Use of a progestogen only preparation containing desogestrel in the treatment of recurrent pelvic pain after conservative surgery for endometriosis

The efficacy of progestins in managing pain associated with endometriosis, fibroids and pre-menstrual syndrome: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Alongside being contraceptives, progestins have been investigated as potential anti-inflammatory and analgesic therapies for use in painful gynaecological conditions. This review aims to synthesise evidence pertaining to the efficacy of progestins as analgesics for use in endometriosis, fibroids and pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the extant literature investigating the analgesic efficacy of progestins compared to any comparator interventions for individuals with the three specified gynaecological conditions. The search was carried out across the PubMed and CENTRAL databases on 7 April 2024 for randomised control trials (RCTs) published in the peer-reviewed literature from 2000 onwards. Data pertaining to analgesic efficacy, assessed by changes in pain indices/scores before and after treatment, were synthesised narratively. Data pertaining to adverse effect frequency and changes in bone mineral density (BMD) were also synthesised narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

The primary search identified 1220 potentially eligible RCTs of which 21 were ultimately included; 19 RCTs related to endometriosis, two related to fibroids and zero related to PMS. Quality assessment identified nine studies to be at a low risk of bias, nine studies with some concerns surrounding bias and three studies to be at a high risk of bias. The included studies represented a total of 2745 participants of whom 1317 were treated with a progestin and 1428 received a comparator intervention. In 18 of the 19 studies concerning endometriosis, progestins produced a statistically significant reduction in pain, further, in five instances progestins were more efficacious in reducing pain than comparator interventions. In both studies on fibroids, progestins produced significant reductions in pain, however, statistically significant differences compared to comparator interventions were not demonstrated. The most frequently cited adverse effect of progestins was spotting/irregular bleeding whilst those receiving comparator interventions most often reported hot flushes; cited in 12 and seven studies respectively. Five studies assessed the impact of progestins and comparators on BMD. Three studies found progestins significantly reduced BMD, however, in these instances reductions were significantly lower than those produced by comparator interventions and in two studies were not statistically significant after 12 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our review demonstrates the potential scope for the use of progestins as analgesics in the management of pain associated with endometriosis. Further research will need to be conducted to identify their efficacy in the management of pain associated with fibroids and PMS.

Clinical effectiveness of progestogens compared to combined oral contraceptive pills in the treatment of endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endometriosis involves the growth of endometrium-like cells outside the uterus, affecting reproductive-aged women. Symptoms such as dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and infertility significantly impair quality of life. Among therapeutic options, progestogens have demonstrated efficacy in managing pain and reducing recurrence rates. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pills in alleviating pelvic pain, dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, and associated side effects.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with the last search conducted in October 2024. The review was registered under PROSPERO registration number CRD42024609658. Studies were included regardless of language, publication year, or country. Articles not comparing progestogens and combined oral contraceptives or lacking relevant outcomes were excluded, as were abstracts, theses, case reports, opinion pieces, and correspondence. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 for randomized studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies, including 948 patients (476 receiving progestogens), met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis found no significant differences between progestogens and COCPs for pelvic pain (SMD = 0.02; 95 % CI: -0.37 to 0.40; P = 0.04; I2 = 66.7 %), dysmenorrhea (SMD = 0.00; 95 % CI: -0.19 to 0.19), dyspareunia (SMD = 0.21; 95 % CI: -0.42 to 0.85; P = 0.02; I2 = 81.4 %), or psychological health (SMD = 0.01; 95 % CI: -0.21 to 0.23; P = 0.19; I2 = 39.1 %). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in side effects, including breast tenderness, weight gain, amenorrhea, and bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Progestogens and COCPs demonstrate comparable efficacy in managing pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and psychological health, with similar side effect profiles. These findings suggest both treatments are equally effective options for symptom management in endometriosis.

Safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) are gynecological conditions affecting women of reproductive age and causing pain symptoms. The symptoms caused by these conditions are similar; thus, the differential diagnosis may be challenging. The treatment of these conditions is very different because PID is treated with antibiotic therapy, while endometriosis is treated with hormonal therapies suppressing estrogen levels.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review was conducted through a comprehensive literature search on endometriosis and PID. The search strategy incorporated relevant keywords and MeSH terms related to these topics.

EXPERT OPINION

The antibiotics used to manage PID have high efficacy and safety profiles. Commonly prescribed regimens include a combination of ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and metronidazole. These antibiotics are generally well-tolerated, with most adverse effects being mild and manageable (gastrointestinal disturbances or hypersensitivity reactions). Hormonal therapies are a cornerstone in the management of endometriosis; they include combined oral contraceptives (COCs), progestins, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, and antagonists. COCs and progestins are generally well-tolerated with a favorable safety profile, though they may cause side effects (breakthrough bleeding and mood changes). Oral GnRH antagonists have emerged as a noteworthy option, offering partial estrogen suppression and thereby overcoming the limitations associated with previously used GnRH agonists.

