Can hormone replacement therapy be used during medical therapy of endometriosis?

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.

Short- and long-term impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue treatment on bone loss and fracture

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRH-a) are commonly utilized in moderate to severe endometriosis to induce atrophy of endometriotic lesions. Unfortunately, cessation of therapy can lead to recurrence of symptoms. Therefore, long term therapy is sometimes necessary. GnRH analogues cause an immediate decrease in bone mineral density which usually recovers after cessation of its use. However, this recovery in bone mineral density may not always occur after long term use. In order to prevent the deleterious effects on bone, add-back therapy is used frequently. This review will explore the impact of GnRH analogues on both bone loss and fracture risk as well as describe different add-back regimens.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and add-back therapy: what do the data show?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endometriosis is a gynecologic disorder that can lead to debilitating chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) have emerged as a primary medical therapy for patients with symptomatic disease, but secondary hypoestrogenic side effects may limit compliance. Add-back therapy is a means of surmounting this problem.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progestins such as norethindrone acetate may be administered with or without addition of low doses of estrogens to safely and effectively extend GnRHa therapy while minimizing side effects. Recent studies have demonstrated that the use of add-back enhances compliance and duration of therapy. The initiation of an add-back should not be deferred given evidence demonstrating an increase in vasomotor symptoms and bone loss if not administered concomitantly. The subset of adolescents with endometriosis who require GnRHa therapy should be administered an add-back, but require careful monitoring of bone mineral density.

SUMMARY

Implementation of an appropriately selected add-back will significantly reduce hypoestrogenic side effects, enhance compliance, and allow for prolongation of therapy without interfering with the efficacy of GnRHa in treating symptomatic endometriosis.

Treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding in the perimenopause: the effects of adding combined estradiol/norethisterone acetate therapy to goserelin acetate treatment--a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of adding combined estradiol/norethisterone acetate therapy (CENT) to goserelin acetate treatment (GA) of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in perimenopausal women.

METHODS

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial followed by an open follow-up study, 31 perimenopausal women with DUB were recruited from gynecological outpatient departments of two Dutch hospitals and randomized for treatment with either GA/placebo or GA/CENT for 6 months followed by 18 months of GA/CENT for all. The main outcome measures were abdominal pain, number of bleeding days, double-layer endometrial thickness (DET), Greene climacteric score (GCS), visual analog scale for well-being, bone mineral density (BMD) and mammographic density (BI-RAD score).

RESULTS

Abdominal pain, number of bleeding days and DET decreased in both groups, the between-group difference in decrease not being statistically significant. GCS initially showed significant improvement in the GA/CENT group. BMD decreased significantly in the GA/placebo group (-4.1%) compared with the GA/CENT group (-0.3%). Another 18 months of GA/CENT did not result in a lasting difference in BMD between groups. BI-RAD scores did not differ significantly between or within the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding CENT to GA treatment for DUB in perimenopausal women initially prevented BMD loss and improved climacteric complaints, while having no negative impact on vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain or BI-RAD scores. However, prolonged treatment did not result in a lasting prevention of bone loss.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis: bone mineral density

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) are generally well tolerated, and are effective in relieving the symptoms of endometriosis (Prentice 2003). Unfortunately the low oestrogen state that they induce is associated with adverse effects including an acceleration in bone mineral density (BMD) loss.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of treatment with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) on the bone mineral density of women with endometriosis, compared to placebo, no treatment, or other treatments for endometriosis, including GnRHas with add-back therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of controlled trials (23rd October 2002) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2002). We also carried out electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 - March Week 2 2003) and EMBASE (1980 - March Week 2 2003). We also searched the reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective, randomised controlled studies of the use of GnRHas for the treatment of women with endometriosis were considered, where bone density measurements were an end point. The control arm of the studies was either placebo, no treatment, another medical therapy for endometriosis, or GnRHas with add-back therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers (JF and MS) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty studies involving 2,391 women were included, however only 15, involving 910 women, could be included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that danazol and progesterone + oestrogen add-back are protective of BMD at the lumbar spine both during treatment and for up to six and twelve months after treatment, respectively. Between the groups receiving GnRHa and the groups receiving danazol/gestrinone, there was a significant difference in percentage change of BMD after six months of treatment, the GnRH analogue producing a reduction in BMD from baseline and danazol producing an increase in BMD (SMD -3.43, 95 % CI -3.91 to -2.95). Progesterone only add-back is not protective; after six months of treatment absolute value BMD measurements of the lumbar spine did not differ significantly from the group receiving GnRH analogues (SMD 0.15, 95 % CI -0.21 to 0.52). In the comparison of GnRHa versus GnRHa + HRT add-back, that is oestrogen + progesterone or oestrogen only, there was a significantly bigger BMD loss in the GnRHa only group (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.77 to -0.21). These numbers reflect the absolute value measurements at the lumbar spine after six months of treatment. Due to the small number of studies in the comparison we are unable to conclude whether calcium-regulating agents are protective. No difference was found between low and high dose add-back regimes but again only one study was identified for this comparison. Only one study comparing GnRH analogues with placebo was identified, but the study gave no data. No studies comparing GnRH with the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) or progestagens were identified.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Both danazol and progesterone + oestrogen add-back have been shown to be protective of BMD, while on treatment and up to six and 12 months later, respectively. However, by 24 months of follow-up there was no difference in BMD in those women who had HRT add-back. Studies of danazol versus GnRHa did not report long-term follow-up. The significant side effects associated with danazol limit its use.

