Progestagens and anti-progestagens for pain associated with endometriosis

A systematic review of the mechanistic actions of microRNAs within integrated traditional Chinese medicine and western medical treatment for endometriosis

Endometriosis (EM), also known as Zhengjia in traditional Chinese medicine, is a common disease that significantly impacts women's health. An integrated treatment approach combining traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and western medicine has demonstrated significant clinical efficacy in the management of this condition. Specifically, it has been effective in addressing blood circulation and other diseases. MicroRNAs (miRNAs), which are molecules important in gene regulation, have been implicated in various physiologic and pathologic processes. In this review, we systematically summarized the potential mechanisms underlying the integrated EM treatment, with a focus on the role of microRNAs (miRNAs). Current research suggests that integrated TCM and western medicine treatment may exert their therapeutic effects on EM by influencing the expression of miRNAs. Through miRNA modulation, such a treatment approach may inhibit the growth of ectopic lesions and alleviate clinical symptoms. This review will shed light on the specific miRNAs that have been implicated in the integrated treatment of EM, as well as their potential mechanisms of action. By consolidating the existing evidence, we aim to provide clinicians and researchers with a clearer understanding of the therapeutic benefits of the integrated approach and potentially identify new avenues for improving clinical treatment outcomes. Ultimately, this review will contribute to the growing body of knowledge in this field, providing a basis for further research and the development of more targeted and efficient treatment strategies for EM.

Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for endometriosis: a patent landscape

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to analyze the patent filings and to systematize the main technological trends in patent protection for the diagnosis and therapeutics for endometriosis. Patent literature has also been explored to identify active inventors and applicants in this field.

METHODOLOGY

Patent search was carried out in the freely accessible patent search databases namely, patentscope using various combinations of the keywords "Endometriosis OR Adenomyosis" AND "Diagnostic OR Therapeutics" were used along with wildcard search queries in the "Title", "Abstract" and "Descriptions" fields.

RESULTS

A patent search revealed 144 patents describing inventions for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes of endometriosis. These patents include 26 patent applications in the diagnostic utility and 116 patent applications under the therapeutic approaches. Out of these 116 patent applications, 43 describe traditional medicines for endometriosis. Two patent applications describe inventions that can fall into both categories.

CONCLUSION

Efforts are being made to improve current diagnostic instruments. Hormonal alteration methods is the most common field of invention, followed by surgical interventions for therapeutics. A general trend of increase in patent application filings has been observed with a slight decrease in recent years.

Clinical Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics, and Safety of the Available Medical Options in the Treatment of Endometriosis-Related Pelvic Pain: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

In this scoping review, we sought to identify published studies evaluating the drugs currently used in the treatment of endometriosis-related pelvic pain, with reflection on their chemical properties, pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and clinical efficacy.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted with the use of the PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases, focusing on identifying articles published in English between January 1990 and 2023.

RESULTS

Based on the included studies, current therapy options for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain identified and reviewed in this article were: (1) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; (2) combined oral contraceptive (COCs); (3) progestins; (4) gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists; (5) aromatase inhibitors (AIs); (6) selective estrogen and progesterone receptor modulators; and (7) levonorgestrel-intrauterine device.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the published evidence, clinicians should consider NSAIDs, COCs, and progestins as the first-line medical therapies. Compared with second-line options, such as GnRH agonists/antagonists or AIs, the abovementioned first-line options are well tolerated, efficacious, and exhibit lower overall price. Future research priorities should be to identify novel target therapies and to evaluate the effects of available drugs through different routes of administration.

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.

Progesterone receptor ligands for the treatment of endometriosis

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

Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of endometriosis

Endometriosis affects approximately 190 million women and people assigned female at birth worldwide. It is a chronic, inflammatory, gynecologic disease marked by the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, which in many patients is associated with debilitating painful symptoms. Patients with endometriosis are also at greater risk of infertility, emergence of fatigue, multisite pain, and other comorbidities. Thus, endometriosis is best understood as a condition with variable presentation and effects at multiple life stages. A long diagnostic delay after symptom onset is common, and persistence and recurrence of symptoms despite treatment is common. This review discusses the potential genetic, hormonal, and immunologic factors that lead to endometriosis, with a focus on current diagnostic and management strategies for gynecologists, general practitioners, and clinicians specializing in conditions for which patients with endometriosis are at higher risk. It examines evidence supporting the different surgical, pharmacologic, and non-pharmacologic approaches to treating patients with endometriosis and presents an easy to adopt step-by-step management strategy. As endometriosis is a multisystem disease, patients with the condition should ideally be offered a personalized, multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment approach. A priority for future discovery is determining clinically informative sub-classifications of endometriosis that predict prognosis and enhance treatment prioritization.

Hormonal treatments for endometriosis: The endocrine background

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

Measuring What Matters-A Holistic Approach to Measuring Well-Being in Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common condition which affects women in a number of ways and impairs their ability to live a full and meaningful life. Evaluative research has traditionally taken its cue from a medical approach which has forced women to choose one area of functioning as their primary concern, and tended to use a narrow definition of treatment success which ignores general well-being. While recent trials have included quality of life (QOL) measures as outcomes, these have not been able to capture the totality of the impact of the disease and its treatment on a woman's capability to do what she might want to do and be who she might want to be. A capability approach might overcome this barrier, but the available tools will need to be refined and validated in women with endometriosis before this can be integrated within everyday clinical and research practice.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate inhibits wound closure of human endometrial epithelial cells and stromal fibroblasts in vitro

Mucosal integrity in the endometrium is essential for immune protection. Since breaches or injury to the epithelial barrier exposes underlying tissue and is hypothesized to increase infection risk, we determined whether endogenous progesterone or three exogenous progestins (medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), norethindrone (NET), and levonorgestrel (LNG)) used by women as contraceptives interfere with wound closure of endometrial epithelial cells and fibroblasts in vitro. Progesterone and LNG had no inhibitory effect on wound closure by either epithelial cells or fibroblasts. MPA significantly impaired wound closure in both cell types and delayed the reestablishment of transepithelial resistance by epithelial cells. In contrast to MPA, NET selectively decreased wound closure by stromal fibroblasts but not epithelial cells. Following epithelial injury, MPA but not LNG or NET, blocked the injury-induced upregulation of HBD2, a broad-spectrum antimicrobial implicated in wound healing, but had no effect on the secretion of RANTES, CCL20 and SDF-1α. This study demonstrates that, unlike progesterone and LNG, MPA and NET may interfere with wound closure following injury in the endometrium, potentially conferring a higher risk of pathogen transmission. Our findings highlight the importance of evaluating progestins for their impact on wound repair at mucosal surfaces.