A systematic literature review on patient-reported outcome domains and measures in nonsurgical efficacy trials related to chronic pain associated with endometriosis: an urgent call to action

ABSTRACT

Endometriosis, a common cause for chronic pelvic pain, significantly affects quality of life, fertility, and overall productivity of those affected. Therapeutic options remain limited, and collating evidence on treatment efficacy is complicated. One reason could be the heterogeneity of assessed outcomes in nonsurgical clinical trials, impeding meaningful result comparisons. This systematic literature review examines outcome domains and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials. Through comprehensive search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL up until July 2022, we screened 1286 records, of which 191 were included in our analyses. Methodological quality (GRADE criteria), information about publication, patient population, and intervention were assessed, and domains as well as PROMs were extracted and analyzed. In accordance with IMMPACT domain framework, the domain pain was assessed in almost all studies (98.4%), followed by adverse events (73.8%). By contrast, assessment of physical functioning (29.8%), improvement and satisfaction (14.1%), and emotional functioning (6.8%) occurred less frequently. Studies of a better methodological quality tended to use more different domains. Nevertheless, combinations of more than 2 domains were rare, failing to comprehensively capture the bio-psycho-social aspects of endometriosis-associated pain. The PROMs used showed an even broader heterogeneity across all studies. Our findings underscore the large heterogeneity of assessed domains and PROMs in clinical pain-related endometriosis trials. This highlights the urgent need for a standardized approach to both, assessed domains and high-quality PROMs ideally realized through development and implementation of a core outcome set, encompassing the most pivotal domains and PROMs for both, stakeholders and patients.

Progesterone receptor ligands for the treatment of endometriosis

Estrogen dependence and progesterone resistance play a crucial role in the origin and development of endometriosis. Therefore, hormonal therapies are currently the most effective treatment. Progestins are considered the first-line approach, especially for a long-term management. Progestins are synthetic compounds that mimic the effects of progesterone by binding progesterone receptors. Continuous use of progestins leads to the suppression of ovarian steroidogenesis with anovulation and low serum levels of ovarian steroids, causing endometrial pseudodecidualization. Moreover, they act by interfering on several endometriosis pathogenetic pathways, decreasing inflammation, provoking apoptosis in endometriotic cells, stimulating atrophy or regression of endometrial lesions, inhibiting angiogenesis, and decreasing expression of metalloproteinases, thus diminishing the invasiveness of endometriotic implants. Progestins are effective for pain relief and improvement of the quality of life (QoL). The side effects are limited, and the compounds are available in different formulations and routes of administration and represent, in most cases, an inexpensive treatment option. Dienogest, Medroxyprogesterone acetate and Norethisterone acetate are the labeled progestins for endometriosis, but other progestins, such as Dyhidrogesterone, Levonorgestrel and Desogestrel, have been shown to be effective in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. The present review aims to describe the available and emerging evidences on progestins used for the treatment of endometriosis.

Hormonal drugs for the treatment of endometriosis

In the past, the primary approach for the treatment of endometriosis was represented by surgery; however, after the introduction of non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis with the development of imaging technologies, medical treatment became the preferred approach, particularly in young patients. Hormonal drugs, by blocking menstruation, are the most effective for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain, independently of phenotype (ovarian, deep, or superficial endometriosis). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs and oral antagonists act on hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary axis inducing iatrogenic menopause, thus reducing dysmenorrhea and all pain symptoms. The side effects, such as hot flushes and bone loss, may be reduced by an add-back therapy. However, the cost in terms of women's health remains high in view of a long-term treatment. Progestins are considered the first-line treatment, highly effective, and with reduced side effects. In addition to the well-known and largely used Norethisterone acetate and Medroxyprogesterone acetate, recently Dienogest has become one of the most used drugs in all endometriosis phenotypes for long-term treatment. Besides, Intrauterine levornogestrel or subcutaneous etonogestrel are valid alternative for long-term treatment.

Estro-Progestins and Pain Relief in Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a benign, hormone-responsive chronic disease that affects women of reproductive age; long-term treatment to balance satisfactory tolerability with clinical efficacy is necessary for these patients. The first-line therapy for endometriosis is predominantly medical treatment, in order to improve symptoms or prevent post-surgical disease recurrence. Multiple factors including age and women preference, pain severity, and endometriosis stage must be considered in the choice of the most suitable therapy. Estrogen-progestogins are generally used as first-line hormone therapies among different medical options currently effective for endometriosis management. Several studies have shown that they are able to improve pain symptoms in most patients, are well tolerated, and are inexpensive. Combined hormonal contraception treatment, administered cyclically or continuously, with different types of hormones and route of administration, results in clinically noticeable decrease in dysmenorrhea, noncyclic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and recurrence rate after surgery, and also in quality of life improvement.

