Comparison of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist goserelin acetate alone versus goserelin combined with estrogen-progestogen add-back therapy in the treatment of endometriosis

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.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction.  Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.  Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Oligo-anovulation is not a rarer feature in women with documented endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To study the prevalence of oligo-anovulation in women suffering from endometriosis compared to that of women without endometriosis.

DESIGN

A single-center, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

University hospital-based research center.

PATIENT (S)

We included 354 women with histologically proven endometriosis and 474 women in whom endometriosis was surgically ruled out between 2004 and 2016.

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Frequency of oligo-anovulation in women with endometriosis as compared to that prevailing in the disease-free reference group.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the rate of oligo-anovulation between women with endometriosis (15.0%) and the reference group (11.2%). Regarding the endometriosis phenotype, oligo-anovulation was reported in 12 (18.2%) superficial peritoneal endometriosis, 12 (10.6%) ovarian endometrioma, and 29 (16.6%) deep infiltrating endometriosis.

CONCLUSION(S)

Endometriosis should not be discounted in women presenting with oligo-anovulation.

Overview of elagolix for the treatment of endometriosis

INTRODUCTION

Suppression of sex-steroid secretion is required in a variety of gynecological conditions. This can be achieved using gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists that bind pituitary gonadotropin receptors and antagonize the link-receptor of endogenous GnRH, inhibiting the mechanism of GnRH pulsatility. On the other hand, GnRH antagonists immediately reduce gonadal steroid levels, avoiding the initial stimulatory phase of the agonists. Potential benefits of GnRH antagonists over GnRH agonists include a rapid onset and reversibility of action. Older GnRH antagonists are synthetic peptides, obtained by modifications of certain amino acids in the native GnRH sequence. They require subcutaneous injections, implantation of long-acting depots. The peptide structure is responsible for histamine-related adverse events and the tendency to elicit hypersensitivity reactions.

AREAS COVERED

Research has worked towards the development of non-peptidic molecules exerting antagonist action on GnRH. They are available for oral administration and may have a more beneficial safety profile in comparison with peptide GnRH antagonists. This article focuses on the data of the literature about elagolix, a novel non-peptidic GnRHantagonist, in the treatment of endometriosis.

EXPERT OPINION

Elagolix demonstrated efficacy in the management of endometriosis-associated pain and had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate its non-inferiority in comparison with other endometriosis's treatments.

Effects of different add-back regimens on hypoestrogenic problems by postoperative gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment in endometriosis

Objective

To compare the efficacy of different add-back regimens on hypoestrogenic symptoms during postoperative gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist treatment in endometriosis patients.

Methods

This prospective cohort study included reproductive-aged women who underwent conservative laparoscopic surgery for ovarian endometriosis and received add-back therapy during a 6-month course of GnRH agonist therapy after surgery. Participants received one of four different add-back regimens: 1 mg of estradiol valerate, 2.5 mg of tibolone, or a combination of 1 mg of estradiol and 2 mg of drospirenone or 0.5 mg of norethisterone acetate. Changes in quality of life, hypoestrogenic symptoms, and bone mineral density were compared according to add-back regimens.

Results

A total of 57 participants completed a 6-month course of GnRH agonist and add-back therapy. All components of quality of life did not differ across groups. However, within the same treatment group, social relationship factors decreased significantly with estradiol valerate and tibolone alone, and environmental factors decreased significantly with estradiol valerate alone. Menopausal Rating Scale score did not change significantly, but the incidence of hot flushes significantly decreased with a combination of estradiol and norethisterone acetate. Bone mineral densities at the lumbar spine declined significantly after treatment in all groups except with a combination of estradiol and norethisterone acetate.

Conclusion

This preliminary study suggests that an add-back regimen containing estradiol valerate and norethisterone acetate may have better efficacy in terms of quality of life, hypoestrogenism-associated symptoms, and bone mineral density.

The use of gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues in adolescent and young patients with endometriosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endometriosis is increasingly being recognized and diagnosed in adolescents. As a result of this earlier diagnosis, treatment with agents like gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) begins earlier and may last longer. Long-term effects of GnRHa treatment for endometriosis are of concern when treating adolescents.

RECENT FINDINGS

GnRHas are used for adolescents with surgically confirmed endometriosis. GnRHa treatment is effective for pain reduction, but is associated with menopausal symptoms and decreases in bone density. Different regimens of hormonal add-back therapy have been studied in adults to attempt to prevent these side-effects.

SUMMARY

GnRHa therapy is a highly effective, nonsurgical treatment option for many adolescents with endometriosis, but is accompanied by side-effects of bone loss and menopausal symptoms. Side-effects may be decreased by introducing appropriate add-back therapy. Monitoring of bone density by DXA is recommended for prolonged use of GnRHa in adolescents.

An update on the pharmacological management of endometriosis

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis is a common disease that causes pain symptoms and/or infertility in women in their reproductive years. The disease is characterised by the presence of endometrium-like tissue - glands and stroma - outside the uterine cavity. Different treatment options exist for endometriosis including medical and surgical treatments or a combination of the two approaches. The most commonly used medications are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, GnRH agonists, androgen derivatives such as danazol, combined oral contraceptive pills, progestogens and more recently the levonorgestrel intrauterine system.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review current medical treatments used for symptomatic endometriosis and also discuss new treatment approaches. The authors conducted a literature search for randomised controlled trials related to medical treatments of endometriosis in humans, searched the Cochrane library for reviews and also searched for registered trials that have not yet been published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

EXPERT OPINION

The medical treatment of endometriosis is effective at treating pain and preventing recurrence of disease after surgery. Remarkably, the oral contraceptive pill taken continuously is as effective as GnRH-a, while causing far less side-effects. Conversely, no treatment currently exists for enhancing fecundity in women whose infertility is associated with endometriosis. As all existing therapies of endometriosis are contraceptive, great efforts should be targeted at researching novel products that reduce the disease expression without shuttering ovulation.

