Ulipristal acetate versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to laparoscopic myomectomy (MYOMEX trial): Long term results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Current and Emerging Treatment Options for Uterine Fibroids

Uterine fibroids are the most common benign neoplasm of the female reproductive tract in reproductive age women. Their prevalence is age dependent and can be detected in up to 80% of women by the age of 50 years. Patients affected by uterine fibroids may experience a significant physical, emotional, social, and financial toll as well as losses in their quality of life. Unfortunately, curative hysterectomy abolishes future pregnancy potential, while uterine-sparing surgical and radiologic alternatives are variously associated with reduced long-term reproductive function and/or high tumor recurrence rates. Recently, pharmacological treatment against uterine fibroids have been widely considered by patients to limit uterine fibroid-associated symptoms such as heavy menstrual bleeding. This hormonal therapy seemed effective through blocking the stimulatory effects of gonadal steroid hormones on uterine fibroid growth. However, they are contraindicated in women actively pursuing pregnancy and otherwise effective only during use, which is limited because of long-term safety and other concerns. Accordingly, there is an urgent unmet need for safe, durable, and fertility-compatible non-surgical treatment options for uterine fibroids. In this review article, we cover the current pharmacological treatments for uterine fibroids including their comparable efficacy and side effects as well as emerging safe natural compounds with promising anti-uterine fibroid effects.

OUP accepted manuscript

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a medical treatment for uterine fibroids and was authorized for surgical pre-treatment in 2012 after the conduct of the PEARL I and II randomized controlled trials and for intermittent treatment after the observational PEARL III and IV trials. However, UPA came into disrepute due to its temporary suspension in 2017 and 2020 because of an apparent association with liver injury. This clinical opinion paper aims to review the process of marketing authorization and implementation of UPA, in order to provide all involved stakeholders with recommendations for the introduction of future drugs. Before marketing authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that Phase III registration trials should evaluate relevant outcomes in a representative population, while comparing to gold-standard treatment. This review shows that the representativeness of the study populations in all PEARL trials was limited, surgical outcomes were not evaluated and intermittent treatment was assessed without comparative groups. Implementation into clinical practice was extensive, with 900 000 prescribed treatment cycles in 5 years in Europe and Canada combined. Extremely high costs are involved in developing and evaluating pre-marketing studies in new drugs, influencing trial design and relevance of chosen outcomes, thereby impeding clinical applicability. It is vitally important that the marketing implementation after authorization is regulated in such way that necessary evidence is generated before widespread prescription of a new drug. All stakeholders, from pharmaceutical companies to authorizing bodies, governmental funding bodies and medical professionals should be aware of their role and take responsibility for their part in this process.