A randomized comparative study of the metabolic effects of two regimens of gestrinone in the treatment of endometriosis

Evaluation of safety and effectiveness of gestrinone in the treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Endometriosis is a common chronic gynecological disease defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stroma tissue outside the uterus. Gestrinone is an effective antiestrogen that induces endometrial atrophy and/or amenorrhea. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an evaluation of safety and effectiveness of gestrinone for the treatment of endometriosis.

METHODS

We performed a search in six electronic databases: PubMed, MEDLINE (ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL (clinical trials), Web of Science and Scopus. Our selected primary outcomes were the changes in dysmenorrhea, pain relief including pelvic pain and dyspareunia. The secondary outcomes embrace hormones parameters, pregnancy rate and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 3269 references screened, 16 studies were included involving 1286 women. All studies compared gestrinone with other drugs treatments (placebo, Danazol, Mifepristone tablets, Leuprolide acetate, Quyu Jiedu Recipe) during 6 months. When compared with other drugs treatments, gestrinone relieved dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and morphologic response in the ovary. There was an increase on the pregnancy rate. Regarding the side effects observed, gestrinone showed the same adverse events and increased the risk of acne and seborrhea when compared to other treatments. Even if there was any difference in efficacy between gestrinone, danazol, leuprolide acetate, or Quyu Jiedu Recipe Chinese Medicine, it remains unclear due to insufficient data.

CONCLUSION

Based limited evidence available suggests that gestrinone appeared to be safe and may have some efficacy advantages over danazol, as well as other therapeutic interventions for treating endometriosis. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution, due the quality of the evidence provided is generally very low or unclear.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42021284148.

Progesterone receptor modulators for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) outside the uterine cavity. This condition is oestrogen-dependent and thus is seen primarily during the reproductive years. Owing to their antiproliferative effects in the endometrium, progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) have been advocated for treatment of endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of PRMs primarily in terms of pain relief as compared with other treatments or placebo or no treatment in women of reproductive age with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) platform, from inception to 28 November 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles retrieved by the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in all languages that examined effects of PRMs for treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes included measures of pain and side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 960 women. Two RCTs compared mifepristone versus placebo or versus a different dose of mifepristone, one RCT compared asoprisnil versus placebo, one compared ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate, and four compared gestrinone versus danazol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, or a different dose of gestrinone. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods and high or unclear rates of attrition in most studies), very serious imprecision (associated with low event rates and wide confidence intervals), and indirectness (outcome assessed in a select subgroup of participants). Mifepristone versus placebo One study made this comparison and reported rates of painful symptoms among women who reported symptoms at baseline.At three months, the mifepristone group had lower rates of dysmenorrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.17; one RCT, n =352; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 40% of women taking placebo experience dysmenorrhoea, then between 3% and 10% of women taking mifepristone will do so. The mifepristone group also had lower rates of dyspareunia (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.51; one RCT, n = 223; low-quality evidence). However, the mifepristone group had higher rates of side effects: Nearly 90% had amenorrhoea and 24% had hot flushes, although the placebo group reported only one event of each (1%) (high-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences in rates of nausea, vomiting, or fatigue, if present. Mifepristone dose comparisons Two studies compared doses of mifepristone and found insufficient evidence to show differences between different doses in terms of effectiveness or safety, if present. However, subgroup analysis of comparisons between mifepristone and placebo suggest that the 2.5 mg dose may be less effective than 5 mg or 10 mg for treating dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia. Gestrinone comparisons Ons study compared gestrinone with danazol, and another study compared gestrinone with leuprolin.Evidence was insufficient to show differences, if present, between gestrinone and danazol in rate of pain relief (those reporting no or mild pelvic pain) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.56; two RCTs, n = 230; very low-quality evidence), dysmenorrhoea (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.33; two RCTs, n = 214; very low-quality evidence), or dyspareunia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; two RCTs, n = 222; very low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had a higher rate of hirsutism (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.32; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) and a lower rate of decreased breast size (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups, if present, in rate of hot flushes (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence).When researchers compared gestrinone versus leuprolin through measurements on the 1 to 3 verbal rating scale (lower score denotes benefit), the mean dysmenorrhoea score was higher in the gestrinone group (MD 0.35 points, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58; one RCT, n = 55; low-quality evidence), but the mean dyspareunia score was lower in this group (MD 0.33 points, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.04; low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had lower rates of amenorrhoea (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence) and hot flushes (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; one study, n = 55; low quality evidence) but higher rates of spotting or bleeding (OR 22.92, 95% CI 2.64 to 198.66; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show differences in effectiveness or safety between different doses of gestrinone, if present. Asoprisnil versus placebo One study (n = 130) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis. Ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate One study (n = 38) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women with endometriosis, moderate-quality evidence shows that mifepristone relieves dysmenorrhoea, and low-quality evidence suggests that this agent relieves dyspareunia, although amenorrhoea and hot flushes are common side effects. Data on dosage were inconclusive, although they suggest that the 2.5 mg dose of mifepristone may be less effective than higher doses. We found insufficient evidence to permit firm conclusions about the safety and effectiveness of other progesterone receptor modulators.