Therapeutic potential of andrographolide for treating endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Mounting evidence shows that nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) plays an important role in endometriosis. We therefore evaluated the therapeutic potential of andrographolide, an NF-κB inhibitor.

METHODS

Primary cell cultures were performed using ectopic endometrial tissue specimens and their homologous eutopic endometrial specimens from 16 women with endometriosis, as well as control samples from 4 women without endometriosis. Andrographolide was evaluated for an effect on cell proliferation and cell cycle, DNA-binding activity of NF-κB and expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and tissue factor (TF). In a rat model of endometriosis, andrographolide treatment was evaluated for an effect on lesion size, hotplate response latency and expression of phosphorylated p50 and p65, COX-2 and nerve growth factor (NGF) in ectopic endometrium.

RESULTS

Andrographolide dose dependently suppressed proliferation and cell cycle progression, attenuated DNA-binding activity of NF-κB in endometriotic stromal cells and inhibited COX-2 and TF expression. In the rat experiment, induced endometriosis resulted in reduced response latency. Andrographolide treatment significantly reduced lesion size in a dose-dependent manner and significantly increased response latency. Andrographolide treatment also significantly reduced immunoreactivity of COX-2, phosphorylated p50 and p65, and NGF in ectopic endometrium.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with andrographolide significantly suppresses the growth of ectopic endometrium in vitro and in vivo, and results in a significant improvement in generalized hyperalgesia in rats with induced endometriosis. Therefore, andrographolide may be cytoreductive and may relieve pain symptoms in women with endometriosis. With excellent safety and cost profiles, andrographolide could be a promising therapeutic agent for endometriosis.

Use of mifepristone to treat endometriosis: a review of clinical trials and trial-like studies conducted in China

China was the first country in the world that approved mifepristone (RU-486) for abortion. A total of 6 years after the report published in the Western world indicated that mifepristone may also be effective in treating endometriosis, the first paper on the same topic was published in China in 1997. Since then, over 160 studies on this topic have been published in China. We retrieved 104 papers on clinical trials and trial-like studies conducted in China evaluating the use of mifepristone to treat endometriosis that were published in the last 11 years. We found that the quality of these studies is well below an acceptable level, making it difficult to judge whether mifepristone is truly efficacious. There are intriguing signs that these studies, as a whole, have serious anomalies. The areas that are glaringly deficient are informed consent, choice of outcome measures, the evaluation of outcome measures, data analysis and randomization. The uniformly low quality is disquieting, given the large quantity of studies, the enormous amount of resource and energy put into these studies and, above all, the weighty issue of treatment efficacy that concerns each and every patient with endometriosis. Equally disquieting are the low-quality repetition, the absence of a critical, systematic review on the subject, the lack of suggestions for multicenter clinical trials and the seemingly unnecessary duplication of clinical trials without due informed consent. In view of this, it may be time to institute changes in attitude and practice, and to change education and training programs in the methodology of clinical trials in obstetrics and gynecology research in China.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis

EDITORIAL NOTE

See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37341141/ for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review.

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition, characterised by the presence of endometrial tissue in sites other than the uterine cavity (excluding adenomyosis) that frequently presents with pain. The gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) comprise one intervention that has been offered for pain relief in pre-menopausal women. GnRHas can be administered intranasally, by subcutaneous, or intramuscular injection. They are thought to result in down regulation of the pituitary and induce a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialist register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCInfo and CINAHL were conducted in April 2010 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of GnRHas as treatment for pain associated with endometriosis versus no treatment, placebo, danazol, intra-uterine progestagens, or other GnRHas were included. Trials using add-back therapy, oral contraceptives, surgical intervention, GnRH antagonists or complementary therapies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was pain relief. Relative risk was used as the measure of effect for dichotomous data. For continuous data, mean differences or standardised mean differences were used.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty one trials (n=4935 women) were included. The evidence suggested that GnRHas were more effective at symptom relief than no treatment/placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between GnRHas and danazol for dysmenorrhoea RR 0.98 (95%CI 0.92 to 1.04; P = 0.53). This equates to 3 fewer women per 1000 (95%CI 12 to 6) with symptomatic pain relief in the GnRHa group. More adverse events were reported in the GnRHa group. There was a benefit in overall resolution for GnRHas RR1.10 (95%CI 1.01 to 1.21, P=0.03) compared with danazol. There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain between GnRHas and levonorgestrel SMD -0.25 (95%CI -0.60 to 0.10, P=0.46). Evidence was limited on optimal dosage or duration of treatment for GnRHas. No route of administration appeared superior to another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GnRHas appear to be more effective at relieving pain associated with endometriosis than no treatment/placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and danazol although more adverse events reported in the GnRHa groups. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and levonorgestrel and no studies compared GnRHas with analgesics.