Eliapixant is a selective P2X3 receptor antagonist for the treatment of disorders associated with hypersensitive nerve fibers

ATP-dependent P2X3 receptors play a crucial role in the sensitization of nerve fibers and pathological pain pathways. They are also involved in pathways triggering cough and may contribute to the pathophysiology of endometriosis and overactive bladder. However, despite the strong therapeutic rationale for targeting P2X3 receptors, preliminary antagonists have been hampered by off-target effects, including severe taste disturbances associated with blocking the P2X2/3 receptor heterotrimer. Here we present a P2X3 receptor antagonist, eliapixant (BAY 1817080), which is both highly potent and selective for P2X3 over other P2X subtypes in vitro, including P2X2/3. We show that eliapixant reduces inflammatory pain in relevant animal models. We also provide the first in vivo experimental evidence that P2X3 antagonism reduces neurogenic inflammation, a phenomenon hypothesised to contribute to several diseases, including endometriosis. To test whether eliapixant could help treat endometriosis, we confirmed P2X3 expression on nerve fibers innervating human endometriotic lesions. We then demonstrate that eliapixant reduces vaginal hyperalgesia in an animal model of endometriosis-associated dyspareunia, even beyond treatment cessation. Our findings indicate that P2X3 antagonism could alleviate pain, including non-menstrual pelvic pain, and modify the underlying disease pathophysiology in women with endometriosis. Eliapixant is currently under clinical development for the treatment of disorders associated with hypersensitive nerve fibers.

Pentoxifylline for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain and infertility

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition that occurs during the reproductive years. It is characterised by endometrium-like tissue developing outside the uterine cavity. This endometriotic tissue development is dependent on oestrogen produced primarily by the ovaries and partially by the endometriotic tissue itself, therefore traditional management has focused on ovarian suppression. In this review we considered the role of modulation of the immune system as an alternative approach. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of pentoxifylline in the management of endometriosis.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED on 16 December 2020, 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) comparing pentoxifylline with placebo or no treatment, other medical treatment, or surgery in women with endometriosis. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and overall pain (as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, other validated scales, or dichotomous outcomes) per woman randomised. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, rate of recurrence, and adverse events resulting from the pentoxifylline intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, consulting a third review author where required. We contacted study authors as needed. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model. For small numbers of events, we used a Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI instead. We analysed continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We used the I2 statistic to evaluate heterogeneity amongst studies. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five parallel-design RCTs involving a total of 415 women. We included one additional RCT in this update. Three studies did not specify details relating to allocation concealment, and two studies were not blinded. There were also considerable loss to follow-up, with four studies not conducting intention-to-treat analysis. We judged the quality of the evidence as very low. Pentoxifylline versus placebo No trials reported on our primary outcomes of live birth rate and overall pain. We are uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline treatment affects clinical pregnancy rate when compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, n = 285; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the clinical pregnancy rate with placebo is estimated to be 20%, then the rate with pentoxifylline is estimated as between 18% and 43%. We are also uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline affects the recurrence rate of endometriosis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.36; 1 RCT, n = 121; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate (Peto OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.37; 2 RCTs, n = 164; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported on the effect of pentoxifylline on improvement of endometriosis-related symptoms other than pain or adverse events. Pentoxifylline versus no treatment No trials reported on live birth rate. We are uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline treatment affects overall pain when compared to no treatment at one month (MD -0.36, 95% CI -2.12 to 1.40; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence), two months (MD -1.25, 95% CI  -2.67 to 0.17; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence), or three months (MD -1.60, 95% CI -3.32 to 0.12; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported on adverse events caused by pentoxifylline or any of our other secondary outcomes. Pentoxifylline versus other medical therapies One study (n = 83) compared pentoxifylline to the combined oral contraceptive pill after laparoscopic surgery to treat endometriosis, but could not be included in the meta-analysis as it was unclear if the data were presented as +/- standard deviation and what the duration of treatment was. No trials reported on adverse events caused by pentoxifylline or any of our other secondary outcomes. Pentoxifylline versus conservative surgical treatment  No study reported on this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No studies reported on our primary outcome of live birth rate. Due to the very limited evidence, we are uncertain of the effects of pentoxifylline on clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, or overall pain. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of pentoxifylline in the management of women with endometriosis with respect to subfertility and pain relief outcomes.

An assessment of the efficacy and safety of dydrogesterone in women with ovarian endometrioma: An open-label multicenter clinical study

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of dydrogesterone in Japanese women with ovarian endometrioma in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The post-marketing study involved 15 sites in Japan. Dydrogesterone 10 mg twice daily orally was administered for 21 days (day 5-25 of each menstrual cycle) for 4 cycles. The primary outcome measure was the change in ovarian endometrioma volume from baseline. Secondary outcome measures included total dysmenorrhea score (0 = absent to 3 = severe), severity of dysmenorrhea pain [0-10cm visual analog scale (VAS)], serum carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA-125) levels, and safety.

