Dienogest Versus Leuprolide Acetate for Recurrent Pelvic Pain Following Laparoscopic Treatment of Endometriosis.J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018;68:306-313. [PMID: 30065547 DOI: 10.1007/s13224-018-1119-3]

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 of Dienogest in Reducing Disease and Pain Recurrence After Endometriosis Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study is to determine whether dienogest therapy after endometriosis surgery reduces the risk of recurrence compared with placebo or alternative treatments (GnRH agonist, other progestins, and estro-progestins). The design used in this study is systematic review with meta-analysis. The data source includes PubMed and EMBASE searched up to March 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration. Keywords such as "dienogest," "endometriosis surgery," "endometriosis treatment," and "endometriosis medical therapy" were used to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was recurrence of endometriosis after surgery. The secondary outcome was pain recurrence. An additional analysis focused on comparing side effects between groups. Nine studies were eligible, including a total of 1668 patients. At primary analysis, dienogest significantly reduced the rate of cyst recurrence compared with placebo (p < 0.0001). In 191 patients, the rate of cyst recurrence comparing dienogest vs GnRHa was evaluated, but no statistically significant difference was reported. In the secondary analysis, a trend toward reduction of pain at 6 months was reported in patients treated with dienogest over placebo, with each study reporting a significantly higher reduction of pain after dienogest treatment. In terms of side effects, dienogest treatment compared with GnRHa significantly increased the rate of spotting (p = 0.0007) and weight gain (p = 0.03), but it was associated with a lower rate of hot flashes (p = 0.0006) and a trend to lower incidence of vaginal dryness. Dienogest is superior to placebo and similar to GnRHa in decreasing rate of recurrence after endometriosis surgery. A significantly higher reduction of pain after dienogest compared with placebo was reported in two separate studies, whereas a trend toward reduction of pain at 6 months was evident at meta-analysis. Dienogest treatment compared with GnRHa was associated with a lower rate of hot flashes and a trend to lower incidence of vaginal dryness.

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.

ESHRE guideline: endometriosis

STUDY QUESTION

How should endometriosis be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The current guideline provides 109 recommendations on diagnosis, treatments for pain and infertility, management of disease recurrence, asymptomatic or extrapelvic disease, endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women, prevention and the association with cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometriosis is a chronic condition with a plethora of presentations in terms of not only the occurrence of lesions, but also the presence of signs and symptoms. The most important symptoms include pain and infertility.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 1 December 2020 and written in English were included in the literature review.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within specialist subgroups and then presented to the core guideline development group (GDG) until consensus was reached. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians to apply best care for women with endometriosis. Although studies mostly focus on women of reproductive age, the guideline also addresses endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women. The guideline outlines the diagnostic process for endometriosis, which challenges laparoscopy and histology as gold standard diagnostic tests. The options for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms include analgesics, medical treatments and surgery. Non-pharmacological treatments are also discussed. For management of endometriosis-associated infertility, surgical treatment and/or medically assisted reproduction are feasible. While most of the more recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, there are five topics in which significant changes to recommendations were required and changes in clinical practice are to be expected.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guideline describes different management options but, based on existing evidence, no firm recommendations could be formulated on the most appropriate treatments. Also, for specific clinical issues, such as asymptomatic endometriosis or extrapelvic endometriosis, the evidence is too scarce to make evidence-based recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in endometriosis care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in endometriosis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. C.M.B. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare and the European Commission; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with ObsEva (Data Safety Monitoring Group) and Myovant (Scientific Advisory Group). A.B. reports grants from FEMaLE executive board member and European Commission Horizon 2020 grant; consulting fees from Ethicon Endo Surgery, Medtronic; honoraria for lectures from Ethicon; and support for meeting attendance from Gedeon Richter; A.H. reports grants from MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring; Consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics, Nordic Pharma, Chugai and Benevolent Al Bio Limited all paid to the institution; a pending patent on Serum endometriosis biomarker; he is also Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials. O.H. reports consulting fees and speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Bayer AG; support for attending meetings from Gedeon-Richter, and leadership roles at the Finnish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Nordic federation of the societies of obstetrics and gynecology. L.K. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; support for attending meetings from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; he also has a leadership role in the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology (DGGEF). M.K. reports grants from French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM), Australian Ministry of Health, Medical Research Future Fund and French National Cancer Institute; support for meeting attendance from European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Congress on Endometriosis (EEC) and ESHRE; She is an advisory Board Member, FEMaLe Project (Finding Endometriosis Using Machine Learning), Scientific Committee Chair for the French Foundation for Research on Endometriosis and Scientific Committee Chair for the ComPaRe-Endometriosis cohort. A.N. reports grants from Merck SA and Ferring; speaker fees from Merck SA and Ferring; support for meeting attendance from Merck SA; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; she also is a board member of medical advisory board, Endometriosis Society, the Netherlands (patients advocacy group) and an executive board member of the World Endometriosis Society. E.S. reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, Rosetrees Trust, Barts and the London Charity; Royalties from De Gruyter (book editor); consulting fees from Hologic; speakers fees from Hologic, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Intuitive, Olympus and Karl Storz; Participation in the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); he is also Ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society. C.T. reports grants from Merck SA; Consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; speaker fees from Merck SA, all paid to the institution; and support for meeting attendance from Ferring, Gedeon Richter and Merck SA. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Dienogest vs GnRH agonists as postoperative therapy after laparoscopic eradication of deep infiltrating endometriosis with bowel and parametrial surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The recurrence of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) after its surgical excision is a big problem: postoperative treatment is crucial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare two postoperative treatments: Dienogest and GnRH agonists.