Levo-tetrahydropalmatine retards the growth of ectopic endometrial implants and alleviates generalized hyperalgesia in experimentally induced endometriosis in rats

One primary goal of medical treatment of endometriosis is to alleviate pain and there is a pressing need for new therapeutics for endometriosis with better efficacy and side-effect profiles. Levo-tetrahydropalmatine (l-THP) has been used as a sedative or analgesic for chronic pains in China since 1970s. In this study, we sought to evaluate the efficacy of l-THP, with or without valproic acid (VPA), in a rat model of endometriosis. We surgically induced endometriosis in 55 adult female rats. Two weeks after, all rats were further divided into 5 groups randomly: untreated, low- and high-dose of l-THP, VPA, and l-THP + VPA. Response latency in hotplate test was measured before the surgery, before and after 3-week treatment of respective drugs. All rats were then sacrificed for analysis. The average lesion size and the immunoreactivity to N-methyl-D-asparate receptor 1 (NMDAR1), acid-sensing ion channel 3 (ASIC3), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), c-Fos, tyrosine kinase receptor A (TrkA), and histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2) in dorsal root ganglia (DRG), to phorphorylated p65, HDAC2, TrkA, and CGRP in ectopic endometrium and to phorphorylated p65 and CGRP in eutopic endometrium were evaluated. We found that rats receiving l-THP, with or without VPA, had significantly reduced lesion size and exhibited significantly improved response to noxious thermal stimulus. The treatment also significantly lowered immunoreactivity to all mediators involved in central sensitization and to HDAC2 in DRG, to TrkA and CGRP in ectopic endometrium, and to CGRP in eutopic endometrium. In summary, l-THP reduces lesion growth and generalized hyperalgesia. Thus, l-THP may be a promising therapeutics for endometriosis.

The efficacy and tolerability of short-term low-dose estrogen-only add-back therapy during post-operative GnRH agonist treatment for endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a low-dose estrogen-only regimen as a short-term add-back therapy during post-operative GnRH agonist (GnRHa) treatment of patients with endometriosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study. One hundred seventeen women of reproductive age who were treated with post-operative GnRHa after conservative laparoscopic surgery for endometrioma were eligible for this study. The patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 56) received tibolone (2.5mg) between 2002 and 2004 and group B (n = 61) received estradiol valerate (1mg) between 2005 and 2007 as an add-back therapy for five months, beginning at the time of the second injection of a GnRHa. The incidence of hypoestrogenic symptoms and the degree of pelvic pain according to a verbal rating scale (VRS) scoring system, the incidence and patterns of uterine bleeding during add-back therapy, the endometrial thickness by ultrasonography two months after the last GnRHa treatment, and the serum CA-125 level were evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of uterine bleeding, hypoestrogenic symptoms such as hot flashes and sweating, and pelvic pain did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. However, the endometrium was thicker in group A than group B (p = 0.022). In group B, the frequency of uterine bleeding was lower from the second month after starting add-back therapy than in group A, but without statistical significance (at the sixth month, p = 0.086).

CONCLUSION

The low-dose estrogen-only regimen was efficacious and tolerable as a short-term add-back therapy during post-operative GnRHa treatment after surgery for endometriosis.

A call for more transparency of registered clinical trials on endometriosis

In response to the pressing need for more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis, there have been numerous reports in the last decade of positive results from animal and in vitro studies of various compounds as potential therapeutics for endometriosis. A handful of these have undergone phase II/III clinical trials. Since the announcement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors that mandated registration as a prerequisite for publication, 57 endometriosis-related clinical trials have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, an Internet-based public depository for information on drug studies. Among them, 25 are listed as completed, and 2 as suspended. There are 15 completed phase II/III trials, which evaluated the efficacy of various promising compounds. Yet only three of the 15 trials (20%) have published their results. The remaining 12 (80%) studies so far have not published their findings. We argue that this apparent lack of transparency will actually not benefit the trial sponsors or the public, and will ultimately prove detrimental to research efforts attempting to develop more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis. Thus we call for more transparency of clinical trials on endometriosis.

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma and retinoid X receptor agonists synergistically suppress proliferation of immortalized endometrial stromal cells

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether trichostatin A (TSA), a histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACI), can induce up-regulation of peroxisome proliferator-activating receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) and to see whether LG100268, a retinoid X receptor (RXR) ligand, can inhibit proliferation of endometriotic cells alone or in synergy with ciglitazone, a PPAR gamma agonist.

DESIGN

One endometrial stromal cell line and two endometriotic cell lines used as a model system: Western blot analysis to determine whether TSA can up-regulate PPAR gamma expression, and MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) proliferation assay to see whether ciglitazone and LG100268 have any antiproliferative effects individually or jointly.

SETTING

Academic.

PATIENT(S)

None.

INTERVENTION(S)

Culture of immortalized endometrial and endometriotic cell lines with TSA, or ciglitazone or LG100268.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

PPAR gamma protein expression levels in cells treated with or without TSA, and number of viable cells treated with or without ciglitazone, LG100268, or both.

RESULT(S)

The TSA treatment resulted in up-regulation of PPAR gamma expression in all cell lines in a dose-dependent fashion. Both ciglitazone and LG100268 inhibited proliferation in a dose-dependent manner, and the antiproliferative effects appeared to be synergistic. In addition, endometriotic cells were more sensitive than endometrial stromal cells to LG100268 treatment.

CONCLUSION(S)

The up-regulation of PPAR gamma induced by TSA indicates that the action of HDACIs also includes the PPAR gamma signaling pathway, suggesting that the activation of PPAR gamma is a desirable way to contain endometriosis phenotypes. The higher sensitivity of endometriotic cells than their endometrial counterpart to LG100268 treatment suggests that the sensitivity differential could be exploited effectively to eradicate unwanted ectopic endometrial tissues while minimizing the collateral damage to the normal endometrial tissues.