RESULTS

The study group comprised women with an endometrioma aged 20 to 49 (47.4% cases aged ≥40 years). Endometrioma volume was reduced in 50% (26/52), unchanged in 25% (13/52), and increased in 25% (13/52) of women from baseline to the end of cycle 5; three-quarters of patients thus had either reduced or unchanged ovarian endometrioma volume. Dydrogesterone significantly reduced total dysmenorrhea scores and severity of dysmenorrhea pain VAS during treatment compared with baseline. CA-125 levels were not significantly changed during the study. The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions in 59 subjects was 13.6% and 11.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Dydrogesterone prevented an increase in endometrioma size in many women, and it also significantly improved total dysmenorrhea scores and severity of dysmenorrhea pain, and was well tolerated. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier of the study was NCT02921763.

Clinical Presentation and Management of Endometriosis-Related Hemorrhagic Ascites: A Case Report and Systematic Review of the Literature

This study aims to analyze the patient profile and presentation of endometriosis-related hemorrhagic ascites and review its management to raise awareness among gynecologists and improve treatment strategies. We present a case report and engage in a systematic review involving human cases of histologically proven endometriosis with hemorrhagic ascites. Keywords were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Ovid Discovery databases from inception until December 2018. Studies that did not include a description of ascites or histopathologic results confirming endometriosis or those that involved patients with other conditions that may contribute to ascites were excluded. The review yielded 73 articles describing 84 premenopausal women with histologically proven endometriosis-related hemorrhagic ascites. Of note, 83% (65/78) of the patients were nulliparous and 69.35% (43/62) were of African descent. The most common chief complaint was abdominal enlargement (58.33%, 49/84) but a host of other symptoms were also reported. Pleural effusion was reported in 32.14% (27/84), and elevated CA-125 was seen in 74.42% (32/43). The majority (64.29%, 54/84) of the patients underwent laparotomy, and an increasing trend of minimally invasive surgical approaches (p<0.001) and fertility-sparing techniques (p<0.001) was observed. The mean ascites volume was 4228.27 mL (SD: 2625.66). Moderate to severe endometriosis was seen in 97.44% (76/78) of cases. The majority of the patients who received medical treatment were given gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists (63.79%, 37/58). The rate of recurrence after termination or suppression of ovarian function was 8.33% (7/84), and there was a mortality rate of 1.19% (1/84). Diagnosis of endometriosis-related hemorrhagic ascites may be challenging because it mimics several disease entities that cause ascites, thereby warranting a heightened clinical suspicion. Minimally invasive techniques are usually employed to establish a histologic diagnosis. The prevention of recurrence involves the recognition of endometriosis-related hemorrhagic ascites as a manifestation of severe endometriosis, which should prompt therapies directed at suppressing ovarian function. Since affected women are of childbearing age, ovary-preserving surgeries are generally preferred. The rate of recurrence is low after appropriate surgical and medical interventions.

Selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterine cavity. This chronic and recurring condition occurs in women of reproductive age. It is a common cause of pain or infertility and can cause non-specific symptoms such as lower back pain, dyspareunia (pain during or after intercourse), and dysmenorrhoea (menstrual pain). Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease. Medical treatment aims to relieve symptoms and shrink lesions by suppressing the normal menstrual cycle. In this review, we consider medication specifically aiming to modulate oestrogen receptors as an alternative method of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) in the management of endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for trials in the following databases (from their inception to 28 May 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRS Online), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and registers of ongoing trials. In addition, we searched all reference lists of included trials, and we contacted experts in the field, in an attempt to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) with placebo, no treatment, other medical treatment, or surgery for endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using data extraction forms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for reporting dichotomous data. Primary review outcomes were relief of pelvic pain and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, recurrence rate, and economic and fertility outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included only one RCT, which included 93 women, comparing the SERM raloxifene with placebo in biopsy-proven endometriosis. All women first underwent complete surgical excision of all lesions. Evidence was of very low quality: the main limitation was imprecision - with very sparse data from only one small study, which included only women after surgical treatment. Relief of pelvic pain The included study did not specifically measure the primary outcome of pain relief. Study authors reported that time to return of pelvic pain (defined as two months of pain equal to or more severe than pain at study entry) was more rapid in the raloxifene group (P = 0.03). Adverse events The included study reported adverse events such as pelvic pain, ovarian cyst, headache, migraine, and depression. We are uncertain whether raloxifene improves the incidence of pelvic pain (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.45), ovarian cysts (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.43), headache (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43), migraine (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.95), depression (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), or other adverse events (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30) (all: 1 study, n = 93; very low-quality evidence). Quality of life The study described a statistically significant difference in mental health quality of life (QoL) by 12 months, in favour of placebo treatment (mean difference 11.1, 95% CI 0.01 to 21.19). Other QoL data did not differ between groups but were not reported in detail. Recurrence rate, fertility, and economic outcomes We are uncertain whether raloxifene improves the recurrence rate of endometriosis, proven by biopsy, when compared to placebo (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.21; 1 study, n = 93; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 28% of women taking placebo have biopsy-proven recurrence of endometriosis, between 19% and 62% of those taking raloxifene will do so. These outcomes are prone to bias, as not all women had an actual second laparoscopy. Recurrence based on symptoms (non-menstrual pain, dysmenorrhoea, or dyspareunia) was described; in these cases, symptoms improved after use of raloxifene as well as after use of placebo. The included study did not report data on economic outcomes. No comparative data were available on pregnancy, as the study included only women who agreed to postpone pregnancy until after the study endpoint; the few pregnancies that did occur were uneventful but were regarded as an adverse event.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on a single, small RCT and incomplete data, we are uncertain of the effects of SERMs on pain relief in surgically treated patients with endometriosis. The included study was stopped prematurely because of higher pain scores among women who took SERMs when compared to scores among those receiving placebo. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the role of SERMs in endometriosis.