Hormonal treatments for endometriosis: The endocrine background

Endometriosis is a benign uterine disorder characterized by menstrual pain and infertility, deeply affecting women's health. It is a chronic disease and requires a long term management. Hormonal drugs are currently the most used for the medical treatment and are based on the endocrine pathogenetic aspects. Estrogen-dependency and progesterone-resistance are the key events which cause the ectopic implantation of endometrial cells, decreasing apoptosis and increasing oxidative stress, inflammation and neuroangiogenesis. Endometriotic cells express AMH, TGF-related growth factors (inhibin, activin, follistatin) CRH and stress related peptides. Endocrine and inflammatory changes explain pain and infertility, and the systemic comorbidities described in these patients, such as autoimmune (thyroiditis, arthritis, allergies), inflammatory (gastrointestinal/urinary diseases) and mental health disorders.The hormonal treatment of endometriosis aims to block of menstruation through an inhibition of hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary axis or by causing a pseudodecidualization with consequent amenorrhea, impairing the progression of endometriotic implants. GnRH agonists and antagonists are effective on endometriosis by acting on pituitary-ovarian function. Progestins are mostly used for long term treatments (dienogest, NETA, MPA) and act on multiple sites of action. Combined oral contraceptives are also used for reducing endometriosis symptoms by inhibiting ovarian function. Clinical trials are currently going on selective progesterone receptor modulators, selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors. Nowadays, all these hormonal drugs are considered the first-line treatment for women with endometriosis to improve their symptoms, to postpone surgery or to prevent post-surgical disease recurrence. This review aims to provide a comprehensive state-of-the-art on the current and future hormonal treatments for endometriosis, exploring the endocrine background of the disease.

Long-term treatment of endometriosis-related pain among women seeking hormonal contraception

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the different effects of a progestin-only contraceptive with desogestrel (DSG) vs combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for a first line long-term treatment of endometriosis-related pain among patients seeking hormonal contraception.

METHODS

An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted in collaboration with a local outpatient clinic for endometriosis among a group of nulliparous young women (n = 216) with endometriosis-related pain and seeking contraception. The cohort was subdivided into a group (n = 73) treated as first line by DSG and another group (n = 75) treated by a COC. During the study, clinical symptoms, side effects and possible changes in OC type use were recorded.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of clinical characteristics and pain scores before treatment. After 6 months both treatments were effective in reducing endometriosis-related pain, and those treated with DSG showed lower levels of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and nonmenstrual pelvic pain than COCs group (p < .01). After 12 months, in DSG Group some patients (15%) switched from DSG to a COC for breakthrough bleeding, whereas in COC Group 48% of patients switched to another type of COC for reduced efficacy on pain and/or for side effects. After 3 years of OC treatment, in DSG Group 79% of patients maintained the same therapy, whereas in COC Group only 14% continued the same COC type, 37% switched to another COC and 47% to DSG.

CONCLUSIONS

A progestin-only contraceptive with DSG is a valid option for long term management of endometriosis-related pain in patients seeking hormonal contraception.

ESHRE guideline: endometriosis

STUDY QUESTION

How should endometriosis be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The current guideline provides 109 recommendations on diagnosis, treatments for pain and infertility, management of disease recurrence, asymptomatic or extrapelvic disease, endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women, prevention and the association with cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometriosis is a chronic condition with a plethora of presentations in terms of not only the occurrence of lesions, but also the presence of signs and symptoms. The most important symptoms include pain and infertility.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 1 December 2020 and written in English were included in the literature review.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within specialist subgroups and then presented to the core guideline development group (GDG) until consensus was reached. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians to apply best care for women with endometriosis. Although studies mostly focus on women of reproductive age, the guideline also addresses endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women. The guideline outlines the diagnostic process for endometriosis, which challenges laparoscopy and histology as gold standard diagnostic tests. The options for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms include analgesics, medical treatments and surgery. Non-pharmacological treatments are also discussed. For management of endometriosis-associated infertility, surgical treatment and/or medically assisted reproduction are feasible. While most of the more recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, there are five topics in which significant changes to recommendations were required and changes in clinical practice are to be expected.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guideline describes different management options but, based on existing evidence, no firm recommendations could be formulated on the most appropriate treatments. Also, for specific clinical issues, such as asymptomatic endometriosis or extrapelvic endometriosis, the evidence is too scarce to make evidence-based recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in endometriosis care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in endometriosis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. C.M.B. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare and the European Commission; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with ObsEva (Data Safety Monitoring Group) and Myovant (Scientific Advisory Group). A.B. reports grants from FEMaLE executive board member and European Commission Horizon 2020 grant; consulting fees from Ethicon Endo Surgery, Medtronic; honoraria for lectures from Ethicon; and support for meeting attendance from Gedeon Richter; A.H. reports grants from MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring; Consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics, Nordic Pharma, Chugai and Benevolent Al Bio Limited all paid to the institution; a pending patent on Serum endometriosis biomarker; he is also Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials. O.H. reports consulting fees and speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Bayer AG; support for attending meetings from Gedeon-Richter, and leadership roles at the Finnish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Nordic federation of the societies of obstetrics and gynecology. L.K. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; support for attending meetings from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; he also has a leadership role in the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology (DGGEF). M.K. reports grants from French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM), Australian Ministry of Health, Medical Research Future Fund and French National Cancer Institute; support for meeting attendance from European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Congress on Endometriosis (EEC) and ESHRE; She is an advisory Board Member, FEMaLe Project (Finding Endometriosis Using Machine Learning), Scientific Committee Chair for the French Foundation for Research on Endometriosis and Scientific Committee Chair for the ComPaRe-Endometriosis cohort. A.N. reports grants from Merck SA and Ferring; speaker fees from Merck SA and Ferring; support for meeting attendance from Merck SA; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; she also is a board member of medical advisory board, Endometriosis Society, the Netherlands (patients advocacy group) and an executive board member of the World Endometriosis Society. E.S. reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, Rosetrees Trust, Barts and the London Charity; Royalties from De Gruyter (book editor); consulting fees from Hologic; speakers fees from Hologic, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Intuitive, Olympus and Karl Storz; Participation in the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); he is also Ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society. C.T. reports grants from Merck SA; Consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; speaker fees from Merck SA, all paid to the institution; and support for meeting attendance from Ferring, Gedeon Richter and Merck SA. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Endometriosis and Medical Therapy: From Progestogens to Progesterone Resistance to GnRH Antagonists: A Review

