ConductScience.org, home

Trial · NCT02668783

Efficacy and Safety of Etonogestrel + 17β-Estradiol Vaginal Ring (MK-8342B) in Women With Primary Dysmenorrhea (With Optional Extension) (MK-8342B-059)

NCT02668783, Phase 3, Terminated, Organon and Co; results first posted 2017-11-14

3 sourcestrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0

Download JSON
Cite this record

ConductScience Library. Efficacy and Safety of Etonogestrel + 17β-Estradiol Vaginal Ring (MK-8342B) in Women With Primary Dysmenorrhea (With Optional Extension) (MK-8342B-059). Trials, record NCT02668783. Release trials-2026-11-12-0.5.0, 12 Nov 2026. https://conductscience.org/library/trials/NCT02668783

On this page

Trial

As registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, in the graph's capture of the registry.

Title
Efficacy and Safety of Etonogestrel + 17β-Estradiol Vaginal Ring (MK-8342B) in Women With Primary Dysmenorrhea (With Optional Extension) (MK-8342B-059)
NCT number
NCT02668783
Status
Terminated
Phases
Phase 3
Enrollment
25 participants, actual
Lead sponsor
Organon and Co
Conditions
Moderate to Severe Primary Dysmenorrhea
Interventions
Etonogestrel (ENG) 125 μg + 17β-estradiol (E2) 300 μg vaginal ring, Placebo vaginal ring, Ibuprofen
First posted
2016-01-29
Last updated
2024-05-28
Other registries' IDs
eudract:2015-004325-14
Results first posted
2017-11-14

Source ClinicalTrials.gov

Registered outcomes8

Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.

ListOutcomeTime frameDescription
PrimaryPercentage of Participants With ≥3 Point Reduction in Peak Pelvic Pain Score and no Increase in Number of Ibuprofen Tablets Taken at Treatment Cycle 2, Compared to Baseline.Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Participants were asked to rate their worst pain or cramps in the past 24 hours on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=No pain or cramps to 10=Extreme pain or cramps) and to indicate the number of ibuprofen tablets they took during the 4-day cramping window. The peak pelvic pain score was to be calculated as the highest (daily) pelvic pain score observed within the cramping window of the cycle and the total number of ibuprofen tablets taken was to be based on the 4-day cramping window. The baseline peak pelvic pain score and number of ibuprofen tablets taken were to be defined as the mean value of the 2 peak pelvic pain scores and the mean value of the total number of ibuprofen tablets taken during the cramping window of each of the 2 menstruations during the screening period, respectively. The percentage of participants with a reduction in peak pelvic pain score of ≥3 points and no increase in the use of ibuprofen at Treatment Cycle 2 as compared to baseline was to be presented.
PrimaryNumber of Participants Who Experienced an Adverse Event (AE)Up to approximately 158 days
An AE was defined as any unfavorable and unintended change in the structure, function, or chemistry of the body temporally associated with the use of the study treatment, whether or not considered related to the use of study treatment. The number of participants who experienced an AE is presented.
PrimaryNumber of Participants Who Discontinued Treatment Due to an AEUp to approximately 128 days
An AE was defined as any unfavorable and unintended change in the structure, function, or chemistry of the body temporally associated with the use of the study treatment, whether or not considered related to the use of study treatment. The number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE is presented.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Peak Pelvic Pain Score at Treatment Cycle 2Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Participants were asked to rate their worst pain or cramps in the past 24 hours on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=No pain or cramps to 10=Extreme pain or cramps). The peak pelvic pain score was to be calculated as the highest (daily) pelvic pain score observed within the 4-day cramping window of the cycle. The baseline peak pelvic pain score was to be defined as the mean value of the 2 peak pelvic pain scores during the cramping window of each of the 2 menstruations during the screening period. The change from baseline in peak pelvic pain score at Treatment Cycle 2 was to be presented.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in the Number of Days With no Impact on Items of Physical, Work/School and Social/Leisure Activities at Treatment Cycle 2Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Participants were asked to indicate how much pain or cramps limited their physical, work/school and social/leisure activities and over the previous 24 hours. The level of negative impact of dysmenorrhea on daily life was scored on a 5-point scale (0=Not at all to 4=Extremely impacted). For each of the 3 impact items, the baseline score was to be defined as the mean value obtained from the 2 menstruations during the screening period. The change from baseline to Treatment Cycle 2 in the number of days during the cramping window with no impact of dysmenorrhea (score = 0) on each of the following items was to be presented: work/school, physical activities and leisure/social activities.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants With Pelvic Pain Score of "0" or "1" and no Use of Ibuprofen Tablets at Treatment Cycle 2Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Participants were asked to rate their worst pain or cramps on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=No pain or cramps to 10=Extreme pain or cramps) and to indicate the number of ibuprofen tablets they took during the 4-day cramping window. The percentage of participants with no or minimal pelvic pain (score of "0" or "1") and no use of ibuprofen at Treatment Cycle 2 was to be presented.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants With ≥3 Point Reduction in Peak Pelvic Pain Score and a Decrease in Ibuprofen Tablet Intake at Treatment Cycle 2, Compared to BaselineBaseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Participants were asked to rate their worst pain or cramps in the past 24 hours on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=No pain or cramps to 10=Extreme pain or cramps) and to indicate the number of ibuprofen tablets they took during the 4-day cramping window. The baseline peak pelvic pain score and number of ibuprofen tablets taken were to be defined as the mean value of the 2 peak pelvic pain scores and the mean value of the total number of ibuprofen tablets taken during the cramping window of each of the 2 menstruations during the screening period, respectively. The percentage of participants with a reduction in peak pelvic pain score of ≥3 points and a decrease in the use of ibuprofen at Treatment Cycle 2 as compared to baseline was to be presented.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Mean Pelvic Pain Score at Treatment Cycle 2Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
The mean pelvic pain score was to be calculated as the mean of the highest scores for pelvic pain observed within the 4-day cramping window of the screening or treatment cycle. The baseline mean pelvic pain score was to be defined as the mean value of the 2 mean pelvic pain scores of the 2 menstruations during the screening period. The change from baseline in mean pelvic pain score at Treatment Cycle 2 was to be presented.