DESIGN

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).

PATIENTS

146 women submitted to laparoscopic eradication of DIE with bowel and parametrial surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized into two groups. Group A (n = 81) received Triptorelin or Leuprorelin 3.75 mg every 4 weeks for 6 months. Group B (n = 65) received Dienogest 2 mg/day for at least 6 months. A first interview made after six months valued compliance to therapy, treatment tolerability, pain improvement, and side effects. A second interview at 30 ± 6 months valued pain relapse, imaging relapse, and pregnancy rate.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Dienogest about the reduction in pain recurrence. Secondary outcomes were differences in terms of treatment tolerability, side effects, imaging relapse rate, and pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

Both Dienogest and GnRH agonists were associated with a highly significant reduction of pain at 6 and 30 months, without any significant difference (p < .001). About treatment tolerability, a more satisfactory profile was reported with Dienogest (p = .026). No difference in terms of clinical relapse, imaging relapse, and live births was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Dienogest has proven to be as effective as GnRH agonists in preventing recurrence of DIE and associated pelvic pain after surgery. Also, it is better tolerated by patients.

Systematic review and Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of dienogest in treatment of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

The quality of life of women with endometriosis is substantially adversely affected by the pelvic pain caused by this disease. However, the choice of medication for endometriosis remains controversial, and no drug has been clearly proven to be superior to others.

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of dienogest, a synthetic progestin, in the treatment of women with painful symptoms of endometriosis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science databases were searched from their inceptions to January 21, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dienogest with other popular prescription drugs for the treatment of endometriosis. Two reviewers extracted the data. Mean difference (MD) values and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Ultimately, seven RCTs with a total of 1493 participants met the requirements for this review. Dienogest was found to more effective than placebo in alleviating endometriosis-related pain (MD = -32.93, 95%CI: -44.63 to -21.23), but led to a more significant decline in plasma estradiol concentrations than placebo (MD = -44.7, 95%CI: -62.24 to -24.69). Dienogest was superior to gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRH-a) in relieving pain (MD = -2.41, 95%CI: -3.58 to -1.24). Moreover, compared with dienogest, GnRH-a were significantly more likely to lead to the loss of bone mineral density (MD = 2.77, 95%CI: 0.16 to 5.37) and were significantly associated with a higher incidence of headaches (RR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.52 to 0.91) and hot flushes (RR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.18 to 1.02).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that dienogest may be a better pain-relief treatment for endometriosis patients, due to its high efficacy and tolerability.

Dienogest as a Maintenance Treatment for Endometriosis Following Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to comprehensively assess the value of Dienogest (DNG) as a maintenance treatment following conservative surgery for endometriosis in terms of the outcomes of disease and pregnancy. We searched for relevant studies and trials up to November 2020 from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE databases as well as the Web of Science. Patients who received DNG maintenance treatment were compared to those who received other treatments (OT), including the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRH-a), or non-treatment (NT). The primary outcomes were disease recurrence and pregnancy rates. Eleven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that DNG maintenance treatment was associated with a lower rate of disease recurrence. A significant difference was observed in DNG maintenance treatment compared with NT, but not with OT, in the pregnancy rates postoperatively. Moreover, DNG maintenance treatment was related to a significant increase in vaginal bleeding and weight gain. DNG can be recommended as a maintenance treatment for patients with endometriosis to decrease the rates of disease recurrence following conservative surgery. However, DNG maintenance treatment has no advantage in improving pregnancy rates compared to OT.