Background: The first objective of this review was to present, based on recent literature, the most frequently applied medical options (oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and progestogens) for the management of symptomatic endometriosis, and evaluate their effectiveness in treating premenopausal women with endometriosis-associated pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, non-menstrual pelvic pain and dyspareunia. The second objective was to review the concept of progesterone resistance and newly available treatment options. Methods: We reviewed the most relevant papers (n = 73) on the efficacy of OCPs and progestogens as medical therapy for endometriosis, as well as those on progesterone resistance and new medical alternatives (oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist). Eleven papers, essentially reviews, were selected and scrutinized from among 94 papers discussing the concept of progesterone resistance. Results: Having reviewed the most significant papers, we can confirm that OCPs and progestogens are effective in two-thirds of women suffering from endometriosis, but that other options are required in case of failure (in one-third of women due to progesterone resistance) or intolerance to these compounds. It is clear that there is a need for effective long-term oral treatment capable of managing endometriosis symptoms, while mitigating the impact of side effects. Biochemical, histological and clinical evidence show that estrogens play a critical role in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, so lowering levels of circulating estrogens should be considered an effective medical approach. The efficacy of three oral GnRH antagonists is discussed on the basis of published studies. Conclusion: There is a place for GnRH antagonists in the management of symptomatic endometriosis and clinical trials should be conducted, taking into account the different phenotypes in order to propose novel algorithms.

Progesterone receptor ligands for the treatment of endometriosis: the mechanisms behind therapeutic success and failure

BACKGROUND

Despite intense research, it remains intriguing why hormonal therapies in general and progestins in particular sometimes fail in endometriosis.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We review here the action mechanisms of progesterone receptor ligands in endometriosis, identify critical differences between the effects of progestins on normal endometrium and endometriosis and envisage pathways to escape drug resistance and improve the therapeutic response of endometriotic lesions to such treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a systematic Pubmed search covering articles published since 1958 about the use of progestins, estro-progestins and selective progesterone receptor modulators, to treat endometriosis and its related symptoms. Two reviewers screened the titles and abstracts to select articles for full-text assessment.

OUTCOMES

Progesterone receptor signalling leads to down-regulation of estrogen receptors and restrains local estradiol production through interference with aromatase and 17 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1. Progestins inhibit cell proliferation, inflammation, neovascularisation and neurogenesis in endometriosis. However, progesterone receptor expression is reduced and disrupted in endometriotic lesions, with predominance of the less active isoform (PRA) over the full-length, active isoform (PRB), due to epigenetic abnormalities affecting the PGR gene transcription. Oxidative stress is another mechanism involved in progesterone resistance in endometriosis. Among the molecular targets of progesterone in the normal endometrium that resist progestin action in endometriotic cells are the nuclear transcription factor FOXO1, matrix metalloproteinases, the transmembrane gap junction protein connexin 43 and paracrine regulators of estradiol metabolism. Compared to other phenotypes, deep endometriosis appears to be more resistant to size regression upon medical treatments. Individual genetic characteristics can affect the bioavailability and pharmacodynamics of hormonal drugs used to treat endometriosis and, hence, explain part of the variability in the therapeutic response.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Medical treatment of endometriosis needs urgent innovation, which should start by deeper understanding of the disease core features and diverse phenotypes and idiosyncrasies, while moving from pure hormonal treatments to drug combinations or novel molecules capable of restoring the various homeostatic mechanisms disrupted by endometriotic lesions.