Hormonal activity in commonly used Black hair care products: evaluating hormone disruption as a plausible contribution to health disparities

BACKGROUND

Certain types of hair products are more commonly used by Black women. Studies show hair products contain several endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are associated with adverse health outcomes. As chemical mixtures of endocrine disruptors, hair products may be hormonally active, but this remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the hormonal activity of commonly used Black hair products.

METHODS

We identified six commonly used hair products (used by >10% of the population) from the Greater New York Hair Products Study. We used reporter gene assays (RGAs) incorporating natural steroid receptors to evaluate estrogenic, androgenic, progestogenic, and glucocorticoid hormonal bioactivity employing an extraction method using bond elution prior to RGA assessment at dilutions from 50 to 500.

RESULTS

All products displayed hormonal activity, varying in the amount and effect. Three samples showed estrogen agonist properties at levels from 12.5 to 20 ng/g estradiol equivalent concentrations All but one sample showed androgen antagonist properties at levels from 20 to 25 ng/g androgen equivalent concentrations. Four samples showed antagonistic and agonistic properties to progesterone and glucocorticoid.

SIGNIFICANCE

Hair products commonly used by Black women showed hormonal activity. Given their frequent use, exposure to hormonally active products could have implications for health outcomes and contribute to reproductive and metabolic health disparities.

Dydrogesterone in the treatment of endometriosis: evidence mapping and meta-analysis

Purpose

Endometriosis is a common, chronic gynecological disease that affects women’s fertility potential. Dydrogesterone is an effective and safe drug that is under-utilized due to limited clinical research. The purpose of this evidence mapping is to identify, describe, and analyze the current available evidence regarding dydrogesterone for the treatment of endometriosis.

Materials and methods

We performed a search in electronic databases: Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM. We also hand-searched google for relevant studies. Our primary outcomes included changes in pain relief including pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy rate, frequency of analgesic use, and other reported outcomes according to specific settings in the studies.

Results

Of 377 references screened, 19 studies were included in the data synthesis involving 1709 female participants. Nearly three-quarters were either randomized control trials or clinical control trials. Compared with gestrinone, dydrogesterone relieved dysmenorrhea, increased the pregnancy rate, and reduced the risk of certain adverse events. Compared with GnRH-a, dydrogesterone also lowered the risk of endometriosis recurrence and elevated transaminase levels. Whether there was any difference in efficacy between dydrogesterone and leuprolide acetate, letrozole or traditional Chinese medicine remains unclear due to insufficient data.

Conclusions

The amount and quality of evidence evaluating the effects of dydrogesterone for the treatment of endometriosis is generally very low. Limited evidence suggests that dydrogesterone may have some advantages over gestrinone, GnRH agonists, and other therapeutic interventions in treating endometriosis. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution.

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

A systematic review on the effects of endometriosis on sexuality and couple's relationship

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is likely to affect sexuality and intimate relationships but the effect endometriosis has on partners remains overlooked and the existing studies show conflicting results. The effect of the disease and its treatment on the couple may be pronounced given the absence of an obvious cause or cure, the likelihood of chronic recurring symptoms, and the potential impact on both sex and fertility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We followed the PRISMA guidelines to conduct this systematic review, which involved a database search of published available research related to the effects of endometriosis treatment on sexual function, couple's relationship and on the partner published between 2000 and 2020.

RESULTS

The studies considered revealed that women with endometriosis report a significant effect of the disease on sexuality and relationship. Also, most of the published studies suggest that the impact on partners may be profound, affecting many life domains including sex, intimacy and the relationship in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggests that male partners should not be overlooked in the treatment of endometriosis and that psychosocial support including sexual and couple therapy might be beneficial.

Clinical management of endometriosis

Endometriosis is a disease of reproductive age women that is commonly characterized by symptoms that often negatively impact quality of life. The clinical management of endometriosis remains highly variable and mostly influenced by geographic location, practice patterns, and breadth of clinician experience. This variability in treatment has inspired a trend towards multidisciplinary and specialized care of patients suffering from this disease. Surgical sampling, followed by histologic confirmation of endometrial-like tissue, remains the standard for the definitive diagnosis of endometriosis. However, the high sensitivity and specificity of MRI and ultrasound has shed light on the path towards non-surgical diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Molecular variability and intricacy of this disease has limited the development of biologic markers to target for non-invasive diagnosis and pharmacologic therapies. Surgical management of advanced-stage endometriosis can be difficult, mostly secondary to the invasive nature of the disease, and anatomical distortion requiring advanced surgical skills to manage. The high prevalence of chronic pelvic pain and other complex pain syndromes in patients with endometriosis also requires knowledge in the management of these types of issues in order to provide comprehensive care. Menopausal endometriosis, extrapelvic presentation, and potential malignant transformation of lesions are infrequent, requiring a high index of suspicion for timely diagnosis and treatment.

SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study

STUDY QUESTIONS

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (-30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

2 January 2019.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

Dysmenorrhea, Endometriosis and Chronic Pelvic Pain in Adolescents

Most adolescents will experience discomfort during menstruation. Due to normalization of dysmenorrhea, there is delay to diagnosis and treatment. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories are a first line treatment. Adolescents can safely be offered menstrual suppression with combined hormonal contraception, and progestin-only options. When the above are ineffective, gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists with add back treatment can be considered. Transabdominal ultrasound is indicated when first line treatments do not improve symptoms. Endometriosis should be considered in adolescents who experience ongoing pain despite medical treatment. If laparoscopy is performed and endometriosis visualized, it should be treated with either excision or ablation. Women with endometriosis should be counselled on menstrual suppression until fertility is desired. Management of chronic pain requires the involvement of a multi-disciplinary team.