WITHDRAWN: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that frequently presents with the symptom of pain. The precise pathogenesis (mode of development) of endometriosis is unclear but it is evident that endometriosis arises by the dissemination of endometrium to ectopic sites and the subsequent establishment of deposits of ectopic endometrium. The observation that endometriosis is rarely seen in the hypo-oestrogenic (low levels of oestrogen) post-menopausal woman led to the concept of medical treatment by induction of a pseudo-menopause using Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone Analogues (GnRHas). When administered in a non-pulsatile manner (the pituitary is normally stimulated by pulses of natural GnRH and all analogues act on the pituitary at a constant level) their use results in down regulation (switching off) of the pituitary and a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state (low levels of female hormones due to non stimulation of the ovary).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis by comparing them with no treatment, placebo, other recognised medical treatments, and surgical interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility review group (please see Review Group details) was used to identify all randomised trials of the use of GnRHas for the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were included if they were randomised, and considered the effectiveness of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Twenty-six studies had data appropriate for inclusion in the review. The largest group (15 studies) compared GnRHas with danazol. There are five studies comparing GnRHas with GnRHas plus add-back therapy, three comparing GnRHa with GnRHa in a different form or dose, one compares them with gestrinone, one with the combined oral contraceptive pill, and one with placebo. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The authors of eleven studies have been contacted to clarify missing or unclear data. Only four have replied to date. Data on relief of pain, change in revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) scores, and side effects was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

No difference was found between GnRHas and any of the other active comparators with respect to pain relief or reduction in endometriotic deposits. The side effect profiles of the different treatments were different, with danazol and gestrinone having more androgenic side effects, while GnRHas tend to produce more hypo-oestrogenic symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little or no difference in the effectiveness of GnRHas in comparison with other medical treatments for endometriosis. GnRHas do appear to be an effective treatment. Differences that do exist relate to side effect profiles. Side effects of GnRHas can be ameliorated by the addition of addback therapy.

Drug Insight: clinical use of agonists and antagonists of luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone

This article reviews the clinical uses of agonists and antagonists of luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH), also known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone. In particular, the state of the art treatment of breast, ovarian and prostate cancer, reproductive disorders, uterine leiomyoma, endometriosis and benign prostatic hypertrophy is reported. Clinical applications of LHRH agonists are based on gradual downregulation of pituitary receptors for LHRH, which leads to inhibition of the secretion of gonadotropins and sex steroids. LHRH antagonists immediately block pituitary LHRH receptors and, therefore, achieve rapid therapeutic effects. LHRH agonists and antagonists can be used to treat uterine leiomyoma and endometriosis; furthermore, both types of LHRH analogs are used to block the secretion of endogenous gonadotropins in ovarian-stimulation programs for assisted reproduction. The preferred primary treatment of patients with advanced, androgen-dependent prostate cancer is based on the periodic administration of depot preparations of LHRH agonists; these agonists can be likewise used to treat estrogen-sensitive breast cancer in premenopausal women. LHRH antagonists have been successfully used to treat prostate cancer and benign prostatic hypertrophy. Since receptors for LHRH are present on a variety of human tumors, (notably breast, prostate, ovarian, endometrial and renal cancers), cytotoxic therapy that targets these tumors with hybrid molecules of LHRH might be possible in the near future. Analogs of LHRH are now a well-established means of treating sex-steroid-dependent, benign and malignant disorders.

Emerging drugs in endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common, estrogen-dependent, gynaecological disease, defined as the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus. Although several medications are used for treatment of the disease, they are associated with high recurrence rates, considerable side effects and limited duration of application. Due to these limitations and to the impact of endometriosis on the quality of life of affected women, their environment and the society, there is a great need for new drugs able to abolish endometriosis and its symptoms. Studies in recent years investigating the (patho)physiological mechanisms involved in disease aetiology have fostered the development of novel therapeutic concepts for endometriosis, by targeting the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, by selective modulation of estrogenic and progestogenic pathways, by inhibiting angiogenesis or by interfering with inflammatory and immunological factors. This article presents a brief summary of the currently available medications and an overview regarding the development of some of the most interesting and/or most promising novel drug candidates for endometriosis.

Inhibition of proliferation of endometrial stromal cells by trichostatin A, RU486, CDB-2914, N-acetylcysteine, and ICI 182780

BACKGROUND

All current major medications in treating endometriosis are effective in treating pain, most likely through suppression of proliferation of the implants, yet their effectiveness is relatively short term and they all have many undesirable, and sometimes severe, side effects. There is pressing need for novel, more effective medications in treating endometriosis with less and/or milder side effects.

METHODS

Using a recently established immortalized endometrial stromal cell line, we carried out cell proliferation assays for cells treated with trichostatin A (TSA), RU486, CDB-2914, and N-acetylcysteine, and ICI 182780. Gene expression levels for PR-A, PR-B, AR, Fas and FasL were measured. Protein expression levels for ERalpha, ERbeta, and AR were also measured.

RESULTS

Cell proliferation assay results for NAC, H2O2, CDB, and RU486 were nearly identical or similar to what have been reported based on primary cell cultures or in vivo studies. TSA, CDB, RU486 and NAC all had various antiproliferative effects. TSA had a more potent and longer lasting antiproliferative effect than CDB and NAC, even in the presence of an oxidant, H2O2. Its antiproliferative effect was concentration-dependent. ICI did not have a significant antiproliferative effect. PR-A, PR-B, AR, and FasL expression were all increased as compared with untreated cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The cell line appears to be an adequate model for stromal components of endometriotic implants. That ICI has no inhibitory effect on endometrial proliferation may explain why a phase II clinical trial on its use to treat endometriosis did not advance to later stages. The upregulation of PR-B and AR may be responsible for antiproliferative effects induced by TSA, a histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACI). HDACIs may be promising therapeutics in treating endometriosis due to their antiproliferative effects as well as the potential to restore gene dysregulation through chromatin remodeling.

