Hepatic Safety Considerations in the Use of Ulipristal Acetate for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Annika Semmler,1,2,* Maria E de Lange,2,* Joost PH Drenth,3 Niels S Vermeer,4 Pierre M Bet,4 Judith AF Huirne,1,2 Wouter JK Hehenkamp1,2 1Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location AMC and VUMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 3Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism (AGEM), Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 4Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Maria E de Lange, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, the Netherlands, Tel +31205667481, Email m.e.delange@amsterdamumc.nlIntroduction: Ulipristal acetate (UPA, 5 mg) demonstrated efficacy in symptom reduction for patients with symptomatic fibroids. While registration and post-marketing trials assessing UPA identified few hepatic concerns, post-marketing concerns about potential drug-induced liver injury (DILI) led to significant restrictions, including indication restriction, warning labels and mandatory liver function monitoring. These measures, along with two marketing suspensions, resulted in a decline in UPA use, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of its marketing authorization previously in Canada, Australia, as well as Singapore and in 2024, at the request of the marketing authorization holder for commercial reasons, also for the European Union.Methods: This narrative review critically evaluates the hepatic safety considerations associated with UPA.Results: On reassessment, the risk of severe DILI with UPA is low at 13.5:100.000, with an incidence of 1 in 200,000 for liver transplantation. These numbers are lower than with many other widely prescribed medications, where no regular liver monitoring is recommended. UPA was subjected to strict liver test monitoring although proof of effectiveness of these measures in preventing serious DILI was lacking. While the risk of severe hepatotoxic events is important to consider, a balanced approach to safety measures is needed, particularly in light of the higher risks associated with alternative treatment options such as surgical intervention.Conclusion: While UPA had a unique place in the treatment of uterine fibroids, overly cautious regulatory measures due to exceedingly rare DILI incidences led to the withdrawal of its marketing authorization in most parts of the world. There is a need for an improved understanding of DILI mechanisms and causality assessments to aid in the development of more proportional regulatory responses, balancing patient safety and sustained access to effective innovative treatment.Keywords: leiomyoma, drug-induced liver injury, safety pharmacology, selective progesterone receptor modulator, pharmacovigilance, ulipristal
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".