Evidence of similar increases in bone turnover during nafarelin and danazol use in women with endometriosis

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.

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.

Long-term effects on bone mineral density and bone metabolism of 6 months' treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues in Japanese women: comparison of buserelin acetate with leuprolide acetate

Our objective was to assess the effects of 6 months' treatment with two types of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues on lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) and bone metabolism. We studied 27 women who had been given a diagnosis of endometriosis or uterine myoma. The subjects received drug therapy for 6 months and were subsequently followed up for 1 year. The BMD of the lumbar spine (L2, L3, L4) was measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry four times: at baseline, after 6 months, after 12 months, and after 18 months. The serum concentrations of sex steroids and bone metabolic markers were measured at the same times as BMD. Compared with the baseline value, the mean decrease in the buserelin group L2-4 BMD was 3.7% at 6 months, 1.7% at 12 months, and 0.4% at 18 months. In the leuprolide group, L2-4 BMD decreased respectively by 5.1%, 6.2%, and 4.3%. Serum concentrations of calcium increased significantly after 6 months of treatment (P < 0.05) and returned to the baseline level at 12 months in both groups. In the leuprolide group, the intact osteocalcin concentration after 6 months was significantly higher than the baseline value, and after 12 months, it decreased to the baseline level. Our results indicate that the effect on BMD of 6 months' treatment with GnRH analogues virtually resolves by 1 year after treatment, provided that drugs affecting bone metabolism are not given during this period.

Hereditary and acquired angioedema: problems and progress: proceedings of the third C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency workshop and beyond

Hereditary angioedema (HAE), a rare but life-threatening condition, manifests as acute attacks of facial, laryngeal, genital, or peripheral swelling or abdominal pain secondary to intra-abdominal edema. Resulting from mutations affecting C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH), inhibitor of the first complement system component, attacks are not histamine-mediated and do not respond to antihistamines or corticosteroids. Low awareness and resemblance to other disorders often delay diagnosis; despite availability of C1-INH replacement in some countries, no approved, safe acute attack therapy exists in the United States. The biennial C1 Esterase Inhibitor Deficiency Workshops resulted from a European initiative for better knowledge and treatment of HAE and related diseases. This supplement contains work presented at the third workshop and expanded content toward a definitive picture of angioedema in the absence of allergy. Most notably, it includes cumulative genetic investigations; multinational laboratory diagnosis recommendations; current pathogenesis hypotheses; suggested prophylaxis and acute attack treatment, including home treatment; future treatment options; and analysis of patient subpopulations, including pediatric patients and patients whose angioedema worsened during pregnancy or hormone administration. Causes and management of acquired angioedema and a new type of angioedema with normal C1-INH are also discussed. Collaborative patient and physician efforts, crucial in rare diseases, are emphasized. This supplement seeks to raise awareness and aid diagnosis of HAE, optimize treatment for all patients, and provide a platform for further research in this rare, partially understood disorder.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis: bone mineral density

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) are generally well tolerated, and are effective in relieving the symptoms of endometriosis (Prentice 2003). Unfortunately the low oestrogen state that they induce is associated with adverse effects including an acceleration in bone mineral density (BMD) loss.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of treatment with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) on the bone mineral density of women with endometriosis, compared to placebo, no treatment, or other treatments for endometriosis, including GnRHas with add-back therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of controlled trials (23rd October 2002) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2002). We also carried out electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 - March Week 2 2003) and EMBASE (1980 - March Week 2 2003). We also searched the reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective, randomised controlled studies of the use of GnRHas for the treatment of women with endometriosis were considered, where bone density measurements were an end point. The control arm of the studies was either placebo, no treatment, another medical therapy for endometriosis, or GnRHas with add-back therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers (JF and MS) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty studies involving 2,391 women were included, however only 15, involving 910 women, could be included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that danazol and progesterone + oestrogen add-back are protective of BMD at the lumbar spine both during treatment and for up to six and twelve months after treatment, respectively. Between the groups receiving GnRHa and the groups receiving danazol/gestrinone, there was a significant difference in percentage change of BMD after six months of treatment, the GnRH analogue producing a reduction in BMD from baseline and danazol producing an increase in BMD (SMD -3.43, 95 % CI -3.91 to -2.95). Progesterone only add-back is not protective; after six months of treatment absolute value BMD measurements of the lumbar spine did not differ significantly from the group receiving GnRH analogues (SMD 0.15, 95 % CI -0.21 to 0.52). In the comparison of GnRHa versus GnRHa + HRT add-back, that is oestrogen + progesterone or oestrogen only, there was a significantly bigger BMD loss in the GnRHa only group (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.77 to -0.21). These numbers reflect the absolute value measurements at the lumbar spine after six months of treatment. Due to the small number of studies in the comparison we are unable to conclude whether calcium-regulating agents are protective. No difference was found between low and high dose add-back regimes but again only one study was identified for this comparison. Only one study comparing GnRH analogues with placebo was identified, but the study gave no data. No studies comparing GnRH with the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) or progestagens were identified.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Both danazol and progesterone + oestrogen add-back have been shown to be protective of BMD, while on treatment and up to six and 12 months later, respectively. However, by 24 months of follow-up there was no difference in BMD in those women who had HRT add-back. Studies of danazol versus GnRHa did not report long-term follow-up. The significant side effects associated with danazol limit its use.