GnRH-antagonists in reproductive medicine

Suppression of sex steroid production based on desensitisation and down-regulation of pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-receptors by agonistic GnRH-analogues resulting in the blockage of gonadotropin release from the anterior pituitary gland is a well-established approach in a variety of clinical conditions. Antagonistic analogues of GnRH exert their effect by competing with endogenous GnRH for pituitary binding sites. Because of the lack of any intrinsic activity of these compounds, the characteristic initial 'flare-up' effect of GnRH-agonist administration is absent. A more rapid suppression of gonadotropin release from the pituitary gland can be achieved, enabling shorter treatment regimes in ovarian hyperstimulation for assisted reproduction. As yet, GnRH-antagonists have attained market approval only for the indication of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge prevention in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and palliative treatment of advanced prostatic cancer. However, GnRH-antagonists may be useful in a variety of other malignant and non-malignant indications where rapid sex steroid suppression is desired, such as uterine leiomyomas, endometriosis, gynaecological cancers or benign prostatic hyperplasia. In the context of infertility treatment, available data on the application of GnRH-antagonists in the treatment of endometriosis and uterine leiomyomas are reviewed.

Add-back therapy in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of GnRH analogue plus add-back therapy compared with GnRH analogue alone and estroprogestin in patients with relapse of endometriosis-associated pain.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred thirty-three women with relapse of endometriosis-related pain after previous endometriosis surgery.

INTERVENTION(S)

Forty-six women were treated with GnRH analogue plus add-back therapy, 44 women were given GnRH analogue alone, and 43 women received estroprogestin, for 12 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pain evaluation by a visual analogue scale, quality of life in treated patients according to the SF-36 questionnaire, and occurrence of adverse effects, including bone mass density loss, at pretreatment, after 6 months of treatment, at the end of treatment (12 months), and 6 months after discontinuation of treatment.

RESULT(S)

Patients treated either with GnRH analogue alone or GnRH analogue plus add-back therapy showed a higher reduction of pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia than patients treated with oral contraceptive, whereas patients treated with add-back therapy showed a better quality of life, as assessed with the SF-36 questionnaire, and adverse effects rate than the other two groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Add-back therapy allows the treatment of women with relapse of endometriosis-associated pain for a longer period, with reduced bone mineral density loss, good control of pain symptoms, and better patient quality of life compared with GnRH analogue alone or oral contraceptive.

Adolescent endometriosis

Endometriosis is a cause of chronic, pelvic pain in adolescents. Lack of response to NSAIDS and OCPs should prompt further investigation and subsequent treatment. The goal of therapy is to minimize pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea primarily through long-term, medical therapy. Surgical intervention is principally indicated to establish a diagnosis. The poor response to surgical therapy negates the need for repetitive or radical surgery. Much patience and care should be directed toward these patients to provide them with an understanding of their disease and to help enhance the quality of their life.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial comparing fulvestrant with goserelin in premenopausal patients with uterine fibroids awaiting hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of a new antiestrogen fulvestrant with goserelin in reducing uterine fibroid growth before hysterectomy.

DESIGN

An international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

Departments of obstetrics and gynecology.

PATIENT(S)

Premenopausal women (n = 307) diagnosed with uterine fibroids requiring hysterectomy.

INTERVENTION(S)

Over a 12-week period, patients received fulvestrant (50 mg, 125 mg, or 250 mg) as an i.m. injection, goserelin (3.6 mg) as a s.c. injection, or an injection-matched placebo once every 4 weeks. Patients underwent a hysterectomy at week 13.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy endpoints included changes in fibroid growth, endometrial thickness, and uterine volume. The excretion of urinary markers of bone resorption was also examined.

RESULT(S)

Goserelin significantly reduced fibroid growth and endometrial thickness compared with placebos. Fulvestrant did not significantly alter fibroid volume or endometrial thickness or change endpoints such as endometrial histology or vaginal bleeding. Fulvestrant was associated with fewer postmenopause-related adverse events than goserelin. Goserelin, but not fulvestrant, significantly increased markers of bone resorption.

CONCLUSION(S)

At doses equivalent to those used for the treatment of breast cancer in postmenopausal women, fulvestrant did not significantly inhibit fibroid growth and, of particular note, did not lead to bone resorption.

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.

Consensus statement for the management of chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis: proceedings of an expert-panel consensus process

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations for the medical and surgical care of women who present with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and are likely to have endometriosis as the underlying cause.

DESIGN

An expert panel comprised of practicing gynecologists from throughout the United States and experts in consensus guideline development was convened. After completion of a structured literature search and creation of draft algorithms by an executive committee, the expert panel of >50 practicing gynecologists met for a 2-day consensus conference during which the clinical recommendations and algorithms were reviewed, refined, and then ratified by unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

PATIENT(S)

Women presenting with CPP who are likely to have endometriosis as the underlying cause.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

None.

CONCLUSION(S)

Chronic pelvic pain frequently occurs secondary to nongynecologic conditions that must be considered in the evaluation of affected women. For women in whom endometriosis is the suspected cause of the pain, laparoscopic confirmation of the diagnosis is unnecessary, and a trial of medical therapy, including second-line therapies such as danazol, GnRH agonists, and progestins, is justified provided that there are no other indications for surgery such as the presence of a suspicious adnexal mass. When surgery is necessary, laparoscopic approaches seem to offer comparable clinical outcomes to those performed via laparotomy, but with reduced morbidity. The balance of evidence supports the use of adjuvant postoperative medical therapy after conservative surgery for CPP. There is some evidence that adjuvant presacral neurectomy adds benefit for midline pain, but currently, there is inadequate evidence to support the use of uterosacral nerve ablation or uterine suspension. Hysterectomy alone has undocumented value in the surgical management of women with endometriosis-associated CPP.

Prevention of bone loss and hypoestrogenic symptoms by estrogen and interrupted progestogen add-back in long-term GnRH-agonist down-regulated patients with endometriosis and premenstrual syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To examine the utility of a low-dose estrogen and pulsed progestogen hormone replacement therapy (HRT) regimen for add-back during long-term gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-agonist) therapy.

