Vaginal patterns during danazol and buserelin acetate therapy for endometriosis: structural and ultrastructural study

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.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis

EDITORIAL NOTE

See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37341141/ for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review.

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition, characterised by the presence of endometrial tissue in sites other than the uterine cavity (excluding adenomyosis) that frequently presents with pain. The gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) comprise one intervention that has been offered for pain relief in pre-menopausal women. GnRHas can be administered intranasally, by subcutaneous, or intramuscular injection. They are thought to result in down regulation of the pituitary and induce a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialist register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCInfo and CINAHL were conducted in April 2010 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of GnRHas as treatment for pain associated with endometriosis versus no treatment, placebo, danazol, intra-uterine progestagens, or other GnRHas were included. Trials using add-back therapy, oral contraceptives, surgical intervention, GnRH antagonists or complementary therapies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was pain relief. Relative risk was used as the measure of effect for dichotomous data. For continuous data, mean differences or standardised mean differences were used.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty one trials (n=4935 women) were included. The evidence suggested that GnRHas were more effective at symptom relief than no treatment/placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between GnRHas and danazol for dysmenorrhoea RR 0.98 (95%CI 0.92 to 1.04; P = 0.53). This equates to 3 fewer women per 1000 (95%CI 12 to 6) with symptomatic pain relief in the GnRHa group. More adverse events were reported in the GnRHa group. There was a benefit in overall resolution for GnRHas RR1.10 (95%CI 1.01 to 1.21, P=0.03) compared with danazol. There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain between GnRHas and levonorgestrel SMD -0.25 (95%CI -0.60 to 0.10, P=0.46). Evidence was limited on optimal dosage or duration of treatment for GnRHas. No route of administration appeared superior to another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GnRHas appear to be more effective at relieving pain associated with endometriosis than no treatment/placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and danazol although more adverse events reported in the GnRHa groups. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and levonorgestrel and no studies compared GnRHas with analgesics.

Ovulation suppression for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an oestrogen dependent condition. This hormonal dependency has prompted the therapeutic use of ovulation suppression agents, in an effort to improve subsequent fertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of ovulation suppression agents, including danazol, progestins and oral contraceptives, in the treatment of endometriosis-associated subfertility in improving pregnancy outcomes including live birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Sub-fertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched October 5th, 2007) the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007), MEDLINE (1966-October 2007), EMBASE (1980 - October 2007) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment, or a suppressive agent with danazol or a GnRH with oral contraception in women with endometriosis. A total of twenty three RCTs comparing an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment, or a suppressive agent with danazol or a GnRH with oral contraception were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality. We contacted study authors for additional information. Quality was assessed by of method of randomization,allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of follow-up, presence or absence of crossover and co-intervention. 2 x 2 tables were generated for all relevant outcomes. Odds ratios were generated using the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was conducted on those couples clearly identifiable as infertile or wanting to conceive.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four trials were included. The odds ratio for pregnancy following ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment for all women randomised was 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.14), P = 0.21 and 0.80 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.24), P = 0.32 respectively for subfertile couples only despite the use of a variety of suppression agents. There was no evidence of benefit from the treatment. The common odds ratio for pregnancy following all agents versus danazol for all women randomised was 1.38 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.82), P = 0.02 and OR 1.37 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.99), P = 0.10 for subfertile couples only. When GnRHa and danazol were directly compared, OR was 1.45 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.95) P = 0.01 for all women randomised and OR 1.63( 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37), P = 0.01 for subfertile couples only in favour of GnRH. No effect was observed for GnRH compared with oral contraception; OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.89), P = 0.98 for all women randomised and OR 0.79 ( 95% CI 0.37 to 1.69), P = 0.55. In all analyses the data were statistically homogeneous (I(2)=0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of benefit in the use of ovulation suppression in subfertile women with endometriosis who wish to conceive.