Efficacy of Different Progestins in Women With Advanced Endometriosis Undergoing Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation for in vitro Fertilization-A Single-Center Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

Object: Is it possible to use different progestins cotreatment with human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) in women with advanced endometriosis but normal ovulation during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in vitro fertilization (IVF)? Whether different progestins treatments can be an alternative choice for women with severe endometriosis in considering IVF/ICSI treatment remains unknown? Design: Non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. Setting: Tertiary-care academic medical center. Population: Four hundred and fifty infertile patients with severe endometriosis undergoing IVF/ICSI between May 2016 and March 2017. Methods: Four hundred and fifty infertile patients with severe endometriosis undergoing IVF/ICSI were randomized to: medroxyprogesterone acetate +hMG; dydrogesterone +hMG; and progesterone +hMG. Ovulation was induced with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) and chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Viable embryos were cryopreserved for later transfer. Main Outcome Measures: The primary endpoint outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary indicators included the incidence of a premature surge in luteinizing hormone (LH), the number of viable embryos, and clinical pregnancy outcomes. Results: The number of oocytes retrieved was higher in the medroxyprogesterone acetate +hMG group than the two other groups (9.3 ± 5.7 vs. 8.0 ± 4.5 vs. 7.8 ± 5.2, P = 0.021). LH levels were suppressed after a 6-day progestin treatment in the medroxyprogesterone acetate +hMG and dydrogesterone +hMG groups, but there was a rebound of LH values in the progesterone +hMG group. No premature LH surge and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) occurred. No significant differences among the three groups were observed in fertilization and pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion: It is mandatory to point out that our conclusions are valid for patients with ovarian advanced endometriosis but normal ovarian functions. These results suggest three different progestins protocols are equivalent in terms of pregnancy outcomes for women with advanced endometriosis. PPOS protocol can be an alternative choice for women with severe endometriosis and normal ovarian reserve in IVF/ICSI treatment. These methods could be tested with other populations of women with endometriosis. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier:ChiCTR-OIN-16008529. Trial registration date: 2014-05-25. Date of first patient enrollment: May 2016.

Beneficial Effects of Oral Lactobacillus on Pain Severity in Women Suffering from Endometriosis: A Pilot Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

This study assessed the effects of a lactobacillus-based medication on pain intensity scores in women with endometriosis.

Materials and Methods

The present randomized pilot placebo-controlled trial was done on eligible women who were surgically and pathologically diagnosed with endometriosis. Thirty-seven participants who had not received hormonal treatment in the last three months, were enrolled and randomized into LactoFem® and placebo groups. Lactobacillus capsules or placebo were administrated orally once a day for 8 weeks. Patients were assessed for pain severity using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and chronic pelvic pain at baseline and after 8 and 12 weeks post-intervention.

Results

Mean age of participants and mean body mass index (BMI) for the LactoFem® and control groups were comparable. All patients had stage 3 and 4 of the disease based on revised American fertility society (AFS) classification of endometriosis. Mean initial pain scores for dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and chronic pelvic pain were 6.53 ± 2.88, 4.82 ± 3.76 and 4.19 ± 3.53, respectively in the LactoFem® group and 5.60 ± 2.06, 3.67 ± 2.64 and 2.88 ± 2.80, respectively for the control group; the two groups had comparable scores in this regard. There was more decrease in pain scores for both dysmenorrhea and the overall pain after 8 weeks of treatment in LactoFem® group compared to the control group. The scores for dysmenorrhea were 6.53 ± 2.88 and 5.60 ± 2.06 in the LactoFem® and control groups, respectively, before intervention but, after 8-week treatment, these values were 3.07 ± 2.49 and 4.47 ± 2.13 (P=0.018), respectively. The changes in overall pain score in the LactoFem® and control group during this period were 7.33 ± 7.00 and 4.11 ± 1.68, respectively (P=0.017).

Conclusion

This study showed some beneficial effects of lactobacillus administration on endometriosis-related pain (Registration number: IRCT20150819023684N5).

When more is not better: 10 'don'ts' in endometriosis management. An ETIC * position statement

A network of endometriosis experts from 16 Italian academic departments and teaching hospitals distributed all over the country made a critical appraisal of the available evidence and definition of 10 suggestions regarding measures to be de-implemented. Strong suggestions were made only when high-quality evidence was available. The aim was to select 10 low-value medical interventions, characterized by an unfavorable balance between potential benefits, potential harms, and costs, which should be discouraged in women with endometriosis. The following suggestions were agreed by all experts: do not suggest laparoscopy to detect and treat superficial peritoneal endometriosis in infertile women without pelvic pain symptoms; do not recommend controlled ovarian stimulation and IUI in infertile women with endometriosis at any stage; do not remove small ovarian endometriomas (diameter <4 cm) with the sole objective of improving the likelihood of conception in infertile patients scheduled for IVF; do not remove uncomplicated deep endometriotic lesions in asymptomatic women, and also in symptomatic women not seeking conception when medical treatment is effective and well tolerated; do not systematically request second-level diagnostic investigations in women with known or suspected non-subocclusive colorectal endometriosis or with symptoms responding to medical treatment; do not recommend repeated follow-up serum CA-125 (or other currently available biomarkers) measurements in women successfully using medical treatments for uncomplicated endometriosis in the absence of suspicious ovarian cysts; do not leave women undergoing surgery for ovarian endometriomas and not seeking immediate conception without post-operative long-term treatment with estrogen-progestins or progestins; do not perform laparoscopy in adolescent women (<20 years) with moderate-severe dysmenorrhea and clinically suspected early endometriosis without prior attempting to relieve symptoms with estrogen-progestins or progestins; do not prescribe drugs that cannot be used for prolonged periods of time because of safety or cost issues as first-line medical treatment, unless estrogen-progestins or progestins have been proven ineffective, not tolerated, or contraindicated; do not use robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis outside research settings. Our proposal is to better address medical and surgical approaches to endometriosis de-implementing low-value interventions, with the aim to prevent unnecessary morbidity, limit psychological distress, and reduce the burden of treatment avoiding medical overuse and allowing a more equitable distribution of healthcare resources.