Endometriosis: medical therapy

The management of women with endometriosis is complex and necessitates individualization of patient care. The most commonly used medical therapies are danazol, GnRH agonists, medroxyprogesterone acetate and gestrinone. Studies to date have shown these drugs to have equal efficacy in terms of reduction in laparoscopic score and relief of symptoms. However, their side-effects make them unsuitable for long-term use. The addition of low dose hormone replacement therapy to GnRH agonist regimens may allow prolonged use but the current cost of these agents is high. Low dose oral contraceptive pills deserve further investigation. The role of medical treatment for women with endometriosis and infertility is controversial. There is no place for hormonal therapy in such women with stage I or II disease. When expectant management fails, gamete intrafallopian transfer offers excellent results. For those with stage III or IV disease, surgery is preferable with adjunctive medical therapy in selected cases. If pregnancy does not ensue, in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer are the next line of management, and results are optimized by prior medical therapy and aspiration of endometriomas. Major advances have been made in the medical management of endometriosis. However, current treatment strategies are ineffective in eliminating the disease in most women. New approaches are required in both basic and clinical research in order to finally eradicate this often devastating disease.

Infertility treatment: from cookery to science. The epidemiology of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To review the epidemiology of published randomised controlled trials in infertility treatment over the last 25 years, with special emphasis on the number and quality of trials.

DESIGN

Computer literature review by MEDLINE backed up by a manual search of 41 journals. Each trial was classified according to the methodology described and quality criteria. The results were recorded in a computer database. Odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated where the data were sufficient.

SUBJECTS

Couples suffering from primary or secondary infertility. The trials studied 33,761 patients overall.

SETTING

Institute of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Leeds.

RESULTS

Five hundred and one randomised trials in male and female infertility treatment were identified between 1966 and 1990. Pregnancy was an outcome in 291 (58%) and these were the subject of detailed analysis. Two hundred and twenty-four (77%) and 67 (23%) 'pregnancy trials' were concerned, respectively, with female and male infertility. Four per cent of the trials were preceded by a sample size calculation, and the average sample size was 96 patients (range 5-933); 700 patients per group would be required to demonstrate plausible success rates for most treatments. The method of randomisation was unstated or pseudo-randomised in 206 (71%) of trials where pregnancy was an outcome. Only 29 (5.8%) of studies were multicentre. The method of confirmation of pregnancy was omitted for 70% of papers. Cross-over design was used in 103 (21%) of cases. Meta-analysis is possible for selected topics such as the use of anti-oestrogens in idiopathic oligospermia and unexplained female infertility. Eight cases of double reporting were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials using randomised methodology were relatively few in comparison with other branches of medicine, although their use is important in the evaluation of treatment for infertility as treatment-independent pregnancy is common. It was encouraging to note that an exponential increase in the use of this methodology occurred during the last three years, especially in association with assisted conception techniques, and meta-analysis has become possible for selected topics. However, many trials suffer from an unrealistically small sample size, inappropriate use of cross-over design or pseudo-randomisation. The trend towards properly controlled studies should be encouraged but these studies should be of improved quality and organised on a multicentre or even international basis.