Will GnRH antagonists assist in the treatment of benign gynaecological diseases?

While GnRH agonists have become well-established tools for preoperative treatment of uterine fibroids or postoperative treatment in endometriosis for 3-6 months, GnRH antagonists seem to offer important advantages due to their specific pharmacological mode of action. Avoiding any flare-up effect, it seems to be possible to reduce treatment time to about only 2-4 weeks in the case of fibroids to obtain a clinically relevant reduction in size. Furthermore, due to the classic competitive receptor blockade induced by GnRH antagonists, it is feasible to preserve residual oestradiol secretion for a period of 8 weeks in patients with endometriosis. Endometriosis patients undergoing this treatment reported a symptom-free period, with no signs of mood changes, hot flushes, loss of libido, vaginal dryness or other symptoms. Serum oestradiol oscillated around a mean level of 50 pg/ml during therapy. Sequential administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix (Cetrotide), in a 3 mg dosage once weekly over 8 weeks in the case of endometriosis or administration every 4th day for a time span of 2-4 weeks for fibroids, creates a new opportunity for medical treatment. Although 3 mg of cetrorelix acetate obviously acts as an intermediate depot preparation, results obtained so far are very preliminary.

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.

Ovulation suppression for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an oestrogen dependent condition. This hormonal dependency has prompted the therapeutic use of ovulation suppression agents, in an effort to improve subsequent fertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of ovulation suppression agents, including danazol, progestins and oral contraceptives, in the treatment of endometriosis-associated subfertility in improving pregnancy outcomes including live birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Sub-fertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched October 5th, 2007) the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007), MEDLINE (1966-October 2007), EMBASE (1980 - October 2007) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment, or a suppressive agent with danazol or a GnRH with oral contraception in women with endometriosis. A total of twenty three RCTs comparing an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment, or a suppressive agent with danazol or a GnRH with oral contraception were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality. We contacted study authors for additional information. Quality was assessed by of method of randomization,allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of follow-up, presence or absence of crossover and co-intervention. 2 x 2 tables were generated for all relevant outcomes. Odds ratios were generated using the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was conducted on those couples clearly identifiable as infertile or wanting to conceive.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four trials were included. The odds ratio for pregnancy following ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment for all women randomised was 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.14), P = 0.21 and 0.80 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.24), P = 0.32 respectively for subfertile couples only despite the use of a variety of suppression agents. There was no evidence of benefit from the treatment. The common odds ratio for pregnancy following all agents versus danazol for all women randomised was 1.38 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.82), P = 0.02 and OR 1.37 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.99), P = 0.10 for subfertile couples only. When GnRHa and danazol were directly compared, OR was 1.45 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.95) P = 0.01 for all women randomised and OR 1.63( 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37), P = 0.01 for subfertile couples only in favour of GnRH. No effect was observed for GnRH compared with oral contraception; OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.89), P = 0.98 for all women randomised and OR 0.79 ( 95% CI 0.37 to 1.69), P = 0.55. In all analyses the data were statistically homogeneous (I(2)=0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of benefit in the use of ovulation suppression in subfertile women with endometriosis who wish to conceive.