Continuous vs. cyclic combined hormonal contraceptives for treatment of dysmenorrhea: a systematic review

Objective

This systematic review aims to evaluate the benefits of oral continuous combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in managing dysmenorrhea by comparing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of continuous vs. cyclic CHC use for the following outcomes: (a) reducing dysmenorrhea duration and frequency, (b) severity, (c) recurrence and (d) interference with daily activity.

Study design

Cochrane, PUBMED and Popline databases were searched from 1934 to 2018 for all relevant studies evaluating CHC for treatment of dysmenorrhea. A study was selected if it (a) compared continuous regimen vs. cyclic regimen of oral CHC, (b) measured dysmenorrhea as a primary or secondary outcome, (c) was an RCT and (d) was published in English. Due to differences in CHC used and outcome measurement, a systematic analysis of individual study results and a limited meta-analysis were conducted.

Results

Of 780 studies that were screened by title and abstract, 8 were included in the final analysis; 6 evaluated cyclic vs. continuous CHC, and 2 evaluated cyclic vs. extended/flexible CHC use. Quality of evidence was low for all outcome measures. Overall, compared to cyclic use, flexible/extended CHC resulted in 4 fewer days of dysmenorrhea. Studies revealed conflicting results for interference with daily activity, pain severity and pain recurrence. Side effects were few in both comparison groups.

Conclusions

Continuous or extended/flexible CHC use may reduce dysmenorrhea duration compared to cyclic regimen; however, more rigorous research is needed.

Implications

This systematic review shows that continuous CHC use may reduce dysmenorrhea duration compared to cyclic regimen, although the quality of evidence is low. Future double-blinded RCTs with more rigorous study design, consistent outcome measures and comprehensive outcome reporting are needed.

Hormonal contraception in women with endometriosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was carried out of studies of women with endometriosis, to examine the evidence for efficacy of the use of hormonal contraception to improve disease-related pain and decrease postoperative risk of disease recurrence.

METHODS

A search of the Medline/PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify all published English language studies on hormonal contraceptive therapies (combined hormonal contraceptives [CHCs], combined oral contraceptives [COCs], progestin-only pills [POPs] and progestin-only contraceptives [POCs]) in women with a validated endometriosis diagnosis, in comparison with placebo, comparator therapies or other hormonal therapies. Main outcome measures were endometriosis-related pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia), quality of life (QoL) and postoperative rate of disease recurrence during treatment.

RESULTS

CHC and POC treatments were associated with clinically significant reductions in dysmenorrhoea, often accompanied by reductions in non-cyclical pelvic pain and dyspareunia and an improvement in QoL. Only two COC preparations (ethinylestradiol [EE]/norethisterone acetate [NETA] and a flexible EE/drospirenone regimen) demonstrated significantly increased efficacy compared with placebo. Only three studies found that the postoperative use of COCs (EE/NETA, EE/desogestrel and EE/gestodene) reduced the risk of disease recurrence. There was no evidence that POCs reduced the risk of disease recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

CHCs and POCs are effective for the relief of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia, and improve QoL. Some COCs decreased the risk of disease recurrence after conservative surgery, but POCs did not. There is insufficient evidence, however, to reach definitive conclusions about the overall superiority of any particular hormonal contraceptive.

Current understanding on pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and safety of progestins for treating pain associated to endometriosis

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis is a chronic estrogen and progestogen responsive inflammatory disease associated with pain symptoms and infertility. The medical therapy of endometriosis aims to induce decidualization within the hormonally dependent ectopic endometrium, and it is often administered to ameliorate women' pain symptoms or to prevent post-surgical disease recurrence. A variety of progestins have been used in monotherapy for the medical management of women with endometriosis. Areas covered: This review aims to offer the reader a complete overview of pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical efficacy of progestins for the treatment of endometriosis. Expert opinion: Each progestin has a distinct PK parameters and pharmacodynamics affinity not only for progesterone receptor, but also for other steroid receptors, such as estrogen, androgen, and glucocorticoid. Moreover, progestins can also be delivered in different formulations. All these characteristics influence their final biological effect. Randomized, controlled, non-blinded studies support the use of oral progestin-only treatment for pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. Currently, the only two progestins approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of endometriosis are norethindrone acetate (NETA) and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA).