The cost-effective, but forgotten, medical endometriosis therapy: a prospective, quasi-randomized study on progestin therapy

Endometriosis represents nowadays a real burden for the patients as well as for the physicians, as it requires surgical and/or medical treatment, often long - termed and repeated. Moreover, the high costs necessary to diagnose and treat endometriosis represent a real economic burden, being comparable to other chronic diseases like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore, the physicians dealing with this disease should take into account not only the efficacy of the treatment, but also the economic aspects and patients compliance. The present paper analyses the efficiency of progestins (lynestrenol and medrogestone) in endometriosis as a cost - effective, but forgotten medical therapy of the disease. Our study underlines the good tolerability of progestins, as they have limited side effects, the compliance of patients being high. They are also low-cost medications, which could represent an effective alternative method in the endometriosis treatment, especially in less - developed countries that cannot afford the higher therapeutic costs.

Future Directions in Endometriosis Research and Therapeutics

Background

Endometriosis is a disease common among women of reproductive age characterized by pain, anxiety and infertility. Defined as the growth of endometrial tissue in ectopic locations, endometriosis remains an enigmatic disease for which current treatments are less than ideal. Much of these shortcomings to current therapy stem from our incomplete understanding on the pathogenesis of the disease. It is generally accepted that endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease and, as such, the majority of treatment approaches aim at reducing estrogen action and/or production. Unfortunately, this approach is not effective in all women with endometriosis and in those women where success is achieved with their use, there is potential for health-comprising side effects.

Objective

The objective of this review is to summarize current approaches for treatment of endometriosis, discuss their limitations and potential reasons for lack of progress towards better therapeutics for this disease.

Results

In this review we summarize the current approaches for treatment of endometriosis, discuss their limitations and potential reasons for lack of progress towards better therapeutics for this disease.

Conclusion

Based upon the current state of knowledge, there is a strong necessity for through assessment at the level of the genome, miRNAome and proteome as well as the importance of integrating clinically-relevant endpoints in future studies which evaluate potential endometriosis therapies in experimental models of endometriosis.

Medical treatment for adenomyosis and/or adenomyoma

Uterine adenomyosis and/or adenomyoma is characterized by the presence of heterotopic endometrial glands and stroma within the myometrium, >2.5 mm in depth in the myometrium or more than one microscopic field at 10 times magnification from the endometrium-myometrium junction, and a variable degree of adjacent myometrial hyperplasia, causing globular and cystic enlargement of the myometrium, with some cysts filled with extravasated, hemolyzed red blood cells, and siderophages. Hysterectomy is a "gold standard" and definitive therapy for uterine adenomyosis, and many cases of adenomyosis have been diagnosed by pathological review retrospectively. As such, the diagnosis of adenomyosis is difficult, and this subsequently results in difficulty in the management of these patients, especially those who are symptomatic but have a strong desire to preserve their uterus. In our previous review, we found that the use of uterine-sparing surgery in the management of uterine adenomyosis and/or adenomyoma is still controversial, although some data support its feasibility. Conservative treatment is still needed in the group of patients that requires preservation of fertility and improvement of quality of life. However, studies focusing on the topic of medical treatment for adenomyosis are rare. In this article, current knowledge regarding the use of medical therapy for uterine adenomyosis, partly based on the understanding of endometriosis, is reviewed.

Contraception and endometriosis: challenges, efficacy, and therapeutic importance

Endometriosis is a benign gynecological condition that is estimated to affect 10% of women in the general population and appears to be increasing in incidence. It is an estrogen-dependent inflammatory disease, and is primarily characterized by dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and variable effects on fertility. The symptoms may greatly affect quality of life, and symptom control may be the primary aim of initial management, while contraceptive effect is often secondary. It is estimated that 30%–50% of women with endometriosis have an infertility problem, so a considerable number of endometriosis sufferers will require effective, planned contraception to maximize “protection of fertility” and prevent progression of the endometriotic condition. Ideally, this contraception should also provide symptom relief and improvement of physical, mental, and social well-being. At the present time, long-term progestogens appear to be the most effective choice for meeting all of these requirements, but other options need to be considered. It is becoming increasingly recognized that hormonal contraceptive systems are necessary for prevention of disease recurrence following surgical treatment of endometriosis. The personal preferences of the woman are an integral part of the final contraceptive choice. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the contraceptive options available to women with endometriosis.

Endometriosis: alternative methods of medical treatment

Endometriosis is an inflammatory estrogen-dependent disease defined by the presence of endometrial glands and stroma at extrauterine sites. The main purpose of endometriosis management is alleviating pain associated to the disease. This can be achieved surgically or medically, although in most women a combination of both treatments is required. Long-term medical treatment is usually needed in most women. Unfortunately, in most cases, pain symptoms recur between 6 months and 12 months once treatment is stopped. The authors conducted a literature search for English original articles, related to new medical treatments of endometriosis in humans, including articles published in PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Keywords included "endometriosis" matched with "medical treatment", "new treatment", "GnRH antagonists", "Aromatase inhibitors", "selective progesterone receptor modulators", "anti-TNF α", and "anti-angiogenic factors". Hormonal treatments currently available are effective in the relief of pain associated to endometriosis. Among new hormonal drugs, association to aromatase inhibitors could be effective in the treatment of women who do not respond to conventional therapies. GnRH antagonists are expected to be as effective as GnRH agonists, but with easier administration (oral). There is a need to find effective treatments that do not block the ovarian function. For this purpose, antiangiogenic factors could be important components of endometriosis therapy in the future. Upcoming researches and controlled clinical trials should focus on these drugs.