Medical management of endometriosis-associated pain

In the coming years, basic science research into the mechanisms of endometriosis development and persistence almost certainly will open new avenues for treatment. A wide armamentarium of medical therapies already exists, however. The efficacy of most of these methods in reducing endometriosis-associated pain is well established. The choice of which to use depends largely on patient preference after an appropriate discussion of risks, side effects, and cost. Typically, oral contraceptives and NSAIDs are first-line therapy because of their low cost and mild side effects (Box 6). Because of its greater potential for suppressing endometrial development, consideration should be given to prescribing a low-dose monophasic oral contraceptive continuously. If adequate relief is not obtained or if side effects prove intolerable, consideration should be given to the use of progestins (oral, intramuscular, or IUD) or a GnRH agonist with immediate add-back therapy. Progestins are less expensive, but GnRH agonists with add-back may be better tolerated. If none of these medications proves beneficial or if side effects are too pronounced, then repeat surgery is warranted. The surgery may have analgesic value and serves to reconfirm the diagnosis. Finally, if endometriosis is identified at the time of surgery, then consideration should be given to prescribing medical therapy postoperatively.

Ovulation suppression for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an estrogen dependent condition. This hormonal dependency has prompted the therapeutic use of ovulation suppression agents, in an effort to improve subsequent fertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of a) ovulation suppression with danazol, medroxy progesterone acetate, gestrinone, combined oral contraceptive pills and GnRH analogues versus placebo or no treatment and b) any of the above agents versus danazol, for the treatment of endometriosis-associated subfertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trial register (searched 30 April 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 1998), EMBASE (January 1985 to December 1997) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials comparing the interventions described above, were included if allocation to treatment was based on a random process. Six RCTs with seven treatment arms compared an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment. Ten trials were identified comparing a suppressive agent with danazol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relevant data were extracted independently by two reviewers using the standardised data extraction sheet. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of follow-up, presence or absence of crossover and co-intervention. 2 x 2 tables were generated for all relevant outcomes. Odds ratios were generated using the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Breslow-Day X2.

MAIN RESULTS

The odds ratio for pregnancy following ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment was 0.74 (95%CI 0.48 to 1.15). These data were statistically homogeneous, despite the use of a variety of suppression agents. They suggest no statistically significant benefit from treatment. The odds ratio for pregnancy following all agents versus danazol, the most commonly used agent prior to the advent of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), was 1.3 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). When GnRHa and danazol were directly compared, the odds ratio for pregnancy across six trials, was similar to the summary statistic for all ten studies: 1.29 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.85). Again, this suggests no statistically significant difference between these interventions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

These results rule out a benefit of more than a 15% increase in odds, and do not justify the risk of side effects when used as therapy for endometriosis-associated subfertility.

Use of GnRH antagonists in the treatment of endometriosis

Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease that is treatable by oestrogen withdrawal, a therapy that has been effectively provided by the use of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist. Complete oestrogen withdrawal results in unacceptable side-effects, in particular in accelerated bone density loss. This problem has been effectively overcome with 'add-back therapy' using low-dose oestrogens and progestins in combination with a GnRH agonist to limit these side-effects, while still allowing regression of endometriotic lesions. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of using a subcutaneous injection of GnRH antagonist in the treatment of endometriosis. All patients (15/15; 100%) reported a symptom-free period during GnRH antagonist treatment, including mood changes, hot flushes, loss of libido, vaginal dryness and other symptoms. Serum oestradiol oscillated around a mean concentration of 50 pg/ml during therapy. Diagnostic laparoscopy before GnRH antagonist administration showed a mean stage III of disease. Regression occurred in 60% of cases (9/15) and the degree of endometriosis declined to stage II. Sequential administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix (Cetrotide) in a 3 mg dosage once weekly over 8 weeks creates a new opportunity for medical treatment of symptomatic endometriosis. Preserving basic oestrogen production during the course of treatment apparently does not influence regression of disease, and has no major side-effects.