[Endometriosis medical treatment: Hormonal treatment for the management of pain and endometriotic lesions recurrence. CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]

The available literature, from 2006 to 2017, on hormonal treatment has been analysed as a contribution to the HAS-CNGOF task force for the treatment of endometriosis. Available data are heterogeneous and the general level of evidence is moderate. Hormonal treatment is usually offered as the primary option to women suffering from endometriosis. It cannot be used in women willing to conceive. In women who have not been operated, the first line of hormonal treatment includes combined oral contraceptives (COC) and the levonorgestrel-releasing intra uterine system (52mg LNG-IUS). As a second line, desogestrel progestin only pills, etonogestrel implants, GnRH analogs (GnRHa) with add back therapy and dienogest can be offered. Add back therapy should include estrogens to prevent bone loss and improve quality of life, it can be introduced before the third month of treatment to prevent side effects. The literature does not support preoperative hormonal treatment for the sole purpose of reducing complications or recurrence, or facilitating surgical procedures. After surgical treatment, hormonal treatment is recommended to prevent pain recurrence and improve quality of life. COCs or LNG IUS are recommended as a first line. To prevent recurrence of endometriomas COC is advised and maintained as long as tolerance is good in the absence of pregnancy plans. In case of dysmenorrhea, postoperative COC should be used in a continuous scheme. GnRHa are not recommended in the sole purpose of reducing endometrioma recurrence risk.

Progestins for the Treatment of Endometriosis: An Update

Endometriosis is a gynecological condition that affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age, including 25–40% of infertile women. Dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and chronic pelvic pain are the most common symptoms. Currently available medical therapies for endometriosis do not cure the disease, but are directed at symptom relief, typically utilizing the hormone responsiveness of endometriotic tissue to induce lesion atrophy. Unfortunately, pain relapse after treatment suspension is a common event. Treatment with pharmacological therapies for endometriosis should be conceived in terms of years, thus agents that must be withdrawn after a few months due to poor tolerability or severe metabolic side effects do not greatly benefit women with symptomatic endometriosis. The characteristics of progestins render this class an ideal pharmacological choice for administration over extended periods. The present paper will review the rationale for using progestins and their mechanism of action in endometriosis. Thereafter, the results obtained by various progestins in the treatment of endometriosis will be evaluated (danazol, gestrinone, norethisterone acetate, desogestrel, cyproterone acetate, megestrol acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and levonorgestrel). A progestin called dienogest, recently introduced for the treatment of endometriosis, will be given special focus, describing its mechanism of action and clinical results.

[Medical treatment of endometriosis: Hormonal treatment of pain, impact on evolution and future perspectives]

CONTEXT

Endometriosis is a chronic painful disease, for which hormone therapy is usually offered as a first line option to women not willing to conceive.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse and synthesize the literature, from 2006 onwards, on pain control, and disease evolution in oemn using combined hormonal contraceptives, progestins and GnRH analogs. Data on other current and future treatment perspectives is included as well.

SOURCES

Medline (Pubmed), the Cochrane Library, and endometriosis treatment recommendations published by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Société des Obstétriciens et Gynécologues du Canada (SOGC).

STUDY SELECTION

Meta-analysis and clinical trials are included.

RESULTS

Study quality is heterogeneous in general. Hormone therapy inconstantly allows pain relief and prevention of endometrioma and rectovaginal wall nodules recurrence. Available molecules and routes of administration as well as risk benefit balance are evaluated. Data on future perspectives are limited to date and do not allow use in routine.

CONCLUSION

Hormonal treatment of endometriosis relies on combined hormonal contraceptives (using different routes of administration), progestins and particularly the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS, and GnRH analogs as a last option, in combination with an add-back therapy. Promising alternatives are currently under preclinical and clinical evaluation.

Postoperative desogestrel for pelvic endometriosis-related pain: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of desogestrel for relieving endometriosis-related pain.

METHODS

A double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 40 patients who had endometriosis with moderate-to-severe dysmenorrhea or chronic pelvic pain undergoing laparoscopic conservative surgery. After surgery, patients were randomized to desogestrel or placebo group. Outcomes included changes in visual analog scale (VAS) of dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomized to desogestrel group (n = 20) and placebo group (n = 20). At month 6, the desogestrel group had significantly lower median VAS of overall pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea and noncyclic pelvic pain. Comparing with the placebo group, the desogestrel group had greater reduction in VAS of overall pain, dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain, but comparable reduction in VAS of dyspareunia. No patient in the desogestrel group but 4 patients in the placebo group still had moderate-to-severe pelvic pain at 6 months postoperatively. The proportion of patients who rated the treatment as very satisfied was higher in the desogestrel group than in the placebo group. There was no serious adverse event during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Desogestrel is effective and acceptable for postoperative therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe pain related to endometriosis.

Measures used to assess chronic pelvic pain in randomized controlled clinical trials: a systematic review

RATIONALE

Many types of pain assessment are available to researchers carrying out clinical trials in chronic pelvic pain (CPP), ranging from a single-item scale to multidimensional inventories.

AIM

Our objective was to investigate which assessments of pain are more commonly used in clinical trials on CPP.