Current strategies for endometriosis management

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

Hormonal treatment for severe hydronephrosis caused by bladder endometriosis

The incidence of endometriosis cases involving the urinary system has recently increased, and the bladder is a specific zone where endometriosis is most commonly seen in the urinary system. In the case presented here, a patient presented to the emergency department with the complaint of side pain and was examined and diagnosed with severe hydronephrosis and bladder endometriosis was determined in the etiology. After the patient was pathologically diagnosed, Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) was administered to the uterine cavity. At the 12-month follow-up, endometriosis was not observed in the cystoscopy and symptoms had completely regressed. Hydronephrosis may be observed after exposure of the ureter, and silent renal function loss may develop in patients suffering from endometriosis with bladder involvement. For patients with moderate or severe hydronephrosis associated with bladder endometriosis, LNG-IUS application may be separately and successfully used after conservative surgery.

National German Guideline (S2k): Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Endometriosis: Long Version - AWMF Registry No. 015-045

In this guideline, recommendations and standards for optimum diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis are presented. They are based on the analysis of the available scientific evidence as published in prospective randomized and retrospective studies as well as in systematic reviews. The guideline working group consisted of experts from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic.

Medical treatments for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain

The main sequelae of endometriosis are represented by infertility and chronic pelvic pain. Chronic pelvic pain causes disability and distress with a very high economic impact. In the last decades, an impressive amount of pharmacological agents have been tested for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. However, only a few of these have been introduced into clinical practice. Following the results of the controlled studies available, to date, the first-line treatment for endometriosis associated pain is still represented by oral contraceptives used continuously. Progestins represent an acceptable alternative. In women with rectovaginal lesions or colorectal endometriosis, norethisterone acetate at low dosage should be preferred. GnRH analogues may be used as second-line treatment, but significant side effects should be taken into account. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used, but there is inconclusive evidence for their efficacy in relieving endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Other agents such as GnRH antagonist, aromatase inhibitors, immunomodulators, selective progesterone receptor modulators, and histone deacetylase inhibitors seem to be very promising, but there is not enough evidence to support their introduction into routine clinical practice. Some other agents, such as peroxisome proliferator activated receptors-γ ligands, antiangiogenic agents, and melatonin have been proven to be efficacious in animal studies, but they have not yet been tested in clinical studies.

Menstrual suppression: current perspectives

Menstrual suppression to provide relief of menstrual-related symptoms or to manage medical conditions associated with menstrual morbidity or menstrual exacerbation has been used clinically since the development of steroid hormonal therapies. Options range from the extended or continuous use of combined hormonal oral contraceptives, to the use of combined hormonal patches and rings, progestins given in a variety of formulations from intramuscular injection to oral therapies to intrauterine devices, and other agents such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. The agents used for menstrual suppression have variable rates of success in inducing amenorrhea, but typically have increasing rates of amenorrhea over time. Therapy may be limited by side effects, most commonly irregular, unscheduled bleeding. These therapies can benefit women’s quality of life, and by stabilizing the hormonal milieu, potentially improve the course of underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or a seizure disorder. This review addresses situations in which menstrual suppression may be of benefit, and lists options which have been successful in inducing medical amenorrhea.

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the presence of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity and is associated with pain and subfertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of painful symptoms and subfertility associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group including searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and trial registries from inception to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected in which the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery used to treat pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis was compared with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment or diagnostic laparoscopy only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data were performed independently by two review authors with disagreements resolved by a third review author. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included in the review. The studies randomised 973 participants experiencing pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis. Five RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision versus diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision versus diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision versus ablation. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy and injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) (goserelin) with add-back therapy. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly-described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and risk of attrition bias.Laparoscopic surgery was associated with decreased overall pain (measured as 'pain better or improved') compared with diagnostic laparoscopy, both at six months (odds ratio (OR) 6.58, 95% CI 3.31 to 13.10, 3 RCTs, 171 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and at 12 months (OR 10.00, 95% CI 3.21 to 31.17, 1 RCT, 69 participants, low quality evidence). Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy, laparoscopic surgery was also associated with an increased live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.16, P = 0.007, 2 RCTs, 382 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and increased clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86, P = 0.003, 3 RCTs, 528 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). Two studies collected data on adverse events (including infection, vascular and visceral injury and conversion to laparotomy) and reported no events in either arm. Other studies did not report this outcome. The similar effect of laparoscopic surgery and diagnostic laparotomy on the rate of miscarriage per pregnancy was imprecise (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54, 2 studies, 112 women, moderate quality evidence).When laparoscopic ablation was compared with diagnostic laparoscopy plus medical therapy (GnRHa plus add-back therapy), more women in the ablation group reported that they were pain free at 12 months (OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 26.85, 1 RCT, 35 participants, low quality evidence).The difference between laparoscopic ablation and laparoscopic excision in the proportion of women reporting overall pain relief at 12 months on a VAS 0 to 10 pain scale was 0 (95% CI -1.22 to 1.22, P = 1.00, 1 RCT, 103 participants, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery to treat mild and moderate endometriosis reduces overall pain and increases live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates. There is low quality evidence that laparoscopic excision and ablation were similarly effective in relieving pain, although there was only one relevant study. More research is needed considering severe endometriosis, different types of pain associated with endometriosis (for example dysmenorrhoea (pain with menstruation)) and comparing laparoscopic interventions with holistic and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview reports on interventions for pain relief and for subfertility in pre-menopausal women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this overview was to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on treatment options for women with pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis.

