years and prioritized input from a variety of global experts and current regulatory authority guidance on patient-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We completed a formal consensus-building process with an interdisciplinary group of 57 experts from 30 organizations and 14 countries in five global regions who work across academia, nonprofit research organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and funding agencies. Smaller topical working groups drafted and revised recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We developed 44 consensus recommendations, including research approaches to establish the evidence for future improvement in the measurement and analysis of CIMC data and guidance for investigators to implement presently. Priority recommendations call for simplification of terminology to make measurement accessible and patient-centered, accounting for intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may impact outcomes during study design and recruitment, standardized data collection of primary CIMC and acceptability outcomes, and harmonized approaches for analysis of these data, including addressing missing data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By virtually convening a large group of global experts working across disciplines and sectors via a formal methodology, we developed consensus recommendations that will improve the current and future measurement and analysis of CIMC data in contraceptive clinical trials. Using these standardized approaches will permit valid and reliable contraceptive product labeling on CIMC outcomes that matter to users and greater comparability across trials that can inform clinical guidance and contraceptive counseling.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Consensus recommendations on measuring bleeding changes and related outcomes in contraceptive clinical trials can improve reporting of standardized, patient-centered outcomes in future product labeling. These improvements can enable healthcare providers to offer more relevant guidance on contraceptives and users to make more informed decisions about their choice of method.</p>","PeriodicalId":93955,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":" ","pages":"110829"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: We sought to develop consensus recommendations for measurement and analysis of data on contraceptive-induced menstrual changes (CIMCs) in contraceptive clinical trials. We built upon previous standardization efforts over the last 50 years and prioritized input from a variety of global experts and current regulatory authority guidance on patient-reported outcomes.
Study design: We completed a formal consensus-building process with an interdisciplinary group of 57 experts from 30 organizations and 14 countries in five global regions who work across academia, nonprofit research organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and funding agencies. Smaller topical working groups drafted and revised recommendations.
Results: We developed 44 consensus recommendations, including research approaches to establish the evidence for future improvement in the measurement and analysis of CIMC data and guidance for investigators to implement presently. Priority recommendations call for simplification of terminology to make measurement accessible and patient-centered, accounting for intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may impact outcomes during study design and recruitment, standardized data collection of primary CIMC and acceptability outcomes, and harmonized approaches for analysis of these data, including addressing missing data.
Conclusion: By virtually convening a large group of global experts working across disciplines and sectors via a formal methodology, we developed consensus recommendations that will improve the current and future measurement and analysis of CIMC data in contraceptive clinical trials. Using these standardized approaches will permit valid and reliable contraceptive product labeling on CIMC outcomes that matter to users and greater comparability across trials that can inform clinical guidance and contraceptive counseling.
Implications: Consensus recommendations on measuring bleeding changes and related outcomes in contraceptive clinical trials can improve reporting of standardized, patient-centered outcomes in future product labeling. These improvements can enable healthcare providers to offer more relevant guidance on contraceptives and users to make more informed decisions about their choice of method.