Outcomes8

Each outcome the trial posted results for, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.

TypeOutcomeTime framePopulationUnitsMeasured as
PRIMARYPercentage of Participants With ≥3 Point Reduction in Peak Pelvic Pain Score and no Increase in Number of Ibuprofen Tablets Taken at Treatment Cycle 2, Compared to Baseline.Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Population was to consist of all participants in whom vaginal ring was inserted \& who had ≥1 day of diary entry each within a 4-day cramping window during a baseline cycle \& a treatment cycle. Due to termination, committee to determine cramping windows was not assembled, cramping windows were not determined \& efficacy data could not be analyzed.
PRIMARYNumber of Participants Who Experienced an Adverse Event (AE)Up to approximately 158 daysAll randomized participants in whom a vaginal ring was inserted.ParticipantsNUMBER
PRIMARYNumber of Participants Who Discontinued Treatment Due to an AEUp to approximately 128 daysAll randomized participants in whom a vaginal ring was inserted.ParticipantsNUMBER
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Peak Pelvic Pain Score at Treatment Cycle 2Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Population was to consist of all participants in whom a vaginal ring was inserted \& who had ≥1 day of diary entry each within 4-day cramping window during a baseline cycle \& a treatment cycle. Due to termination, committee to determine cramping windows was not assembled, cramping windows were not determined \& efficacy data could not be analyzed.
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in the Number of Days With no Impact on Items of Physical, Work/School and Social/Leisure Activities at Treatment Cycle 2Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Population was to consist of all participants in whom a vaginal ring was inserted \& who had ≥1 day of diary entry each within a 4-day cramping window during a baseline cycle \& a treatment cycle. Due to termination, committee to determine cramping windows was not assembled, cramping windows were not determined \& efficacy data could not be analyzed.
SECONDARYPercentage of Participants With Pelvic Pain Score of 0 or 1 and no Use of Ibuprofen Tablets at Treatment Cycle 2Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Population was to consist of all participants in whom a vaginal ring was inserted \& who had ≥1 day of diary entry each within a 4-day cramping window during Treatment Cycle 2. Due to termination, committee to determine cramping windows was not assembled, cramping windows were not determined \& efficacy data could not be analyzed.
SECONDARYPercentage of Participants With ≥3 Point Reduction in Peak Pelvic Pain Score and a Decrease in Ibuprofen Tablet Intake at Treatment Cycle 2, Compared to BaselineBaseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Population was to consist of all participants in whom a vaginal ring was inserted \& who had ≥1 day of diary entry each within a 4-day cramping window during a baseline cycle \& a treatment cycle. Due to termination, committee to determine cramping windows was not assembled, cramping windows were not determined \& efficacy data could not be analyzed.
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Mean Pelvic Pain Score at Treatment Cycle 2Baseline 4-day cramping window and Treatment Cycle 2 4-day cramping window, as determined by committee for each participant
Population was to consist of all participants in whom a vaginal ring was inserted \& who had ≥1 day of diary entry each within a 4-day cramping window during a baseline cycle \& a treatment cycle. Due to termination, committee to determine cramping windows was not assembled, cramping windows were not determined \& efficacy data could not be analyzed.