DESIGN

A pilot clinical trial conducted at a tertiary referral, academic, reproductive sciences center. The study included 15 patients with endometriosis and 5 patients with severe premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Patients with endometriosis received leuprolide acetate depot 3.75 mg IM monthly until their symptoms had resolved (2-3 months), at which time HRT was initiated along with the GnRH-agonist. Patients with severe PMS received the same treatment with the addition of HRT after 1 month. The HRT regimen consisted of 1 mg oral micronized estradiol daily and 0.35 mg norethindrone daily for 2 days alternating with 2 days without norethindrone. The main outcome measure included bone density assessment in the lumbar spine and femoral neck by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at 6- to 12-month intervals. The mean follow-up duration +/- SD while on GnRH-agonist treatment was 31.2 +/- 17 months (for endometriosis patients) and 37.7 +/- 8.4 months (for patients with severe PMS).

RESULTS

Bone mineral density was stable after initiation of HRT for the entire follow-up period. No patient had return of pelvic pain or resumption of mood swings after HRT add-back. After the first 3 months of HRT, all women remained amenorrheic.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term GnRH-agonist down-regulation is safe and effective when combined with HRT add-back. Furthermore, on the basis of this small study, the low-dose pulsed progestogen, continuous estrogen HRT regimen seems to be safe for use as add-back therapy in terms of bone health.

The treatment of endometriosis: a review of the evidence

The treatment of endometriosis focuses upon amelioration of two symptoms: pain and infertility. The treatment of endometriosis-associated pain has been well studied and all major medical therapies appear to be superior to placebo. In addition, none seems to be drastically better than another. Surgical therapy also appears to be efficacious, albeit with a relatively high rate of recurrence of symptoms following conservative surgical intervention. There are no trials comparing the relative value of medical versus surgical therapy. Combination surgery/medical therapy has several high-quality trials for evaluation, but its value remains unclear. The treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility presents a different picture: medical therapy has not been shown to be of any value and may prove detrimental to fertility. Surgical treatment does improve fertility, probably for all stages of disease. Assisted reproduction also seems to be efficacious, with both controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination as well as in vitro fertilization shown to be of benefit. Finally, the combination of in vitro fertilization and either medical or surgical therapy may be beneficial with advanced endometriosis, but further study is required.

Conventional medical therapies for endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disorder that affects approximately 14% of all women and 30% to 50% of infertile women. Since the most common symptoms of endometriosis--progressive dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility--are also symptoms of multiple disorders, a diagnosis of endometriosis can be elusive and confirmed only by visualization, that is, laparoscopy. Endometriosis is often treated surgically upon diagnosis; however, the rate of recurrence is high, suggesting that a combination of therapeutic approaches might provide better outcomes than any one option alone. The most widely utilized hormonal treatments for endometriosis are GnRH agonists and oral contraceptives; agents indicated by the Food and Drug Administration include GnRH agonists and the androgen, danazol. The majority of evidence in support of medical therapy for endometriosis is largely observational, with the exception of studies of GnRH agonists, danazol, and a few progestins. Conventional treatment approaches for the medical management of endometriosis focus on suspected endometriosis, following a diagnosis of endometriosis, following surgical treatment of endometriosis, long-term management, and retreatment. Although major advances have been made in the treatment of endometriosis in recent decades, lack of randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of agents such as oral contraceptives alone or as add-back therapy for GnRH agonists, or those that examine combined medical and surgical treatments, has hampered the ability of physicians to provide the broadest range of medical therapies for this disorder. Future trials addressing these issues are warranted.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist plus "add-back" hormone replacement therapy for treatment of endometriosis: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of add-back therapy with continuous combined estrogen-progestin on the GnRH agonist-induced hypoestrogenic state and its effectiveness in healing of endometriotic lesions.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.

SETTING

Multiple centers in The Netherlands.

PATIENT(S)

41 premenopausal women with laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis (revised American Fertility Society scores >/=2).

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients were randomly assigned to receive a subcutaneous depot formulation of goserelin, 3. 6 mg, every 4 weeks, plus oral placebo or oral continuous combined estradiol-norethisterone acetate add-back therapy daily for 24 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Endometriosis response, bone mineral density, transvaginal ultrasonographic changes, endocrinologic effects, and subjective side effects.

RESULT(S)

The number of endometriotic implants was significantly reduced in both groups. In the group that received GnRH agonist plus placebo, bone mineral density of the lumbar spine decreased by 5.02%.

CONCLUSION(S)

The effectiveness of GnRH agonist treatment for endometriosis was not decreased by the addition of add-back continuous combined hormone replacement therapy. Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine was maintained and subjective side effects were diminished.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of goserelin

Goserelin is a synthetic decapeptide analogue of luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH). For experimental purposes it has been administered subcutaneously as an aqueous solution, but for therapeutic use it is formulated as subcutaneous depots releasing goserelin over periods of 1 (3.6 mg) or 3 (10.8 mg) months. Pharmacokinetic data have been generated using a specific radioimmunoassay. When administered as a solution, goserelin is rapidly absorbed and eliminated from serum with a mean elimination half-life (t1/2beta) of 4.2 hours in males and 2.3 hours in females. The shapes of the observed serum goserelin profiles following administration of the depots are primarily determined by the rate of goserelin release from the biodegradable lactide-glycolide copolymer matrix over periods of 1 or 3 months. There is no clinically relevant accumulation of goserelin during multiple administration of these depots. Goserelin is extensively metabolised prior to excretion. Its pharmacokinetics are unaffected by hepatic impairment, but the mean t1/2beta increases to 12.1 hours in patients with severe renal impairment. This suggests that the total renal clearance (renal metabolism and unchanged drug) is decreased in patients with renal dysfunction. It is unnecessary to adjust the dose or administration interval when the depot formulations are administered to elderly patients or to those with impaired renal or hepatic function. Administration of a goserelin 3.6 mg or 10.8 mg depot results in an initial increase of luteinising hormone (LH) levels and in increases of serum testosterone or oestradiol levels in males and females, respectively. This is followed by a decrease in serum LH levels and suppression of testosterone or oestradiol to within the castrate or menopausal range, respectively. Subsequently, throughout treatment with goserelin depots, serum testosterone or oestradiol levels remain suppressed. Clinical outcomes following treatment of patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer and benign gynaecological conditions with goserelin are described briefly.