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting pain or fertility outcomes in women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation (protocols and titles) for future inclusion. The reviews, protocols and titles were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Archie (the Cochrane information management system) in March 2014.Pain-related outcomes of the overview were pain relief, clinical improvement or resolution and pain recurrence. Fertility-related outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE methods. Review findings were summarised in the text and the data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All the reviews were high quality. The quality of the evidence for specific comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary studies, inconsistency between the studies, and imprecision in effect estimates. Pain relief (14 reviews) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues One systematic review reported low quality evidence of an overall benefit for GnRH analogues compared with placebo or no treatment. Ovulation suppression Five systematic reviews reported on medical treatment using ovulation suppression. There was moderate quality evidence that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) was more effective than expectant management, and very low quality evidence that danazol was more effective than placebo. There was no consistent evidence of a difference in effectiveness between oral contraceptives and goserelin, estrogen plus progestogen and placebo, or progestogens and placebo, though in all cases the relevant evidence was of low or very low quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)A review of NSAIDs reported inconclusive evidence of a benefit in symptom relief compared with placebo. Surgical interventions There were two reviews of surgical interventions. One reported moderate quality evidence of a benefit in pain relief following laparoscopic surgery compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The other reported very low quality evidence that recurrence rates of endometriomata were lower after excisional surgery than after ablative surgery. Post-surgical medical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. Neither found evidence of an effect on pain outcomes, though in both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine There were two systematic reviews of alternative medicine. One reported evidence of a benefit from auricular acupuncture compared to Chinese herbal medicine, and the other reported no evidence of a difference between Chinese herbal medicine and danazol. In both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Anti-TNF-α drugs One review found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between anti-TNF-α drugs and placebo. However, the evidence was of low quality. Reviews reporting fertility outcomes (8 reviews) Medical interventions Four reviews reported on medical interventions for improving fertility in women with endometriosis. One compared three months of GnRH agonists with a control in women undergoing assisted reproduction and found very low quality evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancies in the treatment group. There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the interventions in the other three reviews, which compared GnRH agonists versus antagonists, ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment, and pre-surgical medical therapy versus surgery alone. In all cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Surgical interventions Three reviews reported on surgical interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that both live births or ongoing pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates were higher after laparoscopic surgery than after diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was low quality evidence of no difference in effectiveness between surgery and expectant management for endometrioma. One review found low quality evidence that excisional surgery resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than drainage or ablation of endometriomata. Post-surgical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. They found no evidence of an effect on clinical pregnancy rates. The evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine A review of Chinese herbal medicine in comparison with gestrinone found no evidence of a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates. However, the evidence was of low quality. Adverse events Reviews of GnRH analogues and of danazol reported that the interventions were associated with higher rates of adverse effects than placebo; and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates of adverse events than other treatments. Chinese herbal medicine was associated with fewer side effects than gestrinone or danazol.Three reviews reported miscarriage as an outcome. No difference was found between surgical and diagnostic laparoscopy, between GnRH agonists and antagonists, or between aspiration of endometrioma and expectant management. However, in all cases the quality of the evidence was of low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with pain and endometriosis, suppression of menstrual cycles with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) and danazol were beneficial interventions. Laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis and excision of endometriomata were also associated with improvements in pain. The evidence on NSAIDs was inconclusive. There was no evidence of benefit with post-surgical medical treatment.In women with endometriosis undergoing assisted reproduction, three months of treatment with GnRH agonist improved pregnancy rates. Excisional surgery improved spontaneous pregnancy rates in the nine to 12 months after surgery compared to ablative surgery. Laparoscopic surgery improved live birth and pregnancy rates compared to diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was no evidence that medical treatment improved clinical pregnancy rates.Evidence on harms was scanty, but GnRH analogues, danazol and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates than other interventions.

Chronic pelvic pain in endometriosis: an overview

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) could be considered nowadays a deep health problem that challenges physicians all over the world. This because its aetiology is still unclear, the course of the disease could vary a lot among different patients and through time in the same patient, and the response to treatments is not every time successful. Among women who underwent laparoscopy for CPP, endometriosis is found in about 1/3 of the cases, while only 25% of women with histological confirmed endometriosis are asymptomatic. A wide range of variables may exert their influence on the resulting pain syndrome in endometriosis; for example, score according to American society for reproductive medicine (rASRM), size of the sub-peritoneal and pelvic wall implants, Douglas obliteration, previous surgery. It is widely accepted nowadays that central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS) seems to influence each other and this interconnection play a key role in pain modulation. Moreover, the phenomena induced by endometriosis in the pelvis, including the breakdown of peritoneal homeostasis and the induction of the production of proinflammatory and proangiogenic cytokines, are responsible of altered innervations and modulation of pain pathways in these patients. There are many proposed medical and surgical approach to treat this painful syndrome, although there is necessity of more efforts to create new non-invasive strategies that set a more accurate diagnosis of the causes of endometriotic-related CPP, and therefore facilitate its eradication.

Defining future directions for endometriosis research: workshop report from the 2011 World Congress of Endometriosis In Montpellier, France

Endometriosis, defined as estrogen-dependent lesions containing endometrial glands and stroma outside the uterus, is a chronic and often painful gynecological condition that affects 6% to 10% of reproductive age women. Endometriosis has estimated annual costs of US $12 419 per woman (approximately €9579), comprising one-third of the direct health care costs with two-thirds attributed to loss of productivity. Decreased quality of life is the most important predictor of direct health care and total costs. It has been estimated that there is a mean delay of 6.7 years between onset of symptoms and a surgical diagnosis of endometriosis, and each affected woman loses on average 10.8 hours of work weekly, mainly owing to reduced effectiveness while working. To encourage and facilitate research into this debilitating disease, a consensus workshop to define future directions for endometriosis research was held as part of the 11th World Congress on Endometriosis in September 2011 in Montpellier, France. The objective of this workshop was to review and update the endometriosis research priorities consensus statement developed following the 10th World Congress on Endometriosis in 2008.(1) A total of 56 recommendations for research have been developed, grouped under 6 subheadings: (1) diagnosis, (2) classification and prognosis, (3) clinical trials, treatment, and outcomes, (4) epidemiology, (5) pathophysiology, and (6) research policy. By producing this consensus international research priorities statement, it is the hope of the workshop participants that researchers will be encouraged to develop new interdisciplinary research proposals that will attract increased funding support for work on endometriosis.