Initiation of GnRH agonist treatment on 3-5 days postoperatively in endometriosis patients: a randomized controlled trial

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

ABSTRACT

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

The efficacy and safety of Kuntai capsule combined with leuprorelin acetate in the treatment of endometriosis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis (EMS) is one of the common diseases in women, which seriously affects the quality of life of women. Leuprorelin acetate can control the development of EMS, but long-term use can cause perimenopausal symptoms in women. Clinical studies have shown that Kuntai capsule combined with leuprorelin acetate is effective in the treatment of EMS, which can relieve perimenopausal symptoms, but it lacks of evidence-based medical evidence. Therefore, this study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Kuntai capsule combined with leuprorelin acetate in the treatment of EMS.

METHODS

CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, The Cochrance Library, Embase, Web of Science, and other databases were searched by computer to collect randomized controlled trials of Kuntai capsule combined with leuprorelin acetate in the treatment of EMS. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to February 2021. Two researchers screened the literatures and extracted the data and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of Kuntai capsule combined with leuprorelin acetate in the treatment of EMS by clinical effective rate, serum sex hormone levels estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, visual analogue scale, Kupperman score and incidence of adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide reliable evidence-based evidence for the clinical application of Kuntai capsule combined with leuprorelin acetate in the treatment of EMS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Private information from individuals will not be published. This systematic review also does not involve endangering participant rights. Ethical approval will not be required. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated at relevant conferences.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/AZU47.

Is Scientific Medical Literature Related to Endometriosis Treatment Evidence-Based? A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background and objectives: Informed decision-making requires the ability to identify and integrate high-quality scientific evidence in daily practice. We aimed to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on endometriosis therapy follow methodological criteria corresponding to the RCTs' specific level in the hierarchy of evidence in such details to allow the reproduction and replication of the study. Materials and Methods: Using the keywords "therapy" and "endometriosis" and "efficacy" three bibliographic databases were searched for English written scientific articles published from 1 January 2008 to 3 March 2018. Only the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were evaluated in terms of whether they provided the appropriate level of scientific evidence, equivalent to level 1, degree 1b in the hierarchy of evidence. A list of criteria to ensure study replication and reproduction, considering CONSORT guideline and MECIR standards, was developed and used to evaluate RCTs' methodological soundness, and scores were granted. Three types of bias, namely selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), and attrition bias (incomplete outcome data) were also evaluated. Results: We found 387 articles on endometriosis therapy, of which 38 were RCTs: 30 double-blinded RCTs and 8 open-label RCTs. No article achieved the maximum score according to the evaluated methodological criteria. Even though 73.3% of the double-blinded RCTs had clear title, abstract, introduction, and objectives, only 13.3% provided precise information regarding experimental design and randomization, and also showed a low risk of bias. The blinding method was poorly reported in 43.3% of the double-blinded RCTs, while allocation concealment and random sequence generation were inadequate in 33.3% of them. Conclusions: None of the evaluated RCTs met all the methodological criteria, none had only a low risk of bias and provided sufficient details on methods and randomization to allow for the reproduction and replication of the study. Consequently, the appropriate level of scientific evidence (level 1, degree 1b) could not be granted. On endometriosis therapy, this study evaluated the quality of reporting in RCTs and not the quality of how the studies were performed.

A review of the risk factors, genetics and treatment of endometriosis in Chinese women: a comparative update

Endometriosis is one of the major causes of economic burden and compromised quality of life in a very large percentage of Asian women. While it is perceived as a benign condition, recent research has shown that it may be a significant cause of infertility and metastatic cancer. It has also been associated with other diseases linked to the functioning of the immune system. Genetic as well as environmental factors are known to affect the manifestation and progression of endometriosis. This review aims to summarize recent research pertaining to the risk factors, diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis in Chinese women. It also provides an overview of identified genetic mutations and polymorphisms and their effects on the risk of developing endometriosis in the Chinese population. A comparison has been drawn between Asian and European-American female populations and the differences in risk factors and treatment responses have been summarized. Since traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is often used to treat endometriosis, wherever possible, a comparison between efficacies of Western medicine and TCM in the Chinese population has also been provided. Although much progress has been made in the treatment and resolution of endometriosis, several gaps remain and this review also highlights possible areas of future research and advancement that can result in an improvement in patient outcomes and quality of life.

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

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

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

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

Meta-analysis and clinical trials are included.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Postoperative maintenance levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrioma recurrence: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

According to 3 randomized trials, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system significantly reduced recurrent endometriosis-related pelvic pain at postoperative year 1. Only a few studies have evaluated the long-term effectiveness of the device for preventing endometrioma recurrence, and the effects of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as a maintenance therapy remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate whether a maintenance levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is effective for preventing postoperative endometrioma recurrence.

STUDY DESIGN

From May 2011 through March 2012, a randomized controlled trial including 80 patients with endometriomas undergoing laparoscopic cystectomy followed by six cycles of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment was conducted. After surgery, the patients were randomized to groups that did or did not receive a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (intervention group, n = 40, vs control group, n = 40). The primary outcome was endometrioma recurrence 30 months after surgery. The secondary outcomes included dysmenorrhea, CA125 levels, noncyclic pelvic pain, and side effects.

RESULTS

Endometrioma recurrence at 30 months did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (the intervention group, 10 of 40, 25% vs the control group 15 of 40, 37.5%; hazard ratio, 0.60, 95% confidence interval, 0.27-1.33, P = .209). The intervention group exhibited a lower dysmenorrhea recurrence rate, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.83, P = .019). Over a 30 month follow-up, the intervention group exhibited a greater reduction in dysmenorrhea as assessed with a visual analog scale score (mean ± SD, 60.8 ± 25.5 vs 38.7 ± 25.9, P < .001, 95% confidence interval, 10.7-33.5), noncyclic pelvic pain visual analog scale score (39.1 ± 10.9 vs 30.1 ± 14.7, P = .014, 95% confidence interval, 1.9-16.1), and CA125 (median [interquartile range], -32.1 [-59.1 to 14.9], vs -15.6 [-33.0 to 5.0], P = .001) compared with the control group. The number-needed-to-treat benefit for dysmenorrhea recurrence at 30 months was 5. The number of recurrent cases requiring further surgical or hormone treatment in the intervention group (1 of 40, 2.5%, 95% confidence interval, -2.3% to 7.3%) was significantly lower than that in the control group (8 of 40, 20%, 95% confidence interval, 7.6-32.4%; P = .031).

CONCLUSION

Long-term maintenance therapy using a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is not effective for preventing endometrioma recurrence.