Consensus statement for the management of chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis: proceedings of an expert-panel consensus process

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations for the medical and surgical care of women who present with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and are likely to have endometriosis as the underlying cause.

DESIGN

An expert panel comprised of practicing gynecologists from throughout the United States and experts in consensus guideline development was convened. After completion of a structured literature search and creation of draft algorithms by an executive committee, the expert panel of >50 practicing gynecologists met for a 2-day consensus conference during which the clinical recommendations and algorithms were reviewed, refined, and then ratified by unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

PATIENT(S)

Women presenting with CPP who are likely to have endometriosis as the underlying cause.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

None.

CONCLUSION(S)

Chronic pelvic pain frequently occurs secondary to nongynecologic conditions that must be considered in the evaluation of affected women. For women in whom endometriosis is the suspected cause of the pain, laparoscopic confirmation of the diagnosis is unnecessary, and a trial of medical therapy, including second-line therapies such as danazol, GnRH agonists, and progestins, is justified provided that there are no other indications for surgery such as the presence of a suspicious adnexal mass. When surgery is necessary, laparoscopic approaches seem to offer comparable clinical outcomes to those performed via laparotomy, but with reduced morbidity. The balance of evidence supports the use of adjuvant postoperative medical therapy after conservative surgery for CPP. There is some evidence that adjuvant presacral neurectomy adds benefit for midline pain, but currently, there is inadequate evidence to support the use of uterosacral nerve ablation or uterine suspension. Hysterectomy alone has undocumented value in the surgical management of women with endometriosis-associated CPP.

Prevention of bone loss and hypoestrogenic symptoms by estrogen and interrupted progestogen add-back in long-term GnRH-agonist down-regulated patients with endometriosis and premenstrual syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To examine the utility of a low-dose estrogen and pulsed progestogen hormone replacement therapy (HRT) regimen for add-back during long-term gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-agonist) therapy.

DESIGN

A pilot clinical trial conducted at a tertiary referral, academic, reproductive sciences center. The study included 15 patients with endometriosis and 5 patients with severe premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Patients with endometriosis received leuprolide acetate depot 3.75 mg IM monthly until their symptoms had resolved (2-3 months), at which time HRT was initiated along with the GnRH-agonist. Patients with severe PMS received the same treatment with the addition of HRT after 1 month. The HRT regimen consisted of 1 mg oral micronized estradiol daily and 0.35 mg norethindrone daily for 2 days alternating with 2 days without norethindrone. The main outcome measure included bone density assessment in the lumbar spine and femoral neck by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at 6- to 12-month intervals. The mean follow-up duration +/- SD while on GnRH-agonist treatment was 31.2 +/- 17 months (for endometriosis patients) and 37.7 +/- 8.4 months (for patients with severe PMS).

RESULTS

Bone mineral density was stable after initiation of HRT for the entire follow-up period. No patient had return of pelvic pain or resumption of mood swings after HRT add-back. After the first 3 months of HRT, all women remained amenorrheic.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term GnRH-agonist down-regulation is safe and effective when combined with HRT add-back. Furthermore, on the basis of this small study, the low-dose pulsed progestogen, continuous estrogen HRT regimen seems to be safe for use as add-back therapy in terms of bone health.

The treatment of endometriosis: a review of the evidence

The treatment of endometriosis focuses upon amelioration of two symptoms: pain and infertility. The treatment of endometriosis-associated pain has been well studied and all major medical therapies appear to be superior to placebo. In addition, none seems to be drastically better than another. Surgical therapy also appears to be efficacious, albeit with a relatively high rate of recurrence of symptoms following conservative surgical intervention. There are no trials comparing the relative value of medical versus surgical therapy. Combination surgery/medical therapy has several high-quality trials for evaluation, but its value remains unclear. The treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility presents a different picture: medical therapy has not been shown to be of any value and may prove detrimental to fertility. Surgical treatment does improve fertility, probably for all stages of disease. Assisted reproduction also seems to be efficacious, with both controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination as well as in vitro fertilization shown to be of benefit. Finally, the combination of in vitro fertilization and either medical or surgical therapy may be beneficial with advanced endometriosis, but further study is required.