Progestagens and anti-progestagens for pain associated with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a gynaecological condition that presents either with the problem of infertility or with painful symptoms. The clinical observation of an apparent resolution of symptoms during pregnancy gave rise to the concept of treating patients with a pseudo-pregnancy regime. Initially combinations of high dose oestrogens and progestagens were used but this was subsequently replaced by progestogens alone. More recently progestogens of both progestagens and anti-progestagens in the treatment of symptomatiprogestogenssis

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 STRATEGY

The search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group was utilised to identify all publications which described or might have described randomised trials of any progestagen or any anti-progestagen in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were included if they were randomised and considered the effectiveness of either a progestagen or an anti-progestagen in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven studies were considered to be appropriate for inclusion in this review. Only three studies evaluating progestagens were included (comparison with placebo, danazol and oral contraceptive plus danazol). All other studies compared the anti-progestagen, gestrinone, with other medical therapies.

MAIN RESULTS

Progestagens appear to be an effective therapy for the painful symptoms associated with endometriosis. Gestrinone is as effective as other established medical therapies (danazol and GnRH analogues).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The limited available data suggests that both continuous progestagens and anti-progestagens are effective therapies in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis. Progestagens given in the luteal phase are not effective. These conclusions should be accepted cautiously due to a lack of data.

Today's treatments: medical, surgical and in partnership

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the medical, surgical and combined therapy options for endometriosis.

RESULTS

Available medical options include danazol, progestogens, gestrinone, oral contraceptive agents, analgesics and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. Used in the short-term, most of these agents relieve pain in a large proportion of patients and produce disease regression, however, they do not prevent recurrence, and are associated with side-effects. However, few data confirm any benefit of short-term medical therapy on fertility. One of the most promising medical approaches appears to be GnRH agonists with add-back hormone replacement therapy. Surgery may relieve pain, eradicate visible disease and improve fertility. A combined approach may facilitate surgery and relieve pain, although any fertility benefit is as yet unproven.

CONCLUSION

Both short-term medical treatment and surgery relieve endometriosis-associated pain and decrease endometriotic implants. However, all approaches have side effects which must be balanced against the benefits when defining suitable treatment for a particular patient.

The evidence for the management of endometriosis

This review article has focussed on identifying the evidence from randomized controlled trials for the medical and surgical management of endometriosis. A critical summary of the medical management has shown that there is little difference in effectiveness of various medical treatments, but there are differences in the side-effect profiles. Few randomized controlled trials have been undertaken in surgery, but these have shown that surgical management is effective in the management of both painful symptoms and subfertility.

Clinical, endocrine, and metabolic effects of two doses of gestrinone in treatment of pelvic endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to determine and compare the efficacy and hormonal and metabolic effects of 1.25 mg with 2.5 mg of gestrinone given twice a week in the treatment of mild and moderate pelvic endometriosis.

STUDY DESIGN

A phase II, prospective, randomized, double-blind study involving 11 patients given gestrinone 1.25 mg (five patients) or 2.5 mg (six patients) orally twice a week for 24 weeks was performed. Revised American Fertility Society scores were determined by laparoscopy before and at the end of treatment. Serum hormone (free thyroxine, free testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone), sex hormone binding globulin, and lipid concentrations were measured before, throughout, and for 6 months after treatment. Quantitated computerized tomography of thoracic 12 through lumbar 4 vertebral bodies were determined before, at the end of, and 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

Gestrinone 2.5 mg significantly reduced the endometriosis implant score from 10.3 +/- 2.8 to 3.8 +/- 0.8 (p = 0.05). Both doses significantly reduced serum progesterone and sex hormone binding globulin levels. Estradiol, free testosterone, free thyroxine, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone levels were not significantly affected. Spinal bone increased significantly by 7.1% with 2.5 mg but lost significantly by 7.1% with 1.25 mg gestrinone; these changes had not reversed completely 6 months after stopping treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In mild to moderate pelvic endometriosis 2.5 mg of gestrinone twice a week was more effective and had a more positive effect on bone mass than did 1.25 mg of gestrinone.

Gestrinone versus a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for the treatment of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Gestrinone Italian Study Group

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of gestrinone versus leuprolide acetate (LA) in improving pelvic pain in women with endometriosis and to compare their effects on bone mineral density and serum lipid profile.

DESIGN

Multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Six academic departments specialized in the study of endometriosis.

PATIENT(S)

Fifty-five women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis.

