Vilaprisan in women with uterine fibroids: the randomized phase 2b ASTEROID 1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of four vilaprisan doses (0.5-4.0 mg) in women with uterine fibroids. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. SETTING: Ninety-eight centers in 12 countries. PATIENT(S): Women aged 18-50 years with uterine fibroids and heavy menstrual bleeding were randomized equally to oral vilaprisan at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, or 4.0 mg or placebo once daily. INTERVENTION(S): Treatment for 12 weeks, 24-week follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary end point was absence of scheduled or unscheduled bleeding/spotting. Key secondary efficacy end points included volume of menstrual blood loss and change in fibroid volume. RESULT(S): A total of 309 patients were randomized, and 300 received treatment. Complete absence of bleeding/spotting was observed in 30%, 56%, 54%, and 60% of patients in the vilaprisan 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg groups, respectively, versus 1.7% with placebo. After 12 weeks, >83% of women achieved amenorrhea (<2 mL/28 days) with ≥1.0 mg vilaprisan versus 9% with placebo. Heavy menstrual bleeding stopped (but returned at a lower volume after treatment cessation) with ≥1.0 mg vilaprisan treatment. Reductions in fibroid volume of up to 41% were observed. Most patients receiving vilaprisan reported improvements in symptom severity. No safety concerns were identified in general safety, endometrial safety (by biopsy), laboratory values, and ultrasound examinations. CONCLUSION(S): ASTEROID 1 supports the efficacy of vilaprisan for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids. Daily oral treatment with vilaprisan 0.5-4.0 mg was well tolerated, and vilaprisan 2.0 mg once daily has been selected for further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02131662.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".