Add-back therapy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in the treatment of patients with endometriosis: can a consensus be reached? Add-Back Consensus Working Group

OBJECTIVE

To reach a consensus on the role of add-back therapy for patients with endometriosis administered GnRH agonists (GnRH-a).

DESIGN

Results of consensus conference reviewing MEDLINE search of English language abstracts of both prospective and retrospective series.

SETTING

Consensus conference of 31 specialists in gynecologic surgery and reproductive endocrinology.

PATIENT(S)

Patients with symptomatic endometriosis who were candidates for GnRH-a therapy in treatment courses ranging in duration from 6 to 12 months.

INTERVENTION(S)

Oral steroidal and nonsteroidal add-back regimens.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Alteration in painful symptoms, extent of disease, vasomotor symptoms, bone mineral density, and serum lipid profile.

RESULT(S)

When added to GnRH-a for 6 months, both 2.5 mg of norethindrone and 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens with 5 mg/d of medroxyprogesterone acetate provide effective relief of vasomotor symptoms and decrease but do not eliminate bone mineral density loss. During 12 months of GnRH-a therapy, bone mineral density loss is eliminated effectively with an add-back of 5 mg of norethindrone acetate alone or in conjunction with low-dose conjugated equine estrogens. Organic bisphosphonates also may play a role.

CONCLUSION(S)

In patients with symptomatic endometriosis, the efficacy of GnRH agonists may be preserved and therapy prolonged while overcoming hypoestrogenic side effects with the use of appropriate add-back regimens.

A double-blind randomized study of the treatment of endometriosis with nafarelin or nafarelin plus norethisterone

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of nafarelin 200 micrograms (Group A), nafarelin 400 micrograms (Group B) and the combination of nafarelin 200 micrograms and norethisterone 1.2 mg (Group C) daily, in treating symptoms of endometriosis, American Fertility Society score and adverse events during 6 months of treatment. A prospective, randomized, double-blind parallel group study was performed in two centers and 49 women with endometriosis diagnosed laparoscopically were included. The patients were seen monthly for physical examination and records were taken for bleeding pattern, symptom score and adverse events. A control laparoscopy was performed at the end of 6 months of treatment. All patients were followed 6 months after treatment. At 3 and 6 months the pelvic examination total score had decreased significantly in all three groups. The total endometriosis score was significantly reduced in Groups B and C. After 2 months the total symptom score showed a significant decrease in Groups B and C. The frequency of hot flushes during the first month of treatment was lowest in Group C, but during the rest of treatment there were no differences between the groups. Best bleeding control was obtained in Group C. We conclude that nafarelin 200 micrograms daily has as good an effect on endometriosis symptoms as nafarelin 400 micrograms daily, and the addition of norethisterone 1.2 mg results in fewer hot flushes and better bleeding control.

The mythology of hormone replacement therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the literature on contraindications contained in pharmaceutical data sheets of five currently available oestrogen replacement preparations (HRT). These contraindications include cardiovascular disease, diabetes, liver diseases, otosclerosis, endometriosis, melanoma and hormone-dependent tumours.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Oestrogen replacement regimens.

RESULTS

The contraindications to the five HRT preparations have been taken uncritically from the data sheets of oral contraceptives. In some of these conditions not only is HRT not contraindicated, it is indicated. The data sheets for the HRT preparations all state that cardiovascular disease is a contraindication, but systematic review shows that ischaemic heart disease, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia are not contraindications, and in ischaemic heart disease HRT may actually be indicated. Similarly, systematic review shows that diabetes, chronic liver disease, endometriosis, some cases of treated cancer of the endometrium and breast, melanoma and otosclerosis are not contraindications to HRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The information in the pharmaceutical data sheets of HRT regimens should be modified as more accurate information could influence how these preparations are prescribed by doctors as well as affect patient compliance.

Long-acting triptorelin for the treatment of endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of monthly triptorelin injection for the treatment of endometriosis.

