Women In Girdles Mature ^NEW^
In this sector, diversity and inclusivity across size and gender will continue to be important, especially as Gen-Z cohorts seek a rethinking of the industry's historically sexualized iconography. Kardashian West, for example, has announced her entry into shapewear. This mature industry became enticing to younger consumers when buzzy brands like Heist pioneered inclusivity and disrupted the market.
women in girdles mature
The female segment dominated the market and accounted for the largest revenue share of 94.0% in 2020. The segment is primarily driven by advancements in shapewear fabrics and an increase in product launches for females. Different types of shapewear have been introduced in the market for women, such as bodysuits, girdles, corsets, control panties, control tights, control slips, slimming camisoles, and brassieres, which is the key factor driving this segment. New product innovations concerning different body areas such as tummy, butt, and thighs are favoring the sales of the companies operating in this segment.
Females nowadays are demanding work-life flexibility intimates, which can keep their bodies in perfect shape and make them look appealing. Many brands are analyzing this as a customer-centric approach and expanding their product portfolios which are lighter, firm, and convenient for everyday use, for all the seasons. For instance, in January 2021, Knix-women intimate apparel brand launched its first shapewear collection for women- Love Your Shape-Wear, a line of 18 pieces in three cuts (a High Rise Shaper Brief, a High Rise Shaper Short, and a Shaper Bodysuit) in black and five different shades of nude.
In Asia Pacific, the market is expected to expand at a CAGR of 8.5% over the forecast period. In Asia Pacific, startups, new entrants, and domestic firms have been breaking into the shapewear industry by developing new products for men and women. Developing countries, like India and China, have been updating their fabric technology and investing more in R&D to produce more innovative products.
Football girdles protect your legs from some of the bruises you take on the gridiron. With a compression fit to help your muscles last longer on the field and strategically placed padding in the thighs, hips, and tailbone, girdles can save you quite a bit of pain. From industry-evolving EvoShield to world-renowned Cramer, Under Armour, and McDavid pads, our selection of football girdles is one of the largest in the world because we know that every pad on your body matters when you take the field.
Compression fit shorts help to reduce the build-up of lactic acid that results in the tiring of your muscles. These girdles use a compression fit to keep pads tight to your body while maintaining the benefit of muscle recovery because the fourth quarter in the last game of the season might be the most important. Maintain your speed and agility while defending your thighs, hips and tail from hi-impact and low-impact collisions.
Girdles come in multiple styles including standard with pockets for players to insert their own pads, integrated girdles have pads sewn into the compression shorts that cannot be removed, and other combinations of those two main styles. These options allow you to choose what suits you best. For more information, visit our buying guide on which football girdle is right for you.
Prior to the start of treatment with the combination of fulvestrant plus palbociclib, and throughout its duration, pre/perimenopausal women should be treated with LHRH agonists according to local clinical practice.
Thromboembolic events are commonly observed in women with advanced breast cancer and have been observed in clinical studies with fulvestrant (see section 4.8). This should be taken into consideration when prescribing Fulvestrant Teva to patients at risk.
Fulvestrant is a competitive estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist with an affinity comparable to estradiol. Fulvestrant blocks the trophic actions of estrogens without any partial agonist (estrogen-like) activity. The mechanism of action is associated with down regulation of estrogen receptor protein levels. Clinical studies in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer have shown that fulvestrant significantly down regulates ER protein in ER positive tumours compared with placebo. There was also a significant decrease in progesterone receptor expression consistent with a lack of intrinsic estrogen agonist effects. It has also been shown that fulvestrant 500 mg downregulates ER and the proliferation marker Ki67, to a greater degree than fulvestrant 250 mg in breast tumours in postmenopausal neoadjuvant setting.
A Phase 3 clinical study was completed in 736 postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who had disease recurrence on or after adjuvant endocrine therapy or progression following endocrine therapy for advanced disease. The study included 423 patients whose disease had recurred or progressed during antiestrogen therapy (AE subgroup) and 313 patients whose disease had recurred or progressed during aromatase inhibitor therapy (AI subgroup). This study compared the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant 500 mg (n=362) with fulvestrant 250 mg (n=374). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint; key secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and overall survival (OS). Efficacy results for the CONFIRM study are summarized in Table 3.
A Phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg was conducted in postmenopausal women with ER-positive and/or PgR-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had not previously been treated with any hormonal therapy. A total of 462 patients were randomised 1:1 sequentially to receive either fulvestrant 500 mg or anastrozole 1 mg.
Two Phase 3 clinical studies were completed in a total of 851 postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who had disease recurrence on or after adjuvant endocrine therapy or progression following endocrine therapy for advanced disease. Seventy seven percent (77%) of the study population had estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. These studies compared the safety and efficacy of monthly administration of fulvestrant 250 mg versus the daily administration of 1 mg anastrozole (aromatase inhibitor). Overall, fulvestrant at the 250 mg monthly dose was at least as effective as anastrozole in terms of progression-free survival, objective response, and time to death. There were no statistically significant differences in any of these endpoints between the two treatment groups. Progression-free survival was the primary endpoint. Combined analysis of both studies showed that 83% of patients who received fulvestrant progressed, compared with 85% of patients who received anastrozole. Combined analysis of both studies showed the hazard ratio of fulvestrant 250 mg to anastrozole for progression-free survival was 0.95 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.10). The objective response rate for fulvestrant 250 mg was 19.2% compared with 16.5% for anastrozole. The median time to death was 27.4 months for patients treated with fulvestrant and 27.6 months for patients treated with anastrozole. The hazard ratio of fulvestrant 250 mg to anastrozole for time to death was 1.01 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.19).
A Phase 3, international, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study of fulvestrant 500 mg plus palbociclib 125 mg versus fulvestrant 500 mg plus placebo was conducted in women with HR-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced breast cancer not amenable to resection or radiation therapy with curative intent or metastatic breast cancer, regardless of their menopausal status, whose disease progressed after prior endocrine therapy in the (neo) adjuvant or metastatic setting.
A total of 521 pre/peri- and postmenopausal women who had progressed on or within 12 months from completion of adjuvant endocrine therapy on or within 1 month from prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease, were randomised 2:1 to fulvestrant plus palbociclib or fulvestrant plus placebo and stratified by documented sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy, menopausal status at study entry (pre/peri- versus postmenopausal), and presence of visceral metastases. Pre/perimenopausal women received the LHRH agonist goserelin. Patients with advanced/metastatic, symptomatic, visceral spread, that were at risk of life-threatening complications in the short term (including patients with massive uncontrolled effusions [pleural, pericardial, peritoneal], pulmonary lymphangitis, and over 50% liver involvement), were not eligible for enrolment into the study.
The study met its primary endpoint of prolonging investigator-assessed PFS at the interim analysis conducted on 82% of the planned PFS events; the results crossed the pre-specified Haybittle-Peto efficacy boundary (α=0.00135), demonstrating a statistically significant prolongation in PFS and a clinically meaningful treatment effect. A more mature update of efficacy data is reported in Table 5.
The pharmacokinetics of fulvestrant has been evaluated in a single-dose clinical study conducted in women with mild to moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class A and B). A high dose of a shorter duration intramuscular injection formulation was used. There was up to about 2.5-fold increase in AUC in women with hepatic impairment compared to healthy subjects. In patients administered fulvestrant, an increase in exposure of this magnitude is expected to be well tolerated. Women with severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class C) were not evaluated. 041b061a72