METHOD

We have reviewed articles published between 1991 and 2014. A total of 74 studies out of 1299 original research articles reviewed met the selection criteria by containing at least one method of pain assessment. The selected studies were classified according to the dimensions of pain evaluated, the type of scale and the descriptors used.

RESULTS

The instruments most frequently used were single-item VAS and Biberoglu and Behrman pain score, while multidimensional inventories were used in few studies. The results of clinical studies in CPP are more frequently based on one-dimensional measurements. Valuable results from clinical studies in CPP might have been omitted because of incomplete outcome measurements.

CONCLUSION

We believe the authors of clinical studies should report their results in a comprehensive way including in the outcomes of the measurement of one-dimensional and multidimensional pain characteristics.

Current strategies for endometriosis management

Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disorder that persists throughout the reproductive years. Although endometriosis is a surgical diagnosis, medical management with ovarian suppression remains the mainstay of long-term management with superimposed surgical intervention when needed. The goal of surgery should be excision or ablation of all visible disease to minimize risk of recurrence and need for repeat surgeries. When infertility is the presenting symptom, surgical therapy in addition to assisted reproductive technology can improve chances of conception; however, the treatment approach depends on stage of disease and other patient characteristics that affect fecundity.

Pelvic pain and quality of life of women with endometriosis during quadriphasic estradiol valerate/dienogest oral contraceptive: a patient-preference prospective 24-week pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The progestin dienogest (DNG) given alone effectively reduces pelvic pain of women with endometriosis. It is not clear whether the same occurs when DNG is associated with estradiol (E2).

DESIGN

Patient preference prospective observational study.

SETTING

Outpatient centre of university hospital.

PATIENTS

40 patients with endometriosis and menstrual pain.

INTERVENTIONS

24-week treatment with a quadriphasic association of E2 valerate (E2V) and DNG or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) to be used only in case of pain (ketoprofene 200-mg tablets).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Menstrual pain and, when present, intermenstrual pain, and dyspareunia were investigated by means of a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Quality of life was investigated by the short form 36 (SF-36) of the health-related quality of life questionnaire.

RESULTS

Final study group consists of 34 patients, 19 in the E2V/DNG group and 15 in the NSAID group. After 24 weeks, no significant modification of menstrual pain, intermenstrual pain, dyspareunia, or SF-36 score was observed in the NSAID group. Treatment with E2V/DNG reduced the VAS score of menstrual pain by 61% (P < .0001). In the subgroups of women with intermenstrual pain or dyspareunia, E2V/DNG reduced these complaints by 65% (P = .013) and 52% (P = .016), respectively. The reduction in menstrual (P = .0001) and intermenstrual pain (p = 0.03) was significantly greater during E2V/DNG than NSAID. Quality of life improved during E2V/DNG (P = .0002), both in physical (P = .0003) and mental domains (P = .0065). Only a few minor adverse effects were described during E2V/DNG, and none caused withdrawal from treatment.

CONCLUSION

In patients with endometriosis and pelvic pain, the 24-week administration of the quadriphasic association of E2V/DNG decreases pelvic pain and improves quality of life.

Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose a scale?

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies concerning endometriosis and pain have been reported. However, there is no consensus on the best method to evaluate pain in endometriosis and many scales have been used. Moreover, there are only a few descriptions of minimal clinically important differences after treatment (MCID) to evaluate variations in pain. In our study, we aim to identify pain scales used in endometriosis pain treatment, to address their strong and weak points and to define which would be the ideal scale to help clinicians and researchers to evaluate endometriosis-related pain.

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out for publications in English, French or Portuguese from 1980 to December 2012, for the words: endometriosis, treatment, pain. Studies were selected if they studied an endometriosis treatment and a pain scale was specified. A quantitative and a qualitative analysis of each scale was performed to define strong and weak points of each scale (systematic registration number: CRD42013005336).

RESULTS

A total of 736 publications were identified. After excluding duplications and applying inclusion criteria 258 studies remained. We found that the visual analog scale (VAS) is the most frequently used scale. Both VAS and the numerical rating scale (NRS) show a good balance between strong and weak points in comparison with others such as the Biberoglu and Behrman scale. Concerning MCID, only VAS, NRS and Brief Pain Inventory scales have reported MCID and, among these, only VAS MCID has been studied in endometriosis patients (VAS MCID = 10 mm). Adding the Clinical Global Impression score (CGI) to the pain scale allows calculation of the MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

When using pain scales their strengths and weaknesses must be known and included in the analysis. VAS is the most frequently used pain scale and, together with NRS, seems the best adapted for endometriosis pain measurement. The use of VAS or NRS for each type of typical pain related to endometriosis (dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia and non-menstrual chronic pelvic pain), combined with the CGI and a quality-of-life scale will provide both clinicians and researchers with tools to evaluate treatment response.