METHODS

A multicenter clinical trial including 45 women with endometriosis, treated with triptorelin 3.75 mg i.m. every 4 weeks in six consecutive doses. The main outcome measures were symptom relief, reduction according to revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) scores, reduction in size of ovarian endometrioma, effects on hormone and lipid profiles, changes in bone mineral density (BMD), adverse effects, and return of menstruation. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance and paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Pain-related symptoms decreased in all cases after 8 weeks of treatment. Laparoscopic assessment revealed a reduction in rAFS scores in 21 out of 25 cases (mean pretreatment scores 43.44 +/- 5.75 vs. post-treatment scores 22.30 +/- 3.40, P < 0.001). The size of ovarian endometrioma decreased in eight of nine women but none disappeared. Serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and estradiol levels were effectively suppressed during treatment. A slight increase in cholesterol and triglyceride levels was observed but all values were within normal limits. After 24 weeks of treatment there was a slight decrease in BMD of total body, lumbar vertebrae and femoral neck but not radius. The main adverse effects included hot flushes, night sweating, vaginal dryness, headache, dizziness and nausea Menstruation returned 83.76 +/- 2.91 days after the last injection of triptorelin.

CONCLUSION

Long-acting triptorelin is efficacious in the treatment of endometriosis and has tolerable side effects.

The effect of add-back treatment with tibolone (Livial) on patients treated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triptorelin (Decapeptyl)

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether tibolone can prevent the bone loss and symptomatic side effects normally associated with GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) use and whether tibolone modifies the effect of GnRH-a on endometriosis.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, group comparative study.

SETTING

Gynecological research unit in a London teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Twenty-nine patients with endometriosis and two with fibroids.

INTERVENTIONS

Six months of treatment with 3.75 mg/mo IM triptorelin combined with daily tablets of either placebo or 2.5 mg tibolone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Daily symptom diary for hot flushes and bleeding episodes, laparoscopic scoring of endometriosis, endocrine and biochemical changes, and bone mineral density scans.

RESULTS

Lumbar spine bone mineral density decreased significantly from baseline in the placebo group (-5.1%) but not in the tibolone group (-1.1%). The frequency of hot flushes and sweating episodes was reduced significantly by tibolone. There was no difference between the two treatment groups with regard to the endometriosis scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of tibolone to GnRH-a treatment reduces the bone loss and vasomotor symptoms that normally occur with GnRH-a, thus making long-term treatment with GnRH-a safer and more acceptable. It does not negate the therapeutic effect of GnRH-a on endometriosis.

Endocrine effects of GnRH analogue with low-dose hormone replacement therapy in women with endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

GnRH analogues are being used increasingly for a number of oestrogen dependent conditions in women. The resultant profound hypo-oestrogenism is a disadvantage, however, but the preservation of pituitary sensitivity to negative feedback by oestradiol is not well defined. We have determined the effect on gonadotrophins and inhibin of GnRH analogue plus low-dose continuous combined hormone replacement therapy in comparison with GnRH analogue therapy alone.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

PATIENTS

Fifty premenopausal women with endometriosis randomized to treatment with goserelin alone (Group 1) or goserelin plus 17 beta-oestradiol and medroxyprogesterone acetate (Group 2).

MEASUREMENTS

FSH, LH, oestradiol, oestrone, inhibin before and during treatment.

RESULTS

Oestradiol and oestrone were suppressed in both groups, but Group 2 had significantly higher oestradiol during the hormone replacement therapy period. LH was suppressed in both groups. In Group 1, FSH levels recovered during treatment but, in contrast, in Group 2, FSH levels remained suppressed throughout treatment. Inhibin was significantly lower in Group 2, but not in Group 1, during treatment compared to pretreatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Pituitary secretion of FSH appears to remain responsive to feedback control by oestradiol during GnRH analogue therapy and is incompletely suppressed, unlike LH which remains completely suppressed. The possible mechanisms for this are discussed.

Comparison of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist goserelin acetate alone versus goserelin combined with estrogen-progestogen add-back therapy in the treatment of endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the addition of low-dose estrogen-P combination hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) treatment for endometriosis reduces the pharmacologic side effects of such treatment without reducing efficacy and to determine the endocrinologic changes during treatment.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparative study of two drug regimens: 3.6 mg goserelin acetate in a 28-day SC depot formulation once monthly for 6 months plus either a combination of 2 mg 17 beta-E2 and 1 mg norethisterone acetate (NET) 1 mg or matching placebo tablets once daily for 6 months.

SETTING

Multicenter study in three tertiary referral centers at university teaching hospitals and two central hospitals.

PATIENTS

Women with laparoscopically confirmed symptomatic endometriosis were included in the study.

RESULTS

Of the total of 109 patients screened, 93 were recruited and 88 patients were randomized to either the HRT or the placebo group. Four women were withdrawn because of various medical reasons, and 76 patients were followed-up for a total of 12 months. In terms of efficacy, there was no difference between the two drug regimens for objective or subjective response. There were significantly less postmenopausal symptoms in the patients treated with goserelin plus HRT compared with those treated with goserelin plus placebo.

CONCLUSION

Goserelin diminished significantly the symptoms and laparoscopic scores of endometriosis. The addition of HRT did not reduce the efficacy of goserelin but diminished the postmenopausal symptoms during treatment.