Results by group4

Each measurement the trial posted, group by group, in the words and numbers it posted.

OutcomeGroupCategoryValueSpreadUnits
Number of Participants Who Experienced an Adverse Event (AE)ENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg1Participants
Number of Participants Who Experienced an Adverse Event (AE)Placebo2Participants
Number of Participants Who Discontinued Treatment Due to an AEENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg0Participants
Number of Participants Who Discontinued Treatment Due to an AEPlacebo0Participants

Participant flow8

How many started, completed or left each group, period by period.

PeriodMilestoneGroupParticipantsUnits counted
Overall StudySTARTEDENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg13
Overall StudySTARTEDPlacebo12
Overall StudyTreatedENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg13
Overall StudyTreatedPlacebo11
Overall StudyCOMPLETEDENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg0
Overall StudyCOMPLETEDPlacebo0
Overall StudyNOT COMPLETEDENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg13
Overall StudyNOT COMPLETEDPlacebo12

Adverse events6

Each adverse event the trial posted, group by group: the participants affected out of those at risk.

TypeEventOrgan systemGroupAffectedAt riskEvents
otherVomiting in pregnancyPregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditionsENG-E2 125 Microgram/300 Microgram0130
otherVomiting in pregnancyPregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditionsPlacebo1111
otherMood swingsPsychiatric disordersENG-E2 125 Microgram/300 Microgram1131
otherMood swingsPsychiatric disordersPlacebo0110
otherVulvovaginal discomfortReproductive system and breast disordersENG-E2 125 Microgram/300 Microgram0130
otherVulvovaginal discomfortReproductive system and breast disordersPlacebo1111

Adverse event totals6

The totals the trial posted for each group.

TotalGroupAffectedAt risk
Total, all-cause mortalityENG-E2 125 Microgram/300 Microgram
Total, all-cause mortalityPlacebo
Total, other adverse eventsENG-E2 125 Microgram/300 Microgram113
Total, other adverse eventsPlacebo211
Total, serious adverse eventsENG-E2 125 Microgram/300 Microgram013
Total, serious adverse eventsPlacebo011

Papers0

The papers the trial lists on ClinicalTrials.gov.

None in this release.

Grants0

The grants NIH RePORTER links to the trial, newest funded first: NIH's, and some of AHRQ's, CDC's, FDA's and VA's. Each shows its title, principal investigators, organization and funder in its newest year.

None in this release.

Trial comparisons3

Comparisons of the trial's two groups, calculated by ConductScience from the counts it posted.

ComparisonSource
ENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg vs Placebo: Number of Participants Who Experienced an Adverse Event (AE)Trial comparisons
ENG-E2 125 μg/300 μg vs Placebo: Number of Participants Who Discontinued Treatment Due to an AETrial comparisons
ENG-E2 125 Microgram/300 Microgram vs Placebo: serious adverse eventsTrial comparisons

Tests0

The ConductCognition tests this trial's registered outcomes name, as ScienceGraph matched them in trial-tests-2026-11-12-0.2.1.

None in this release.

Data dates

The day each source was copied for this release.

ClinicalTrials.gov
2026-11-12
ClinicalTrials.gov
Results, from AACT
2026-03-23
AACT
NIH grant links
2026-11-13
NIH RePORTER

Sources 3

  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
  • ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
  • NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain
Each source's terms
  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
  • ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
  • NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)

ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.

For software

Read this trial from software.

The record and each of its lists are JSON, twenty rows a page. No key.

GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT02668783

GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT02668783/registered