INTERVENTION(S)

Six-month treatment with oral gestrinone (n = 27) or IM depot LA (n = 28) followed by 6-month follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Variations in severity of dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and nonmenstrual pain as shown by a visual analog scale and a verbal rating scale, modifications in bone mineral content as shown by dual-roentgenogram absorptiometry, and variations in serum cholesterol subfractions and lipoprotein(a) concentrations.

RESULT(S)

Significant improvements were observed in all three symptoms considered in both treatment arms. Moderate or severe pain symptoms recurrence on both pain scales was observed in 2 of 17 (11.8%) patients given gestrinone compared with 9 of 17 (52.9%) of those given LA (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.69). Lumbar bone mineral density increased slightly in the gestrinone group but decreased by 3% in the LA one. High-density-lipoprotein cholesterol fell by 25% and lipoprotein(a) decreased by approximately 40% in the gestrinone-treated women but did not vary in those receiving LA.

CONCLUSION(S)

Oral gestrinone is at least as effective as depot LA for pain relief in women with symptomatic endometriosis. A tendency to prolonged pain reduction was observed after gestrinone compared with LA treatment. Gestrinone does not negatively affect bone density but variations in serum lipids need further evaluation.

Updating the clinical experience in endometriosis--the Brazilian perspective

In an open-label, multicentre, randomized, parallel group study, 164 women with endometriosis were assigned to treatment. Out of these women, 81 received danazol (600 mg daily for 8 weeks, then 400 mg for 16 weeks) and 83 were given gestrinone (2.5 mg twice a week for 24 weeks). Five weeks before the start of treatment clinical evaluation and diagnostic laparoscopy were performed during the screening visit. Drug assignment and laboratory data assessment were carried out within 3 days of the estimated onset of the menstrual cycle at baseline visit. The response to treatment was assessed during visits at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24; at the last visit a second laparoscopy was performed. Therapeutic efficacy was evaluated by analysis of the laparoscopic scores assessed according to the revised American Fertility Society classification. Symptomatic response was measured by clinical scores and laboratory data. In one centre, bone mineral density was also recorded. One patient in the danazol group discontinued treatment due to a cutaneous rash as a probable adverse reaction at the beginning of the study. The therapeutic efficacy of danazol and gestrinone did not differ significantly when the revised American Fertility Society scores were compared. The symptomatic response also showed no statistical difference when clinical examination scores were analysed. There was no significant difference between the drugs in laboratory data, including bone mineral density, with respect to adverse events. Analysis of clinical scores showed that danazol was superior to gestrinone with respect to acne and irregular bleeding. Based on these data, we conclude that both danazol and gestrinone are reliable in the treatment of endometriosis and offer similar results.

The impact of bone loss in women with endometriosis

Low peak adult bone mass in a premenopausal woman puts her at increased risk for osteoporosis postmenopausally. Episodes of hypo-estrogenism premenopausally are associated with loss of bone density. This is seen with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy for endometriosis, and thus prolonged or repeated courses of such treatment may increase the future risk of osteoporosis. Danazol and related compounds do not result in any bone loss but may have certain metabolic disadvantages.

Endometriosis, 1995--confusion or sense?

OBJECTIVE

To review current understanding of endometriosis.

METHOD

A review of etiology, pathogenesis, relationship with infertility, medical and surgical treatment.

RESULTS

It is likely that endometriosis occurs in most women at some stage in their reproductive years. Exposure to menstruation and estrogen are important etiologically. Current evidence suggests that implantation of menstrual endometrium is the commonest mechanism of pathogenesis. Clinical symptoms and signs are important in the diagnosis while laparoscopy remains the prime diagnostic technique. Treatment is not indicated for infertility but is for symptoms. Danazol and progestogens represent the best first-line therapy although gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists are appropriate if economically justifiable. Both open and laparoscopic surgery are important especially in reconstructive work. The value of laser ablation in the treatment of infertility is unknown but it is effective in pain. The disease should be regarded as a recurrent problem and treatment strategies designed appropriately.

CONCLUSION

Endometriosis still represents an intellectual and therapeutic challenge but successful treatment is possible especially if it is individualized for each patient.