WITHDRAWN: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that frequently presents with the symptom of pain. The precise pathogenesis (mode of development) of endometriosis is unclear but it is evident that endometriosis arises by the dissemination of endometrium to ectopic sites and the subsequent establishment of deposits of ectopic endometrium. The observation that endometriosis is rarely seen in the hypo-oestrogenic (low levels of oestrogen) post-menopausal woman led to the concept of medical treatment by induction of a pseudo-menopause using Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone Analogues (GnRHas). When administered in a non-pulsatile manner (the pituitary is normally stimulated by pulses of natural GnRH and all analogues act on the pituitary at a constant level) their use results in down regulation (switching off) of the pituitary and a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state (low levels of female hormones due to non stimulation of the ovary).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis by comparing them with no treatment, placebo, other recognised medical treatments, and surgical interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility review group (please see Review Group details) was used to identify all randomised trials of the use of GnRHas for the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were included if they were randomised, and considered the effectiveness of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Twenty-six studies had data appropriate for inclusion in the review. The largest group (15 studies) compared GnRHas with danazol. There are five studies comparing GnRHas with GnRHas plus add-back therapy, three comparing GnRHa with GnRHa in a different form or dose, one compares them with gestrinone, one with the combined oral contraceptive pill, and one with placebo. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The authors of eleven studies have been contacted to clarify missing or unclear data. Only four have replied to date. Data on relief of pain, change in revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) scores, and side effects was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

No difference was found between GnRHas and any of the other active comparators with respect to pain relief or reduction in endometriotic deposits. The side effect profiles of the different treatments were different, with danazol and gestrinone having more androgenic side effects, while GnRHas tend to produce more hypo-oestrogenic symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little or no difference in the effectiveness of GnRHas in comparison with other medical treatments for endometriosis. GnRHas do appear to be an effective treatment. Differences that do exist relate to side effect profiles. Side effects of GnRHas can be ameliorated by the addition of addback therapy.

Ovulation suppression for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an estrogen dependent condition. This hormonal dependency has prompted the therapeutic use of ovulation suppression agents, in an effort to improve subsequent fertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of a) ovulation suppression with danazol, medroxy progesterone acetate, gestrinone, combined oral contraceptive pills and GnRH analogues versus placebo or no treatment and b) any of the above agents versus danazol, for the treatment of endometriosis-associated subfertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trial register (searched 30 April 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 1998), EMBASE (January 1985 to December 1997) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials comparing the interventions described above, were included if allocation to treatment was based on a random process. Six RCTs with seven treatment arms compared an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment. Ten trials were identified comparing a suppressive agent with danazol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relevant data were extracted independently by two reviewers using the standardised data extraction sheet. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of follow-up, presence or absence of crossover and co-intervention. 2 x 2 tables were generated for all relevant outcomes. Odds ratios were generated using the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Breslow-Day X2.

MAIN RESULTS

The odds ratio for pregnancy following ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment was 0.74 (95%CI 0.48 to 1.15). These data were statistically homogeneous, despite the use of a variety of suppression agents. They suggest no statistically significant benefit from treatment. The odds ratio for pregnancy following all agents versus danazol, the most commonly used agent prior to the advent of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), was 1.3 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). When GnRHa and danazol were directly compared, the odds ratio for pregnancy across six trials, was similar to the summary statistic for all ten studies: 1.29 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.85). Again, this suggests no statistically significant difference between these interventions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

These results rule out a benefit of more than a 15% increase in odds, and do not justify the risk of side effects when used as therapy for endometriosis-associated subfertility.

Relative bioavailability of danazol in dogs from liquid-filled hard gelatin capsules

Danazol was dissolved in non-aqueous mixtures containing either polyethylene glycol 400 or polysorbate 80, and filled into hard gelatin capsules at 50 mg concentrations. The bioavailability of these formulations was compared with commercial danazol capsules in a two-way crossover study using young female beagle dogs. Both formulations showed greater oral bioavailability when compared with either the 100 or 200 mg commercial brand of danazol. The bioavailability of the polyethylene glycol 400 and polysorbate 80 formulations was enhanced 3.7 and 15.8 times, respectively, when compared at the 100 mg dose level.