Next-Generation Contraceptive Intravaginal Ring: Comparison of Etonogestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol In Vitro and In Vivo Release from 3D-Printed Intravaginal Ring and NuvaRing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravaginal rings (IVRs) represent a well-established, woman-controlled and sustained vaginal drug delivery system suitable for a wide range of applications. Here, we sought to investigate the differences in etonogestrel (ENG) and ethinyl estradiol (EE) release from a 3D-printed IVR utilizing continuous liquid interface production (CLIP™) (referred to as CLIPLOW for low drug loading and CLIPHIGH IVRs for high drug loading) and NuvaRing, a commercially available injection molded IVR. We conducted in vitro release studies in simulated vaginal fluid to compare the release of ENG and EE from CLIPLOW IVRs and NuvaRing. CLIPLOW IVRs had a similar hormone dose to NuvaRing and exhibited slightly slower ENG release and greater EE release in vitro compared to NuvaRing. When administered to female sheep, NuvaRing demonstrated greater ENG/EE levels in plasma, vaginal tissue and vaginal fluids compared to CLIPLOW IVR despite similar drug loadings. Leveraging observed hormones levels in sheep from NuvaRing as an effective contraceptive benchmark, we developed a long-acting CLIPHIGH IVR with increased ENG and EE doses that demonstrated systemic and local hormone levels greater than the NuvaRing for 90 days in sheep. No signs of toxicity were noted regarding general health, colposcopy, or histological analysis in sheep after CLIPHIGH IVR administration. Our results provided (1) a comparison of ENG and EE release between a 3D-printed IVR and NuvaRing in vitro and in vivo, (2) a preclinical pharmacokinetic benchmark for vaginally delivered ENG and EE and (3) the generation of a 90-day CLIP IVR that will be utilized in future work to support the development of a long-acting ENG/EE IVR combined with an antiretroviral for the prevention of HIV and unplanned pregnancy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".