Medical management of endometriosis and infertility

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on the use of medical management of endometriosis and infertility.

DESIGN

Literature review.

RESULT(S)

Endometriosis is a common finding in women with infertility, but the mechanism by which it renders a woman infertile remains unclear. Despite many years of controversy and debate, there remains a strong bias against medical treatment for endometriosis-associated infertility. A review of the current literature suggests that medical management of endometriosis may be effective in selected patients and in certain settings, including patients undergoing IVF.

CONCLUSION(S)

A closer look at the question of medical management of endometriosis reveals that much remains to be learned before a final decision can be made about the use of medical therapies, such as GnRH agonists, for endometriosis and associated infertility.

Treatment of endometriosis with a decreasing dosage of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (nafarelin): a pilot study with low-dose agonist therapy ("draw-back" therapy)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of half-dose GnRH agonist therapy for endometriosis.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal pilot study.

SETTING

Osaka University Hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Patients with symptomatic endometriosis.

INTERVENTION(S)

Fifteen patients were randomized to receive either full-dose nafarelin treatment (200 microgram b.i.d.) for 24 weeks (n = 7) or full-dose nafarelin treatment for 4 weeks followed by half-dose nafarelin treatment (200 microgram daily) for 20 weeks (n = 8).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical symptoms and the results of physical examinations. Serum E(2) and carcinoma antigen 125 (CA125) levels, lipid profiles, and urinary levels of the N-telopeptide of type I collagen. Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine.

RESULT(S)

Subjective and objective manifestations of endometriosis were decreased to a similar extent in both study groups. Adverse effects were markedly reduced with half-dose administration. In the half-dose group, the mean serum E(2) level was significantly suppressed by 4 weeks of treatment with full-dose nafarelin and remained at approximately 30 pg/mL with half-dose nafarelin. Loss of bone mineral density was significantly less with half-dose treatment.

CONCLUSION(S)

Half-dose administration of nafarelin after pituitary down-regulation with full-dose nafarelin ("draw-back" therapy) is a new protocol for the treatment of endometriosis that is effective and associated with fewer adverse effects.

Add-back therapy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in the treatment of patients with endometriosis: can a consensus be reached? Add-Back Consensus Working Group

OBJECTIVE

To reach a consensus on the role of add-back therapy for patients with endometriosis administered GnRH agonists (GnRH-a).

DESIGN

Results of consensus conference reviewing MEDLINE search of English language abstracts of both prospective and retrospective series.

SETTING

Consensus conference of 31 specialists in gynecologic surgery and reproductive endocrinology.

PATIENT(S)

Patients with symptomatic endometriosis who were candidates for GnRH-a therapy in treatment courses ranging in duration from 6 to 12 months.

INTERVENTION(S)

Oral steroidal and nonsteroidal add-back regimens.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Alteration in painful symptoms, extent of disease, vasomotor symptoms, bone mineral density, and serum lipid profile.

RESULT(S)

When added to GnRH-a for 6 months, both 2.5 mg of norethindrone and 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens with 5 mg/d of medroxyprogesterone acetate provide effective relief of vasomotor symptoms and decrease but do not eliminate bone mineral density loss. During 12 months of GnRH-a therapy, bone mineral density loss is eliminated effectively with an add-back of 5 mg of norethindrone acetate alone or in conjunction with low-dose conjugated equine estrogens. Organic bisphosphonates also may play a role.

CONCLUSION(S)

In patients with symptomatic endometriosis, the efficacy of GnRH agonists may be preserved and therapy prolonged while overcoming hypoestrogenic side effects with the use of appropriate add-back regimens.

Prospective randomized study of the effect of "add-back" hormone replacement on vascular function during treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHas) are a group of drugs that with long-term use induce a pseudomenopausal state in which estrogen production is suppressed. They are commonly used in the treatment of sex steroid-dependent conditions. "Add-back" hormone replacement therapy is used to prevent menopause-like symptoms and bone loss during GnRHa treatment, but it is also recognized that hypoestrogenism adversely affects vascular function. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of GnRHa and add-back therapy on vascular reactivity. This model serves as a paradigm for the effect of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Measurements of endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent vascular reactivity were compared in 2 groups of women treated with a GnRHa for 6 months. One group received estrogen/progestogen add-back therapy during the second 3 months of GnRHa treatment. Vascular reactivity was examined by use of ultrasound measurements of changes in brachial artery diameter. Endothelium-dependent changes were assessed during reactive hyperemia, whereas endothelium-independent changes were measured after the administration of glyceryl trinitrate sublingual spray. Treatment with the GnRHa alone had an inhibitory effect on endothelium-dependent relaxation. However, endothelium-dependent relaxation significantly improved in the group receiving add-back therapy (14.6%) compared with the group treated with GnRHa alone (8.6%) (P<0.01). There were no significant endothelium-independent changes in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the administration of add-back therapy has a protective effect on vascular function in GnRHa-induced hypoestrogenism. As a model for the menopause, these results also suggest that the long-term administration of hormone replacement therapy would result in endothelium-dependent arterial relaxation, an observation previously attributed only to the acute administration of estrogen.