Progestogen-only contraceptive pill compared with combined oral contraceptive in the treatment of pain symptoms caused by endometriosis in patients with migraine without aura

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate patient satisfaction at 6-month treatment in women with symptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis and migraine without aura with (progestogen-only contraceptive pill, POP versus sequential combined oral contraceptives, COC) STUDY DESIGN: A patient preference trial including 144 women (82 in the group COC and 62 in the group POP). Main outcome measure was the degree of patient satisfaction by using a Likert scale. Secondary objectives were to evaluate differences in endometriosis-related pain and changes in migraine features during the treatment.

RESULTS

In group POP, 38/62 women (61.2%) were satisfied or very satisfied after treatment, compared to 31/82 women (37.8%) in group COC (p=0.005). The intensity of chronic pelvic pain and dyspareunia significantly decreased at 6-month treatment in both the groups. At 6-month treatment, the number of migraine attacks was lower than at baseline in group POP (p=0.002), while it was not reduced in group COC (p=0.521). The intensity of migraine attacks was significantly different between baseline and 6-month treatment in group POP (p<0.001) but not in group COC (p=0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

POP is better tolerated than COC and it seems to ameliorate migraine attacks compared to COC in symptomatic patients with rectovaginal endometriosis and migraine without aura. Both drugs efficaciously relieve endometriosis-related pain symptoms. This study supports the use of the POP in women with rectovaginal endometriosis and coexisting migraine without aura.

Treatment of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis: a committee opinion

Pain associated with endometriosis may involve many mechanisms and requires careful evaluation to confirm the diagnosis and exclude other potential causes. Both medical and surgical treatments for pain related to endometriosis are effective, and choice of treatment must be individualized. This document replaces the document by the same name last published in 2008 (Fertil Steril 2008;90:S260-9).

Progestagens and anti-progestagens for pain associated with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition defined by the presence of glands and stroma outside the uterine cavity. It occurs in 7% to 10% of all women of reproductive age and may present as pain or infertility. The pelvic pain may be in the form of dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia or pelvic pain. Initially a combination of estrogens and progestagens was used to create a pseudopregnancy and alleviate the symptoms associated with endometriosis. Progestagens alone or anti-progestagens have been considered as alternatives because they are inexpensive and may have a better side effect profile than other choices.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of both the progestagens and anti-progestagens in the treatment of painful symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group to identify all publications which described or might have described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any progestagen or any anti-progestagen in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis. We updated the review in 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs which compared the use of progestagens and anti-progestagens with other interventions, placebo or no treatment for the alleviation of symptomatic endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We have added six new studies, bringing the total of included studies to 13 in the update of this review. The six newly included studies evaluated progestagens (comparisons with placebo, danazol, oral or subdermal contraceptive, oral contraceptive pill and danazol, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue and other drugs). The remaining studies compared the anti-progestagen gestrinone with danazol, GnRH analogues or itself.

MAIN RESULTS

The progestagen medroxyprogesterone acetate (100 mg daily) appeared to be more effective at reducing all symptoms up to 12 months of follow-up (MD -0.70, 95% CI -8.61 to -5.39; P < 0.00001) compared with placebo. There was evidence of significantly more cases of acne (six versus one) and oedema (11 versus one) in the medroxyprogesterone acetate group compared with placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in objective efficacy between dydrogesterone and placebo.There was no evidence of a benefit with depot administration of progestagens versus other treatments (low dose oral contraceptive or leuprolide acetate) for reduced symptoms. The depot progestagen group experienced significantly more adverse effects.There was no overall evidence of a benefit of oral progestagens over other medical treatment at six months of follow-up for self-reported efficacy. Amenorrhoea and bleeding were more frequently reported in the progestagen group compared with other treatment groups.There was no evidence of a benefit of anti-progestagens (gestrinone) compared with danazol. GnRH analogue (leuprorelin) was found to significantly improve dysmenorrhoea compared with gestrinone (MD 0.82, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49; P = 0.02) although it was also associated with increased hot flushes (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to -0.63; P = 0.006).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only limited evidence to support the use of progestagens and anti-progestagens for pain associated with endometriosis.

Current pharmacotherapy for endometriosis

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Medical therapy is the most commonly used treatment for endometriosis. In particular, the administration of hormonal therapies aims to improve symptoms with minimal adverse effects.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

Observational and randomized studies evaluating the efficacy of medical therapy on symptoms associated with endometriosis were reviewed. We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to December 2009.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will obtain information on the available medical therapies used to treat endometriosis-related symptoms either after surgery or as an alternative to the surgical excision of endometriosis. The effectiveness of therapies, the dose of drugs, the length of treatment and the adverse effects are examined.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Medical therapies can efficaciously reduce the severity of pain symptoms caused by endometriosis. Recurrence of symptoms is common after discontinuation of medical therapies; therefore, the choice of the therapy should be based not only on the improvements of symptoms but also on the potential adverse effects and patients' satisfaction.