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.

Goserelin acetate (Zoladex) with or without hormone replacement therapy for the treatment of endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hormone replacement therapy (HRT) plus goserelin (Zoladex) is as effective as goserelin alone for the relief of pelvic symptoms of endometriosis and to determine whether it reduces both the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) and the physiologic side effects associated with goserelin therapy.

DESIGN

Prospective, placebo-controlled study, open label for goserelin therapy and double-blind for HRT.

SETTING

Forty-two teaching or community hospitals.

PATIENT(S)

Premenopausal women with symptomatic endometriosis.

RESULT(S)

Statistically significant mean decreases from baseline in the total pelvic symptom score and total subjective score were observed by week 24 for all three groups. There were no statistically significant treatment differences for change in total symptom score. Some degree of BMD loss occurred in the three groups; however, the percentage loss was consistently greater in the HRT0 group than in the HRT1 or HRT2 groups. When analyzed separately, no overall age effect on BMD change was seen in women >30 years of age versus women < or = 30 years. The HRT1 and HRT2 groups had fewer occurrences of hot flushes and vaginal dryness than did the HRT0 group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Goserelin plus HRT is as effective as goserelin alone in relieving pelvic symptoms of endometriosis and attenuates both the loss of BMD and the physiologic side effects of hot flushes and vaginal dryness associated with goserelin therapy.

Progestins for symptomatic endometriosis: a critical analysis of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

To obtain estimates of the effects of progestin treatment for pelvic pain associated with endometriosis.

DATA IDENTIFICATION

Information from studies published in the English-language literature between 1966 and 1996 was pooled. Articles were identified through hand and computerized searches using MEDLINE.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 27 trials that were published in peer-reviewed journals were identified, and 13 of these were excluded from the analysis because of methodologic limitations. Nine of the remaining 14 studies were noncomparative (8 prospective and 1 retrospective), 1 was quasi-randomized, and 4 were true randomized controlled trials.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The sample size was generally limited; the mean number of patients included was 26 in the noncomparative trials and 29 in the randomized controlled trials. The mean duration of treatment was 6 months. A total of 355 women had pain at entry. Considering all noncomparative studies, the pooled frequency of nonresponders at the end of treatment was 9% (18/203; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3% to 13.6%). The common odds ratio from the four randomized controlled trials comparing progestins with danazol or a GnRH agonist was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.4 to 3.1), suggesting equivalence in treatment effect. In the only double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the frequency of nonresponders was not significantly different in the two arms. Only four studies assessed pain after drug withdrawal. The pooled frequency of pelvic pain at the end of follow-up was 50% (35/70; 95% CI, 37.8% to 62.2%). The overall crude conception rate after therapy among women who desired pregnancy was 44% (86/194; 95% CI, 37.2% to 51.6%). Side effects of limited clinical relevance were observed frequently.

CONCLUSION(S)

The available data suggest that the efficacy of progestins for temporary relief of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain is good and comparable to that of other, less safe treatments.

Endometriosis--a disease because it is characterized by bleeding

The hypothesis is advanced that endometriosis, an ovarian steroid hormone-dependent process, is physiologic unless recurrent bleeding in the ectopic implants causes progressive disease and symptoms. Diagnosis should take into account the detection of chronic bleeding, and efficient medical treatment can be achieved by amenorrhea without the induction of hypoestrogenism.

Effectiveness of tibolone on hypoestrogenic symptoms induced by goserelin treatment in patients with endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of tibolone on hypoestrogenic vasomotor symptoms and bone parameters in patients treated with goserelin acetate.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized placebo controlled double-blind study.

SETTING

Human volunteers in a university-based fertility clinic.

PATIENT(S)

Twenty-nine women of mean age 29.2 +/- 4.8 years with mild to severe endometriosis undergoing 6 months of treatment with 3.6 mg goserelin acetate in an SC depot formulation were studied.

INTERVENTION(S)

The patients were allocated randomly to either 2.5 mg/d tibolone (n = 15) or an iron pill (n = 14) in a double-blinded fashion beginning in the third cycle.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Frequency and severity of hot flushes, sweating, irritability, loss of libido, nervousness, and sleeplessness were assessed by the patients using 0 to 6 point scoring system and compared. Samples of urine were obtained for calcium and creatinine (Ca:Cr) ratios at the start of treatment and monthly there after. The vasomotor scoring for each symptom and Ca:Cr ratios before the treatment and at the end of 6th month were analyzed by parametric and nonparametric tests.

RESULT(S)

The mean age, weight, vasomotor scores, pelvic scores, and urine Ca:Cr ratios were similar in both placebo and tibolone group (28.7 +/- 4.8 versus 27.6 +/- 6.3 years, 50.9 +/- 5.3 versus 53.1 +/- 7.1 kg, 4.7 +/- 1.1 versus 4.2 +/- 0.8, and 0.056 +/- 0.008 versus 0.059 +/- 0.006, respectively). The decreases in vasomotor scoring as regards to hot flushing, sweating, and other associated symptoms were statistically significant in tibolone group compared with placebo (10.4 +/- 1.6 versus 24.6 +/- 4.9). During the study significant reductions in urine Ca:Cr ratio was obtained in the tibolone patients compared with placebo (0.031 +/- 0.006 versus 0.0055 +/- 0.007). The incidence of side effects (weight change, vaginal bleeding) was low and did not differ from the placebo group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Considering the beneficial effects of tibolone on vasomotor symptoms and bone loss, our data suggest that this synthetic steroid is an effective and safe option in relieving symptoms induced by GnRH-analogue.